Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, legion said:


lve watched many 'first responders' saying they experienced and heard multiple explosions
in the basement of the twin towers
and at WTC7

I would be amazed if in a building of that magnitude, with fridges, cookers, pressurised piping systems and countless electrical conduits and with massive fires raging, that there weren't explosions going off every other minute. The beams and supports would also be groaning and cracking as fire stretched and tortured the metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arnie said:

I would be amazed if in a building of that magnitude, with fridges, cookers, pressurised piping systems and countless electrical conduits and with massive fires raging, that there weren't explosions going off every other minute. The beams and supports would also be groaning and cracking as fire stretched and tortured the metal.

 

firefighters reported explosions many stories below the main floor. Literally.

 

the wtc 1-2-7 have collapsed due to controlled demolition, clearly demonstrated at this point.

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

PolitiFact | 9/11 conspiracy theories misconstrue how World Trade Center buildings collapsed

Were the buildings designed to withstand a plane crash?

Yes, but that plan did not account for crashes that caused fires. Structural engineer Leslie Robertson designed the World Trade Center complex, which was completed in 1973, to withstand the impact of an airplane. In his calculations, he used a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft in service at the time, but smaller and lighter than the Boeing 767 models that struck the towers in 2001. When the planes hit the twin towers, the buildings remained standing for some time, allowing thousands of people to escape. However, Robertson’s calculations did not account for the possibility of collisions leading to fires, which are what led to the buildings collapsing.

 

 

Every time I ask this, I never receive a satisfactory answer. The towers both give way at points close to where the bowing clearly occurs. How in any way can explosives withstand the crash and ensuing fires without going off?

 

care to explain how a office fire was able to melt steel beams.. 

 

how you ask? Thermites

Edited by Youknownothingbutyou
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Wheel Investigation

 

pentagon 911 plane wreckage - Google Search

 

 

They don't carry anywhere even close to the same kinetic energy. Apples and oranges is ok, the plane has much more energy.

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

PolitiFact | 9/11 conspiracy theories misconstrue how World Trade Center buildings collapsed

Were the buildings designed to withstand a plane crash?

Yes, but that plan did not account for crashes that caused fires. Structural engineer Leslie Robertson designed the World Trade Center complex, which was completed in 1973, to withstand the impact of an airplane. In his calculations, he used a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft in service at the time, but smaller and lighter than the Boeing 767 models that struck the towers in 2001. When the planes hit the twin towers, the buildings remained standing for some time, allowing thousands of people to escape. However, Robertson’s calculations did not account for the possibility of collisions leading to fires, which are what led to the buildings collapsing.

 

 

Every time I ask this, I never receive a satisfactory answer. The towers both give way at points close to where the bowing clearly occurs. How in any way can explosives withstand the crash and ensuing fires without going off?

If every thing was hunky dory,why did it take so long to release the vid of the plane crashing into the pentagon and when they finally did it was only one or two frames worth so you couldn't actually see what hit the pentagon just a bit of a white streak and fireball,why not release the entire video .

As far as the two links you put up ,sorry I would take them with a grain of salt, I'm going on memory and what was on the lawn in the way of wreckage. The authorities collected all the video footage and only released a couple of frames worth after a fair bit of hounding,WHY? ,wouldn't you release all the film if the official narrative was indeed true to bolster your position. Sorry but from where I sit this entire  incidence has the subtle stench of bull shit permeating every facet of the official story  

Edited by peter
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jois said:

It's really not.use unbiased eye s. ẞyou cant see the building for smoke at the moment of impact. Obviously. When the smoke clears there is a wing mark.

 

 

 

I don't remember seeing one ,and my memory is pretty bloody good,I can still picture the round hole in the building and definitely no wing marks

Edited by peter
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

They were only 3 seconds flying time from the target. As for the Cessna bit, he didn't really need to fly it, he needed to put it in a powered descent and crash it.

only three seconds flying time from the target ,lets think about that statement for a moment, 3 seconds from the target from when ,from the time they took over the plane ,if so what was the plane doing so off course,   3 seconds from the target after the plane made its decent and leveled out flew over an elevated roadway roadway,took the lamp post out flew down even lower and lined up.

  (As for the Cessna bit, he didn't really need to fly it, he needed to put it in a powered descent and crash it.)

The so called plane flew into the building at nearly ground level, by evidence of the lamp post,therefore he must have pulled out of the powered decent and lined up,if he was still in a powered decent the rear of the plane would have been all over the roof of the pentagon due to its forward inertia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

care to explain how a office fire was able to melt steel beams..

 

It didn't.

 

1 hour ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

how you ask? Thermites

 

Nope, I didn't ask for your inaccurate answer. There were no steel beams melted. They were weakened as expected, caused bowing and this initiated the collapse.

 

 

Edited by Arnie
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

It didn't.

 

 

Nopr, I didn't ask for your inaccurate answer. There were no steel beams melted. They were weakened as expected, caused bowing and this initiated the collapse.

 

 

So how do you explain the river of fire, literal steel beam turned liquid?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ey3vmb2frL3G/

 

answer: thermites

Edited by Youknownothingbutyou
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, peter said:

if every thing was hunky dory,why did it take so long to release the vid of the plane crashing

 

It wasn't hunky dory. Some arabs hijacked a plane and crashed it. The speed of video release was not related to its accuracy or the need to placate people who think it easier to fabricate a plane and dispose of the passengers, sprinkle plane parts invisibly all over the lawn, merge dead body dna into the collected debris etc, rather than just crashing the bloody thing.

 

40 minutes ago, peter said:

into the pentagon and when they finally did it was only one or two frames worth so you couldn't actually see what hit the pentagon just a bit of a white streak and fireball,why not release the entire video .

As far as the two links you put up ,sorry I would take them with a grain of salt, I'm going on memory and what was on the lawn in the way of wreckage. The authorities collected all the video footage and only released a couple of frames worth after a fair bit of hounding,WHY? ,wouldn't you release all the film if the official narrative was indeed true to bolster your position. Sorry but from where I sit this entire  incidence has the subtle stench of bull shit permeating every facet of the official story  

Well, it was 20 odd years ago and from where I am sitting I see no advance from the truther movement, just the same inaccurate claims.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

So how do you explain the river of fire, literal steel beam turned liquid?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ey3vmb2frL3G/

 

Aluminium.

 

12 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

answer: thermites

 

Nope. Just normal fire temperature and tons of plane aluminium.

 

 

Edited by Arnie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, peter said:

only three seconds flying time from the target ,lets think about that statement for a moment, 3 seconds from the target from when ,from the time they took over the plane ,if so what was the plane doing so off course,   3 seconds from the target after the plane made its decent and leveled out flew over an elevated roadway roadway,took the lamp post out flew down even lower and lined up.

 

 

No, 3 seconds flying time from the point of the first lightweight lamp post was hit until it hot the building. You brought that up as though the strikes would cause instability in the wings.

 

20 minutes ago, peter said:

  (As for the Cessna bit, he didn't really need to fly it, he needed to put it in a powered descent and crash it.)

The so called plane flew into the building at nearly ground level, by evidence of the lamp post,therefore he must have pulled out of the powered decent and lined up,if he was still in a powered decent the rear of the plane would have been all over the roof of the pentagon due to its forward inertia

 

Fairly easy to do. Get yourself on one of those flight simulator software programs. Your statement about forward inertia is not correct.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Aluminium.

 

 

Nopr. Just normal fire temperature and tons of plane aluminium.

 

 

I suggest you watch the documentary the new pearl harbour 911.

what you see is not aluminium.

 

oh, i see its even hard to find the real documentary that i saw about 10 years ago. Its been replaced by a fake with the same name?

if anyone here that remember can chime in

 

 

Edited by Youknownothingbutyou
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

I suggest you watch the 9 hour long documentary the new pearl harbour 911.

 

IF your even honest/real

 

 

Old hat and what has that got to do with the little river of aluminium we saw?. I suggest you stop believeing everything you see on the alternative internet. I'm real, I'm honest. I just don't believe things that you do. It's "if you're" by the way.

Edited by Arnie
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arnie said:

Nopr, I didn't ask for your inaccurate answer. There were no steel beams melted. They were weakened as expected, caused bowing and this initiated the collapse.

If that was the case you must be talking about the external external beams bowing as per the official report ,well for the building to collapse at nearly free fall speed the 17 center columns must have been removed somehow ,how was this achieved since the floors were said to pancake all the way down how come we didn't see all the floors stacked on one another in the rubble pile ,what force caused  the building to disintegrate  in the air, if indeed the building was weakened where the plane hit why didn't just the section above the impact point topple as you would expect. As far as the fires the jet fuel would have burnt off very quickly and the ignition point is well below of what would have an effect on steel  so that just leaves the material in the building burning and if you think that is a problem ,what can I say    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Old hat. I suggest you stop believeing everything you see on the alternative internet. I'm real, I'm honest. I just don't believe things that you do. It's "if you're" by the way.

Oh boy

yeah ok, two planes destroyed 3 towers buddy

 

i actually seepeople who believe the official story like a strange cultural phenomena. Your exactly the type i imagine to correct my grammar after the first interaction he has with me.

 

if your real, this makes it even worst.

Good luck and i hope this forum improve your critical sense

 

edit: ah i remembered how to put someone on ignore!

Edited by Youknownothingbutyou
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peter said:

,well for the building to collapse at nearly free fall speed

 

False.

 

Just now, peter said:

the 17 center columns must have been removed somehow ,how was this achieved since the floors were said to pancake all the way down

 

False again. There was a vast exttremely heavy section of building that exponentially gained momentum from gravity. Each impact was way, beyond the floor resistance.

Just now, peter said:

As far as the fires the jet fuel would have burnt off very quickly and the ignition point is well below of what would have an effect on steel  so that just leaves the material in the building burning and if you think that is a problem ,what can I say    

 

What can you say? Nothing. There is nothing to say. The building burnt everything that could be burnt. The temperature was sufficinet to soften the beams causing them to be overladen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Arnie said:

Well, it was 20 odd years ago and from where I am sitting I see no advance from the truther movement, just the same inaccurate claims.

Come on Hugo, do you think that the official narrative will change, of course not and most questions will just be ignored by the powers that be .

However there has been one admission ,they didn't find explosives because they didn't look for it ,given the way the buildings collapsed  I would have thought that would be the first thing you would be looking for  especially with regards to building 7 that was hit by nothing and still fell down

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

Oh boy

yeah ok, two planes destroyed 3 towers buddy

 

Massive chunks were gouged out iof WTC7, it burnt for most of the day.

 

3 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

i actually seepeople who believe the official story like a strange cultural phenomena. Your exactly the type i imagine to correct my grammar after the first interaction he has with me.

And I see people who believe the ludicrously unfeasible and mega complicated alternative.

 

3 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:

if your real, this makes it even worst.

Good luck and i hope this forum improve your critical sense, i have no intention even showing you clues to this obvious controlled demolition

 

Nope. Seen it all before. There was no demolition.

 

Tell me what possible reason was there to demolish WTC7? @peterany ideas?

 

Edited by Arnie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

False.

 

 

False again. There was a vast exttremely heavy section of building that exponentially gained momentum from gravity. Each impact was way, beyond the floor resistance.

 

What can you say? Nothing. There is nothing to say. The building burnt everything that could be burnt. The temperature was sufficinet to soften the beams causing them to be overladen.

 

 

Tell me what possible reason was there to demolish WTC7? @peterany ideas?

 

I can think of a few actually

 

 

 

Well you say tamato and I say tomato , we will leave it at that I don't want to go around any more I'm getting dizzy

 

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

 

 

Tell me what possible reason was there to demolish WTC7?

 

 

Quote

The Collapse of WTC 7:
"A Wholesale Loss of Documents"

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions

 

https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_documents_lost.html

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Arnie said:

caused bowing and this initiated the collapse.

OK lets say that is 100% accurate, it would topple not collapse in to its own footprint then wouldn't it?

As for thermite, I posted a forensic scientific study in this thread proving thermite was found. So we can go back to truth now rather than pretending any of the official narrative has any basis in science, logic or reality.

Edited by TheConsultant
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...