Okay, since the day has passed, I'm going to go ahead and "question" the narrative here much like you all are "questioning" the MSM narrative.
According to this board, I'm supposed to believe that there were no planes, or that its impossible for a plane to fly through a metal building because the planes are built of fragile aluminum, jet fuel can't melt steel beams, etc. I'm going to address these one at a time, while I want you to understand I'm sympathetic to the belief that the planes were cover for going to war in the middle east. Put on your thinking caps.
One: I won't believe there were no planes, because I WATCHED THE 2ND ONE LIVE. Yes I KNOW the MSM lies on a daily basis and act as the propaganda arm of the democrat party. But you will never convince me Planes never hit the towers. Am I supposed to believe there were no planes because of a video that pans up to the explosion already in progress? What does that prove other than that there was a fuel based explosion, thus supporting a plane impact?
2nd, Planes are made of aluminum, but Aluminum is actually a strong metal capable of much more than anyone here is giving it credit for. Just because your soft drink/beer cans are easily destroyed doesn't mean that Aluminum is weak. Combine this with the other claim that these buildings are made of Steel. Yes, Steel is strong! However, the BUILDINGS HAVE WINDOWS. Are the windows made of steel? THINK. Pretending a plane made of aluminum can't make it through a fucking glass window is ABSURD. At the speeds a passenger jet has to move to be airborne, combined with their own weight? Are you kidding me? THINK!
Jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees, which is IN FACT not hot enough to MELT steel beams! Absolutely true! HOWEVER: this ignores EVERYTHING humanity has learned about metallurgy and how steel is made and manipulated. Steel is typically forged above 1150 degrees C: meaning it can be shaped and manipulated BY HAND. How much does a skyscraper weigh? Over 200,000 TONS. Can you lift a single ton by hand? Maybe with adrenaline in an emergency, but normally no. Combine these two facts: You have several thousand tons of weight above a steel beam that is being heated to the point it could be hit with a claw hammer and start deforming. As soon as one part of the building collapses, ALL of that weight slams down on the floor beneath the weakened beam, shearing off the bolts strong enough to HOLD hundreds of thousands of tons of weight but not in an IMPACT, then that hits the next floor, compounding the failure and cascading all the way to the ground.
Tell me you dont know jack shit about metal without telling me you dont know jack shit about metal.
The only thing you got right is that heat is used to manipulate steel.
Im a welder/fabricator/mechanic/bodyman. Have you seen what happens when a mail truck gets into a little fender bender? Theyre made of aluminum. Have seen what happens to the aluminum ford trucks when they get into an accident? They peel open like a beer can.
There is no fucking way that an aluminum plane sliced through steel. Theres absolutely no fucking way in hell that the nose cone survived intact to come out the other side of the building.
Tell me you're missing the point without saying you're missing the point: It didn't "slice through steel" The BUILDING ISN'T 100% STEEL. There are weak points the plane BROKE INTO PIECES and WENT THROUGH called WINDOWS. Unless you're telling me the windows were made of steel also?
Never said the nose cone went through the building either, but most of you are so set on the "muh no planes!" thing that you are thinking I'm arguing with some video that is the smoking gun proof, and not the holes in the arguments that make the whole thing sound weak.
And, by the way, you're weakening your own "no planes" argument by telling me how aluminum isn't strong enough to survive any impact at all. A 747 weighs 400,000 pounds, you can't tell me that much aluminum won't go through a few windows and cubicle walls. But I'd imagine it would go into the building in many pieces, along with all the fuel the plane has to carry, and probably explode in a big fireball. Kind of like what would happen.
'So was the building ENTIRELY made of steel? No windows?' Funny you didn't know jack shit about the construction of the Twin Towers a few hours ago but now you suddenly are such a expert in physics and metallurgy .
One: You saw a video. A movie. All of the videos/pictures of the planes in existence came either from the MSM, or some private citizen whose background just happens to be in some form of photography/videography.
Two: Sounded great to me at one time but disproved by multiple engineers. I think the gist of it is the first floor falls and smashes hard, but each succeeding floor hits with less force. Experiments to reproduce the collapse do not work.
The problem with that is the collapse would be dramatically slowed. If it was just a weakened structure collapsing under its own weight some floors would have held out for a bit. What are the odds that every floor was totally compromised and provided 0 resistance on the way down? There IS a way to do this, of course, with controlled demolition. But I refuse to believe "slamming a fire into the 100th floor" and "meticulously planting timed charges on every support column" yields the exact same result.
Also do you truly think there was a window big enough to fly an airliner through
I have heard that explanation before also but did you see it take some time to come down. I always want to test the theory. Why not used one of the Las Vegas Casino demolition and test. Why use explosives on the ground floor to bring it down?
Plus, a plane flew into a building, the building don't just perfectly collapsed onto its foundation, it would have been like cutting a tree. Doesn't collapse straight.
Okay, since the day has passed, I'm going to go ahead and "question" the narrative here much like you all are "questioning" the MSM narrative.
According to this board, I'm supposed to believe that there were no planes, or that its impossible for a plane to fly through a metal building because the planes are built of fragile aluminum, jet fuel can't melt steel beams, etc. I'm going to address these one at a time, while I want you to understand I'm sympathetic to the belief that the planes were cover for going to war in the middle east. Put on your thinking caps.
One: I won't believe there were no planes, because I WATCHED THE 2ND ONE LIVE. Yes I KNOW the MSM lies on a daily basis and act as the propaganda arm of the democrat party. But you will never convince me Planes never hit the towers. Am I supposed to believe there were no planes because of a video that pans up to the explosion already in progress? What does that prove other than that there was a fuel based explosion, thus supporting a plane impact?
2nd, Planes are made of aluminum, but Aluminum is actually a strong metal capable of much more than anyone here is giving it credit for. Just because your soft drink/beer cans are easily destroyed doesn't mean that Aluminum is weak. Combine this with the other claim that these buildings are made of Steel. Yes, Steel is strong! However, the BUILDINGS HAVE WINDOWS. Are the windows made of steel? THINK. Pretending a plane made of aluminum can't make it through a fucking glass window is ABSURD. At the speeds a passenger jet has to move to be airborne, combined with their own weight? Are you kidding me? THINK!
Jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees, which is IN FACT not hot enough to MELT steel beams! Absolutely true! HOWEVER: this ignores EVERYTHING humanity has learned about metallurgy and how steel is made and manipulated. Steel is typically forged above 1150 degrees C: meaning it can be shaped and manipulated BY HAND. How much does a skyscraper weigh? Over 200,000 TONS. Can you lift a single ton by hand? Maybe with adrenaline in an emergency, but normally no. Combine these two facts: You have several thousand tons of weight above a steel beam that is being heated to the point it could be hit with a claw hammer and start deforming. As soon as one part of the building collapses, ALL of that weight slams down on the floor beneath the weakened beam, shearing off the bolts strong enough to HOLD hundreds of thousands of tons of weight but not in an IMPACT, then that hits the next floor, compounding the failure and cascading all the way to the ground.
Tell me you dont know jack shit about metal without telling me you dont know jack shit about metal.
The only thing you got right is that heat is used to manipulate steel.
Im a welder/fabricator/mechanic/bodyman. Have you seen what happens when a mail truck gets into a little fender bender? Theyre made of aluminum. Have seen what happens to the aluminum ford trucks when they get into an accident? They peel open like a beer can.
There is no fucking way that an aluminum plane sliced through steel. Theres absolutely no fucking way in hell that the nose cone survived intact to come out the other side of the building.
Tell me you're missing the point without saying you're missing the point: It didn't "slice through steel" The BUILDING ISN'T 100% STEEL. There are weak points the plane BROKE INTO PIECES and WENT THROUGH called WINDOWS. Unless you're telling me the windows were made of steel also?
Never said the nose cone went through the building either, but most of you are so set on the "muh no planes!" thing that you are thinking I'm arguing with some video that is the smoking gun proof, and not the holes in the arguments that make the whole thing sound weak.
And, by the way, you're weakening your own "no planes" argument by telling me how aluminum isn't strong enough to survive any impact at all. A 747 weighs 400,000 pounds, you can't tell me that much aluminum won't go through a few windows and cubicle walls. But I'd imagine it would go into the building in many pieces, along with all the fuel the plane has to carry, and probably explode in a big fireball. Kind of like what would happen.
'So was the building ENTIRELY made of steel? No windows?' Funny you didn't know jack shit about the construction of the Twin Towers a few hours ago but now you suddenly are such a expert in physics and metallurgy .
One: You saw a video. A movie. All of the videos/pictures of the planes in existence came either from the MSM, or some private citizen whose background just happens to be in some form of photography/videography. Two: Sounded great to me at one time but disproved by multiple engineers. I think the gist of it is the first floor falls and smashes hard, but each succeeding floor hits with less force. Experiments to reproduce the collapse do not work.
The problem with that is the collapse would be dramatically slowed. If it was just a weakened structure collapsing under its own weight some floors would have held out for a bit. What are the odds that every floor was totally compromised and provided 0 resistance on the way down? There IS a way to do this, of course, with controlled demolition. But I refuse to believe "slamming a fire into the 100th floor" and "meticulously planting timed charges on every support column" yields the exact same result. Also do you truly think there was a window big enough to fly an airliner through
This. There are skyscrapers that endured much bigger fires for much longer times, which were repaired and still in use.
I have heard that explanation before also but did you see it take some time to come down. I always want to test the theory. Why not used one of the Las Vegas Casino demolition and test. Why use explosives on the ground floor to bring it down?
Plus, a plane flew into a building, the building don't just perfectly collapsed onto its foundation, it would have been like cutting a tree. Doesn't collapse straight.
One: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/
By the 16 minute mark you will know it was faked.
The helicopter wide shot showing no plane is pretty damning, as is the nose of the plane popping out the other side when later video shows no hole.