E Team and Nose Out were the two situations that gave me the "well okay maybe I'll consider it" to the notion that there were no planes.
Add a little mass formation psychosis and then you have to ask yourself, did YOU see a plane? Do you know anyone who saw a plane? At the individual level, everyone just assumes that everyone else saw the plane. But if everyone assumes that everyone else saw it, what then if nobody saw it? Then surely everyone saw it, and thus it would be absolutely insane to question something that everyone saw? You can hide something in plain sight if the very idea of questioning it would be preposterous. If you're going to cook up a nefarious scheme, why not build that preposterousness (and thus plausible deniability) directly into the scheme? Helps you cover it up later.
Aye. All the adults have been conditioned over many years to think in terms that are away from that base state of understanding, thus missing the truth that's right in front of them. Also, I'll add that the child just comes right out and says it, because the child doesn't know why it is not to be pointed out! Seeing truth and pointing it out without fear, because why should one be afraid to ask a question in a free society? <--- FACT CHECK: This claim is made by someone who spreads false claims without evidence. Verdict: Mostly False
You guys are lost in space. My boss's brother nearly got killed from falling debris from the Twin Towers. There sure as hell were two airplanes, and corresponding missing and dead passengers and crew...not to mention the dead from the building collision and collapse. Very weird. You want to deny the truth of an evil act in order to support a paranoid belief that you are being lied to.
But if you are being lied to, then---for you---this whole site is a Deep State leg-pulling exercise, where 3-letter agency trolls jump on board during lunchtime in order to pull you around the block. If everyone lies to you, where does it stop?
The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Building 7 fell at the speed of gravity. That is a fact agreed upon by everyone. That means that every support gave way at the exact same moment.
I have seen videos of explosions going off in the windows of building 7 prior to it's collapse exactly the same as other controlled demolitions I have seen (on video). Those videos being "real evidence" is not agreed upon by everyone, but it is compelling evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isn't, not for me, but it is compelling. Discounting it as compelling evidence is ludicrous.
But just the fact that the building fell into it's own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition is incredibly compelling evidence that it was in fact destroyed in a controlled demolition. No other building, in the history of the planet, has ever fell like that "because of bad design." Every building in the history of the planet that was destroyed by controlled demolition however, fell in the exact same manner. Any theory of what happened that can't account for that evidence is wrong.
And I don't mean "it could have happened, if all the stars aligned, and god farted at that exact moment in a north by northwesterly direction" nonsense, I mean, "it was almost certain to fall into it's own footprint if it caught fire, and here's why. And here's the blueprint of the building. And here's how we rebuilt it in a FEM. And here's what happened when a tiny fire lit in one of the rooms. And here's why it fell exactly like a controlled demolition according to the blueprint and the FEM simulation. And here is an example of it happening again. And here's how the engineer that designed that building for the Rockefellers was so stupid despite being one of the highest paid engineers of all time."
There's also the fact that the media, which is the key complicit entity in every single false flag operation in history declared it collapsed fifteen minutes before it actually collapsed. "Woopsie!" That also is not contested evidence, even if it has been memory holed.
As for the pentagon, there is one particular thing that all airplane crashes in the history of the planet have in common; that is they all leave behind airplane parts. There was no evidence of an airplane at the pentagon except one piece of twisted metal that could fit into the back of a pickup truck that just so happened to have the airlines insignia on it. This lack of an actual airplane at the airplane crash site suggests there was no airplane crash at the pentagon. Believing that a thing is true when there is no evidence is called "faith." I respect your faith, but I do not think it makes for a sound argument.
How many buildings fell from simultaneous column failures? How quick does "simultaneous" have to be? If all the columns on a floor are far below design strength and there is no more design margin, it is only a matter of chance that at least one will fall below critical strength and fail. Failure is essentially instant and the stress that was imposed on that column will redistribute in a wave traveling at the speed of sound in the steel structure. This is about 4,000 feet per second. If a column is spaced 5 feet from another, the redistribution will take about a millisecond. How many columns are there? 50? 100? At this rate all columns could fail sequentially in 50 to 100 milliseconds. A floor collapse event in a tenth of a second would look pretty instantaneous ("exact same moment") to any human eyeball, and the upper floor would collapse onto the lower floor at the speed of gravitational acceleration. (Downward motion in 0.1 second would be about 0.16 foot. If the floor heights were 10 feet, you would have 98% of free fall.) Which would start the whole process over, only this time with the added force of the descending impact. And another floor would collapse. And so on.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires---as the original analyses were beginning to discern. You assume you see it only in demolitions. The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism. If you see striped horses only because circus performers paint them that way, and then see a zebra, do you ask "Who painted the zebra?" You would, if you didn't understand that a zebra was a natural phenomenon.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts. The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris. I expect there was fuel residue also. There is no credible alternative explanation. A missile could not have proceeded on that approach path (too low to the ground). And no warhead could have produced that damage without a significant blast.
Let's take a look at your proposed model. It's plausible, but how likely is it? What conditions would have to be met?
Assumption
The building was designed such that any energy wave from any point would flow perfectly to all other supports, without any barriers in the design that would redirect the energy, or otherwise slow it down.
OK, maybe. I've never designed a high rise, but I have designed quite a few one and two story buildings. Except for the simplest structure, a single story square box with four walls and four supports, one at each corner, this assumption does not hold true. There are always energy redirects. In addition, such a box would not fall straight down if it failed, it would fall towards the side of failure.
Assumption:
The building was built exactly weak enough at every single member to fall if any one particular member failed.
If any member was stronger than "exactly weak enough to fail" instantaneously then this assumption is incorrect. I say this because it fell at the speed of gravity. Every single member must have suffered catastrophic failure instantaneously (or if you prefer, at the speed of sound in steel). This would be especially true across the "first floor" to fail. That is why when they demolish buildings they simultaneously destroy members across whole floors. If they do not, it won't fall straight down, and it won't fall at the speed of gravity. They don't need to destroy every member on every floor, because they will collapse as you suggest if there is sufficient force, but any one particular floor that is destroyed must do so across every key supporting member simultaneously. Also, it can't just happen on a single floor, not and fall at the speed of gravity. That is why they destroy several key floors in controlled demolition.
Coincidentally, this explosion pattern across several floors is exactly what is seen in the windows of the buildings in the eye witness videos that show that.
Assumption:
The exact right member failed in order for the building to fall straight down.
If we assume that the building was built (intentionally or unintentionally) for the exterior supports to fail on the outside if key inside members failed, if ANY OTHER member failed first, anywhere except somewhere dead center, it would not produce the fall pattern that was observed. Looking at the simple design from the first assumption, lets take the four posts at the corners and add one to the middle. Then we have to make all of them sufficiently weak that if the middle post fails and only the middle post fails, all of the other posts will instantaneously suffer catastrophic failure. Again, if any other post fails it will not fall perfectly straight down as Building 7 did.
There's also the problem that, according to the official story, the fire did not start in the middle of the building but on the side "where the airplane part hit the building." How exactly that fire spread to the middle, and caused the middle supports to fail first, before the outer supports where the "fire started" is not something that has ever been addressed, but it would have to have happened that way. I guess we can call that another assumption.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires
OK, maybe, but you have a lot of assumptions that have yet to be shown in any reasonable way. Even if you do show them in a reasonable way (FEM analysis e.g.), there are thousands of buildings that have been built similarly, and they are either all still standing, or collapsed in the same manner as Building 7, except uncontroversally under controlled demolition.
Could I design something that fits the above assumptions? Probably, but I would have to try with the intention of making it fail. No structural engineer worth his salt could look at such a building design without knowing that any member failure would result in a catastrophic failure for the whole system. Such calculations are part of the design schematic.
Even back in the day, people weren't that stupid. There had been plenty of failures in smaller buildings (earthquakes e.g.) before they built the bigger ones. They always made members stronger than they had to be because of potential high wind loads, and potential earthquakes, etc. But your proposal suggests that the design was exactly weak enough to fail if any one member failed. OK, that;s plausible, but no one could build a building like that without knowing that they were.
In other words, it would have been known that a fire in a trash can on a single floor would have caused a collapse before the first shovel hit dirt.
You assume you see it only in demolitions.
Me seeing it only in demolitions is not an assumption, that is a statement of fact. I have never seen any other building fall in this manner except in controlled demolitions. Show me any other building collapse in this manner, or even anything close to this manner that was not a controlled demolition.
The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism.
OK, maybe, but other than this one event, for which there is substantial evidence for a different cause of failure, and tremendous incentive to make it happen, there is zero evidence to support this assertion. NONE. Because there is no evidence, you believing it is based on faith. Again, I respect your faith, but it does not make a sound argument.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts.
The amount of airplane parts they found could quite literally be put into one single pickup truck (and probably was). Your belief of what is possible in an airplane crash stretches credulity beyond even the plausible. Take a moment and really think about the forces involved in an airplane crash, their lower limit and their upper limit, and what it would take to disintegrate an airplane into unrecognizable parts rather than make it break apart and/or crumple. Take a look at the building, and the site around it. Take a look at the parts they found, then try to make the condition of those parts fit with every single other piece of a 757 being disintegrated. Why would that handful of pieces, again, that can fit into a SINGLE PICKUP TRUCK survive intact, with that crumple pattern, yet the entire rest was disintegrated to the point where nothing recognizable as "airplane" survived.
The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris.
REALLY LOOK at the building wreckage and debris. REALLY LOOK. There is no evidence of a fire within several of the exposed rooms within the surrounding building. Those rooms should have been in the path of the wings, yet they weren't even singed. Look at the wreckage and find anything that might belong to a massive airplane. Hell, just look at the volume of wreckage and explain to me how an airplane and a building fit within it.
Look, I’m not saying I know the truth of what happened, but your explanation does not fit all of the available evidence. The best you are able to do is give a “maybe,” and “it’s plausible that.” That is not an argument from investigation and evidence that is an argument based on faith.
There is no credible alternative explanation.
You assume that you know everything there is to know about every single weapon owned by the military. Their flight capabilities, their explosion patterns, their yield, etc. I don’t care if you are a “death ray designer”, the hubris is incredible. Your arguments of “there couldn’t have been a missile because I know everything there is to know about missiles, and I have tested them in every capacity” are not believable, and are otherwise insufficient.
Wow. You've had some doosies but I'm afraid you just lost all credibility. God please see your way out this time. You don't contribute and you're not a Q supporter.
I sure as hell am a Q supporter, but I am not a fantasy supporter. Q gives us insight into what is going on right now behind the scenes. He doesn't buy into all the fringe nonsense. The fact that we have been lied to about many things does not equate to a worldview that we have ONLY been lied to. That is radical insanity, and goes nowhere. It presents us the problem of figuring out what the lies are, exactly. We do that by finding out the truth that may be hidden. But we don't start with that as a going in position. Everything unravels if we take that seriously.
Why am I not an alien from Mars tapping into the internet? Were you really born where your birth certificate says, or on some other continent? How far have you traveled away from home---and how do you really know you traveled that far? Is every skyscraper really occupied? Is every airplane really filled with passengers? We see lots of cars on the road, but are they really driven by people with lives apart from driving all day long? Is the sky really a different color, and something was done to our eyes at birth to make us see it blue?
I'm imaginative and can go on and on. This is all nutty stuff. And it is a waste of time and a diversion from paying attention to what is real and what is going on. What I see are people who (1) don't know shit, and (2) are credulous as hell by accepting whatever fringe nonsense appeals to their paranoia, and (3) have a deep desire to believe that the world is all a lie because that gets them off the hook for being responsible to LEARN THINGS. The Moon Hoaxers, Flat Earthers, and Chemtrailers are all in this category. They are so ignorant that they could be called the Walking Brain-Dead. They are allergic to learning anything. Whatever contradicts their paranoia is held to be a lie, so as to conform to the paranoia ("you're not a Q supporter"). You don't like what I have to say, but you can't respond critically to it because I do know what I am talking about. My handle is not a LARP.
And neither did the official report. They said it was the result of uncontrolled fires (and that the Twin Towers would have fallen from uncontrolled fires as well). It stings when your conspiracy fails to get the facts in order.
We can have all kinds of arguments about what missiles can do in various circumstances. Seaborne missiles can afford to fly low to the water because the water reference surface is reliably level. Not so with ground surfaces. My recollection of cruise missile hits on precise land targets is that they still have a terminal dive. This is driven by the need to suppress the projection of altitude errors in the ground plane.
But the fact that it was AA Flight 77 was established by the radar and air control trace of its flight path. The fact that it was hijacked was established by phone calls out of the plane by passengers. The fact that it was an airplane was established by multiple witnesses who saw it, including a pilot from another aircraft who saw it from higher altitude. You are in no position to deny these facts. Why do you even bother?
Link? I’ve never seen this video. I did see a video of a CNN reporter saying that he walked down to the hole in the pentagon and saw absolutely no plane debris, only tiny pieces of metal you could pick up with your hands
But perhaps what you might not know is that video had been edited. Frames 23 - 27 had been reversed, where the grey squiggle that some suggest is exhaust gas has in fact been moved in the sequence. You really do not see a Boeing 757 - 200.
A point to note in this video, it is before the further collapse of the Pentagon building which rarely gets seen. Most film is after the further facade collapse and makes the destruction look greater. A 757 has a wing span of 125ft, the damage here does not show that.
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
Sure planes hit. No fuel melts steel buildings in freefall. Remember DJT explaining that he thought they were nuts to build it with small windows which was forced by building it so strong with the steel on the outside. Planes may have hit for show but they didn't collapse the buildings
"No fuel melts steel..." Always uttered by people who never check the details. The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) is 2093 deg C. The only metals that can tolerate that temperature (in jet engines) are special nickel alloys or columbium. Steel (iron) has a melting temperature of 1538 deg C, approximately 550 deg C below the flame temperature of burning kerosene. And steel gives up its strength rapidly with temperature, losing most of it well before it reaches the melting point. So your statement is pure puffery.
The collapse appears to have been the result of the fires and the consequent weakening of the columns, leading to pancake collapse as each floor suffered increasing weight and impact loads. Without the airplane crashes, this would never have happened. You have a strange conception of causality.
A whole lot of people were killed "for show," so your characterization is a grotesque trivialization of their deaths.
Look, I'm staying outside this conversation besides coming in and throwing this: If you cannot properly discount his argument, don't tell him to shut up.
That's leftist behavior. Enough people have offered their own counters to his statements and either they'll sway him or they won't, and still more people will likely throw their own opinions into the discussion.
But your only contribution has been to trash him, which is reductive and unacceptable.
Regardless of how you believe the WTC fell, or what hit what, is not strictly relevant to belief in Q or the goals outlined. It doesn't even mean that he doesn't believe that it was an inside job.
All he's saying is that planes hit.
There are a lot of accounts that say they saw it. This was all over the place the day of.
There is also a lack of proof to support either argument, at least not enough that has yet to come to light.
It's fine to argue your opinions, but there's no need to attack him on something completely unrelated and try to shut him down if you can't even attempt to offer an argument.
His argument has been discounting a million different ways. We've all heard the Popular Mechanics bullshit he spouts like gospel doctrine. He's not a Q supporter. He's a shill. He can suck my dick. And don't defend him. One of these days it will be clear enough to the mods what this faggot's MO is and they'll boot him. Perhaps today is not that day but the guy's a cuck faggot RINO fucker if I ever saw one.
Speaking of puffery. How does armor piercing rounds work? The round hits a tank and the energy super heats the steel for A moment to let a harder rod slip through. Does the entire tank immediately turn to a puddle of molten goo?
I love your last line. It fits all of the cabal false flag defenses. Give me a Greta "How dare you" question ....911, gulf of tonkin, JFK, sandy hook, January 6, kids in cages, Nazi flag in uhaul truck, Charlottesville, Russia Russia Russia, coldvid, masks, fauci, clot shots, 2020 election, etc. The fact is that I have my alibi for that morning. I didn't plan or perform the grotesque human sacrifice. Redirect your disgust to the satanic cabal that did the crime. Attacking the messenger just shows you don't like the message. Oh oh oh, here's another one you can use. Talking about the gender of the transvestite who targeted and brutally murdered innocent Christians, trivializes their death so we will declare a new tranny day to celebrate the murderer instead. How dare you question Christine blaisey fords extremely credible and brave testimony, it trivializes the horrific act of rape that so many men and women have experienced since the beginning of time. how dare you. That last one was free. Feel free to use it while defending other official narratives.
Armor-piercing rounds: The projectile has high mass per frontal area, so as to attain high momentum per frontal area, which allows it to go through steel like it was plastic. Actual fact---it causes plastic deformation of the metal. If the penetrator is tungsten, then it gets through and creates the usual havoc of a ballistic object. If the pentrator is uranium, it is already molten and flashes into a mist that instantly catches on fire (pyrophoric). The heat of the bulk uranium-air combustion ramps up the pressure inside the tank, probably blows the turret off, and sets off the tank ammo as a secondary detonation.
Second paragraph: "Are you talking to me?" Or was that just an elaborate recourse to name-calling in lieu of argument?
Great now we are making progress. The high heat melts the pinpoint area of impact resulting in a hole in the steel tank. The hole is evident because of the steel that didn't melt. You are absolutely correct that steel can be liquified and reshaped while in that molten state. We know a 50 bmg could pierce through a tank but will not melt the entire tank to the ground like popping a balloon. So my point is that there is not enough fuel in a 767 to melt that tower to the ground in a pancake freefall. Don't forget that in the midst of that tower melting heat, Mohammed Attas passport fluttered safely to the sidewalk uncharred. Build your origami tower out of that paper next time.
I suspect the q post board is filled with users who question the official narrative.
Calling out someone who questions the official narrative as someone who is trivializing the deaths of the victims is a form of shouting down any dissent. Your "How dare you" only works on people that care about misgendering someone. I expect that response at the Huffington post. I assure you that Bush/cheney and cabal lied about 911. The victims they sacrificed are not trivialized just because I don't believe some cave dweller masterminded an attack that was described by Al Gore years before, and implemented on the very day of a training exercise of the same nature. How many coincidences until it is mathematically impossible?
I'm moving on. If I had definitive proof to show you, then I would be arkancided. One day after W is gone,.they will let us know for sure. We had to wait until after HW was gone to know that the Clowns popped JFK. I still work with folks that believe Iraq had WMDs, masks work, clot shot was safe and effective, Biden won, the flu disappeared, water sticks to a spinning ball, people evolved from slime and the big bang created everything from nothing. We don't need to agree.
People don't understand how the WTC was constructed. For instance, at the point of impact of the first airplane, the steel I beams outside the WTC were only one quarter inch thick steel. That's because architects have an old adage that the building only has to support the weight of above it. Every time you build a building taller, you are actually sliding a floor underneath the existing weight of the floors above. The outside mesh of the WTC was designed to hold 40% of the total weight of the building.
Forgive me, but, seriously, how does e team (which branded themselves as an art collective that constructed a balcony outside the WTC) convince you that there were no planes on 9/11, that's absolutely ridiculous.
The reactions of people on the ground appear to support the official narratives that planes hit. I've viewed the videos with Gray planes instead of commercial aircraft. The first responders reported series of explosions which supports the claims of planted charges to pull the buildings when the planes hit. Huge psyop. Some might say it is bigger than the moon landing. Both events changed history.
You know, one thing that definitely changes the narrative is that both of the planes that hit the World Trade Centers entered the FAA register after 2 years off the day before 9/11. Yes, they were marked in official Airlines liveries, but there is no proof whatsoever you have the planes actually carried the passengers. But they were definitely 767's, I saw them with my own eyes
Charges placed doesn't invalidate the existence of plane collisions, and indeed there is value in going all in on a psyop instead of leaving it to one avenue of attack.
100%. I believe the planes were the cover story. They hit and the charges dropped the towers. We know building 7 was pulled. However, there is little evidence to support a plane hitting the Pentagon. That didn't happen. The maneuver can't be done
John prager's work also validates that not only were the charges there, but they were nuclear charges. There is no other way to explain the energy budget to account for so much Molten Steel in the basements of the wtc, other than small nuclear demolition charges. These same spare nuclear demolition charges were used in the Bali bombing in 2002 as well
So we know the official story is BS. Eye witnesses saw planes so all other evidence gets buried as conspiracy. In this case it was a huge conspiracy. One plane that had a pod attached makes me wonder if these were remotely controlled drones with no humans on board...
It's not that E Team convinced me that there were no planes on 9/11, it's that it was the missing piece of the puzzle that would explain the explosion and corresponding damage to the "impact zone" that was visible to everybody after the "plane" struck.
It's that E Team had unprecedented access to the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11.
It's that their "diary" was filled with all sorts of weird imagery, including people falling from the sky with a down arrow and saying something to the effect of "hundreds of feet of pure pleasure."
Then Nose Out gave the explanation for how the second plane appeared in live footage on the broadcast, because it was composited over live footage.
Pieces of the puzzle that go from "schizo-town" to "there just may be something here."
I was a couple miles from the Pentagon when “the plane” hit it. I drove by it within an hour after the strike to retrieve my daughter from pre-k. That video is what the crash site looked like, but w smoke billowing out. No one saw or heard any plane. Within a year or so, people started saying they saw or heard the plane…the same people. Mass formation psychosis.
Yep, I'm blanking on the exact phrase, but it's exactly like what happened to Kitty Genovese;
Multiple, multiple people heard her screaming for help while being raped, but everyone assumed that someone else must be calling 911, so nobody ended up doing it.
I feel like clowns who are seriously implying 10 million people didn't really see two planes hit the buildings are CIA plants designed to make us look fucking nuts.
We don't have 10 million videos of planes hitting the buildings, only a select few. There is speculation that at least some of the so-called witnesses were crisis actors. The reported eyewitness scene leading up to the Pentagon, for example, does not match with the flight capabilities of a 757 at sea level.
I'm not insulting nor questioning you nor your father, but how do you explain the above video which doesn't show a single scrap of aircraft wreckage?
How do you explain the surveillance camera footage which relatively clearly shows an object that - coincidentally of course - is exactly the size of a cruise missile striking the Pentagon?
Er wait...... are you talking about the Twin Towers?
Yeah, I don't necessarily doubt that planes hit the WTC, but I do think the towers were pre-rigged with tons of explosives.
To clarify; I'd certainly be open to the possibility that NO planes hit ANYTHING on 9/11, but I think what's more likely is:
Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives. There's no physical way the aircraft strike & ensuing damage 100% on its own collapsed the towers.
How does anyone explain WTC 7???
The surveillance camera footage of the pentagon very clearly (well, in 2001 VHS clarity LOL) shows a cruise-missile sized thing shooting towards the pentagon & then an explosion.
SO anyway; your dad saw aircraft hit the twin towers?
What's most important is what happened after the attacks; the PATRIOT act, Invading multiple countries using 9/11 as justification, etc.
And truly; you've seen those photos?
Now I'm even more confused. I do not doubt you, but how do you explain this surveillance footage of the pentagon which clearly shows a cruise missile, or at the very least shows an object far, FAR smaller than a passenger jet?
If you pause it at exactly the right time, you can see exactly what I mean; it's not an aircraft, at least not one that's large enough to fit even one human inside it.
Also; why would they not release those photos you saw, since it would immediately discredit "conspiracy theorists"?
yeah. and we saw the nose of one of the planes come out of the other side of the building fully intact, in a video that was never displayed again on live TV. Have you seen what a several-pound bird strike does to the nose of a 757? How can you see it come out the other side of a steel building fully intact and not question the narrative?
A video compositing error + timed explosives rather than a plane impact.
Here's the thing. Did they SEE a plane, or did they see something hit, were later told it's a plane, and so it became a plane? I know there have been times I have seen something, couldn't really explain it, then when someone said what it "was", I swear I saw that. This happened to me most notably with a magic trick. I swore I saw one thing, then when I was told it was something else, I totally believed it. The brain is a very complex thing, and brings conclusions we are convinced are correct when in fact, they are not. they were planted there. check out the series Brain Games for more on that also! Such a good show.
I'd love to hear your story. Were you there at ground zero?
I had a friend who was in the building, and was evacuated and saw the firefighters going up the stairs as she was going down the stairs on the way out.
I was driving around that day, gathering parts to fix my trailer lights. I had the radio on, and there were a lot of traffic accidents. It was pretty surreal although I was no where near NYC.
I'm all for no plane on both: the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field.
I'm not sure about WTC1/2 - plane/no-plane?
Still, it's an irrelevant point, thankfully (that would have made a nasty plane/no-plane division). It's irrelevant because WTC7 wasn't hit with a plane, and fell at approximately free-fall, straight down, and pictures show mostly into its own footprint.
WTC7 ended up being the smoking gun for that whole day, and i believe all 3 buildings were imploded, simply due to the fact there is not enough energy to compromise the buildings structure below 10-20 floors below WTC1/2's 'impact' floor... certainly not in the way we saw it go down boom.. boom.. boom.. floor by floor at a high rate of speed, right down to the ground floor.
I'm 100% for a re-investigation on this. But at this point we have bigger things to focus on.
Some planes may have gone "missing", but definitely no plane at the Pentagon. It was most likely a cruise missile. If planes hit WTC towers they were remote control tanker type aircraft and definitely NOT passenger planes as reported (it has been speculated that 767 tankers or 767 tanker prototypes had this capability for remote takeover/control). Should have been engine debris at the towers if there were planes. Engines are specifically designed with materials that have to withstand high stresses and heat, and this is why they are always physically visible after ALL type of crashes even if they are mangled.
Still unclear how all those people that were supposedly on the planes "disappeared", but that part of it looks like Deep State murder of people who were troublesome to them.
On the planes and WTC1/2 i'm of the opinion they were planes like you said. But i cannot for the life of me get by the controlled demolition nature of all the collapses.
I believe all the debris was scooped up and shipped away asap to hide the facts.
Generally, from the 80s-90s investigators pieced together things somewhere to get a better idea of what happened. That was not done here and it should have been. I believe if they had done this, the evidence of thermite cuts on the support beams would have been too obvious to deny.
When you watch the footage of the planes hitting the buildings, do you see any big parts falling to the ground? I see a clean entry of the planes followed by an explosion. I have never once seen a video where a large engine type "thing" falls and tumbles to the ground as the planes hit.
There was video of a plane hitting and you could see a smoking engine come out the other side of the building and arc to the ground. The engine was later filmed.
Planes landed and the people most likely were told they were part of a drill to gain cooperation with making phone calls. Then they were killed or let go on a planned disappearance. I think there were some on the plane in on it to help pull it off.
BTW the article at this link says "Her remains were recovered and eventually interred" yet I've never read or heard any details of 9-11 passengers' remains being recovered. 🤔
Slowed down footage of the plane hitting a tower shows it literally melting into it like a knife into butter. It just isn’t possible to do that and not leave plane parts falling off the side of the buildings. There were no plane parts anywhere because no planes hit the buildings. They took off, had their signals transferred to incoming missiles so that it looked like planes, the planes landed, the people told they were part of the drill and then killed. I saw an entire film on this 10 years ago and I absolutely think the scenario is plausible, especially when you have no plane parts. The rest was a Hollywood made movie clip that played over and over until it was buried in our brains to believe it.
Well said. It‘s like when someone said „Well if that‘s true then who did it?“
You got to investigate the crime and collect evidence. Wonder why they had GPS on the waste removal trucks taking all that steel out? Wonder no more. They controlled and reused that steel as quick as they could and some type of war ship with it, lol. Damn satanists.
Why can't both things happened? Why couldn't they have flown planes into the towers (faked the pentagon one of course) and then set off whatever explosives they planted in the buildings before hand?
I thought there are many eye witness accounts of the planes actually hitting the towers?
I am not sure to be honest, I know forsure I could have looked into this one way more but I just always thought the planes were real but were never enough to take the towers down. I defiantly think they wanted to pin everything on the plane high jacking but it was forsure controlled demolition.
I have seen another video like this that goes over a lot of the same evidence, but this one is extremely well done and highly convincing. I just wish he didn't put that stupid song in the middle. 🙄
Inside the Pentagon. That's what happens when a plane crashes INTO something. When a car crashes INTO your house, is it just splattered all over the exterior? Part of the mystery is that you are not aware of what happens in a crash.
Of course it wasn't a Scud. They come down at a steep angle, not plowing in along the ground. Learn something before you try to enlighten anyone. I was in the business of designing systems to shoot down Scuds. A Scud would not leave behind airplane and passenger artifacts. It would also have a warhead (not in evidence). I am tired now, and cranky, and I just don't know how to respond to total ignorance amplified by arrogance. Somebody told you this and you just sucked it up like a lollipop without doing any due diligence. Talk about the Credulous American.
No. If the car crashes INTO your house, it has gone fully inside your house...and cannot be seen from the outside. This has happened, surely enough. Other examples are cars that drive into storefronts.
Aluminum airplanes are a lot stronger than iron cars. But you keep on forgetting that a heavy stream of water would also penetrate the building and buckle columns if the force was strong enough. Shall we calculate? A 767-200 weighs 142,900 kg (315,000 lb mass) and collides at a speed of 710 km/hr (~197 m/sec). The plane decelerates approximately in its own length, 48.5 meters. The effective deceleration is 400 m/sec2, or about 41 times the force of gravity. This means the total force to bring the 767-200 to a stop is about 13 million pounds. To give some perspective, this is about 1/8th the weight of the RMS Titanic It is absurd to think the columns could have resisted this force, and they were the only things slowing down the plane. Aside from the periphery and core columns, the rest of the structure was a total pushover.
Because we're supposed to be better than propagandists about the information we find and present in this great awakening. It's that simple.
You answered a question using a "report that was never aired again" which was clearly edited to back up the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. When I can find the full clip and debunk your video, it makes us all look bad.
No, it's the standard with which we need to operate if we're going to sway minds. Otherwise we just make ourselves look like the crazy tin hat conspiracy theorists many already think we are, and turn people off. When that happens, people are aware something is wrong, but stop there. There are a whole bunch of other questions surrounding 9/11 without resorting to clearly edited footage to make the point.
Focusing on the point that of the dozens of cameras in the area, tourists, etc, only one cctv camera caught 5 frames of something hitting the Pentagon? That, as you posted, Rumsfeld initially states that it was a missile? Those are the threads to plant in minds.
My personal opinion would be that things like snake venom in the water and all the other fringe stuff detract from Q. It's distraction.
there's audio, it's about a reporter who went right up to the building and they took a look at the hole, and admitted on their close up inspection there was no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere in the pentagon, no tail sections, no wing sections, nothing.
it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon. If anything, it was a missile. Oh how coincidental the frames skip during the official footage...
No plane hit WTC 7 either, as videos show timed charge detonations going off on the backend of the building, moments before it crumbles.
Bill Cooper exposed 9/11 AS IT HAPPENED. He went live for nearly 12 hours that day & exposed the idea of planes dropping the towers.
they cleared the Twin Towers out weeks before 9/11, more than likely which was the time that they rigged the towers with explosives.
My personal belief is that they rigged the Twin Towers & tried their best to match the timing of the detonations with the planes hitting the towers. The explosives were still going off & being detonated way after the planes ran into the towers. Early footage allows us to hear them still blasting off, emergency personnel were on-scene talking about it not being safe to go inside because "bombs are going off"
perhaps they could have had access to holograms & matched the timing of the hologram planes "making contact" with the towers & timed explosives, but I don't believe that to be the case.
It's also not out of question that [they] could have taken control of the airliners REMOTELY & forced the planes into the towers, using the idea of "terrorist hijackers" as cover.
I don’t even think holograms were used. Watch the footage of the plane before it hit tower and one could see the shitty CGI as the left wing disappears behind building in background of tower.
👉👉👉👉👉 NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LOSE LEAF PAPER OR A POST IT NOTE. Like we saw all failing from the WTC towers. Not one office supply in this demo turned production. As you can see, it’s collapsed in, not blown open. Collapsed so safely they can just stroll on top of the building, casually and faithfully knowing it’s sturdy enough. With a “plane” inside and chemicals burning — OH WAIT. Smokeless invisible fire WOULD come from an invisible airplane. Duh! Even if it was SHOT FROM UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS DIRECTLY FACING IT. This is what you see on that gate security footage. There is another video I have, somewhere, of another angle. This is exactly where it was shot from. Regardless of what it was or wasn’t, whatever it was, absolutely came from there. ( do a Google or whatever street view, and you can see exactly where and how, lining it up. Which itself does it on its own when you find it. B-Line from the hole in the building back to the freeway. It’ll land you exactly there. ( then the crap footage of a “plane flying in” like a missile actually will add up…to not a plane ). No smoke, does anyone see any time stamps? I own or I have several copies, of the uncut footage of this video. It’s long, and it’s damning. All these asses complicit!?? Tells you just how many are today. To the pit with them.
What? Are you crucial? I was there for 2 hours standing on the Brooklyn battery, this railing across the water from the Brooklyn Bridge across from the Manhattan side, grabbing singed and burned piece of paper for literally hours. Mostly law books. But, oh my god, it was a nightmare, totally like a confetti paper show
I remember seeing the "first picture" of a jet hitting the tower. BTW This was days or weeks later.
It showed the jet partway into the building. On the other side of the building was the outline of the jet about to come out of the building.
The outline was exactly the same shape as the nose that the jet would have had.
So we were to believe that an aluminum/plastic jet nose hit a concrete and steel building and keep it's shape all the way through.
That picture disappeared pretty fast
Take a look at these pictures of bird strikes hitting a jet nose.
If a bird can do that there is no way the nose would have kept its shape column or no column
And if the nose does not hit a column, that's about as bad as it would have been. From a distance, it would have seemed to be a nose, sure enough. Like anyone would have had the sight and time to be picky about appearances.
Incorrect. At the 87th floor where the first plane hit, the steel ibms were only a quarter inch thick. Solid aluminum substructure, which most definitely is thick beams, although made of aluminum to save weight, traveling at a high Connecticut energy, would have most definitely gone into the building very much Wiley Coyote outline
I have a hard time following you. The vertical structural elements are columns, the horizontal structural elements (floors) are beams. These are different structures. Penetration relates to momentum and the wings would have had less momentum per unit area than the fuselage and engines, so they would not penetrate very far. You haven't seen aircraft primary structure (wing beams & decks). Very robust. The building outer wall was mostly window, so there was no possibility that a Warner Brothers effect would have occurred. Too much smashed glass. I think you are trying to refer to "kinetic" energy.
It is a common mistake to think that the terminal effects of a collision or a bullet wound are proportional to kinetic energy, but they are more in proportion with momentum. What is left out of consideration is that a lot of the kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy of material deformation of the penetrator. When my Dad went deer hunting, if they bagged a deer, they would cut out the bullet and drop it in a bucket of water to cool down. The wounding deformation of the lead and copper made it hot to the touch.
I don't think the jet nose cones are solid. It is an aluminum skin with various instruments inside.
You may be right about the I-beams. I just don't know. But after seeing what a bird strike does I have a hard time believing that a jet nose cone can hit concrete and still not distort.
What I always thought was odd back in 2001 was when the first plane strike was filmed, "live". I thought it was just my hormones (found out that afternoon I was pregnant...with triplets). I was baffled as to how it was all caught on camera, the very first plane hitting the first tower, then the next one. I never said a thing outloud because I was waiting for an official pregnancy test result. So very sad people passed, and the same time, finding out we were pregnant.
You don't see a plane hit the Pentagon because that plane hit Building 7... no wait, no plane hit Building 7...
I remember that day. I was amazed the MSM within hours had a name of a suspect from a wallet found on the ground... it was assumed to have come from a plane that hit a tower. WTF! That's one hell of an assumption. Does anyone else recall that?
Whatever hit the one tower going 510 knots at sea level sure as fuck wasn’t a commercial 767 airliner (max speed at sea level is 420 knots before breaking apart). Could’ve been some kind of special military drone plane, a blue beam hologram, who knows what the hell it was. All 3 buildings were also clearly brought down with controlled demos.
Yes, it was a 767. Learn (and mean this sincerely, not snarky) how kinetic energy works. It's what I have personally seen drive a piece of straw through a telephone pole.
I understand kinetic energy quite well but Your story is apples and oranges (towers were steel and concrete not wood). According to boeing The max speed a 767 can go at sea level and still be controllable is around 380 knots. Max speed until structural failure is about 420 knots (see VG diagram I posted upstream). Pilots with 30,000 hrs in 767’s have confirmed itd be impossible to get a 767 to 510 knots at sea level let alone hit a narrow target. Even if you somehow did get it to 510 itd be impossible to control due to all the mach tuck, dutch rolling, etc.. An experienced pro would have a hard time hitting the buildings at that impossible speed let alone amateurs who had trouble controlling a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. Listen for yourself, see 25min 40 sec mark:
Here’s what happens when a jet crashes into a few feet of concrete going 500 mph. The jet is completely destroyed with barely leaving a mark on the concrete:
https://youtu.be/F4CX-9lkRMQ
Correct, at the heights stated in the official report, the aircraft cannot simply produce enough thrust at sea level to travel at 510kts IAS, even if it held together, which it can't, all sorts of aerodynamic effects would have destroyed it that far over VMO.
No, sorry my post was a little off topic, I was talking about the reported air speed of United Flight 175 which allegedly hit one of the towers. The stories for what hit the towers and pentagon where complete bs
No idea when exactly this was taken, but it looks much like the day afterwards. What are we supposed to notice? The fact that the airplane penetrated into the building and was covered by collapsed floors?
Know what would be cool @ElonMusk? Takea small fraction sliver of your billions, buy an old 747, and remotely fly it into an abandoned building somewhere, and record it. Lets see what really happens to the plane and bldg
Just a few weeks later, a jet fighter had just took off loaded with fuel had a catastrophic failure. The pilot safely ejected right before it hit a 2 story apartment structure made of wood, which by the way, did not collapse.
I remember that! I wondered if anyone else did too or if it was just me remembering wrong. I remember at the time even thinking "wait! Does anyone else see this???? Is anyone else thinking that this is weird?"
I don’t even have to watch the video to know the plane is missing. And I know that because of those people who walked out and said…”there was no plane”.
Those who believe 9/11 must also believe one man shot JFK.
This footage looks like it was from days afterward. Not any smoke visible.The wreckage was cleaned up by then.
Not sure how this got stickied, honestly. Whether you believe 9/11 was legit or not there are many photos of plane debris at the Pentagon that have been around publicly for decades. Here is a link with two photos of plane debris in question:
We are missing the bigger picture here.....who was CEO of the Security Company in charge of all WTC sites? Marvin Bush...brother of W Bush...POTUS!! 9/11 had been in the works for decades, and probably dating back to HW Poppy Bush. 9/11 was a Government operation to accomplish several goals....Patriot Act, FISA, Afghanistan, Iraq wars(Creating endless Boogie Men)(Dick Cheney Getting Rich)(CIA cornering the Opium Trade)....etc, etc
The videos you see now are all AFTER the roof collapsed. I had a bunch on jew tube that showed a perfect circular hole in the inner walls. Those have all been deleted years ago.
Pentagon was probably a missile - proof is the first pictures showing a hole (this is post-collapse), second is just the angle and height of approach being too difficult for a piloted lumbering airliner. Only could have been a plane if autopiloted (but if it were a plane they would have shown the footage, which we know exists as it was confiscated from the gas station across the way)
WTC1 and 2 probably planes did hit, doesn't matter either way, there is no way they could have collapsed, and certainly no way they both would collapse in similar form, symmetrically, after being damaged asymmetrically.
WTC7 - obviously controlled demolition. I like to think they ran the operation from there and pre-wired it (like the other two).
Flight 97 - shot down probably because the autopilot systems were defeated and there was a danger they would land with that evidence. This was intended for WTC7.
How exactly doesnt matter - the key fact is three buildings definitely did get demolished, which was absolutely unpredictable from plane crashes. The real kicker is the BBC saying WTC7 fell before it did. IMPOSSIBLE that is a "mistake" as claimed by BBC head Mark Thompson who went on to be editor of the NYTimes. The BBC is the smoking gun of foreknowledge.
Once the war on terror kicked off you know what else happened? China had a meteoric rise as an economic power. They took the money made and invested it along with tech transfers into China where you wouldn't notice because they were making a big display in the middle east (which got them even more money to invest in China).
Crime of the century. They also used it as enabling works to establish surveillance and control sufficient to run the covid gambit twenty years later (uh? from China?)
The bigger crime is they got away with it and people fight over the details when the crime is right there.
👉👉👉👉👉 NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LOSE LEAF PAPER OR A POST IT NOTE. Like we saw all failing from the WTC towers. Not one office supply in this demo turned production. As you can see, it’s collapsed in, not blown open. Collapsed so safely they can just stroll on top of the building, casually and faithfully knowing it’s sturdy enough. With a “plane” inside and chemicals burning — OH WAIT. Smokeless invisible fire WOULD come from an invisible airplane. Duh! Even if it was SHOT FROM UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS DIRECTLY FACING IT. This is what you see on that gate security footage. There is another video I have, somewhere, of another angle. This is exactly where it was shot from. Regardless of what it was or wasn’t, whatever it was, absolutely came from there. ( do a Google or whatever street view, and you can see exactly where and how, lining it up. Which itself does it on its own when you find it. B-Line from the hole in the building back to the freeway. It’ll land you exactly there. ( then the crap footage of a “plane flying in” like a missile actually will add up…to not a plane ). No smoke, does anyone see any time stamps? I own or I have several copies, of the uncut footage of this video. It’s long, and it’s damning. All these asses complicit!?? Tells you just how many are today. To the pit with them.
No planes hit any buildings on 911.
Come at me bro.
Tell me how your uncle saw the planes hit the buildings with his own eyes.
The reason they will expend infinite money on trying to stop speech like this is because:
The media was complicit on 911
They put the doctored video feeds on the air.
They are desperately trying to keep that fact from spreading.
Too bad....
You chased us off all the platforms you control, so now we have platforms you do not control.
Hahaha best comment of the day!
No femurs.
I've been to airplane crash sites ---- you see femurs.
E Team and Nose Out were the two situations that gave me the "well okay maybe I'll consider it" to the notion that there were no planes.
Add a little mass formation psychosis and then you have to ask yourself, did YOU see a plane? Do you know anyone who saw a plane? At the individual level, everyone just assumes that everyone else saw the plane. But if everyone assumes that everyone else saw it, what then if nobody saw it? Then surely everyone saw it, and thus it would be absolutely insane to question something that everyone saw? You can hide something in plain sight if the very idea of questioning it would be preposterous. If you're going to cook up a nefarious scheme, why not build that preposterousness (and thus plausible deniability) directly into the scheme? Helps you cover it up later.
Now I understand why only a child spoke out when he saw the emperor had no clothes. A child only sees truth.
Aye. All the adults have been conditioned over many years to think in terms that are away from that base state of understanding, thus missing the truth that's right in front of them. Also, I'll add that the child just comes right out and says it, because the child doesn't know why it is not to be pointed out! Seeing truth and pointing it out without fear, because why should one be afraid to ask a question in a free society? <--- FACT CHECK: This claim is made by someone who spreads false claims without evidence. Verdict: Mostly False
Good take. Children don't have bias built in.
You guys are lost in space. My boss's brother nearly got killed from falling debris from the Twin Towers. There sure as hell were two airplanes, and corresponding missing and dead passengers and crew...not to mention the dead from the building collision and collapse. Very weird. You want to deny the truth of an evil act in order to support a paranoid belief that you are being lied to.
But if you are being lied to, then---for you---this whole site is a Deep State leg-pulling exercise, where 3-letter agency trolls jump on board during lunchtime in order to pull you around the block. If everyone lies to you, where does it stop?
The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
Here's the link to the UAF report and download. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Building 7 fell at the speed of gravity. That is a fact agreed upon by everyone. That means that every support gave way at the exact same moment.
I have seen videos of explosions going off in the windows of building 7 prior to it's collapse exactly the same as other controlled demolitions I have seen (on video). Those videos being "real evidence" is not agreed upon by everyone, but it is compelling evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isn't, not for me, but it is compelling. Discounting it as compelling evidence is ludicrous.
But just the fact that the building fell into it's own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition is incredibly compelling evidence that it was in fact destroyed in a controlled demolition. No other building, in the history of the planet, has ever fell like that "because of bad design." Every building in the history of the planet that was destroyed by controlled demolition however, fell in the exact same manner. Any theory of what happened that can't account for that evidence is wrong.
And I don't mean "it could have happened, if all the stars aligned, and god farted at that exact moment in a north by northwesterly direction" nonsense, I mean, "it was almost certain to fall into it's own footprint if it caught fire, and here's why. And here's the blueprint of the building. And here's how we rebuilt it in a FEM. And here's what happened when a tiny fire lit in one of the rooms. And here's why it fell exactly like a controlled demolition according to the blueprint and the FEM simulation. And here is an example of it happening again. And here's how the engineer that designed that building for the Rockefellers was so stupid despite being one of the highest paid engineers of all time."
There's also the fact that the media, which is the key complicit entity in every single false flag operation in history declared it collapsed fifteen minutes before it actually collapsed. "Woopsie!" That also is not contested evidence, even if it has been memory holed.
As for the pentagon, there is one particular thing that all airplane crashes in the history of the planet have in common; that is they all leave behind airplane parts. There was no evidence of an airplane at the pentagon except one piece of twisted metal that could fit into the back of a pickup truck that just so happened to have the airlines insignia on it. This lack of an actual airplane at the airplane crash site suggests there was no airplane crash at the pentagon. Believing that a thing is true when there is no evidence is called "faith." I respect your faith, but I do not think it makes for a sound argument.
How many buildings fell from simultaneous column failures? How quick does "simultaneous" have to be? If all the columns on a floor are far below design strength and there is no more design margin, it is only a matter of chance that at least one will fall below critical strength and fail. Failure is essentially instant and the stress that was imposed on that column will redistribute in a wave traveling at the speed of sound in the steel structure. This is about 4,000 feet per second. If a column is spaced 5 feet from another, the redistribution will take about a millisecond. How many columns are there? 50? 100? At this rate all columns could fail sequentially in 50 to 100 milliseconds. A floor collapse event in a tenth of a second would look pretty instantaneous ("exact same moment") to any human eyeball, and the upper floor would collapse onto the lower floor at the speed of gravitational acceleration. (Downward motion in 0.1 second would be about 0.16 foot. If the floor heights were 10 feet, you would have 98% of free fall.) Which would start the whole process over, only this time with the added force of the descending impact. And another floor would collapse. And so on.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires---as the original analyses were beginning to discern. You assume you see it only in demolitions. The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism. If you see striped horses only because circus performers paint them that way, and then see a zebra, do you ask "Who painted the zebra?" You would, if you didn't understand that a zebra was a natural phenomenon.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts. The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris. I expect there was fuel residue also. There is no credible alternative explanation. A missile could not have proceeded on that approach path (too low to the ground). And no warhead could have produced that damage without a significant blast.
Let's take a look at your proposed model. It's plausible, but how likely is it? What conditions would have to be met?
Assumption
The building was designed such that any energy wave from any point would flow perfectly to all other supports, without any barriers in the design that would redirect the energy, or otherwise slow it down.
OK, maybe. I've never designed a high rise, but I have designed quite a few one and two story buildings. Except for the simplest structure, a single story square box with four walls and four supports, one at each corner, this assumption does not hold true. There are always energy redirects. In addition, such a box would not fall straight down if it failed, it would fall towards the side of failure.
Assumption:
The building was built exactly weak enough at every single member to fall if any one particular member failed.
If any member was stronger than "exactly weak enough to fail" instantaneously then this assumption is incorrect. I say this because it fell at the speed of gravity. Every single member must have suffered catastrophic failure instantaneously (or if you prefer, at the speed of sound in steel). This would be especially true across the "first floor" to fail. That is why when they demolish buildings they simultaneously destroy members across whole floors. If they do not, it won't fall straight down, and it won't fall at the speed of gravity. They don't need to destroy every member on every floor, because they will collapse as you suggest if there is sufficient force, but any one particular floor that is destroyed must do so across every key supporting member simultaneously. Also, it can't just happen on a single floor, not and fall at the speed of gravity. That is why they destroy several key floors in controlled demolition.
Coincidentally, this explosion pattern across several floors is exactly what is seen in the windows of the buildings in the eye witness videos that show that.
Assumption:
The exact right member failed in order for the building to fall straight down.
If we assume that the building was built (intentionally or unintentionally) for the exterior supports to fail on the outside if key inside members failed, if ANY OTHER member failed first, anywhere except somewhere dead center, it would not produce the fall pattern that was observed. Looking at the simple design from the first assumption, lets take the four posts at the corners and add one to the middle. Then we have to make all of them sufficiently weak that if the middle post fails and only the middle post fails, all of the other posts will instantaneously suffer catastrophic failure. Again, if any other post fails it will not fall perfectly straight down as Building 7 did.
There's also the problem that, according to the official story, the fire did not start in the middle of the building but on the side "where the airplane part hit the building." How exactly that fire spread to the middle, and caused the middle supports to fail first, before the outer supports where the "fire started" is not something that has ever been addressed, but it would have to have happened that way. I guess we can call that another assumption.
OK, maybe, but you have a lot of assumptions that have yet to be shown in any reasonable way. Even if you do show them in a reasonable way (FEM analysis e.g.), there are thousands of buildings that have been built similarly, and they are either all still standing, or collapsed in the same manner as Building 7, except uncontroversally under controlled demolition.
Could I design something that fits the above assumptions? Probably, but I would have to try with the intention of making it fail. No structural engineer worth his salt could look at such a building design without knowing that any member failure would result in a catastrophic failure for the whole system. Such calculations are part of the design schematic.
Even back in the day, people weren't that stupid. There had been plenty of failures in smaller buildings (earthquakes e.g.) before they built the bigger ones. They always made members stronger than they had to be because of potential high wind loads, and potential earthquakes, etc. But your proposal suggests that the design was exactly weak enough to fail if any one member failed. OK, that;s plausible, but no one could build a building like that without knowing that they were.
In other words, it would have been known that a fire in a trash can on a single floor would have caused a collapse before the first shovel hit dirt.
Me seeing it only in demolitions is not an assumption, that is a statement of fact. I have never seen any other building fall in this manner except in controlled demolitions. Show me any other building collapse in this manner, or even anything close to this manner that was not a controlled demolition.
OK, maybe, but other than this one event, for which there is substantial evidence for a different cause of failure, and tremendous incentive to make it happen, there is zero evidence to support this assertion. NONE. Because there is no evidence, you believing it is based on faith. Again, I respect your faith, but it does not make a sound argument.
The amount of airplane parts they found could quite literally be put into one single pickup truck (and probably was). Your belief of what is possible in an airplane crash stretches credulity beyond even the plausible. Take a moment and really think about the forces involved in an airplane crash, their lower limit and their upper limit, and what it would take to disintegrate an airplane into unrecognizable parts rather than make it break apart and/or crumple. Take a look at the building, and the site around it. Take a look at the parts they found, then try to make the condition of those parts fit with every single other piece of a 757 being disintegrated. Why would that handful of pieces, again, that can fit into a SINGLE PICKUP TRUCK survive intact, with that crumple pattern, yet the entire rest was disintegrated to the point where nothing recognizable as "airplane" survived.
REALLY LOOK at the building wreckage and debris. REALLY LOOK. There is no evidence of a fire within several of the exposed rooms within the surrounding building. Those rooms should have been in the path of the wings, yet they weren't even singed. Look at the wreckage and find anything that might belong to a massive airplane. Hell, just look at the volume of wreckage and explain to me how an airplane and a building fit within it.
Look, I’m not saying I know the truth of what happened, but your explanation does not fit all of the available evidence. The best you are able to do is give a “maybe,” and “it’s plausible that.” That is not an argument from investigation and evidence that is an argument based on faith.
You assume that you know everything there is to know about every single weapon owned by the military. Their flight capabilities, their explosion patterns, their yield, etc. I don’t care if you are a “death ray designer”, the hubris is incredible. Your arguments of “there couldn’t have been a missile because I know everything there is to know about missiles, and I have tested them in every capacity” are not believable, and are otherwise insufficient.
Wow. You've had some doosies but I'm afraid you just lost all credibility. God please see your way out this time. You don't contribute and you're not a Q supporter.
I sure as hell am a Q supporter, but I am not a fantasy supporter. Q gives us insight into what is going on right now behind the scenes. He doesn't buy into all the fringe nonsense. The fact that we have been lied to about many things does not equate to a worldview that we have ONLY been lied to. That is radical insanity, and goes nowhere. It presents us the problem of figuring out what the lies are, exactly. We do that by finding out the truth that may be hidden. But we don't start with that as a going in position. Everything unravels if we take that seriously.
Why am I not an alien from Mars tapping into the internet? Were you really born where your birth certificate says, or on some other continent? How far have you traveled away from home---and how do you really know you traveled that far? Is every skyscraper really occupied? Is every airplane really filled with passengers? We see lots of cars on the road, but are they really driven by people with lives apart from driving all day long? Is the sky really a different color, and something was done to our eyes at birth to make us see it blue?
I'm imaginative and can go on and on. This is all nutty stuff. And it is a waste of time and a diversion from paying attention to what is real and what is going on. What I see are people who (1) don't know shit, and (2) are credulous as hell by accepting whatever fringe nonsense appeals to their paranoia, and (3) have a deep desire to believe that the world is all a lie because that gets them off the hook for being responsible to LEARN THINGS. The Moon Hoaxers, Flat Earthers, and Chemtrailers are all in this category. They are so ignorant that they could be called the Walking Brain-Dead. They are allergic to learning anything. Whatever contradicts their paranoia is held to be a lie, so as to conform to the paranoia ("you're not a Q supporter"). You don't like what I have to say, but you can't respond critically to it because I do know what I am talking about. My handle is not a LARP.
You're fuckin annoying and you're full of shit. Look at that giant reply you sent. DEERing like the weak, fake, lying little bitch that you are.
Search Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 2000+ of them concur that WTC 7 didn’t fall as a result of the Twin Towers collapsing.
And neither did the official report. They said it was the result of uncontrolled fires (and that the Twin Towers would have fallen from uncontrolled fires as well). It stings when your conspiracy fails to get the facts in order.
We can have all kinds of arguments about what missiles can do in various circumstances. Seaborne missiles can afford to fly low to the water because the water reference surface is reliably level. Not so with ground surfaces. My recollection of cruise missile hits on precise land targets is that they still have a terminal dive. This is driven by the need to suppress the projection of altitude errors in the ground plane.
But the fact that it was AA Flight 77 was established by the radar and air control trace of its flight path. The fact that it was hijacked was established by phone calls out of the plane by passengers. The fact that it was an airplane was established by multiple witnesses who saw it, including a pilot from another aircraft who saw it from higher altitude. You are in no position to deny these facts. Why do you even bother?
I've seen this video as well and I don't think it's that clear. Something hit the Pentagon coming but it was most definitely not a 757.
Link? I’ve never seen this video. I did see a video of a CNN reporter saying that he walked down to the hole in the pentagon and saw absolutely no plane debris, only tiny pieces of metal you could pick up with your hands
But perhaps what you might not know is that video had been edited. Frames 23 - 27 had been reversed, where the grey squiggle that some suggest is exhaust gas has in fact been moved in the sequence. You really do not see a Boeing 757 - 200.
A point to note in this video, it is before the further collapse of the Pentagon building which rarely gets seen. Most film is after the further facade collapse and makes the destruction look greater. A 757 has a wing span of 125ft, the damage here does not show that.
Uh, my take is this was the post-collapse. Prior to this the damage was a hole about 30ft diameter centered about ceiling level of ground floor.
You are indeed correct anon, my mistake this WAS AFTER it had collapsed. I just looked at some other images and indeed there was little destruction.
My apologies, I'll leave the original up though as I don't mind admitting being wrong.
Here's one before the facade collapses as you said. https://www.allmystery.de/i/tYCCAE4_GksquH_PentBW.jpg
Google Tomahawk.
There is absolutely no way a guy who couldn’t fly a damn Cessna was able to hand fly that plane at that speed and precision…no fucking way
This ^^^
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
Sure planes hit. No fuel melts steel buildings in freefall. Remember DJT explaining that he thought they were nuts to build it with small windows which was forced by building it so strong with the steel on the outside. Planes may have hit for show but they didn't collapse the buildings
"No fuel melts steel..." Always uttered by people who never check the details. The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) is 2093 deg C. The only metals that can tolerate that temperature (in jet engines) are special nickel alloys or columbium. Steel (iron) has a melting temperature of 1538 deg C, approximately 550 deg C below the flame temperature of burning kerosene. And steel gives up its strength rapidly with temperature, losing most of it well before it reaches the melting point. So your statement is pure puffery.
The collapse appears to have been the result of the fires and the consequent weakening of the columns, leading to pancake collapse as each floor suffered increasing weight and impact loads. Without the airplane crashes, this would never have happened. You have a strange conception of causality.
A whole lot of people were killed "for show," so your characterization is a grotesque trivialization of their deaths.
Please don't talk anymore.
Take your own advice, thanks.
Did you think I was talking to you?
Look, I'm staying outside this conversation besides coming in and throwing this: If you cannot properly discount his argument, don't tell him to shut up.
That's leftist behavior. Enough people have offered their own counters to his statements and either they'll sway him or they won't, and still more people will likely throw their own opinions into the discussion.
But your only contribution has been to trash him, which is reductive and unacceptable.
Regardless of how you believe the WTC fell, or what hit what, is not strictly relevant to belief in Q or the goals outlined. It doesn't even mean that he doesn't believe that it was an inside job.
All he's saying is that planes hit.
There are a lot of accounts that say they saw it. This was all over the place the day of.
There is also a lack of proof to support either argument, at least not enough that has yet to come to light.
It's fine to argue your opinions, but there's no need to attack him on something completely unrelated and try to shut him down if you can't even attempt to offer an argument.
Uncool my dude.
His argument has been discounting a million different ways. We've all heard the Popular Mechanics bullshit he spouts like gospel doctrine. He's not a Q supporter. He's a shill. He can suck my dick. And don't defend him. One of these days it will be clear enough to the mods what this faggot's MO is and they'll boot him. Perhaps today is not that day but the guy's a cuck faggot RINO fucker if I ever saw one.
Speaking of puffery. How does armor piercing rounds work? The round hits a tank and the energy super heats the steel for A moment to let a harder rod slip through. Does the entire tank immediately turn to a puddle of molten goo?
I love your last line. It fits all of the cabal false flag defenses. Give me a Greta "How dare you" question ....911, gulf of tonkin, JFK, sandy hook, January 6, kids in cages, Nazi flag in uhaul truck, Charlottesville, Russia Russia Russia, coldvid, masks, fauci, clot shots, 2020 election, etc. The fact is that I have my alibi for that morning. I didn't plan or perform the grotesque human sacrifice. Redirect your disgust to the satanic cabal that did the crime. Attacking the messenger just shows you don't like the message. Oh oh oh, here's another one you can use. Talking about the gender of the transvestite who targeted and brutally murdered innocent Christians, trivializes their death so we will declare a new tranny day to celebrate the murderer instead. How dare you question Christine blaisey fords extremely credible and brave testimony, it trivializes the horrific act of rape that so many men and women have experienced since the beginning of time. how dare you. That last one was free. Feel free to use it while defending other official narratives.
Armor-piercing rounds: The projectile has high mass per frontal area, so as to attain high momentum per frontal area, which allows it to go through steel like it was plastic. Actual fact---it causes plastic deformation of the metal. If the penetrator is tungsten, then it gets through and creates the usual havoc of a ballistic object. If the pentrator is uranium, it is already molten and flashes into a mist that instantly catches on fire (pyrophoric). The heat of the bulk uranium-air combustion ramps up the pressure inside the tank, probably blows the turret off, and sets off the tank ammo as a secondary detonation.
Second paragraph: "Are you talking to me?" Or was that just an elaborate recourse to name-calling in lieu of argument?
Great now we are making progress. The high heat melts the pinpoint area of impact resulting in a hole in the steel tank. The hole is evident because of the steel that didn't melt. You are absolutely correct that steel can be liquified and reshaped while in that molten state. We know a 50 bmg could pierce through a tank but will not melt the entire tank to the ground like popping a balloon. So my point is that there is not enough fuel in a 767 to melt that tower to the ground in a pancake freefall. Don't forget that in the midst of that tower melting heat, Mohammed Attas passport fluttered safely to the sidewalk uncharred. Build your origami tower out of that paper next time.
I suspect the q post board is filled with users who question the official narrative. Calling out someone who questions the official narrative as someone who is trivializing the deaths of the victims is a form of shouting down any dissent. Your "How dare you" only works on people that care about misgendering someone. I expect that response at the Huffington post. I assure you that Bush/cheney and cabal lied about 911. The victims they sacrificed are not trivialized just because I don't believe some cave dweller masterminded an attack that was described by Al Gore years before, and implemented on the very day of a training exercise of the same nature. How many coincidences until it is mathematically impossible?
I'm moving on. If I had definitive proof to show you, then I would be arkancided. One day after W is gone,.they will let us know for sure. We had to wait until after HW was gone to know that the Clowns popped JFK. I still work with folks that believe Iraq had WMDs, masks work, clot shot was safe and effective, Biden won, the flu disappeared, water sticks to a spinning ball, people evolved from slime and the big bang created everything from nothing. We don't need to agree.
People don't understand how the WTC was constructed. For instance, at the point of impact of the first airplane, the steel I beams outside the WTC were only one quarter inch thick steel. That's because architects have an old adage that the building only has to support the weight of above it. Every time you build a building taller, you are actually sliding a floor underneath the existing weight of the floors above. The outside mesh of the WTC was designed to hold 40% of the total weight of the building.
Talking about the Pentagon....try to pay attention.
I have. Have you? Plenty of assertions that certain things are true that were not true at all...on the part of the conspiracy theorists.
Forgive me, but, seriously, how does e team (which branded themselves as an art collective that constructed a balcony outside the WTC) convince you that there were no planes on 9/11, that's absolutely ridiculous.
The reactions of people on the ground appear to support the official narratives that planes hit. I've viewed the videos with Gray planes instead of commercial aircraft. The first responders reported series of explosions which supports the claims of planted charges to pull the buildings when the planes hit. Huge psyop. Some might say it is bigger than the moon landing. Both events changed history.
You know, one thing that definitely changes the narrative is that both of the planes that hit the World Trade Centers entered the FAA register after 2 years off the day before 9/11. Yes, they were marked in official Airlines liveries, but there is no proof whatsoever you have the planes actually carried the passengers. But they were definitely 767's, I saw them with my own eyes
Charges placed doesn't invalidate the existence of plane collisions, and indeed there is value in going all in on a psyop instead of leaving it to one avenue of attack.
100%. I believe the planes were the cover story. They hit and the charges dropped the towers. We know building 7 was pulled. However, there is little evidence to support a plane hitting the Pentagon. That didn't happen. The maneuver can't be done
John prager's work also validates that not only were the charges there, but they were nuclear charges. There is no other way to explain the energy budget to account for so much Molten Steel in the basements of the wtc, other than small nuclear demolition charges. These same spare nuclear demolition charges were used in the Bali bombing in 2002 as well
So we know the official story is BS. Eye witnesses saw planes so all other evidence gets buried as conspiracy. In this case it was a huge conspiracy. One plane that had a pod attached makes me wonder if these were remotely controlled drones with no humans on board...
It's not that E Team convinced me that there were no planes on 9/11, it's that it was the missing piece of the puzzle that would explain the explosion and corresponding damage to the "impact zone" that was visible to everybody after the "plane" struck.
It's that E Team had unprecedented access to the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11.
It's that their "diary" was filled with all sorts of weird imagery, including people falling from the sky with a down arrow and saying something to the effect of "hundreds of feet of pure pleasure."
Then Nose Out gave the explanation for how the second plane appeared in live footage on the broadcast, because it was composited over live footage.
Pieces of the puzzle that go from "schizo-town" to "there just may be something here."
Excellent work frog. Solid. 🐸🐸🐸🐸
I was a couple miles from the Pentagon when “the plane” hit it. I drove by it within an hour after the strike to retrieve my daughter from pre-k. That video is what the crash site looked like, but w smoke billowing out. No one saw or heard any plane. Within a year or so, people started saying they saw or heard the plane…the same people. Mass formation psychosis.
Yep, I'm blanking on the exact phrase, but it's exactly like what happened to Kitty Genovese;
Multiple, multiple people heard her screaming for help while being raped, but everyone assumed that someone else must be calling 911, so nobody ended up doing it.
My dad was in Jersey City and saw the plane hit with his own eyes.
Why did three people down vote this? Amazing.
Because its a meaningless statement. We have no way to verify who is writing this, what his dad saw, or whether either of them are telling the truth.
Lead mod here, was S of the second plane, it flew right over me. This is the reason that I've been doing this for the past 7 or 8 years.
Longtime TheDonald/Greatawakening memeber here, saw Lee Harvey Oswald (and ONLY Oswald) shoot JFK.
See how that works? Do you doubt my testimony? You should.
I have no reason to question your testimony in particular, other than I question everything. From my perspective, it's all just text on a screen.
Some people are fucking retarded. Denying eyewitness shit like this makes us all look retarded and less credible.
Eye witness accounts are actually some of the LEAST reliable pieces of "evidence"
https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663
By design.
I feel like clowns who are seriously implying 10 million people didn't really see two planes hit the buildings are CIA plants designed to make us look fucking nuts.
Now do chemtrails
We don't have 10 million videos of planes hitting the buildings, only a select few. There is speculation that at least some of the so-called witnesses were crisis actors. The reported eyewitness scene leading up to the Pentagon, for example, does not match with the flight capabilities of a 757 at sea level.
I'm not insulting nor questioning you nor your father, but how do you explain the above video which doesn't show a single scrap of aircraft wreckage?
How do you explain the surveillance camera footage which relatively clearly shows an object that - coincidentally of course - is exactly the size of a cruise missile striking the Pentagon?
Er wait...... are you talking about the Twin Towers?
Yeah, I don't necessarily doubt that planes hit the WTC, but I do think the towers were pre-rigged with tons of explosives.
To clarify; I'd certainly be open to the possibility that NO planes hit ANYTHING on 9/11, but I think what's more likely is:
Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives. There's no physical way the aircraft strike & ensuing damage 100% on its own collapsed the towers.
How does anyone explain WTC 7???
The surveillance camera footage of the pentagon very clearly (well, in 2001 VHS clarity LOL) shows a cruise-missile sized thing shooting towards the pentagon & then an explosion.
SO anyway; your dad saw aircraft hit the twin towers?
I don't dispute that.
Yes, he saw the 2nd plane hit the tower. Not the Pentagon.
Picking a nit;
What's most important is what happened after the attacks; the PATRIOT act, Invading multiple countries using 9/11 as justification, etc.
And truly; you've seen those photos?
Now I'm even more confused. I do not doubt you, but how do you explain this surveillance footage of the pentagon which clearly shows a cruise missile, or at the very least shows an object far, FAR smaller than a passenger jet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8
That's the footage I've been mentioning.....
If you pause it at exactly the right time, you can see exactly what I mean; it's not an aircraft, at least not one that's large enough to fit even one human inside it.
Also; why would they not release those photos you saw, since it would immediately discredit "conspiracy theorists"?
Damn, that's crazy. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to witness it. Thanks for the info & take care.
yeah. and we saw the nose of one of the planes come out of the other side of the building fully intact, in a video that was never displayed again on live TV. Have you seen what a several-pound bird strike does to the nose of a 757? How can you see it come out the other side of a steel building fully intact and not question the narrative?
A video compositing error + timed explosives rather than a plane impact.
That's not how any of this works, fren.....
Bullshit.
Ok. My whole family is from Hudson county. I know at least a dozen of eyewitnesses in my family see the second plane.
Here's the thing. Did they SEE a plane, or did they see something hit, were later told it's a plane, and so it became a plane? I know there have been times I have seen something, couldn't really explain it, then when someone said what it "was", I swear I saw that. This happened to me most notably with a magic trick. I swore I saw one thing, then when I was told it was something else, I totally believed it. The brain is a very complex thing, and brings conclusions we are convinced are correct when in fact, they are not. they were planted there. check out the series Brain Games for more on that also! Such a good show.
Ding ding ding
LOL
Work out the probabilities. How many people here on this tiny forum?. How many people in nyc that day.
LOL. Bots are just not very smart.
Yet.
You dead ass a think I'm a bot? Check my post history.
Some of these people are as close-minded as the libs and only deal in absolutes. Not worth arguing, fren.
Re-read your comment, LOL.
Typo, my bad. I'm only human.
Ding Ding sing. Me. Lead mod. Was there that day.
I'd love to hear your story. Were you there at ground zero?
I had a friend who was in the building, and was evacuated and saw the firefighters going up the stairs as she was going down the stairs on the way out.
Yes, one half block away, I had a design studio there
If you have time, I'd love to hear your story.
I was driving around that day, gathering parts to fix my trailer lights. I had the radio on, and there were a lot of traffic accidents. It was pretty surreal although I was no where near NYC.
I'm all for no plane on both: the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field.
I'm not sure about WTC1/2 - plane/no-plane?
Still, it's an irrelevant point, thankfully (that would have made a nasty plane/no-plane division). It's irrelevant because WTC7 wasn't hit with a plane, and fell at approximately free-fall, straight down, and pictures show mostly into its own footprint.
WTC7 ended up being the smoking gun for that whole day, and i believe all 3 buildings were imploded, simply due to the fact there is not enough energy to compromise the buildings structure below 10-20 floors below WTC1/2's 'impact' floor... certainly not in the way we saw it go down boom.. boom.. boom.. floor by floor at a high rate of speed, right down to the ground floor.
I'm 100% for a re-investigation on this. But at this point we have bigger things to focus on.
Some planes may have gone "missing", but definitely no plane at the Pentagon. It was most likely a cruise missile. If planes hit WTC towers they were remote control tanker type aircraft and definitely NOT passenger planes as reported (it has been speculated that 767 tankers or 767 tanker prototypes had this capability for remote takeover/control). Should have been engine debris at the towers if there were planes. Engines are specifically designed with materials that have to withstand high stresses and heat, and this is why they are always physically visible after ALL type of crashes even if they are mangled.
Still unclear how all those people that were supposedly on the planes "disappeared", but that part of it looks like Deep State murder of people who were troublesome to them.
On the planes and WTC1/2 i'm of the opinion they were planes like you said. But i cannot for the life of me get by the controlled demolition nature of all the collapses.
I believe all the debris was scooped up and shipped away asap to hide the facts.
Generally, from the 80s-90s investigators pieced together things somewhere to get a better idea of what happened. That was not done here and it should have been. I believe if they had done this, the evidence of thermite cuts on the support beams would have been too obvious to deny.
There was film of at least one engine on the ground.
When you watch the footage of the planes hitting the buildings, do you see any big parts falling to the ground? I see a clean entry of the planes followed by an explosion. I have never once seen a video where a large engine type "thing" falls and tumbles to the ground as the planes hit.
There was video of a plane hitting and you could see a smoking engine come out the other side of the building and arc to the ground. The engine was later filmed.
Planes landed and the people most likely were told they were part of a drill to gain cooperation with making phone calls. Then they were killed or let go on a planned disappearance. I think there were some on the plane in on it to help pull it off.
...like the wife of the very guy whose legal gymnastics in Florida in 2000 helped get GW Bush into office. Surprised I've never seen anyone connect the dots on that: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6048175/barbara-kay-olson
BTW the article at this link says "Her remains were recovered and eventually interred" yet I've never read or heard any details of 9-11 passengers' remains being recovered. 🤔
Slowed down footage of the plane hitting a tower shows it literally melting into it like a knife into butter. It just isn’t possible to do that and not leave plane parts falling off the side of the buildings. There were no plane parts anywhere because no planes hit the buildings. They took off, had their signals transferred to incoming missiles so that it looked like planes, the planes landed, the people told they were part of the drill and then killed. I saw an entire film on this 10 years ago and I absolutely think the scenario is plausible, especially when you have no plane parts. The rest was a Hollywood made movie clip that played over and over until it was buried in our brains to believe it.
Well said. It‘s like when someone said „Well if that‘s true then who did it?“ You got to investigate the crime and collect evidence. Wonder why they had GPS on the waste removal trucks taking all that steel out? Wonder no more. They controlled and reused that steel as quick as they could and some type of war ship with it, lol. Damn satanists.
i agree, i just replied to someone else saying basically the same thing about the steel.
Why can't both things happened? Why couldn't they have flown planes into the towers (faked the pentagon one of course) and then set off whatever explosives they planted in the buildings before hand?
I thought there are many eye witness accounts of the planes actually hitting the towers?
here fren.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/
think there were more eyewitnesses than fit on the CIA's payroll?
I will watch this one, thank you pede.
I am not sure to be honest, I know forsure I could have looked into this one way more but I just always thought the planes were real but were never enough to take the towers down. I defiantly think they wanted to pin everything on the plane high jacking but it was forsure controlled demolition.
I have seen another video like this that goes over a lot of the same evidence, but this one is extremely well done and highly convincing. I just wish he didn't put that stupid song in the middle. 🙄
Where were the wings and fuselage? Where were the seats and luggage?
Inside the Pentagon. That's what happens when a plane crashes INTO something. When a car crashes INTO your house, is it just splattered all over the exterior? Part of the mystery is that you are not aware of what happens in a crash.
You are not aware that you believe absolute bullshit. It was a scud missile that hit the Pentagon, not a plane. Get up to speed!
Of course it wasn't a Scud. They come down at a steep angle, not plowing in along the ground. Learn something before you try to enlighten anyone. I was in the business of designing systems to shoot down Scuds. A Scud would not leave behind airplane and passenger artifacts. It would also have a warhead (not in evidence). I am tired now, and cranky, and I just don't know how to respond to total ignorance amplified by arrogance. Somebody told you this and you just sucked it up like a lollipop without doing any due diligence. Talk about the Credulous American.
If a car crashes into your house, you see the car. Is this seriously your argument?
No. If the car crashes INTO your house, it has gone fully inside your house...and cannot be seen from the outside. This has happened, surely enough. Other examples are cars that drive into storefronts.
You entertain me. The stupidity is magnificent. MOAR!!
I notice you have no argument except derision. How do you expect to impress me when that is so obvious?
An aluminum plane does not cleanly penetrate a metal wrapped building. An iron car goes into a wood house and you still got a car, lol.
Aluminum airplanes are a lot stronger than iron cars. But you keep on forgetting that a heavy stream of water would also penetrate the building and buckle columns if the force was strong enough. Shall we calculate? A 767-200 weighs 142,900 kg (315,000 lb mass) and collides at a speed of 710 km/hr (~197 m/sec). The plane decelerates approximately in its own length, 48.5 meters. The effective deceleration is 400 m/sec2, or about 41 times the force of gravity. This means the total force to bring the 767-200 to a stop is about 13 million pounds. To give some perspective, this is about 1/8th the weight of the RMS Titanic It is absurd to think the columns could have resisted this force, and they were the only things slowing down the plane. Aside from the periphery and core columns, the rest of the structure was a total pushover.
Ah, so it‘s math magic and not common sense. And thea can fly at 500mph a few yards off the ground (pentagon.)
That I cannot say, but I just think maybe both things could be true at the same time.
They are not. Believe me, this has been pored over for years. We have been lied to about everything.
Do you care to have anything you can share with me on that specific idea?
I will admit, I did not look into 9/11 as much as I should have. I spent these last few years on pizzagate.
I know, so much BS to run down. Here is a Yandex search. There is a lot out there!
https://yandex.com/search/?text=9%2F11+there+were+no+planes&lr=110024
Thanks fren, I will dive down the rabbit hole once again.
God bless you very much pede.
This.
Except for paper passports?
Beat me to it. Nice work.
TWICE
Wow this one escaped me….
What are the odds of that?
How many times before it’s actually considered a mathematical impossibility? LOL
That may be true, but there should still be thousands of little bags of peanuts scattered all over the place.
Wow I didn’t kno that, thanks for sharing :^)
An undamaged Saudi Arabian passport lying face up on the most commonly used pathway?
Beat me to it. Nice work.
Dropped by the FBI, who had a foreknowledge of the planned attack. How does that in any way impact what the planes did? Think logically. .
Full report in context
C'mon now, there's other things to point out regarding Flight 77 besides this clearly edited clip..
Because we're supposed to be better than propagandists about the information we find and present in this great awakening. It's that simple.
You answered a question using a "report that was never aired again" which was clearly edited to back up the claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. When I can find the full clip and debunk your video, it makes us all look bad.
No, it's the standard with which we need to operate if we're going to sway minds. Otherwise we just make ourselves look like the crazy tin hat conspiracy theorists many already think we are, and turn people off. When that happens, people are aware something is wrong, but stop there. There are a whole bunch of other questions surrounding 9/11 without resorting to clearly edited footage to make the point.
Focusing on the point that of the dozens of cameras in the area, tourists, etc, only one cctv camera caught 5 frames of something hitting the Pentagon? That, as you posted, Rumsfeld initially states that it was a missile? Those are the threads to plant in minds.
My personal opinion would be that things like snake venom in the water and all the other fringe stuff detract from Q. It's distraction.
Compelling...
Hmmm... very odd, Fren. There's no audio in that video.
there's audio, it's about a reporter who went right up to the building and they took a look at the hole, and admitted on their close up inspection there was no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere in the pentagon, no tail sections, no wing sections, nothing.
De plane, de plane!
Uhh... where is it, Mr Roarke?
Dang it. You beat me to it, I even thought it in his voice.
Yeah, i noticed 1 missing pentagon accounting audit department
Here's some previous threads with interesting stuff.
https://greatawakening.win/p/140cSBpc6F/-judicial-watch-sues-government-/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16a9h0YGTV/pentagon-employee-witness-says-t/c/
it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon. If anything, it was a missile. Oh how coincidental the frames skip during the official footage...
No plane hit WTC 7 either, as videos show timed charge detonations going off on the backend of the building, moments before it crumbles.
Bill Cooper exposed 9/11 AS IT HAPPENED. He went live for nearly 12 hours that day & exposed the idea of planes dropping the towers.
they cleared the Twin Towers out weeks before 9/11, more than likely which was the time that they rigged the towers with explosives.
My personal belief is that they rigged the Twin Towers & tried their best to match the timing of the detonations with the planes hitting the towers. The explosives were still going off & being detonated way after the planes ran into the towers. Early footage allows us to hear them still blasting off, emergency personnel were on-scene talking about it not being safe to go inside because "bombs are going off"
perhaps they could have had access to holograms & matched the timing of the hologram planes "making contact" with the towers & timed explosives, but I don't believe that to be the case.
It's also not out of question that [they] could have taken control of the airliners REMOTELY & forced the planes into the towers, using the idea of "terrorist hijackers" as cover.
I don’t even think holograms were used. Watch the footage of the plane before it hit tower and one could see the shitty CGI as the left wing disappears behind building in background of tower.
👉👉👉👉👉 NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LOSE LEAF PAPER OR A POST IT NOTE. Like we saw all failing from the WTC towers. Not one office supply in this demo turned production. As you can see, it’s collapsed in, not blown open. Collapsed so safely they can just stroll on top of the building, casually and faithfully knowing it’s sturdy enough. With a “plane” inside and chemicals burning — OH WAIT. Smokeless invisible fire WOULD come from an invisible airplane. Duh! Even if it was SHOT FROM UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS DIRECTLY FACING IT. This is what you see on that gate security footage. There is another video I have, somewhere, of another angle. This is exactly where it was shot from. Regardless of what it was or wasn’t, whatever it was, absolutely came from there. ( do a Google or whatever street view, and you can see exactly where and how, lining it up. Which itself does it on its own when you find it. B-Line from the hole in the building back to the freeway. It’ll land you exactly there. ( then the crap footage of a “plane flying in” like a missile actually will add up…to not a plane ). No smoke, does anyone see any time stamps? I own or I have several copies, of the uncut footage of this video. It’s long, and it’s damning. All these asses complicit!?? Tells you just how many are today. To the pit with them.
What? Are you crucial? I was there for 2 hours standing on the Brooklyn battery, this railing across the water from the Brooklyn Bridge across from the Manhattan side, grabbing singed and burned piece of paper for literally hours. Mostly law books. But, oh my god, it was a nightmare, totally like a confetti paper show
I remember seeing the "first picture" of a jet hitting the tower. BTW This was days or weeks later. It showed the jet partway into the building. On the other side of the building was the outline of the jet about to come out of the building. The outline was exactly the same shape as the nose that the jet would have had.
So we were to believe that an aluminum/plastic jet nose hit a concrete and steel building and keep it's shape all the way through. That picture disappeared pretty fast
If it didn't encounter a column, yeah, it would have kept its shape. They're not made out of Silly Putty, you know.
Take a look at these pictures of bird strikes hitting a jet nose. If a bird can do that there is no way the nose would have kept its shape column or no column
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=bird%20strike%20nose%20of%20jet&tbs=imgo:1
And if the nose does not hit a column, that's about as bad as it would have been. From a distance, it would have seemed to be a nose, sure enough. Like anyone would have had the sight and time to be picky about appearances.
Not Silly Putty, Bud Light cans.
Incorrect. At the 87th floor where the first plane hit, the steel ibms were only a quarter inch thick. Solid aluminum substructure, which most definitely is thick beams, although made of aluminum to save weight, traveling at a high Connecticut energy, would have most definitely gone into the building very much Wiley Coyote outline
I have a hard time following you. The vertical structural elements are columns, the horizontal structural elements (floors) are beams. These are different structures. Penetration relates to momentum and the wings would have had less momentum per unit area than the fuselage and engines, so they would not penetrate very far. You haven't seen aircraft primary structure (wing beams & decks). Very robust. The building outer wall was mostly window, so there was no possibility that a Warner Brothers effect would have occurred. Too much smashed glass. I think you are trying to refer to "kinetic" energy.
It is a common mistake to think that the terminal effects of a collision or a bullet wound are proportional to kinetic energy, but they are more in proportion with momentum. What is left out of consideration is that a lot of the kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy of material deformation of the penetrator. When my Dad went deer hunting, if they bagged a deer, they would cut out the bullet and drop it in a bucket of water to cool down. The wounding deformation of the lead and copper made it hot to the touch.
I don't think the jet nose cones are solid. It is an aluminum skin with various instruments inside. You may be right about the I-beams. I just don't know. But after seeing what a bird strike does I have a hard time believing that a jet nose cone can hit concrete and still not distort.
I don't even question if jets hit the towers. I just don't buy that that is what took the towers down. Take a look at Melania's coat during a 9/11 event. the stitching looks like the nose of a plane coming out of the tower. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/white-house-slams-backlash-over-coat-worn-by-melania-in-9-11-tribute-image-report-2100363
Oh lord
What I always thought was odd back in 2001 was when the first plane strike was filmed, "live". I thought it was just my hormones (found out that afternoon I was pregnant...with triplets). I was baffled as to how it was all caught on camera, the very first plane hitting the first tower, then the next one. I never said a thing outloud because I was waiting for an official pregnancy test result. So very sad people passed, and the same time, finding out we were pregnant.
You don't see a plane hit the Pentagon because that plane hit Building 7... no wait, no plane hit Building 7...
I remember that day. I was amazed the MSM within hours had a name of a suspect from a wallet found on the ground... it was assumed to have come from a plane that hit a tower. WTF! That's one hell of an assumption. Does anyone else recall that?
Whatever hit the one tower going 510 knots at sea level sure as fuck wasn’t a commercial 767 airliner (max speed at sea level is 420 knots before breaking apart). Could’ve been some kind of special military drone plane, a blue beam hologram, who knows what the hell it was. All 3 buildings were also clearly brought down with controlled demos.
https://i.imgur.com/wMoFVbr.png
Yes, it was a 767. Learn (and mean this sincerely, not snarky) how kinetic energy works. It's what I have personally seen drive a piece of straw through a telephone pole.
I understand kinetic energy quite well but Your story is apples and oranges (towers were steel and concrete not wood). According to boeing The max speed a 767 can go at sea level and still be controllable is around 380 knots. Max speed until structural failure is about 420 knots (see VG diagram I posted upstream). Pilots with 30,000 hrs in 767’s have confirmed itd be impossible to get a 767 to 510 knots at sea level let alone hit a narrow target. Even if you somehow did get it to 510 itd be impossible to control due to all the mach tuck, dutch rolling, etc.. An experienced pro would have a hard time hitting the buildings at that impossible speed let alone amateurs who had trouble controlling a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. Listen for yourself, see 25min 40 sec mark:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HdbEjxFGAGJt
Here’s what happens when a jet crashes into a few feet of concrete going 500 mph. The jet is completely destroyed with barely leaving a mark on the concrete: https://youtu.be/F4CX-9lkRMQ
Correct, at the heights stated in the official report, the aircraft cannot simply produce enough thrust at sea level to travel at 510kts IAS, even if it held together, which it can't, all sorts of aerodynamic effects would have destroyed it that far over VMO.
You mean pentagon? (At sea level. Not one tower.)
Check out this video at the 6-7 second marks (fullscreeen). I've read/heard it was a missile at 3' off the ground.
There's also video of the "small hole" left after impact and then later the façade fell making the impact look much bigger.
Yep, that was a missile orcthe like.
No, sorry my post was a little off topic, I was talking about the reported air speed of United Flight 175 which allegedly hit one of the towers. The stories for what hit the towers and pentagon where complete bs
The Pentagon was bombed. I was totally asleep in 2001, and even I thought back then that a plane never hit the Pentagon.
No idea when exactly this was taken, but it looks much like the day afterwards. What are we supposed to notice? The fact that the airplane penetrated into the building and was covered by collapsed floors?
Dancing Jews
Know what would be cool @ElonMusk? Takea small fraction sliver of your billions, buy an old 747, and remotely fly it into an abandoned building somewhere, and record it. Lets see what really happens to the plane and bldg
It did.
Just a few weeks later, a jet fighter had just took off loaded with fuel had a catastrophic failure. The pilot safely ejected right before it hit a 2 story apartment structure made of wood, which by the way, did not collapse.
I remember that! I wondered if anyone else did too or if it was just me remembering wrong. I remember at the time even thinking "wait! Does anyone else see this???? Is anyone else thinking that this is weird?"
Well I was way off on date, but 2 things are for certain; there is plane wreckage, and structure didn’t collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRMYUcqLvPw
I don’t even have to watch the video to know the plane is missing. And I know that because of those people who walked out and said…”there was no plane”.
Those who believe 9/11 must also believe one man shot JFK.
This footage looks like it was from days afterward. Not any smoke visible.The wreckage was cleaned up by then.
Not sure how this got stickied, honestly. Whether you believe 9/11 was legit or not there are many photos of plane debris at the Pentagon that have been around publicly for decades. Here is a link with two photos of plane debris in question:
https://time.com/4720770/fbi-911-pentagon-attack-photos/
You having four posts in the past nine months is how you are "Not sure how this got stickied," honestly
Yeah the plane must have got up and walked away
Just like the real 2020 election.
Where's all the fire and smoke?
Bank records?
YIKES
The plane obviously disintegrated because jet fuel can melt steel. /YUGE /s
Wouldn’t some easy evidence be if you could list the serial numbers of the engines on the planes that hit all of their targets?
We are missing the bigger picture here.....who was CEO of the Security Company in charge of all WTC sites? Marvin Bush...brother of W Bush...POTUS!! 9/11 had been in the works for decades, and probably dating back to HW Poppy Bush. 9/11 was a Government operation to accomplish several goals....Patriot Act, FISA, Afghanistan, Iraq wars(Creating endless Boogie Men)(Dick Cheney Getting Rich)(CIA cornering the Opium Trade)....etc, etc
So sick of lies. Lies lies lies endlessly spoon fed to the gullible public.
The videos you see now are all AFTER the roof collapsed. I had a bunch on jew tube that showed a perfect circular hole in the inner walls. Those have all been deleted years ago.
Twin towers were wired with explosives
Planes were flown by remote control.
Missed hit Pentagon
Building 7 wired with explosives
Pentagon was probably a missile - proof is the first pictures showing a hole (this is post-collapse), second is just the angle and height of approach being too difficult for a piloted lumbering airliner. Only could have been a plane if autopiloted (but if it were a plane they would have shown the footage, which we know exists as it was confiscated from the gas station across the way) WTC1 and 2 probably planes did hit, doesn't matter either way, there is no way they could have collapsed, and certainly no way they both would collapse in similar form, symmetrically, after being damaged asymmetrically. WTC7 - obviously controlled demolition. I like to think they ran the operation from there and pre-wired it (like the other two). Flight 97 - shot down probably because the autopilot systems were defeated and there was a danger they would land with that evidence. This was intended for WTC7.
How exactly doesnt matter - the key fact is three buildings definitely did get demolished, which was absolutely unpredictable from plane crashes. The real kicker is the BBC saying WTC7 fell before it did. IMPOSSIBLE that is a "mistake" as claimed by BBC head Mark Thompson who went on to be editor of the NYTimes. The BBC is the smoking gun of foreknowledge.
Once the war on terror kicked off you know what else happened? China had a meteoric rise as an economic power. They took the money made and invested it along with tech transfers into China where you wouldn't notice because they were making a big display in the middle east (which got them even more money to invest in China).
Crime of the century. They also used it as enabling works to establish surveillance and control sufficient to run the covid gambit twenty years later (uh? from China?)
The bigger crime is they got away with it and people fight over the details when the crime is right there.
👉👉👉👉👉 NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LOSE LEAF PAPER OR A POST IT NOTE. Like we saw all failing from the WTC towers. Not one office supply in this demo turned production. As you can see, it’s collapsed in, not blown open. Collapsed so safely they can just stroll on top of the building, casually and faithfully knowing it’s sturdy enough. With a “plane” inside and chemicals burning — OH WAIT. Smokeless invisible fire WOULD come from an invisible airplane. Duh! Even if it was SHOT FROM UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS DIRECTLY FACING IT. This is what you see on that gate security footage. There is another video I have, somewhere, of another angle. This is exactly where it was shot from. Regardless of what it was or wasn’t, whatever it was, absolutely came from there. ( do a Google or whatever street view, and you can see exactly where and how, lining it up. Which itself does it on its own when you find it. B-Line from the hole in the building back to the freeway. It’ll land you exactly there. ( then the crap footage of a “plane flying in” like a missile actually will add up…to not a plane ). No smoke, does anyone see any time stamps? I own or I have several copies, of the uncut footage of this video. It’s long, and it’s damning. All these asses complicit!?? Tells you just how many are today. To the pit with them.
What? After 9/11 I stood there on Brooklyn Battery and grabbed papers from the air for HOURS
The Plane! The Plane! The Plane!
Bonus points if you know the reference!
RIP Herve Villechaize 😢
For all your 9/11truths check out Ryan Dawson hes literally like Morpheous on this subject https://www.ancreport.com/
I’m guessing— plane wreckage?