Funny how your swallow wholesale the claims and assertions of the government re: 9/11 but are woke to the election fraud. Perhaps it's time to reexamine. Because you believe absolute bullshit about 9/11, and are a total faggot.
you clearly don't know my opinions on 9/11 otherwise you wouldn't be running your man-pleaser like you are.
newsflash shit-dick... people can think some fuckery was afoot on 9/11 without believing someone spent 6 months demolishing walls and running thousands of miles of det cord and e-match wire and cutting charges all over a building (and somehow remaining undetected) in order to preform your bullshit "controlled demolition" fairytale make believe.
you should look into the definition of "controlled opposition"
you regurgitating outlandish bullshit theories is exactly what they want you to do.
that plane was going to go wherever the hell the piece of shit flying it decided it would.
building 7 was so small on the skyline compared to the buildings around the WTC complex it would have been difficult to get in there unless it was essentially straight down into the top of it.
the 4th plane was hijacked last, it got further west than the other 3, by the time they took control it was turned around out over lake erie and started headed back twords DC
thats why, IMO, they took it down.
ANG was in the air at that point, any plane not identifying and immediately landing would have been taken out... and what better place to do it than out over shanksville PA (middle of nowhere) before it could make it back to heavily populated areas.
"let's roll" is probably the only lie about the whole 9/11 story, because people weren't ready to hear that the US military shot down a passenger plane full of US citizens...
they still aren't.
but 7 fell for the same exact reason the other two fell... because slowly heating the metal supports of a damaged area of a building eventually reaches a point where that damaged area can no longer hold the weight of the building above it.
so it fails.
it's why the building that got hit second fell first... because the damage was lower on the tower and therefore it had to hold more weight so it failed faster.
all this dogshit about patriot missiles and windowless planes and whatever the theory is this week... it's all just distractions to make anyone who questions the people who planned it, and let it happen, look crazy.
it's much less complex than the glowies try to make you believe it is.
Shill alert!!! All of 9 11 was a scam. Yes there were crazy stories floated but the truth was fairly easy to find if you ignore all the childish rantings about structural steel suddenly collapsing and notice no other skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. One in Spain burned for 2 fricking days and bent. Also there are no other plane crashes in history with such a small pile of airplane debris. Lots of other evidence if you use your own brain and don't listen to these shills, I mean honestly, a small fire in #7 and it also failed? RIGHT
And no other building has had fully fueled airliners slam into them at full speed before.
Just fire isn't going to be enough, but when you scoop out three or four floors worth of structual supports, THEN set those floors on fire... the weight of the building above is more than the destroyed and weakened metal can support.
If you can't wrap your mind around simple physics you should stop acting like you know what you are talking about.
"Just fire isn't going to be enough, but when you scoop out three or four floors worth of structural supports, THEN set those floors on fire... the weight of the building above is more than the destroyed and weakened metal can support."
False. Why are you lying?
WTC 1 & 2 had ALL floors FULLY SUPORTED by the multitude of giant core beams constructed in the middle of the buildings surrounded by the heavily reinforced concrete shaft.
This design was created to ensure that both towers could withstand not one but multiple crashes of airliners. It didn't matter how much of the outer walls was destroyed as they just acted like fly screens on a door or window, which you can poke as many holes you like through but that doesn't effect the rigidity or stability of the actual door/window.
The "official fairy tale" also completely omitted the fact that the fire chief got all the way up to the very floors of the crash and could be heard on the recordings reporting "only small pockets of fires and nothing that one or two ladders wouldn't be able to handle".
So, the fire chief was up there IN PERSON and reported that this was not going to be a big deal. There was NO "inferno" like in the "official fairy tale" which you keep parroting.
two giant buildings worth of flaming debris smashed into the ground a few feet from it...
tends to cause problems.
jesus you haven't put an ounce of research into this at all.
you can see dozens and dozens of videos of that day to see the building burning for quite some time before it fell.
but hey don't let facts and evidence get in the way of your masturbatory fantasies about lizard men and UFO's shooting patriot missiles at the twin towers.
so destroying multiple floors worth of structure by slamming a plane into them at full speed... including the central core where the stairs and elevators were... that probably won't contribute to a weakening of the supporting structure?
then setting that remaining damaged metal on fire and letting it cook?
Look, I am not a physics person. But I have seen many well-regarded physicists and people familiar with fire and the science behind how buildings burn discuss it.
Personally, I don't think it hurts to ever examine and question the narrative we've been told by MSM. Look at the situation with the election. The MSM is telling us one thing, yet they are ignoring tons of evidence that fraud exists. I don't know what happened for sure on 9/11 in regard to how three buildings collapsed (include WTC Building 7, which was never hit by a plane) or how they came down at the rate of speed they did, which many in physics say defied the laws of physics. I don't have all the answers. But I do have many questions and it is always a good thing to go forward with a curious mind and an open mind in regard to seeking answers. Good luck to you and have a great Sunday.
Remember the plane that also crashed that day. It was the one designated for building 7.
The one in PA that they found no wreckage or bodies at?
LOL, you can't actually believe that.
Funny how your swallow wholesale the claims and assertions of the government re: 9/11 but are woke to the election fraud. Perhaps it's time to reexamine. Because you believe absolute bullshit about 9/11, and are a total faggot.
you clearly don't know my opinions on 9/11 otherwise you wouldn't be running your man-pleaser like you are.
newsflash shit-dick... people can think some fuckery was afoot on 9/11 without believing someone spent 6 months demolishing walls and running thousands of miles of det cord and e-match wire and cutting charges all over a building (and somehow remaining undetected) in order to preform your bullshit "controlled demolition" fairytale make believe.
you should look into the definition of "controlled opposition"
you regurgitating outlandish bullshit theories is exactly what they want you to do.
nice work retard
no it wasn't.
that plane was going to go wherever the hell the piece of shit flying it decided it would.
building 7 was so small on the skyline compared to the buildings around the WTC complex it would have been difficult to get in there unless it was essentially straight down into the top of it.
the 4th plane was hijacked last, it got further west than the other 3, by the time they took control it was turned around out over lake erie and started headed back twords DC
thats why, IMO, they took it down.
ANG was in the air at that point, any plane not identifying and immediately landing would have been taken out... and what better place to do it than out over shanksville PA (middle of nowhere) before it could make it back to heavily populated areas.
"let's roll" is probably the only lie about the whole 9/11 story, because people weren't ready to hear that the US military shot down a passenger plane full of US citizens...
they still aren't.
but 7 fell for the same exact reason the other two fell... because slowly heating the metal supports of a damaged area of a building eventually reaches a point where that damaged area can no longer hold the weight of the building above it.
so it fails.
it's why the building that got hit second fell first... because the damage was lower on the tower and therefore it had to hold more weight so it failed faster.
all this dogshit about patriot missiles and windowless planes and whatever the theory is this week... it's all just distractions to make anyone who questions the people who planned it, and let it happen, look crazy.
it's much less complex than the glowies try to make you believe it is.
Shill alert!!! All of 9 11 was a scam. Yes there were crazy stories floated but the truth was fairly easy to find if you ignore all the childish rantings about structural steel suddenly collapsing and notice no other skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. One in Spain burned for 2 fricking days and bent. Also there are no other plane crashes in history with such a small pile of airplane debris. Lots of other evidence if you use your own brain and don't listen to these shills, I mean honestly, a small fire in #7 and it also failed? RIGHT
And no other building has had fully fueled airliners slam into them at full speed before.
Just fire isn't going to be enough, but when you scoop out three or four floors worth of structual supports, THEN set those floors on fire... the weight of the building above is more than the destroyed and weakened metal can support.
If you can't wrap your mind around simple physics you should stop acting like you know what you are talking about.
Because you don't.
also LOL @ 7 having a "small fire"
holy shit you suck at this.
Building 7 was never hit. Were you alive then?
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important. http://web.archive.org/web/20050922032625/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1131137
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents-regarding-pre-911-put-options.html
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7’s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“. http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
More here: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
Oh what happened to building 7 then?
"Just fire isn't going to be enough, but when you scoop out three or four floors worth of structural supports, THEN set those floors on fire... the weight of the building above is more than the destroyed and weakened metal can support."
False. Why are you lying?
WTC 1 & 2 had ALL floors FULLY SUPORTED by the multitude of giant core beams constructed in the middle of the buildings surrounded by the heavily reinforced concrete shaft.
This design was created to ensure that both towers could withstand not one but multiple crashes of airliners. It didn't matter how much of the outer walls was destroyed as they just acted like fly screens on a door or window, which you can poke as many holes you like through but that doesn't effect the rigidity or stability of the actual door/window.
The "official fairy tale" also completely omitted the fact that the fire chief got all the way up to the very floors of the crash and could be heard on the recordings reporting "only small pockets of fires and nothing that one or two ladders wouldn't be able to handle".
So, the fire chief was up there IN PERSON and reported that this was not going to be a big deal. There was NO "inferno" like in the "official fairy tale" which you keep parroting.
Wtc 7 caught on fire how? Which plane hit it?
two giant buildings worth of flaming debris smashed into the ground a few feet from it...
tends to cause problems.
jesus you haven't put an ounce of research into this at all.
you can see dozens and dozens of videos of that day to see the building burning for quite some time before it fell.
but hey don't let facts and evidence get in the way of your masturbatory fantasies about lizard men and UFO's shooting patriot missiles at the twin towers.
Many experts in physics disagree
Right I mean modern buildings just collapse at freefall speed due to nothing all the time.
so destroying multiple floors worth of structure by slamming a plane into them at full speed... including the central core where the stairs and elevators were... that probably won't contribute to a weakening of the supporting structure?
then setting that remaining damaged metal on fire and letting it cook?
thats not gonna cause issues eh?
thefuckoutta here with that trash.
Look, I am not a physics person. But I have seen many well-regarded physicists and people familiar with fire and the science behind how buildings burn discuss it.
Personally, I don't think it hurts to ever examine and question the narrative we've been told by MSM. Look at the situation with the election. The MSM is telling us one thing, yet they are ignoring tons of evidence that fraud exists. I don't know what happened for sure on 9/11 in regard to how three buildings collapsed (include WTC Building 7, which was never hit by a plane) or how they came down at the rate of speed they did, which many in physics say defied the laws of physics. I don't have all the answers. But I do have many questions and it is always a good thing to go forward with a curious mind and an open mind in regard to seeking answers. Good luck to you and have a great Sunday.
Take the L, reddit fag
Hadn't heard that. The popular story was that it was headed for the Whitehouse.
Holy shit 🤔😳
you mean the one that never made it there?