9/11 changed the face of America forever. Many of us began to
realize then, that our govt may be up to no good and that they were
ultimately responsible for this terrible and shocking tragedy.
The video below is more evidence of the questionable story doled out
by the media and govt in regards to the 9/11 terror attacks. Flight 175
is the point of focus and you really must see this video to believe it!
17 comments:
Only useful idiots and paid shills say the plane "sliced through" the steel of the building. The plane NEVER cut through steel but rather knocked down a few floors of the exterior columns where the bolts snapped.
The exterior columns were stacked on top of each and bolted together. The plane only knocked down a small section of these columns because no bolt is going to withstand the horizontal sheer force of 300,000lbs going a few hundred miles per hour and slamming into a bolted section of these columns. The bolts will snap and the columns will be knocked into the building.
Look at a close up of the WTC and you will see the metal columns bent inward from where the bolts snapped and those missing sections were knocked inside the building.
One could slam 300,000 pounds of feathers going a few hundred mph into a building and get the same result.
Greg... let assume your take on the scenario is valid. A plane's wing can slice through a skyscraper given enough velocity, regardless that has never happened in the history of planes in the world.
Please tell me how that changes the fact of the plane's wing disappearing behind the building it should have been in front of. That is the video the medes put out for public consumption... and that video is fallacious. So, while you may argue one, you cannot argue the other and taken in the whole... that obviates your argument completely.
Falsus in unum... falsus in omnibus.
These cheap, crummy criminals who gave us 9/11 didn't use any planes.
These crims are cheap but oh so economical.
Planes and Arab/Muslim hi-jackers...fuck off
Thanks to Marcus Allen for spotting the anomaly. If that's how it appeared in the Jewish MSM well there's your evidence, the jig is up.
You can see the anomaly in this older one too at 5:15
http://youtu.be/huK0MAb0Xa4
This is an old one that didn't check out.
The red-brown building with the narrow upper portion with three inset windows was between the camera and the tower and 'plane' not behind the tower.
Here's a video with a good still photo showing the relative positions at around 3 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8
It's going to look like I'm picking on you Greg Swamp; but I'm not. It's just that you should look into things before assuming what is false. Here is a detail of the WTC7 framing:
http://failures.wikispaces.com/file/view/WTC_7_Plan.jpg/94358600/649x320/WTC_7_Plan.jpg
I did a quick google to check your bolted connection assumption and came up with a detail of the WTC7 framing. Now I am assuming that the 2 towers had similar engineering in that these connections are "moment connections" at all structural connections (those arrows you see in the detail). Now I haven't seen the detail of the moment connections and they could either be bolted or welded; but it doesn't matter. A bolted moment connection is not just bolting columns together as you imply. A moment connection means that the connection is as good or better than a solid piece of the structural steel and so your bolts popping off nonsense is just that: nonsense.
If you or anyone else could scrounge up the drawings for the 2 towers, I's appreciate it.
I'm in the structural steel industry btw and didn't think that large skyscrapers would just bolt the columns together as you suggested. In fact I've always assumed moment connections. It's the only reason I'm correcting you Greg Swamp. I don't have some weird beef with you.
1st the planes used on 911 were not commercial planes... Commercial Planes don't make sharp turns at 500 mph... Weaponized Drone's made to look like commercial planes would have no problem banking at 500 mph and no problem cutting through steel... Who knows what advanced technology was used to make that Commercial Looking Missle Drone...
I suspect it's some type of compositing myself. I liked Ace Baker's videos when they first ame out but he is pretty wet about structural engineering as is probably the guy who made this video. For whatever reason they keep bringing up the decking and concrete which aren't at all important to the points they make. Moment connected tube square (HSS) framing is the most important detail of why what we saw on 9/11 is not possible. Bringing up decking and the like is just muddying the issue and showing that you don't anything about structural engineering.
Now I don't know anything about compositing (although I was a software engineer for 10 years as well - it sound like BS but I've had an interesting career life) but this compositing idea strikes me as the ticket. They very well could have sent a missile into the building or set off explosives at the building itself. I don't know. But the plane is false imo for a number of reasons.
Nice one Nick Dean
Jesus fuck are you some retarded assholes. Talking about internet videos when there's TENS OF THOUSANDS of eye witnesses. You want a video to look at? Try parts of the plane being pulled out the rubble.
Top kek goes to this asshole;
"Weaponized Drone's made to look like commercial planes would have no problem banking at 500 mph and no problem cutting through steel"
No problemo eh Pedro? Sure! Why not? After all, you look like an adult even though your brain is that of a child's.
blake121666, you really are LAUGHABLE. WTC 1&2 are not built anything like WTC7; yet you are in the "structural steel industry". LMAO! Why spread the bullshit? I can expect it from Wonder Woman but now we have you as well? LMAO!
For those who are actually interested in how the WTC 1&2 were constructed, below is a video on the construction process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFUnFnfKRpw
Kind of interesting how Blake666 knows absolutely nothing about the construction of the WTC 1&2 (yet he is in the "structural steel industry"). Similar to how he spreads the bullshit that rocket thrust does not need an atmosphere to thrust against (yet he has a degree in Physics).
Thanks for the laugh! You made my night!
Greg Swamp, do you think the columns of a skyscraper are connected by simple bolt connections of base plate to cap plate? What exactly is your cartoonish idea of how skyscrapers are built? Do you like dreaming up your own goofball physics based on idiot intuition specifically pointed out to grade-schoolers as irrational? Why don't you bark out your theory that heavier things fall faster in a gravitational field than lighter things. It's true in your head and everyone else is an idiot for not thinking like you!
Not to sound too loony, but there aren't tens of thousands of witnesses as id says. There actually aren't any witnesses to planes hitting WTC 1 & 2. I'd like to know why he thinks 10s of thousands are witnesses.
Mods please review Mr Swamp. He's on a wage and should be asked to troll elsewhere.
Swamp also goes by the Moniker "Ken Horst". He is a known troll - and as such, we ignore him here- None of his comments are ever worth looking at. I suggest you ignore the troll like we do.
Watching that vid last night I didn't notice the obvious anomaly, the left wing disappearing behind the building. I was focused on the right wing going behind the corner of the South tower before appearing in front of the tower before colliding with it.
The wing, if the vid was genuine should remain completely visible but it doesn't. It disappears then re-appears before disappearing into the tower.
Post a Comment