This is not new, or "never before seen." It came out a couple years ago, and is highly controversial. The thing that makes it especially suspect is one of the alleged "bystanders" identifies the aircraft as "United Airlines." How would that be something someone on the ground would see, and be the first thing they say such that it is recorded? In the moment of witnessing something like that, that would be a very odd thing to say.
The fact that it was "delayed" several years, coupled with the odd commentary, makes it appear as a tool of propaganda.
With regards to identifying it from the ground. 1. It was not that high up. 2. Airlines paint all their own planes in similar fashion, making them easily identifiable at a distance.
I'm trying to recall the "story" about the provenance of this alleged footage. I think it was on a VHS tape that had been left in the recorder in someone's closet? My memory's fuzzy, but when it was posted on GAW a couple years ago, I remember that everyone found it suspicious.
supposedly he uploaded it to youtube, but accidentally left it private and didn't realize that for years.....I just read that somewhere....there is other footage from roughly that angle.
The airplane is fake. There is no way to be swallow completely inside the building. At least half of it have to be exploded outside with debris all around. If you watch carefully part of the plane disappear before the impact.
There is no way to be swallow completely inside the building. At least half of it have to be exploded outside with debris all around.
What are you basing this on? I mean how often have you seen a plane hit a building?
I think the key factor momentum. The weight of the plane and the speed of the plane.
Think of a car hitting a chain link fence. At 10 mph, the care won't go through the fence. Maybe not at 40 mph. But what about 100mph? There's a point where the fence won't stand a chance and the car will just bust though
The bird thing makes it easier to comprehend that a "soft" metal (aluminum) can penetrate a hard metal (steel). If a soft body (bird) can damage a plane as it does, then a plane can damage a building as it did.
As the plane breaks apart, you have smaller pieces of the plane, but they are still moving at several hundred miles and hour until something slows them down...... it's like a blast from a massive shotgun
The mass of the steel and concrete building is over 1000x more than the plane and would absorb the energy of momentum of the plane without such significant damage. If you want to talk about the heat of the burning fuel weakening the steel, jet fuel is volitile, spreads out quickly and burns way too fast to transfer enough heat soak into those MONSTEROUS steel beams to weaken them. Case in point: heat treating furnaces will burn billions of BTUs over many many hours to get such enormous steel components to 1500deg, which is nowhere near the temperature where it weakens. Yes, hand-held torches can cut through steel, but that is an EXTREMELY localized heat source intentionally applied. Not like throwing jet fuel on a beam and lighting it. The steel beams are also coated for fire protection and the other building materials, floor coverings and even the furniture are all fire rated to slow the propagation of a fire, not feed it. None of these things alone would matter much, but adding them all together makes the difference to slow the heat transfer to the beams, allowing the fuel to burn out before the beams could get hot enough to weaken.
5:42 into the vid and gasoline was $1.67/gal Lots has changed in the years since, yet nothing has been done to pull back the reigns of power. Oh well, the dumb will always rely upon the elected officials to pay their freight.
Fairly low resolution back then. Its too grainy to see at that distance with that camera from that time period. But the reality is different airlines use different colors. I would wager at that distance people on the ground could have potentially have seen the colors and recognized them where we cant see it in the video. Imo.
This is not new, or "never before seen." It came out a couple years ago, and is highly controversial. The thing that makes it especially suspect is one of the alleged "bystanders" identifies the aircraft as "United Airlines." How would that be something someone on the ground would see, and be the first thing they say such that it is recorded? In the moment of witnessing something like that, that would be a very odd thing to say.
The fact that it was "delayed" several years, coupled with the odd commentary, makes it appear as a tool of propaganda.
It was left without comment...
With regards to identifying it from the ground. 1. It was not that high up. 2. Airlines paint all their own planes in similar fashion, making them easily identifiable at a distance.
I'm trying to recall the "story" about the provenance of this alleged footage. I think it was on a VHS tape that had been left in the recorder in someone's closet? My memory's fuzzy, but when it was posted on GAW a couple years ago, I remember that everyone found it suspicious.
supposedly he uploaded it to youtube, but accidentally left it private and didn't realize that for years.....I just read that somewhere....there is other footage from roughly that angle.
Not sure.. IIRC it came out right around the same time as the pentagon missile video.
Every airline has specific color logos which anyone w 2 working eyes can identify.
The title I put on my post is just a copy and paste of the videos title on Rumble. Not trying to insinuate that its brand new.
Understood. I was putting the onus on Charlie Kirk.
He also checks his watch at 1:38
The airplane is fake. There is no way to be swallow completely inside the building. At least half of it have to be exploded outside with debris all around. If you watch carefully part of the plane disappear before the impact.
Airplanes are made out of the lightest materials possible.
What are you basing this on? I mean how often have you seen a plane hit a building?
I think the key factor momentum. The weight of the plane and the speed of the plane.
Think of a car hitting a chain link fence. At 10 mph, the care won't go through the fence. Maybe not at 40 mph. But what about 100mph? There's a point where the fence won't stand a chance and the car will just bust though
Think of a flock of birds hitting a plane and then revise your statement.
I don't think my statement needs revising. The momentum will be on the plane's side. What's the point you are making.
The bird thing makes it easier to comprehend that a "soft" metal (aluminum) can penetrate a hard metal (steel). If a soft body (bird) can damage a plane as it does, then a plane can damage a building as it did.
I agree.
As the plane breaks apart, you have smaller pieces of the plane, but they are still moving at several hundred miles and hour until something slows them down...... it's like a blast from a massive shotgun
Birds don't penetrate the plane.
The mass of the steel and concrete building is over 1000x more than the plane and would absorb the energy of momentum of the plane without such significant damage. If you want to talk about the heat of the burning fuel weakening the steel, jet fuel is volitile, spreads out quickly and burns way too fast to transfer enough heat soak into those MONSTEROUS steel beams to weaken them. Case in point: heat treating furnaces will burn billions of BTUs over many many hours to get such enormous steel components to 1500deg, which is nowhere near the temperature where it weakens. Yes, hand-held torches can cut through steel, but that is an EXTREMELY localized heat source intentionally applied. Not like throwing jet fuel on a beam and lighting it. The steel beams are also coated for fire protection and the other building materials, floor coverings and even the furniture are all fire rated to slow the propagation of a fire, not feed it. None of these things alone would matter much, but adding them all together makes the difference to slow the heat transfer to the beams, allowing the fuel to burn out before the beams could get hot enough to weaken.
Respectfully ....
The video is a year old, sure. Found it making the rounds on normie social media today. So I thought I would share.
I've seen it before. And I will say that my first thought when the plane hit was how phony the people's reactions seemed.
it definitely reads to me that voices were added afterwards, but that's just a hunch.
It does seem to roughly correspond with this angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
Good read: https://peakd.com/conspiracy/@budz82/9-11-and-the-israeli-bomb-expert-infiltrated-art-groups-gelatin-demo-wiring-team-and-e-team-sol-gel-team
Flash under acft. before impact.
At the 5 min 50 second mark the plane evaporates before it blows out the other side of the building.
Old. This is the " Kevin Westley" footage:
https://youtu.be/o6t31R4tI10?si=lWalKkzNoQaus_td
5:42 into the vid and gasoline was $1.67/gal Lots has changed in the years since, yet nothing has been done to pull back the reigns of power. Oh well, the dumb will always rely upon the elected officials to pay their freight.
It looked like the wings folded up before it hit 🤔
Fairly low resolution back then. Its too grainy to see at that distance with that camera from that time period. But the reality is different airlines use different colors. I would wager at that distance people on the ground could have potentially have seen the colors and recognized them where we cant see it in the video. Imo.