That's me, except i'm on this site every day and one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 11 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters. Did I just blow up the 'Mini Nuke' theory, too? Yes, I did.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine, installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 11 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters. Did I just blow up the 'Mini Nuke' theory, too? Yes, I did.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine, installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 11 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters. Did I just blow up the 'Mini Nuke' theory, too? Yes, I did.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine that installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters. Did I just blow up the 'Mini Nuke' theory, too? Yes, I did.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine that installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine that installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Proudy (deep state spook who is also the source of secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine that installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Proudy (deep state spook who is also the source of secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine that installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The narrator assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion )
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The narrator assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many needs this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion )
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The narrator assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me, except on this site every day and I'm one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the South Tower.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The narrator assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
That's me.
So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. The video was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, being deleted.
Second part first:
left wing should have appeared IN FRONT of the building..
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the South Tower.
First assumption:
No plane could slice through a steel building like butter.
-
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
-
The planes: The narrator assumes that the Flight 77 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings. Or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol