So you're telling me that a plane hit the side of this building?

So you're telling me that a plane hit the side of this building?

Other urls found in this thread:

popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/#bigplane
youtube.com/watch?v=3JK1zTuBTZI
apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=HCoFLby5x8Y
youtube.com/watch?v=LjRVC2-SP9g
pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html
youtube.com/watch?v=cXKYI9wkbSg
youtube.com/watch?v=-kFmZFgGJug&t=3450s
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lavon.html
youtu.be/hZUBR3mg_OQ?t=651
m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lrtS_LcJ8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

wouldn't the wings have done a lot of damage? or at least left some marks?

yeah, the most interesting part of all is that if you know basic physics you know in your heart that no plane hit the buildings and there was only explosions and all was a LIVE video montage just like the ones in your sports adds.

People don't believe this shit because they can't digest all the MASS MEDIA was part of all this crap that killed a lot of innocent people.

It didn't. I've seen some shit.

digits don't lie

Yes

this shit again?

popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/#bigplane

turns out the answer is "no". Airplane wings are made to break off. After hitting a few poles low to the ground, the wings broke off as expected, and the plane torpedod into the building.

But Italians must fry

It didn't. Or at least, that wasn't the major source of the damage. It was a controlled demolition by CIA/FBI, they planted C4 in the building.

>critical component of the airplane
>made to break off

I don't believe this.

When the planes hit the towers they left huge rents where the wings were.

Because the Pentagon is made of reinforced concrete. The WTC's exterior was just steel beams.
As the on user said, the plane his poles close to the ground but by that point it already had the energy and path to continue into the building. Didn't matter if the wings were damaged (Not sure why they said they were made to break off)

They arent very strong, but comparing the towers to a building made to withstand military attacks is euphoric..

the wings are bolted to a structurally reinforced portion of the fuselage, the wings are mostly hollow however. they will break off if you put enough force onto them from the front, the same thing applies to the engines. however, they can bend a lot vertically.

When a plane hits concrete at nigh speed, it will mostly just distintergrate.

If the WTC was made of solid steel and not BEAMS, it wouldn't have suffered more than a scratch.

Surprise, steel beams are not going to stop a high speed plane crashing through the gaps in between them, whereas solid concrete will do a bit better.

I know they have a lot of flexibility, but they aren't exactly made to break away. They are just attached the fuselage in a way that allows the required flexibility.

they're designed to tolerate strong maneuvers along the normal axes of operation. they do not tolerate sudden 20+ g accelerations against their direction of travel. in the event of that they crumple or disintegrate.

Has anyone on the ground ever claimed they saw a plane or missile?

>mfw looking out the window at 30,000 ft and seeing bendy-wing

ok where are the wings

Wings are held on by a couple of AN bolts under a hundred ft. lbs of torque and safety wired with .032 inch wire. It doesn't take much desu.

It was a chinese anti-aircraft carrier missile. The US didn't want to war with them so they blamed Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stop spouting bullshit you clearly know shit about. The wings are the most durable and strong part of a plane, what's least durable is fuselage, nose and the tail which are said to penetrate the pentagon while the most durable parts, which are wings, were vaporized? Also the exit hole in the pentagon's C structure could never be achieved by the nose and fuselage of the plane since they couldn't even find engines which are almost indestructible (don't confuse with being malformed or damaged). This shit is confusing and it's hard as fuck to find clear explanation to but stating some half assed arguments is retarded. There is too much false media coverage such as those 2 recordings available (which are useless and from around 700s other which were not disclosed by FBI), dumb liquefied theory which cannot exist when you consider reinforced steel beam construction of the pentagon and the pattern and trajectory in which debris has penetrated structure A,B and C or the "official" angle of plane crash (since there were 2 flight path readings, 1 from the black box of alleged plane and after few months the official U.S. military radar reading which came forth with totally different plane route which was more plausible than the "official" one yet undermined the official media narrative and thus got no coverage).

I saw a Cat front end loader that was clearing snow, back into the wing root of a 747, and it mangled the CAT. It happened at EWR and can easily be looked up. The 747 had minor cosmetic damage. The back of the CAT was 3/8" steel plate with an engine inside.

>(since there were 2 flight path readings, 1 from the black box of alleged plane and after few months the official U.S. military radar reading which came forth with totally different plane route which was more plausible than the "official" one yet undermined the official media narrative and thus got no coverage).
link?

>a CAT hitting a plane is the same as a plane hitting a building

youtube.com/watch?v=3JK1zTuBTZI

And what do you think happened, stupid? There were airplane parts on the grass. Everyone there said it was a plane.
kys

This is the short version.

It was a meat whistle.

Praise to Kek. What truth do you have?

>Only plane that would have really done some major damage to the U.S. government.
>Doesn't do any major damage.
Really makes the old spindle start to rotate.

Pretty sure that fire is a generator trailer that was caught in the impact, the actual point of which is out of frame to the left

then where were the wings on the roads if they broke off before impact?

This. Just as with the WTC buildings, recent "renovations" allowed demo charges to be placed in the structure to effect the desired damage (in the case of the asbestos-laden hazmat debacle that was Lucky Larry's WTC, that meant total destruction, at the Pentagon that meant destroying only the records of (((Dov Zakheim's))) theft of $2.3T).

It's like any other big time magic trick - the shiny thing distracts the audience while the essence of the trick is performed by hidden, pre-placed elements.

>Most important military installation in the world
>Doesn't have SAM protection
They really want us to believe this shit?

I mean,

what else with wings could it have been??

...

Can someone help me remind that case, and correct me if I'm wrong, about east coast electricity provider scandal and the court case before 9/11 which was forgotten after the twin towers fell resulting with case being closed due to lack of evidence which perished which the WTC 7 where they were all stored? If I remember correctly this case was huge and went away overnight.

I know an eye witness who claims she saw a plane. She was closer to it. I know another who claims he clearly saw a missile, though he was further away. These two things would look entirely different though. I trust both of these people.

No, it was a cruise missile.

Also, need to get the pictures of the guy placing plane parts around the Pentagon lawn.

>Airplane wings are made to break off.

lel

>the wings broke off as expected, and the plane torpedod into the building

top lel

hmm...

hit a little low, huh.
You'd think a large plane would come in at a steeper angle.

I wonder if there's any other type of object that could be

What's the story of this video? New evidence material? Where is it from etc. I'm genuinely curious.

I've had that gif for quite a while now, it's from a youtube video that no longer exists (see the older format video player) and had to be flipped to avoid detection I'm guessing.

The story I've put together so far is that the plane hit the ground at a low angle without exploding and then slid the rest of the way still going very fast into the building. It's a low building so to come at it at a steep angle would invite a miss. If they wanted to hit the building, going at it horizontally makes sense. I guess it would be like landing just not deploying the landing gear and not slowing down as much. Doesn't sound too hard really.

And I would expect the wings not to survive more than a few meters going down a street before being torn off by trees or whatever else they get caught up on.

It's not hard to imagine mistaking a plane without its wings for a rocket when it speeds by still a hundreds of miles per hour, or mistaking the sparks from it dragging across the ground for the exhaust from a missile.

I don't know what to believe really. It makes sense to me that our enemies would be assblasted about how much better than them we are and strike at our symbolic power structures in a cheap effective way with suicide attackers.

But it also makes sense to me that the government would attack itself to remove rogue elements or to manufacture consent for a war abroad.

>to manufacture consent for a war abroad
All the major US wars for the past century have used false flags to take the country into wars the people didn't want but their masters did.

Remember The Maine
Lusitania
Pearl Harbor
Gulf of Tonkin
(failed assassination of Reagan changed 1980 war clock to smaller wars like Grenada)
9/11

Yea but is it some kind of new disclosed footage? and if it's being deleted does it hold some kind of importance?

people claim to have seen a plane.

>epicenter of the largest military power ever
>not a single clear shot of the impact

(((wew)))

Thank you. Pics or it didn't happen.

So where is the steal beam?

the official story for the 12ft hole in Ring C is attributed to the landing gear. Fucking Really? the landing gear?

It didn't even break the windows.

>they will break off if you put enough force onto them from the front, the same thing applies to the engines

As if flying wasn´t horrorfying enough

I smashed your're moms' backdoor's in last night my man.

Pull it

Doesn't sound too hard for the Arabs who admittedly could fly like shit?

The outside of the WTC was literally girder grade beams. Did you even watch the Trump video questioning 911? Stop participating in the exchange of false info, and begin learning and teaching yourself not to be a brainwashed retard

>So you're telling me that a plane hit the side of this building?
Naw senpai it's bullshit. Fucking guided missile.

Where's the plane?

WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE?

apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

Mate not to burst your bubble but:

> the plane hit the ground at a low angle without exploding and then slid the rest of the way still going very fast into the building.

If it hit the ground before the building it would explode, there is no other outcome since planes are not durable (they also catch on fire the instant they hit the ground) and the speed with which it was traveling was tremendous also assuming it did hit the ground and slid into the pentagon there would be a very distinctive and visible slide pattern engraved in the ground with plane parts all over the place.

>And I would expect the wings not to survive more than a few meters going down a street before being torn off by trees or whatever else they get caught up on.

Yes but engines tho malformed would be still recoverable which if I recall were not found.

>It's not hard to imagine mistaking a plane without its wings for a rocket when it speeds by still a hundreds of miles per hour, or mistaking the sparks from it dragging across the ground for the exhaust from a missile.

The problem is the angle of crash and the poles that supposed wings have cut down on the way there "proving" that something with a large "wing span" cut them all down thus assuming that wings were present during the crash itself with the last pole they struck.

>I don't know what to believe really. It makes sense to me that our enemies would be assblasted about how much better than them we are and strike at our symbolic power structures in a cheap effective way with suicide attackers.

It's hard to believe anything at this moment, especially when truth and facts are being mixed with lies but just looking at what happened, so many coincidences that it just screams of a lie ( like the pentagons maneuver performed by arab that flew for few months?without being able to speak english? He passed his pilot test with a translator on the board of his exam plane. Doing stuff that experienced pilots could've not recreate.

That's the problem. The landing gear has done the round hole but engine which is reinforced with one of the most resilient metal alloy did nothing. Just a fucking lie.

That's the original fake news swiftly followed up by weapons o mass distraction in iraq

What about the engines? Those don't just disappear or burn up.

it was a cruise missile no doubt, or some sort of large airborne missile.

There is no fucking way a landing gear made it through, but the most glaring piece is where the hell is the plane debris?

Jet fuel vaporized the wings and exploded the building like it was made to hit an armored building or something. Curious.

Well I'm a factual man and I rather follow the evidence so I don't want to speculate but we can always assume it might have been a drone of some kind thus people seeing a plane comes in place and might be conceivable but who really knows.

>Jet fuel vaporized the wings and exploded

I don't want to be rude man but don't say such things, they are false as hell. Something can be vaporized if there is enough energy put in the matter to render it dust.

youtube.com/watch?v=HCoFLby5x8Y

No jet fuel can vaporize wings, it might be possible if you apply tremendous force which results in adequate energy but then you wouldn't be left with ANY plane parts to begin with at the crash site which we know didn't happen.

youtube.com/watch?v=LjRVC2-SP9g

0:56 is how wings and jet fuel act during crash. No vaporization can occur here.

It's fake.

what?

Again this? I though that already was settled that 9/11 was a false flag attack committed by the jews to get that delicious muslim oil.

Therefore there is no plane in the pentagon. It was a missile or a bomb. Same with the tower 7 of the world trade center which went down, but was never hit by anything

>I paid good money for this airplane to be light enough to fly in the air but dense enough to cut through concrete
Said no one ever.

...

They were pulled in. A break doesn't mean 'chopped clean off' it means breaking to rip them back in the impact. And why the fuck would a plane need to be made to have wings not break off from slamming into poles? How many giant five mile high poles do you know about?

I fly for a major cargo carrier.

We all talked about this when it happened.

You want to know why it was fake?

The APU, the generator/starter of the airplane, is wrong.

The APU from the 757-200? It does not match the one from the Pentagon crash.

pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

Regarding the location of the 'black box', also the first guy, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, on the scene is a jewdog.

Sorry, first structural engineer, showed up around 5PM...

The hellfire missile was reclassified as a plane so they could say this.

It identified as a plane.

There was no plane - the whole thing was a hoax with crisis actors.

youtube.com/watch?v=cXKYI9wkbSg

Because it was a missile. There is a video footage from a camera on a nearby building, you can barely see the object because it goes so fast, but it's definitly not an airplane.

Burgers can't accept that 9/11 is a lie. It's like a kid finding out Santa isn't real.

There was a plane that hit the Pentagon, as debris, eye witnesses, and an unbelievable amount of other evidence makes pretty fucking clear if you aren't a complete retard with a gaping dirty asshole, and WTC 7 was hit - by the falling debris from the collapsing twin towers, which again is pretty fucking obvious if you've ever so much as glanced at pictures from before the collapse. Watch the video of the WTC 7 collapse, you can see it crumbling in the corner where the debris hit before the rest of the building comes down.

Investigators concluded all of this a really fucking long time ago, how and why are you still being such a complete piece of shit retard? I hope you know how fucking stupid you sound to people who have actually properly researched this event.

>Airplane wings are made to break off

Yet, they can slice perfectly through concrete and steel.

>just steel beams
>just

Do you know what a steel beam is?

Plus you know the floors in the WTC comprised inches of concrete?

As for people that say it was a false flag operation, while I understand and share those views I strongly urge people to post at least some backings to their claims.

U.S. was always about false flagging, refer to:

A Conspiracy History of the World Andy Thomas
youtube.com/watch?v=-kFmZFgGJug&t=3450s

About 1,5 hr but this guy depicts perfect history of u.s.a. as it is today.

Also for other people try reading up on project northwood

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

This shit was conceived in early 60's by u.s. gov so just think about how much time did they have to improve on this for 20 years and if I recall it was discarded by J.F. Kennedy when it was presented to him during conflict with Cuba.

If this won't spark some doubts about whole U.S. government machine then nothing ever will.

It'd be more likely that a missle would come from a steeper angle. The targeting systems would mostly prevent a miss, less human error involved at least, and the trajectory would be from cruise altitude, down to target once it got close. Unless it was a smaller mobile deployed rocket system, which doesn't really line up with the footage. It looks like a big missle. Or kind of like a plane without wings.

Now imagine the plane going that speed at sea level where the air is denser.

Can't do.

>stupid
>kys

Cognitive dissonance is so interesting to see in person.

Everything you believe is a lie, user. The sooner you accept it the sooner you can heal.

It was a false flag, but it was carried out by Mossad with complacency of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lavon.html

what kind of shit angle approach was that anyway?

Nobody lands at 500mph you suburban or rural retard.

youtu.be/hZUBR3mg_OQ?t=651

Don't be so worried kike. You managed to get away with it without repercussion.

Remote controlled/laser guided missile shot from a plane.

Did you know Neil Bush met John Hinckley's brother for dinner the night before Reagan's assassination attempted? GHW Bush was vice president at the time.

Ain't that some crazy shit.

Plus you say it doesn't sound hard.

Have you ever flown a commercial airliner?

Neither had Hanjour.

Bullshit. Wings are the toughest part of the airplane. They literally hold the plane up and are under constant pressure. Not to mention that's where fuel is stored.

KYS

t.USAFvet

>flexible
>made to break off

Pick one.

Believe it or not there is such a thing as reality, an in reality, you are the one facing cognitive dissonance issues.

There was debris from the airplane thrown all over the fucking lawn of the Pentagon, with serial numbers, and even the fucking logo of American Airlines. There was also hundreds of eye witnesses who called in and reported the plane flying extremely low. Now I know your initial instinct is to discredit these incredible pieces of evidence because your head is so far up your own ass that you couldn't imagine the work of thousands of expert investigators being correct, so maybe it's time you just fucking kill yourself.

How about that?

>Surprise, steel beams are not going to stop a high speed plane crashing through the gaps in between them

Look at this video.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lrtS_LcJ8

What happens to the car when colliding with a steel beam at 500mph? What happens to the steel beam when colliding with concrete at 500mph?

Planes wouldn't have damaged either the WTC or the Pentagon.

>9/11 was a ChiCom attack using anti-carrier missiles

Well that's a first.