Jump to content

The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION


pirate
 Share

Recommended Posts

What was the deal with the thwarted attack in Mexico? Who do people think they were going to blame that on?

 

1601603747304.png.efa5ba7b79374c6f1f2cc38b197e9006.png

 

Edit: Nevermind as this thread is still mostly about what happened, but not about why or who did it. I guess I should probably start a new thread for more important details.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

The two Israelis were carrying Pakistani passports. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country.

 

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/2001_Mexican_legislative_assembly_attack

 

 

 

Out of reactions, but I appreciate the link. It has been a while since I looked into it to be honest, but I remember having the above image in my meme folder and thought it might spark an interesting convo.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2020 at 1:24 PM, mishy said:

 

Here's a better analysis of the first strike. No plane shaped hole until few seconds after impact.

 

https://videopress.com/v/tyb4tbsm

 

It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the video recorder, and anyone saying so is just being dishonest.

 

tower.JPG.50fee115e5cc05eb59abdd93d4f103af.JPG

 

 

 

 

A couple of seconds after impact - no wing gash. It could be in super extra awesome ultrawide 22k....there'd still be no wing gash. This is just a screengrab from the vid linked.

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

Then there was one..

 

Luckily it was all captured on film! It's just that the footage shows that there was no wing gash at the moment of impact.

 

It's pretty obvious in the video that it's not a plane, missile maybe, but not a plane.

 

https://videopress.com/v/tyb4tbsm

 

And that is just one of many very questionable moments from that day.

 

Round and round we go.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishy said:

Luckily it was all captured on film! It's just that the footage shows that there was no wing gash at the moment of impact.

 

 

The rightmost horizontal wing gash that appears at 2:15 in your video is not present in the Naudet video.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/WTC767images/northtowerhit.mov

 

Edited by theo102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

 

The rightmost horizontal wing gash that appears at 2:15 in your video is not present in the Naudet video.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/WTC767images/northtowerhit.mov

 

This gash?

215.JPG.bdffa37f57018ac80919652de5963c90.JPG

 

I didn't rush out to buy a copy so I can only go with what I can find online. A quick YT search for "Naudet 911 first plane" get this as the first hit.

 

2152.JPG.2979d8030d8d4552fc4f3498ab4c03c6.JPG

 

Looks like it's there, unless of course you have the DVD to show otherwise? I'm not giving them my money, you buy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mishy said:

Looks like it's there, unless of course you have the DVD to show otherwise? I'm not giving them my money, you buy it!

 

The link I posted is for a video from the DVD (according to 911research). Obviously one of the videos has been doctored, and later photos don't have the gash that appears in the video frames of your previous post.

 

Edited by theo102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, theo102 said:

 

The link I posted is for a video from the DVD (according to 911research). Obviously one of the videos has been doctored, and later photos don't have the gash that appears in the video frames of your previous post.

 

 

Sorry I should have said, the vid you posted doesn't load for me, can you screenshot?

 

Quick edit: I've just looked at a few more on YT they all have the gash. Every single one.

Edited by mishy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Then why mention it? 😂

 

Because it explains why you can't compare the frames. The point is that your video has been doctored because the horizontal gash isn't present in the Naudet video and it isn't present in the still photos.

 

right-corner2.png

 

 

Edited by theo102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mishy said:

Fake planes defying the laws of physics. 

 

Nope. Real planes perfectly in line with the laws of physics. The problem is your understanding. You have none. It doesn't appear that you were ever educated in physics, otherwise you would know what a large chunk of colossal kinetic energy can do.

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

Because it explains why you can't compare the frames. The point is that your video has been doctored because the horizontal gash isn't present in the Naudet video and it isn't present in the still photos.

 

right-corner2.png

 

 

 

 

@Reet Hard Look at this picture for proof that the columns are all covered with panels. You can see some have worked a bit loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Nope. Real planes perfectly in line with the laws of physics. The problem is your understanding. You have none. It doesn't appear that you were ever educated in physics, otherwise you would know what a large chunk of colossal kinetic energy can do.

 

 

No collison physics!

 

It's just noise now when i read your posts.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkk2H3Ztrfk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

Because it explains why you can't compare the frames. The point is that your video has been doctored because the horizontal gash isn't present in the Naudet video and it isn't present in the still photos.

 

right-corner2.png

 

 

 

 

You've not given a frame to compare it to. You said the gash at 2:15 into the video I posted isn't in the Naudet footage, but then you can't find a screenshot to compare. And as I've already said, the gash is in all the videos I've seen looking at a quick YT search for it.

 

You state it's been doctored, then please provide the original undoctored footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishy said:

 

No collison physics!

 

It's just noise now when i read your posts

 

Show me YOUR collision fizzix.  I showed kinetic energy physics. You are completely clueless about one of THE major points in this whole setup.

 

It is so fundamental it should be top of your list. What world of batshit do vertical columns blast inwards from an explosion that MUST have come from inside the building.

 

White noise from you would be a step up from buttrinse.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Show me YOUR collision fizzix.  I showed kinetic energy physics. You are completely clueless about one of THE major points in this whole setup.

 

It is so fundamental it should be top of your list. What world of batshit do vertical columns blast inwards from an explosion that MUST have come from inside the building.

 

White noise from you would be a step up from buttrinse.

 

The picture of a plane halfway in the building with no bits falling off and the building still intact has been posted too many times to count. You should know, you've been trolling for years. But for some reason, as someone who screams that planes did it, you never use these images to prove your point. And we all know why. They're not real planes.

 

I noticed in another thread someone calling you out as a member that's just trolled for years and always ends up getting banned. You see, Rupert, when you sprout the same old shit for years it becomes too obvious.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are there sensible experienced people who still believe in the crock of ++++ plane story?

even after the well publicised Norman Mineta story about Cheyney

even after the infamous Bush in the school watching the plane crash before the video was on TV

even after September Clues fairly well highlighted all the videos

even after  only 2 of the 4 named flights existing

even after Flight 93 was seen landing Cleveland Hopkins Airport

 

The videos are fake, the people interviewed are agents for the narrative, the people interviewed on the streets (like harley davidson man) are intel agents which would place all photographic and video evidence as suspect. Sitting analysing fake doctored footage and pictures has those repsonsible laughing their heads off. Its a great wheeze for them and they love to argue the toss over the images because ... they made them deliberately

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

The picture of a plane halfway in the building with no bits falling off and the building still intact has been posted too many times to count. You should know, you've been trolling for years. But for some reason, as someone who screams that planes did it, you never use these images to prove your point. And we all know why. They're not real planes.

 

 

The building is still intact with an inwards facing plane sized hole.

 

You really are making lots of noise aren't you, but you haven't got a clue how this major major thing was even possible 

 

Trolling you say? Yet you are the one making personal shit an art form. That's what people like you do when they are boxed in by the evidence 

 

Inward columns made by a plane or impossible magic explosives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

The building is still intact with an inwards facing plane sized hole.

 

You really are making lots of noise aren't you, but you haven't got a clue how this major major thing was even possible 

 

Trolling you say? Yet you are the one making personal shit an art form. That's what people like you do when they are boxed in by the evidence 

 

Inward columns made by a plane or impossible magic explosives.

 

Can you explain to me how a commercial plane can enter the WTC through steel columns and not lose ANY parts of the plane on the impact side?  i.e wings and/or wing tips for example.

It goes right through the skyscraper like there was no obstacle encountered.

Nah...

Edited by wideawake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mishy said:

You've not given a frame to compare it to.

 

Because there are no comparable frames from the same point in time. 

 

8 hours ago, mishy said:

You state it's been doctored, then please provide the original undoctored footage.

 

My argument that it's been doctored is based on logic, not on having access to that footage. Here's a different video which doesn't have the horizontal gash: (1:49)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...