Comedy Time Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 4 hours ago, singhz312 said: That doesn't explain why it's only a hole in the ground and why google have been deleting images of the Pennsylvania plane impact I want to see pictures not and brutal evidence, not text. Anyone can write text (and make up stories ;)), I want pictures and evidence I actually don't care what you want. A plane crashed in the middle of nowhere. If it wasn't real it would be an absolute piece of cake tp plant wreckage with nobody around then set off the big crash explosion. There wasn't significant wreckage because the plane came straight down and blew into tiny bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singhz312 Posted October 8, 2020 Author Share Posted October 8, 2020 That contradicts the tower impacts then? No pieces falling down are seen like in this video? LOOOL.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) On 10/8/2020 at 3:50 PM, singhz312 said: That contradicts the tower impacts then? No pieces falling down are seen like in this video? LOOOL.. Sigh......no it contradicts nothing. The wall on the crash test was specifically designed to produce a dead stop impact. Ie. Its resistant force exceeded the incoming kinetic energy. On the Twin Towers, the wall was not sufficient to resist massively more kinetic energy. And like most people I am encountering.....you completely ignore the point being demonstrated! For Shankesville, the plane hitting the ground WOULD be the same as the dead-stop plane crash.....therefore the same result - smashing into tiny bits and thrown great distances. Edited October 11, 2020 by Comedy Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideawake Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 34 minutes ago, Comedy Time said: Sigh......no it contradicts nothing. The wall on the crash test was specifically designed to produce a dead stop impact. Ie. Its resistant force exceeded the incoming kinetic energy. On the Twin Towers, the wall was not sufficient to resist massively more kinetic energy. And like most people I am encountering.....you completely ignore the point being demonstrated! For Shankesville, the plane hitting the ground WOULD be the same as the dead-stop plane crash.....therefore the same result - smashing into tiny bits and thrown great distances. Or it exploded in the air before hitting the ground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, wideawake said: Or it exploded in the air before hitting the ground? I didn't immediately dismiss that, but it seems less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideawake Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) @Comedy Time I don't have the link here but if debris were spread over miles, it can only mean that it was destroyed in the air. There are reports of people seeing a fighter jet in that area at the time. Edited October 11, 2020 by wideawake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 40 minutes ago, wideawake said: @Comedy Time I don't have the link here but if debris were spread over miles, it can only mean that it was destroyed in the air. There are reports of people seeing a fighter jet in that area at the time. Yes, I am aware of the details surrounding UA93, but your conclusion is not accurate. If it hits the deck at 550mph then bits are going to fly off considerable distances. Plus there is the impact crater. It may have just been clipped by the fighter plane to disable it, or Bush ordered it to be brought down. I cannot rule that out but as I say think it less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideawake Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 16 minutes ago, Comedy Time said: Yes, I am aware of the details surrounding UA93, but your conclusion is not accurate. If it hits the deck at 550mph then bits are going to fly off considerable distances. Plus there is the impact crater. It may have just been clipped by the fighter plane to disable it, or Bush ordered it to be brought down. I cannot rule that out but as I say think it less likely. I don't think Bush ordered anything that day. I would be surprised if he could order a pizza so... no, Cheney was in charge in the bunker watching the show and giving the orders. That is why I said in another post that the terrorists were not arabs with box cutters but Americans in suits in bunkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldnah Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 9 hours ago, wideawake said: @Comedy Time I don't have the link here but if debris were spread over miles, it can only mean that it was destroyed in the air. There are reports of people seeing a fighter jet in that area at the time. Whilst im of the opinion that aircraft was brought down - Some of the "spread over miles evidence was missunderstood. The Engine was reportedly 5 miles from the main fuselage wreckage - wheras in reality it was within 50-100 metres (IIRC) - a Geographical feature meant that there was 5 miles by road between the 2. Cue Journo asking how far driving to Engine and equating to distance between aurcraft bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 On 10/8/2020 at 6:12 AM, Comedy Time said: I actually don't care what you want. A plane crashed in the middle of nowhere. If it wasn't real it would be an absolute piece of cake tp plant wreckage with nobody around then set off the big crash explosion. There wasn't significant wreckage because the plane came straight down and blew into tiny bits. So flight UA93 was a fighter jet crashing headfirst into a solid slab of concrete? And there was me thinking it was a commercial flight crashing obliquely into the earth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Macnamara said: So flight UA93 was a fighter jet crashing headfirst into a solid slab of concrete? And there was me thinking it was a commercial flight crashing obliquely into the earth.... Sometimes sarcasm works brilliantly. That wasn't one of those instances. The fighter jet hitting concrete is a perfect comparison for a diving plane hitting a solid ground. The result is pretty similar. Obliquely or not, it is an immovable object and that increases the chances of debris bouncing in that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Humungus Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 On 9/30/2020 at 1:28 AM, singhz312 said: BITCHUTE VIDEO LINK: 9/11 EXPOSED IN 10 MINUTES Hi guys, After attending the Trafalgar square march I signed up here - I have made a very short documentary in my free time.. This video aims to identify the mass global deception of 9/11 and how involved the mainstream media actually were in faking and editing videos as well as aiding secret services in carrying out this staged event. 20 years later from 2001 the CGI errors and fakery starts to show, it would be a benefit if you know how video layering works. Forget about the nose out distraction and the missile that was edited onto the bottom of the plane in videos and pictures which was put out there to distract the masses from the real truth. This is my first video on bitchute and post here so please be nice, subscribe and share! Much more to come! p.s. Does anyone know how to embed non-youtube videos with an iframe link? So what happened to the video, I get a 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Comedy Time said: Sometimes sarcasm works brilliantly. That wasn't one of those instances. The fighter jet hitting concrete is a perfect comparison for a diving plane hitting a solid ground. The result is pretty similar. Obliquely or not, it is an immovable object and that increases the chances of debris bouncing in that direction. so just for the record... you believe that a furmula 1 racing car hitting a concrete barrier at full speed is comparable to say a coach side swiping an earthen bank, in terms of the debris that will be created? Edited October 11, 2020 by Macnamara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 11 hours ago, Macnamara said: so just for the record... Uhuh, what record? 11 hours ago, Macnamara said: you believe that a furmula 1 racing car hitting a concrete barrier at full speed is comparable to say a coach side swiping an earthen bank, in terms of the debris that will be created? No, I believe that a passenger plane coming down at 570 mph on a 40 degree angle upside down into solid ground would disintegrate and send debris everywhere for some considerable distance. What a pitifully inadequate comparison analogy you use. It's almost as though you think the plane crashing was a side swipe like a bus?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red pill taken Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Comedy time, Have you watched R Hall talking about the plane speeds at low altitude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, Red pill taken said: Comedy time, Have you watched R Hall talking about the plane speeds at low altitude? Yes. He is a man who makes money off of the gullible. Diving planes accumulate speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red pill taken Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Oh I have watched a fair few of his interviews, I didn't necessarily get that he was out to make money from the gullible.. but then a fool doesn't necessarily know he's a fool! The planes didn't look like they were on a downward trajectory, some pretty impressive flying.. from cesna to boeing, I guess its like driving a car huh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Red pill taken said: The planes didn't look like they were on a downward trajectory, some pretty impressive flying.. from cesna to boeing, I guess its like driving a car huh They both visibly have downward trajectories. I guess it's like crashing a plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideawake Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Comedy Time said: Yes. He is a man who makes money off of the gullible. Diving planes accumulate speed. I am no expert in this but according to experienced pilots, planes would fall apart at 500 mph at low altitude and with inexperienced pilots like these Arabs to hit targets thus making it impossible for the planes to have crashed in the WTC. If that is true then they could've been missiles as opposed to planes... Edited October 12, 2020 by wideawake 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 5 hours ago, Comedy Time said: Uhuh, what record? No, I believe that a passenger plane coming down at 570 mph on a 40 degree angle upside down into solid ground would disintegrate and send debris everywhere for some considerable distance. What a pitifully inadequate comparison analogy you use. It's almost as though you think the plane crashing was a side swipe like a bus?! so for the record of this forum you don't think that a jet plane crashing head first into a solid concrete slab is the same as a passenger jet crashing obliquely into the earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Macnamara said: So for the record of this forum you don't think that a jet plane crashing head first into a solid concrete slab is the same as a passenger jet crashing obliquely into the earth? Baffling. I just told you they are similar in the destruction it causes. Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, wideawake said: I am no expert in this but according to experienced pilots, planes would fall apart at 500 mph at low altitude and with inexperienced pilots like these Arabs to hit targets thus making it impossible for the planes to have crashed in the WTC. If that is true then they could've been missiles as opposed to planes... You say Arabs as though they haven't got the same capabilities. Sustained absolute maximum speed...pushing the engines to their limit will cause permanent damage to the plane. They're built to withstand quite a bit and I very much doubt any pilot has taken any large passenger plane even close to give an accurate opinion. According to "some" pilots should be your statement. Because others have no problem with it. I'm guessing the terrorists weren't bothered about screwing the plane up. A minute or so at screaming speed. Well possible. Edited October 12, 2020 by Comedy Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Comedy Time said: Baffling. I just told you they are similar in the destruction it causes. Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record"? so your answer then is 'yes' to the question of whether or not a jet fighter hitting a solid slab of concrete is the same as a commercial passenger plane hitting the earth obliquely in terms of the resultant debris created? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comedy Time Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Macnamara said: so your answer then is 'yes' to the question of whether or not a jet fighter hitting a solid slab of concrete is the same as a commercial passenger plane hitting the earth obliquely in terms of the resultant debris created? Sharp as mustard.....similar enough to explain Shanksville debris field. Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record" Edited October 12, 2020 by Comedy Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Comedy Time said: Sharp as mustard.....similar enough to explain Shanksville debris field. while you are as slippery as an eel baffling why you couldn't give a clear answer after you posted a video of a jet fighter crashing headfirst into an imoveable concrete barrier Quote Tell me something. What makes you think they came down at 40 degrees....ya know "for the record" i didn't say i did think that. I was asking you if you were drawing a comparison between the official account of the impact and the impact of a jet fighter smashing headfirst into a concrete barrier which you posted above Edited October 12, 2020 by Macnamara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.