Huh?
The pilots had training in the US and had gained licenses, this was literally all over the news.
They didn't even have to see it to locate it, they weren't amateurs.
Not seen this bit of evidence before... care to share the source?
Always been a bit weird you have.
I was asking a simple question. At least Lytham_FY8 had the decency to provide some good evidence and be civil. The fact that Hani Hanjour is still alive today is not the key point just yet.
? All five Hijackers/pilot were accounted for through human remains
You're wasting your time with zealots.I could tell you that this picture isn't from the Pentagon crash site,,,and you wouldn't have a clue as it has zero points of reference.
it's been proven time and time again that it's a totally different crash area,
If you do a reverse Google image search you will see that it's been debunked.......Funnily.....every September for the last 15+ years
This same image turns up again and again from sites who say 9/11 was a fake blatantly using it without checking
Then other sites start to investigate and they found out it was a photo from a totally different crash site...but people keep using it....
You can read all about it on the American publications like: Popular Mechanics
There's books, video's etc answering every aspect of the crash and showing 'scientifically' how the crash happened.
Seems a bit over the top to start a war, they could have just bombed one of their embassies out there instead of murdering thousands of their own civilians in broad daylight with a complex/fantastical plot involving holograms, explosives etc...
I never said on what level they may or may not have been involved, but as mentioned with the blame game, it could just have been using a situation that happened legitimately and using that as the perfect excuse for the Iraq invasion.
Oh I absolutely believe they used it as an excuse with some forged documents to invade Iraq, it doesn't mean anything to do with 9/11 was a conspiracy though.
What were the suspect things for you?
Loads of stuff really…
All 3 still the only steel frame buildings to collapse in history due to fire and they also collapsed in free fall, which only ever happens with demolition.
Years later Jihadi John was killed by USA and UK drones in a combined operation. Fantastic job on such small target as the first impact hit his 2 inch dick.
It has quite a lot to do with it really… There was some suggestion that the Israeli state might have been involved or aware of the incident in advance and there was (I understand) a relevant connection..
I seem to recall something about it being extremely unusual for a single building of this design to collapse, let alone 3. (And of course, building 7 collapsed in quite different circumstances to the other two buildings).
Racism?Unbelievable.
Fuck it just casual racism.
You’re utter scum.
Building 7 was not attached and was barely damaged and if you took to look at every view of this disaster you might be surprised. I certainly was.member
I seem to recall something about it being extremely unusual for a single building of this design to collapse, let alone 3. (And of course, building 7 collapsed in quite different circumstances to the other two buildings).
So a building attached to another building with 110+ floors, and another one close by with 110+ floors.
Both of which collapse and the baby building should survive.
Bizzar statement that something put out by several news outlets makes you a racist.
It wasnt attached to those buildings. 88 steel beams all failed at the same time allowing the building to fall at freefall speed. You know that doesn't make any sense and has never happened EVER in the history of building fires? Look at Grenfell tower, burned for days and didn't collapse, why not?member
I seem to recall something about it being extremely unusual for a single building of this design to collapse, let alone 3. (And of course, building 7 collapsed in quite different circumstances to the other two buildings).
So a building attached to another building with 110+ floors, and another one close by with 110+ floors.
Both of which collapse and the baby building should survive.
I’m not sure I suggested the building should ‘survive’, just that it was unusual for the other two to have collapsed as they did, let alone building 7 to follow suit.member
I seem to recall something about it being extremely unusual for a single building of this design to collapse, let alone 3. (And of course, building 7 collapsed in quite different circumstances to the other two buildings).
So a building attached to another building with 110+ floors, and another one close by with 110+ floors.
Both of which collapse and the baby building should survive.
Fair enough I’ve not got that involved myself, I just get the feeling if two buildings with 110+ floors collapse there will be some damage on the side.
Fire is solely to blame and if you read my post further up with fire and collapse facts you could be surprised.Fair enough I’ve not got that involved myself, I just get the feeling if two buildings with 110+ floors collapse there will be some damage on the side.
Because Grenfell didn't have high powered explosives planted on every floor by the CIA a month prior.
That camera was from the local gas station. There are at least 25 things across all the tragedies that day that make little sense, and that's why people won't let it go. Whether an independent investigation is ever permitted, or whether there is enough evidence preserved to disprove the official narrative, we may never know. If it was odd Bob in his bedroom on YouTube saying all this then I could well understand people trying to shut the argument down, but over 3,600 Architects, scientists, structural engineers, professors and bomb disposal experts from around the world are constantly pushing for an independent investigation because they don't believe the evidence points to what is being said.
220 floors didn't collapse on any building, not one floor touched WTC7, and if you ever wondered why the pile of debris from 2 x 1550ft towers wasnt very big, it's because they said that each floor was pulverise into dust on the way down. So, what you're saying is dust brought a 47 story building down at freefall speed?“I’m not sure what being the smaller building has to do with anything really. It wasn’t hit by a flying aircraft or subject to the same physical pressure or fire accelerant.”
What part of 220+ floors collapsing on a building don’t you get?
canada.constructconnect.com
No collateral damage whatsoever? Amazing.
But 220 floors didn’t collapse on it… So I don’t get that bit in particular“I’m not sure what being the smaller building has to do with anything really. It wasn’t hit by a flying aircraft or subject to the same physical pressure or fire accelerant.”
What part of 220+ floors collapsing on a building don’t you get?
Yes plenty of collateral damage, just not what would cause a 47 storey building to drop at freefall speed. Have you seen the footage of that btw? For something to fall at thay speed there has to be zero resistance. That means that all 88 footings had to be removed at exactly the same time. Even if fire had melted some of the beams, and the temperatures weren't high enough for that, the building would have toppled over, not dropped like a stone.
