Really? Because you can fucking see the plane break right the fuck through it. Did they fake that too?
Back of the napkin math says a plane that big hits with the force of 18 kilotons of TNT. That's a lot of force.
Steel isn't fucking magic. WTC was welded together at weak structural points designed only to maintain its own structural weight plus a safety factor. And it was built pretty shitty even by those standards.
You do not need to literally snap a steel beam in half to puncture the building. It will break along its weld points, which are much weaker.
I hate to tell you this, but physics and engineering are a lot more complicated than Newton's 3rd.
There were eye witnesses who were looking up the whole time and swore they saw no plane. As for the video of the impact, the third video demonstrates that it's not very difficult to fabricate, even in real time.
The existence of real conspiracies does not prove your lizard people, crackpot shit.
The idea that holographic planes and controlled demolition make more sense than just they let a terrorist attack happen is interdimensional, multiverse brain level shit.
Like, yes, there was a conspiracy. They funded and trained Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets. They let a bunch of insanely suspicious terrorists go to American flight schools and ignored all civilian warnings about it. Then made sure NORAD would be in a state of panic and confusion during planned exercises so the planes wouldn't be shot down. Then immediately started doing Anthrax and other shit to spin up support for their PFNAC shit so they could start manufacturing consent for Iraq.
You're saying all of that was actually another conspiracy to cover up an even dumber conspiracy which would accomplish the same thing, but was much more difficult to do?
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
Yes, of course.
but was much more difficult to do?
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
A successful hijacking
Bullseye accuracy hitting a slim tower at 500 mph
The hit causing damage sufficient to cause collapse
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
Why is the first conspiracy too boring for you?
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.
Really? Because you can fucking see the plane break right the fuck through it. Did they fake that too?
Back of the napkin math says a plane that big hits with the force of 18 kilotons of TNT. That's a lot of force.
Steel isn't fucking magic. WTC was welded together at weak structural points designed only to maintain its own structural weight plus a safety factor. And it was built pretty shitty even by those standards.
You do not need to literally snap a steel beam in half to puncture the building. It will break along its weld points, which are much weaker.
I hate to tell you this, but physics and engineering are a lot more complicated than Newton's 3rd.
There were eye witnesses who were looking up the whole time and swore they saw no plane. As for the video of the impact, the third video demonstrates that it's not very difficult to fabricate, even in real time.
Lol
They laughed at Jesus because he told them the truth. Just like they did when Jesus told them the CIA was smuggling drugs.
The existence of real conspiracies does not prove your lizard people, crackpot shit.
The idea that holographic planes and controlled demolition make more sense than just they let a terrorist attack happen is interdimensional, multiverse brain level shit.
Like, yes, there was a conspiracy. They funded and trained Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets. They let a bunch of insanely suspicious terrorists go to American flight schools and ignored all civilian warnings about it. Then made sure NORAD would be in a state of panic and confusion during planned exercises so the planes wouldn't be shot down. Then immediately started doing Anthrax and other shit to spin up support for their PFNAC shit so they could start manufacturing consent for Iraq.
You're saying all of that was actually another conspiracy to cover up an even dumber conspiracy which would accomplish the same thing, but was much more difficult to do?
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
Why is the first conspiracy too boring for you?
I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Yes, of course.
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.
Which frame shows that?