WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

by Guest Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:30 am

http://worldobserveronline.com/2014/03/09/ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-planes-hit-twin-towers/?utm_content=buffer8681e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

i want to discuss because,

- i am drunk,
- my son told me the affidavit is credible,
- because my son is an engineer,
- because my son is an engineer,
- because my son cannot be wrong
- because propagandhi, who did not eat bagel and coffee for breakfast and is not logged in from his phone, is an engineer,
- and because for no rhyme and reason and because
- i am convinced my son is right!

i've read several theories including how the wtc was brought dwn by santa claus's reindeers crashing into them but this time it is serious. logically inexplicable or difficult to digest for the layman (the fact that commercial planes ploughed through steel structures).

by Guest Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:44 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w

by Guest Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:50 am

incomplete theory (didn't watch the youtube yet).

- what bombed WTC? Other kinds of planes? Masked as commercial planes?
- or was it some other kind of bomb? What did the people see then? Planes were seen going into the buildings, and not just on tv.
- what happened to the original commercial planes?
- what about people who called they were hijacked and hitting? Also, the timing that seems to match. How big a conspiracy are we talking? Maybe biggest ever in history?
- were the planes real and pilots experienced? The terrorists were known to take 2-year training.
- they mention that that speed cannot be attained at that altitude by that plane, but no citation of any tests or experiments.
- no mention of the immense heat produced and the measure of it, and if the structures can withstand that heat or not. They are just saying it could not have been destroyed, but no mention of the quantity of heat and other definitive measurements. No tests mentioned to prove it.

by Guest Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:11 am

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:incomplete theory (didn't watch the youtube yet).

- what bombed WTC? Other kinds of planes? Masked as commercial planes?
- or was it some other kind of bomb? What did the people see then? Planes were seen going into the buildings, and not just on tv.
- what happened to the original commercial planes?
- what about people who called they were hijacked and hitting? Also, the timing that seems to match. How big a conspiracy are we talking? Maybe biggest ever in history?
- were the planes real and pilots experienced? The terrorists were known to take 2-year training.
- they mention that that speed cannot be attained at that altitude by that plane, but no citation of any tests or experiments.
- no mention of the immense heat produced and the measure of it, and if the structures can withstand that heat or not. They are just saying it could not have been destroyed, but no mention of the quantity of heat and other definitive measurements. No tests mentioned to prove it.

logical questions and i don't have the answers to all (attempting answering some below) but it is clear (or makes one think) how, as lear says, a commercial plane could plough through a steel structure as seamlessly as it does in the video below:

- what bombed WTC? Other kinds of planes? Masked as commercial planes?

clearly commercial planes disappeared and passengers died. no disputing. but did these planes carry additional equipment?

- were the planes real and pilots experienced? The terrorists were known to take 2-year training.

for they kind of attack they envisaged, as lear says, they must have been very experienced.

- they mention that that speed cannot be attained at that altitude by that plane, but no citation of any tests or experiments.

no. nobody is interested in carrying experiments on this score (does not mean lear is right otoh).

- no mention of the immense heat produced and the measure of it, and if the structures can withstand that heat or not. They are just saying it could not have been destroyed, but no mention of the quantity of heat and other definitive measurements. No tests mentioned to prove it.

good point BK! i will reply to this with my other handle so people know i use two. don't tell them i use three for i have your phone number AND photograph and WILL post them here if you cheat! also try not to be to overt! this time you almost let out that you are also my handle.

by Sponsored content

WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

Re: WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

Re: WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

Re: WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676

Re: WTC DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF COLLISION WITH BOEING 676