Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-06-2018, 10:01 AM   #1901
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
Its not just the total force its the concentration and transmission of the force onto a single point,
Bingo. Just like the stilletto effect on ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
just say that planes are not designed by engineers to penetrate bunkers, probably all you need to know.
The Twin Towers were nowhere as near as strong as a purpose built bunker, where concrete can be a few feet thick, probably more. In comparison, the WTC TT were like tin cans. Secondly, the engineering used in those planes is anyones guess, lets be real. Most conspiracy videos use the assumption they are the actual jetliners that are part of the government story of events. So aircraft pilots are obviously going to say that these planes weren't strong enough based on what they know about the aircraft they fly. These are supposed to be experts, yet there isn't a single observable window that can be seen in the passenger areas.

So with this said, these planes could have been easily engineered and strengthened to do what we saw on the day.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2018, 10:15 AM   #1902
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Why are planes not natural bunker busters if they can create so much force?
Who says they aren't? I would say the planes used on 9/11 were a type of missile. Just because it has wings does it make it an aircraft or a projectile or both? Depends on the application doesn't it?

The difference is, these planes weren't travelling vast distances to go undetected over hostile territories like missiles are designed to. Therefore, they are tremendously fast and lightweight. Hence, its like a Pearl harbour situation. No-one would have known. So maneuverability wasn't really a requirement for these planes. In a war situation, whilst they could be enormously effective in penetrating a bunker, they would just be too big and slow to get to their acquired target without being shot down.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2018, 06:38 PM   #1903
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

The so-called plane impact itself looks like something a 13 year old did on his laptop, its really that bad and unconvincing.

Both the plane and building show NO REACTION WHATSOEVER until after its supposedly gone all the way in, which simply can't happen in reality.

The building is even still in-tact after the back end of the wing has supposedly gone all of the way in. There is no damage at all to the building when you can see the back end of the fuselage supposedly still sticking out and a portion of the end of the wing still sticking out.

This should be enough for anyone to realise that what you are seeing is really, really bad CGI.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 09:25 AM   #1904
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAcjxKtQSEQ

I am going to retract a part about nanothermite being used to pre-weaken as it is clear not all of the plane wings went in.

At 400mph, the puffs of smoke are most likely to be the debris of the plane being pulverised. You wont see wings just simply falling of at these speeds, they were already smashed to small pieces.

As I pointed out in the 1945 B-25 crash, the main body had enough generative force to get into the building.

So with this said, its likely that the planes would not have been needed to be have made from re-enforced titanium, aluminium would have been enough for the main body to penetrate into the building.

If it was CGI, then the details would represent exactly what would happen in reality. I just don't see the point, nor believe the people who staged this would waste their time on CGI when they werent able to apply it to the Pentagon and were willing to level WTC 7 so obviously without a plane crash.

If you look at frames in 35-36 seconds, you will be able to observe a puff of smoke a good few floors below the right wing. That is likely to be a pre-planted charge going off. So with the wings hitting a rigged building, the wing tips are going to be pulverised even more.

So tell me. Why would a CGI expert slip in explosions inconsistent with the story NIST states was not a controlled demolition? That puff of smoke was going off at the same time the wing was hitting the outer wall.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 24-06-2018 at 09:41 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 10:40 AM   #1905
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
@0.34 - missing gash in the building between the back of the left engine and the fuselage? This is the most damning evidence IMO.

Last edited by da2255; 24-06-2018 at 10:40 AM.
Likes: (1)
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 11:11 AM   #1906
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
@0.34 - missing gash in the building between the back of the left engine and the fuselage? This is the most damning evidence IMO.
Funnily enough, I found another unrelated explosion in the frames 32,33 and 34 secs just above the right wing a few floors up. So this CGI expert likes to put random explosions into the frames I assume?
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 04:37 PM   #1907
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,574 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
@0.34 - missing gash in the building between the back of the left engine and the fuselage? This is the most damning evidence IMO.
According to one of the comments, if you look on google earth, that building is in front of the planes wing
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 06:41 PM   #1908
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
According to one of the comments, if you look on google earth, that building is in front of the planes wing
The building on the bottom left and the "plane" passing behind it is spatially correct, but other than that: the video is just so, so, so unbelievably fcuking stupid.

You seriously think the back end of a plane can just be sticking out like that with the building showing no signs of damage after the wings have supposedly completely gone inside?

Last edited by da2255; 24-06-2018 at 06:41 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2018, 11:41 PM   #1909
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
The building on the bottom left and the "plane" passing behind it is spatially correct, but other than that: the video is just so, so, so unbelievably fcuking stupid.

You seriously think the back end of a plane can just be sticking out like that with the building showing no signs of damage after the wings have supposedly completely gone inside?
What cuts into the building just before the tail? The engines and inner wings which are on level with the lateral rear wings. So yes, the tail is most likely to go some of the way in.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2018, 01:36 AM   #1910
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,574 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
The building on the bottom left and the "plane" passing behind it is spatially correct, but other than that: the video is just so, so, so unbelievably fcuking stupid.

You seriously think the back end of a plane can just be sticking out like that with the building showing no signs of damage after the wings have supposedly completely gone inside?
They all look crazy to me, and seem to disobey the laws of physics..
Holographic missiles seems far more likely, which again sounds crazy!

The whole Insurance job was designed to confuse the masses and keep them guessing whilst they wage war and steel global resources.
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.