Its like what i always point out; occording to the official narrative, jetfuel can: melt steel beams, burn for 3 months (the pit was still smoldering in december) but not burn passport paper
They would have been loaded with asbestos since it was part of the construction style at the time. Asbestos wrap for all the steam heating pipes and related equipment. Asbestos in the acoustic ceiling tiles and possibly the flooring as well. And I'm certain that I've read that part of the structural steel itself was coated with spray-on asbestos. An absolute nightmare to remediate.
Trump, as a real estate developer and someone who appears to have been interested in architecture, would have known all of this. That's why I feel it's important to listen to (and hear) what he was saying that day.
If I recall correctly . . . engines were found and there was talk of them not being the correct engines. I think there was a group Pilots for 9/11 Truth that brought this aspect of it up - also issues with flight paths. I didn't look much into that aspect as there was enough shared by AE911 for me to know the official story was hogwash.
I found it interesting that the terrorists had plans for months after the attack and they seemed real. I wonder if the attack was all done remotely by the government
I actually believe it was both. Planes flying into the buildings as cover for explosives and controlled demolition. Too many eyewitness testimony to deny planes. And I believe our government planned it and used the Saudis as terrorists to make it believable.
Bombs or thermite plus the airplanes is what makes the most sense, IMO. There's a great video of somebody testing the thermite theory and it cut a steel beam like butter.
No load on the steel beams, just a guy in his backyard doing a science experiment. Government could do that in a much more effective manner, and it would line up with the video footage of molten metal pouring from the towers
I don't believe the official narrative but yes, with enough velocity and inertia it could.
Even water could; a waterjet can pierce through steel.
A jet weighs dozens of tons. The entire momentum of all that fast moving mass is transferred to the structure.
This isn't the smoking gun you're looking for, but there's plenty of smoking guns elsewhere, such as the subsequent destruction, pulverization and freefall of the towers.
Oh.... and he's a dual-citizen to Israel and 100% MOSSAD and his parents were from UKRAINE
so.... CGI, in light of this smoking gun and the all the videos and witnesses, is a rather silly disinfo theory, in my humble opinion. Not to mention, if they were just going to use CGI, why would Zakheim expose or fabricate his obvious role in the Plot?
They still try pushing the "planes" narrative... Even 22 years later, you're a CT if you even remotely question what your eyes and brain tell you.
Sorry, but there are several stubborn facts that say otherwise.
Bird strike. Just look at the nose damage caused by a bird that weighs less than 25 lbs. It's devastating.
Buildings that dropped at free fall speed, straight down. Just doesn't happen without carefully engineered preparation.
WTC 7. You don't just "pull" a building. It takes weeks of careful prep.
Pentagon...hole not big enough for a plane. Where did the wings and parts go - other than staged junk they put on the lawn for photo op.
Metallurgy. Any hillbilly with a welder can tell you the idea that ANY fuel source whatsoever, is capable of liquifying a massive steel structure that quickly, so it just falls at the speed of gravity...is total bs.
I didn't believe them to begin with. I know better than that. To have it fall directly on its own foundation required a lot of engineering and calculation. Otherwise, you will have it falling all over the place.
I was a young and stupid then, but I still asked that same question as Trump. I was told by everyone jet fuel. Even today, I was told jet fuel could do this."
Among many other hats I wore for the Air Force, one of them was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator: these are sort of the military version of the FAA and NTSB wrapped into one for context. We go thru meticulous training to spot details in a smoking hole or debris field to figure what happened.
The day it happened I still remember vividly, especially the pentagon hit. The planes, if there were any that hit the towers, could absolutely not have brought those towers down, nor could any residual fuel have melted those beams.
As for the Pentagon, that was a cruise missile. I spent better part of my 24 year career over in the sandbox and seen first hand not only what a cruise missile looks like on impact, but also the aftermath. The Pentagon hit checked every box. NO PLANE hit the Pentagon. Arguments of debris are from Muppets who don't know an engine part from thier ass. NONE of that debris matched the aircraft that they were trying to make you believe was there. The first reporter on scene even said so live on air there was no evidence of an aircraft on site.
Absolutely had to. WTC 1 & 2 featured a steel exoskeleton around the perimeter of the building as opposed to steel members supporting from the stair and elevator core. There is no way in hell those planes pierced the exoskeleton independently - the planes would have been crushed like a tuna can.
Without strong steel beams, you cannot hold up that kind of a large building. Try using aluminum beams for support a building and see what happen. I would like to know.
"There were no planes on September 11 2001. If it wasn’t for people sharing their VHS recorded original news broadcast on YouTube, the public would have never seen it again."
Watch the video, and then, if you still insist that a plane hit a tower, explain how the thin aluminium fuselage (think of it as a hollow drinks can) passed through the steel columns that lined the outside of the building.
That's a good one. So everyone said there's no plane. This is also a different angle, looks to me like.
I did not believe the planes could do that either, but I have so many experts telling me I am crazy to question the narratives. Even two years ago, when I wrote in my book about this, I was told to take it out. it's conspiracy theory didn't you know. I left it in.
That explosion is consistent with fuel explosions. Its how they make them in hollywood to make them more dramatic. If it were a demolition charge it would've just been a super loud BANG and there would be little of the orange burning expanding bubble.
this video is a fake!!! the camera angle shows the sun on the very left of the screen...you can see the shadows of people cast to the right... then when the camera pans over... the right side of the buildings are lit up and the left side in the shadows.... this video came a long time AFTER the event... they had time to make this to fake this!
there's a reason why all these "amazing" videos just come out months or years after the "event" is because they need time to make them to convince people that the lie is truth.
Faking this would not resolve the obvious controlled demolition of the towers. So if you were correct, a lot of money and time and effort spent into faking a video which does nothing to address the multiple giant elephants in the room.
the fire/fuel burning on the UPPER 1/3 or so of the the buildings would have had 0 impact on bringing down the structure below. absolutely zero.
WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BUILDING GO?
110 story building... not crushed... where did all of it go? how does a 110 story building "collapse" or "disintegrate" in 10 seconds?
WHY WAS THERE DUST.... BEFORE THE TOWERS WENT DOWN? (directed energy?)
in controlled demolitions for example, the building is exploded into chunks, hits the ground.... THEN, there is smoke. Watch the towers as they begin to fall.... why was there dust BEFORE they hit the ground?
and then we have Building 7..... that had no SEISMIC ACTIVITY equal to its apparent size HITTING the ground. this means, as we've all seen in videos, it was attacked & turned to dust effectively BEFORE hitting the ground. Even the piping under the ground was still in-tact after it was taken out.
"the planes" needed A LOT of help to bring those towers down. shaped charges, directed-energy weapons, defense systems given stand-downs, insurance policies taken out on the buildings, etc.
i was 10 years old when this happened. i remember the coverage that day & they stopped showing the towers falling. perhaps they caught on that people would have started questioning the method(s) that were used to bring them down, contrary to what MSM was telling everybody??
Have you watched how they take down casinos in Vegas? Same kind of tall buildings with lots of rooms and exact same method of falling directly onto its foundation.
That's how those buildings (all 3 of them) went down. You have to pack a bunch of explosives on the ground floor to make it do all that.
As for the dust part, I didn't catch it. You got me thinking now.
After 9/11, it doesn't seem like it was very long after, I remember a plane hit the empire state building. During 9/11, I remember thinking "this doesn't make sense!" so I watched the Empire State Building during this time. The building didn't collapse. It was repaired and everyone moved on. I wondered, what was this difference this time compared to last? I still wonder if the pilot, who I don't remember if (s)he survived or not (probably not), was trying to show the world that a plane in a building doesn't mean it collapses. I grew up with my parents telling me "if it doesn't make sense, it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE". I have always thought that with 9/11. I started waking up with JFK Jr., and really woke up with 9/11. They just didn't make sense!!!
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.
I firmly believe that they had to gin up hatred against middle-easterners to justify their next war for oil. “But the mooslums hate us, let’s get ‘em” Bullshit. Only a small subset of CIA-trained whackos act like that.
Oh yeah. You know how ridiculous it sounds to me? Bin Laden in Afghanistan hit the twin tower, go to war with Saddam Hussein.
Planes hit tower and Pentagon, let's put out cruise ships around the east coast to see if we can catch some sharks. The shark part I made up but you know what I am talking about.
Wondered that also about Tower 7. Come to the conclusion that none existed because nothing else was damaged except those 3 perfectly like the demolition crews. I just want to know what company was hired to set that up!
7 was such an obvious tell for me since it was outside of what was otherwise the square perimeter of WTC complex. What are the chances that if any surrounding building in that area was going to succumb to totally catastrophic damage, it would have been the only remaining WTC one.
They did great graphic of the planes for me on tv, but to just be able to figure out that jet fuel could not have burned like that to collapsed those two buildings would not have convinced me at first. It gave me doubts but when I saw 7. That's when I knew there was something funky with their explanation.
I saw a version of the planes hitting the towers where a nose cone of a plane comes clear out the other side of the building. The nose cone, which is dented by geese, went through all that steel?
That convinced me the "planes" were a telegraphic like the stats and scores they flip up on screen during sports events.
I saw a video on youtube a long time after the fact. A "little known" angle of the attacks shot from a helicopter. In this video the towers are dead center in the shot when the plane hits. You can see the nose of the plane portrude through the tower as the camera angle slightly drifts from being centered on the towers. The theory goes that it's a "infographic" programmed to fly the "plane" to the middle of the screen being shown on that camera, then disappear. Since the helicopter drifted the angle so the towers were slightly off-center, the "plane" graphic flew a little further than it should have and is visible out the other side of the tower. It's interesting because if you draw a center-line on the shot, the nose portrudes through exactly to the amount that it would need to, to be centered. I bet the video is still out there somewhere
It doesn't matter if it was faked or not. It's just a distraction, like the lab leak. It's the outcome, the stripping of our rights, we should be focusing on.
What is effectively a tin can cannot go thru 6-8 foot reinforced and hardened steel alloys.
Even so, in the thousands of photos taken during and after, where did those engines go?
They disintegrated on inpact.... but the passport of one of the "terrorists" magically survived unscathed.
Its like what i always point out; occording to the official narrative, jetfuel can: melt steel beams, burn for 3 months (the pit was still smoldering in december) but not burn passport paper
Those passports must be made of asbestos.
The Towers were made of asbestos. That is why they had to be demolished.
They would have been loaded with asbestos since it was part of the construction style at the time. Asbestos wrap for all the steam heating pipes and related equipment. Asbestos in the acoustic ceiling tiles and possibly the flooring as well. And I'm certain that I've read that part of the structural steel itself was coated with spray-on asbestos. An absolute nightmare to remediate.
Trump, as a real estate developer and someone who appears to have been interested in architecture, would have known all of this. That's why I feel it's important to listen to (and hear) what he was saying that day.
Only after insuring them for $billions each, specifically against terrorist attacks? And Silverstein just happened to not be in his office that day?
You mean that's why they had to be turned to dust so it could spread out all over the east coast.
If I recall correctly . . . engines were found and there was talk of them not being the correct engines. I think there was a group Pilots for 9/11 Truth that brought this aspect of it up - also issues with flight paths. I didn't look much into that aspect as there was enough shared by AE911 for me to know the official story was hogwash.
Seems all they had planned for this narrative was just planes, and not the where when and how
I found it interesting that the terrorists had plans for months after the attack and they seemed real. I wonder if the attack was all done remotely by the government
Very interesting... https://steemit.com/education/@artistiquejewels/hillary-clinton-more-than-meets-the-eye-patents-intellectual-property-planes-a-crashing-mysterious-dying-oh-my-allegedly-of
Yes. A duck flew into an elephant. I know.
I actually believe it was both. Planes flying into the buildings as cover for explosives and controlled demolition. Too many eyewitness testimony to deny planes. And I believe our government planned it and used the Saudis as terrorists to make it believable.
Spot on. 👍
Bombs or thermite plus the airplanes is what makes the most sense, IMO. There's a great video of somebody testing the thermite theory and it cut a steel beam like butter.
No load on the steel beams, just a guy in his backyard doing a science experiment. Government could do that in a much more effective manner, and it would line up with the video footage of molten metal pouring from the towers
Makes sense to me too.
I don't believe the official narrative but yes, with enough velocity and inertia it could.
Even water could; a waterjet can pierce through steel.
A jet weighs dozens of tons. The entire momentum of all that fast moving mass is transferred to the structure.
This isn't the smoking gun you're looking for, but there's plenty of smoking guns elsewhere, such as the subsequent destruction, pulverization and freefall of the towers.
High performance, high explosive, reinforced and retrofitted DRONES:
Courtesy of central figure in the 9/11 Plot, Dov Zakheim who was:
Pentagon Comptroller that stole the $2.3 Trillion
Sat on the board at Raytheon, makers of bunker buster bombs
Was CEO of Securacom, the security company that took over the WTC right after the 1993 Bombing
Board member of Systems Planning Corporation, makers of the Flight Termination System, designed to TAKEOVER and LAND hijacked airliners ( how Ironic )
Had contract with US Air Force to retrofit 36 Boeing 767's into fueling platforms, out of Macdill AFB in Tampa
Signed the PNAC, which called for a 'Pearl Harbor' like event to springboard US Military intervention in the Mideast
Oh.... and he's a dual-citizen to Israel and 100% MOSSAD and his parents were from UKRAINE
so.... CGI, in light of this smoking gun and the all the videos and witnesses, is a rather silly disinfo theory, in my humble opinion. Not to mention, if they were just going to use CGI, why would Zakheim expose or fabricate his obvious role in the Plot?
you guys think he was being given information from white hats at this time already?
They still try pushing the "planes" narrative... Even 22 years later, you're a CT if you even remotely question what your eyes and brain tell you.
Sorry, but there are several stubborn facts that say otherwise.
Bird strike. Just look at the nose damage caused by a bird that weighs less than 25 lbs. It's devastating.
Buildings that dropped at free fall speed, straight down. Just doesn't happen without carefully engineered preparation.
WTC 7. You don't just "pull" a building. It takes weeks of careful prep.
Pentagon...hole not big enough for a plane. Where did the wings and parts go - other than staged junk they put on the lawn for photo op.
Metallurgy. Any hillbilly with a welder can tell you the idea that ANY fuel source whatsoever, is capable of liquifying a massive steel structure that quickly, so it just falls at the speed of gravity...is total bs.
... and plenty more.
I didn't believe them to begin with. I know better than that. To have it fall directly on its own foundation required a lot of engineering and calculation. Otherwise, you will have it falling all over the place.
Exactly...I wasn't implying you believed them, BTW - just adding some info due to my high disdain for the bs narrative and featherless parrots...
I have to say, some of us do math. LOL
where did the engines go?
AFAIK there's very little to no structural members in the nose of a plane, it's basically just a shell.
@14 min in: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/
I was a young and stupid then, but I still asked that same question as Trump. I was told by everyone jet fuel. Even today, I was told jet fuel could do this."
sheep keep puking up the msm tripe that was pumped into them for decades... a lie told enough eventually becomes truth!
Yep yep. You got it.
Among many other hats I wore for the Air Force, one of them was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator: these are sort of the military version of the FAA and NTSB wrapped into one for context. We go thru meticulous training to spot details in a smoking hole or debris field to figure what happened.
The day it happened I still remember vividly, especially the pentagon hit. The planes, if there were any that hit the towers, could absolutely not have brought those towers down, nor could any residual fuel have melted those beams.
As for the Pentagon, that was a cruise missile. I spent better part of my 24 year career over in the sandbox and seen first hand not only what a cruise missile looks like on impact, but also the aftermath. The Pentagon hit checked every box. NO PLANE hit the Pentagon. Arguments of debris are from Muppets who don't know an engine part from thier ass. NONE of that debris matched the aircraft that they were trying to make you believe was there. The first reporter on scene even said so live on air there was no evidence of an aircraft on site.
Thank you. I was young and stupid back then but at least I did the math and said, "Not happening."
Absolutely had to. WTC 1 & 2 featured a steel exoskeleton around the perimeter of the building as opposed to steel members supporting from the stair and elevator core. There is no way in hell those planes pierced the exoskeleton independently - the planes would have been crushed like a tuna can.
Without strong steel beams, you cannot hold up that kind of a large building. Try using aluminum beams for support a building and see what happen. I would like to know.
Someone posted the following a few hours ago:
A Kite-Plane-Must-Hit-Steel - 9/11 Documentary.
"There were no planes on September 11 2001. If it wasn’t for people sharing their VHS recorded original news broadcast on YouTube, the public would have never seen it again."
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IAyW1Lsqf0sH/
Watch the video, and then, if you still insist that a plane hit a tower, explain how the thin aluminium fuselage (think of it as a hollow drinks can) passed through the steel columns that lined the outside of the building.
That's a good one. So everyone said there's no plane. This is also a different angle, looks to me like.
I did not believe the planes could do that either, but I have so many experts telling me I am crazy to question the narratives. Even two years ago, when I wrote in my book about this, I was told to take it out. it's conspiracy theory didn't you know. I left it in.
That explosion is consistent with fuel explosions. Its how they make them in hollywood to make them more dramatic. If it were a demolition charge it would've just been a super loud BANG and there would be little of the orange burning expanding bubble.
Did you not see this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Duqp7AcmQ
this video is a fake!!! the camera angle shows the sun on the very left of the screen...you can see the shadows of people cast to the right... then when the camera pans over... the right side of the buildings are lit up and the left side in the shadows.... this video came a long time AFTER the event... they had time to make this to fake this!
there's a reason why all these "amazing" videos just come out months or years after the "event" is because they need time to make them to convince people that the lie is truth.
Faking this would not resolve the obvious controlled demolition of the towers. So if you were correct, a lot of money and time and effort spent into faking a video which does nothing to address the multiple giant elephants in the room.
the fire/fuel burning on the UPPER 1/3 or so of the the buildings would have had 0 impact on bringing down the structure below. absolutely zero.
WHERE DID THE REST OF THE BUILDING GO?
110 story building... not crushed... where did all of it go? how does a 110 story building "collapse" or "disintegrate" in 10 seconds?
WHY WAS THERE DUST.... BEFORE THE TOWERS WENT DOWN? (directed energy?)
in controlled demolitions for example, the building is exploded into chunks, hits the ground.... THEN, there is smoke. Watch the towers as they begin to fall.... why was there dust BEFORE they hit the ground?
and then we have Building 7..... that had no SEISMIC ACTIVITY equal to its apparent size HITTING the ground. this means, as we've all seen in videos, it was attacked & turned to dust effectively BEFORE hitting the ground. Even the piping under the ground was still in-tact after it was taken out.
"the planes" needed A LOT of help to bring those towers down. shaped charges, directed-energy weapons, defense systems given stand-downs, insurance policies taken out on the buildings, etc.
i was 10 years old when this happened. i remember the coverage that day & they stopped showing the towers falling. perhaps they caught on that people would have started questioning the method(s) that were used to bring them down, contrary to what MSM was telling everybody??
No planes needed....
Have you watched how they take down casinos in Vegas? Same kind of tall buildings with lots of rooms and exact same method of falling directly onto its foundation.
That's how those buildings (all 3 of them) went down. You have to pack a bunch of explosives on the ground floor to make it do all that.
As for the dust part, I didn't catch it. You got me thinking now.
After 9/11, it doesn't seem like it was very long after, I remember a plane hit the empire state building. During 9/11, I remember thinking "this doesn't make sense!" so I watched the Empire State Building during this time. The building didn't collapse. It was repaired and everyone moved on. I wondered, what was this difference this time compared to last? I still wonder if the pilot, who I don't remember if (s)he survived or not (probably not), was trying to show the world that a plane in a building doesn't mean it collapses. I grew up with my parents telling me "if it doesn't make sense, it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE". I have always thought that with 9/11. I started waking up with JFK Jr., and really woke up with 9/11. They just didn't make sense!!!
Everyone told me I was crazy and stupid, but it still doesn't make sense to me. I am glad your parents taught you well.
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.
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.
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.
I firmly believe that they had to gin up hatred against middle-easterners to justify their next war for oil. “But the mooslums hate us, let’s get ‘em” Bullshit. Only a small subset of CIA-trained whackos act like that.
Oh yeah. You know how ridiculous it sounds to me? Bin Laden in Afghanistan hit the twin tower, go to war with Saddam Hussein.
Planes hit tower and Pentagon, let's put out cruise ships around the east coast to see if we can catch some sharks. The shark part I made up but you know what I am talking about.
Wondered that also about Tower 7. Come to the conclusion that none existed because nothing else was damaged except those 3 perfectly like the demolition crews. I just want to know what company was hired to set that up!
7 was such an obvious tell for me since it was outside of what was otherwise the square perimeter of WTC complex. What are the chances that if any surrounding building in that area was going to succumb to totally catastrophic damage, it would have been the only remaining WTC one.
They did great graphic of the planes for me on tv, but to just be able to figure out that jet fuel could not have burned like that to collapsed those two buildings would not have convinced me at first. It gave me doubts but when I saw 7. That's when I knew there was something funky with their explanation.
I saw a version of the planes hitting the towers where a nose cone of a plane comes clear out the other side of the building. The nose cone, which is dented by geese, went through all that steel? That convinced me the "planes" were a telegraphic like the stats and scores they flip up on screen during sports events.
Oh you saw that? I had to go to work. I did not see anything like that.
I saw a video on youtube a long time after the fact. A "little known" angle of the attacks shot from a helicopter. In this video the towers are dead center in the shot when the plane hits. You can see the nose of the plane portrude through the tower as the camera angle slightly drifts from being centered on the towers. The theory goes that it's a "infographic" programmed to fly the "plane" to the middle of the screen being shown on that camera, then disappear. Since the helicopter drifted the angle so the towers were slightly off-center, the "plane" graphic flew a little further than it should have and is visible out the other side of the tower. It's interesting because if you draw a center-line on the shot, the nose portrudes through exactly to the amount that it would need to, to be centered. I bet the video is still out there somewhere
Thanks. I will see if I can find it.
It doesn't matter if it was faked or not. It's just a distraction, like the lab leak. It's the outcome, the stripping of our rights, we should be focusing on.
I'll bet there bombs on several of the upper floors where the "supposed plane" strike, but the motherlode is on the ground floor.
I wonder if soon after this the q plan started. Was this the call for Trump to come in and save America?
This could be.