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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.