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.
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
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.
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
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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
This....canceled a downvote from the logic impaired.
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
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
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.