09-15-2017, 01:52 PM
09-15-2017, 02:00 PM
Think we can just be thankful that it only made a wee round hole and not big plane shaped impacts like on the towers.
09-15-2017, 02:01 PM
This is clearly not a passenger plane hitting a tower. This is a missile with wings, a smaller plane flown by a competent white man, a drone plane flown by no one whose real counterpart was destroyed and its passengers murdered, or just pure fabricated using some editing software then altering peoples minds to make them think they saw a plane. Not a plane though.
Plucked that image from a conspiracy site that are using it to prove that the footage is doctored. That's footage of the second plane hitting the towers. How can you think that something thousands of people saw in person, millions watched at home, and hundreds recorded themselves, could have been digitally altered?
09-15-2017, 02:05 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:00 PM)Craig Levein-Style Icon Wrote: Think we can just be thankful that it only made a wee round hole and not big plane shaped impacts like on the towers. Are you actually related to Lewis? The wee hole was the exit "punch out" hole caused by the explosion. Here's the damage VS. Here's the wee round hole, photographed from inside the courtyard, opposite side of the impact, that you saw once and decided a jumbo jet entered through it
09-15-2017, 02:06 PM
What is it about folk who aren't from Edinburgh
09-15-2017, 02:18 PM
thank god the wings and tail fell off before impact
09-15-2017, 02:19 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:01 PM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: This is clearly not a passenger plane hitting a tower. This is a missile with wings, a smaller plane flown by a competent white man, a drone plane flown by no one whose real counterpart was destroyed and its passengers murdered, or just pure fabricated using some editing software then altering peoples minds to make them think they saw a plane. Not a plane though.Don't think I've actually seen that gif before That's horrible eh
09-15-2017, 02:23 PM
09-15-2017, 02:26 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:18 PM)Craig Levein-Style Icon Wrote: thank god the wings and tail fell off before impact http://www.popularmechanics.com/military...-pentagon/ (09-15-2017, 02:23 PM)Walter Snowchak Wrote:
09-15-2017, 02:30 PM
(09-15-2017, 09:22 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: I've skipped over good chunks of this thread but just on WTC7, this picture is actually great for showing the channels that debris went in. Most of the buildings around the WTC were peppered with debris but if you look at WTC6 (directly above tower 1) you can see how badly damaged that building is and the partial collapse it suffered. The worst damage somewhat lines up with WTC7, this is because of the direction of debris from the main towers that pummeled both buildings and caused serious structural damage to the lower levels of WTC7. Think of the amount of heat and debris generated from those towers falling, it's not hard to consider that WTC7s south side suffered structural damage from a skyscraper falling into it. Once that happened it seems far more logical to assume that this damage caused the collapse rather than something else. e- Just a point, it's funny to mock the 'truthers' here but it won't change their mind. What will are evidence based counters to their "but what about" statements, which have been provided a number of times in this thread. I'd encourage them to actually look this stuff up, I was proper sucked into this when I was younger but I was only about 14 at the time. You can't live your life going around thinking this verified nonsense, because one day you're going to say it in public and everyone will think you're a retard.
09-15-2017, 02:32 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:26 PM)Aceymandias Wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military...-pentagon/ Sorry, lucky one wing fell off and the other was incinerated by a couple of windows
09-15-2017, 02:37 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:32 PM)Craig Levein-Style Icon Wrote: Sorry, lucky one wing fell off and the other was incinerated by a couple of windows that's not what it says you wally. Quote:Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Are you on board with Kash's "guy with a bazooka" theory, then?
09-15-2017, 02:43 PM
Should have replaced the WTC reinforced concrete and steel with the same stuff as the pentagon's
09-15-2017, 02:45 PM
(09-15-2017, 02:30 PM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: I've skipped over good chunks of this thread but just on WTC7, this picture is actually great for showing the channels that debris went in. Most of the buildings around the WTC were peppered with debris but if you look at WTC6 (directly above tower 1) you can see how badly damaged that building is and the partial collapse it suffered. The worst damage somewhat lines up with WTC7, this is because of the direction of debris from the main towers that pummeled both buildings and caused serious structural damage to the lower levels of WTC7. Think of the amount of heat and debris generated from those towers falling, it's not hard to consider that WTC7s south side suffered structural damage from a skyscraper falling into it. Once that happened it seems far more logical to assume that this damage caused the collapse rather than something else. Completely agree. Particularly when you imagine that whilst the lower floors collapsed in on themselves, the floors above the impact fell as one, and fell sideways. Basically throwing a 5 story building at another building from a height of over 400 metres. It's just the way it collapsed that's odd and can see why theorists use it as an example of foul play. Obviously all the damage is on the other side, but seeing it cave in from what looks like the bottom, with it all falling as one unit, when we're to assume all the damage was from the top and rear, is just weird. I'm not a structural engineer though and have no idea how buildings are meant to collapse when another building is thrown at it from 400m.
09-15-2017, 02:47 PM
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911vi...-brown-ii/
Passenger on the "missile" that was fired into the Pentagon. It's like Sandy Hook all over again - nobody died, it was just a training exercise.
09-15-2017, 02:48 PM
wake up sheeple
09-15-2017, 02:49 PM
VS slowly morphing into an "ah goat ye's".
|
|