Why did they let it happen ?

[PeterPilot]

There are two videos showing nothing hitting the North Tower at all.

Both have long since been censored.

The explosion in the North Tower comes out all sides at once equally.

The explosion in the South Tower has momentum and carries out a huge fireball out the other side. The two are very different. There is no "momentum" in the North Tower explosion, suggesting it originated inside.

I saw that video at PF911Truth many times. It showed a flying craft strike the north face of the north tower. Just a flash, but it showed it, and that essentially corroborated the stories called in to NYPD. Yes, the powers that be eventually took down that parking lot video.

No doubt the North Tower had explosives in place, and probably the South Tower too.

Facts and evidence show that nuclear events took place there that day.

 

[PeterPilot]

Ridiculous...

It's ridiculous only to those who don't understand how the Federal Witness Protection Program works.

Cee Cee Lyles was from my hometown. I didn't know her, but have several friends who went to school with her. She was supposedly onboard one of the United flights, I think 93. Former Army, former police officer and then cabin attendant. She is a perfect candidate for WPP. Local rumors abound she's still alive.

 

[EMH]

I saw that video at PF911Truth many times. It showed a flying craft strike the north face of the north tower. Just a flash, but it showed it, and that essentially corroborated the stories called in to NYPD. Yes, the powers that be eventually took down that parking lot video.

No doubt the North Tower had explosives in place, and probably the South Tower too.

Facts and evidence show that nuclear events took place there that day.

The Naudet video is a fraud. Notice the explosion blows back where the "airplane" hit. Other angles show the back and the one side all fired out at the same time = explosion was inside and had no momentum.

For the South Tower, the huge fireball went out the other side, the momentum issue...

 

[PeterPilot]

The Naudet video is a fraud. Notice the explosion blows back where the "airplane" hit. Other angles show the back and the one side all fired out at the same time = explosion was inside and had no momentum.

For the South Tower, the huge fireball went out the other side, the momentum issue...

Yes, the Naudet video IS a fraud. But that does not mean that no airplane hit the North Tower. It was not AA11.

For the south tower, a modified 767 drone was the culprit, and some of its landing gear ended up wedged between 2 buildings, only to be discovered years later.

 

[EMH]

Yes, the Naudet video IS a fraud. But that does not mean that no airplane hit the North Tower. It was not AA11.

For the south tower, a modified 767 drone was the culprit, and some of its landing gear ended up wedged between 2 buildings, only to be discovered years later.

Some people say it was a missile.

From an "Einsteinian" point of view, the initial explosion in North Tower lacked momentum. A plane flying through the air has momentum. If it his a WTC tower, that momentum is still carried by the fuel in the plane, which is why south tower had a huge fireball come out the back side... There is no such one sidedness of the north tower explosion.

 

[EMH]

It's ridiculous only to those who don't understand how the Federal Witness Protection Program works.

Cee Cee Lyles was from my hometown. I didn't know her, but have several friends who went to school with her. She was supposedly onboard one of the United flights, I think 93. Former Army, former police officer and then cabin attendant. She is a perfect candidate for WPP. Local rumors abound she's still alive.

What about Marky Wahlberg, who was "supposed" to be on one of the planes....

 

[PeterPilot]

Some people say it was a missile.

From an "Einsteinian" point of view, the initial explosion in North Tower lacked momentum. A plane flying through the air has momentum. If it his a WTC tower, that momentum is still carried by the fuel in the plane, which is why south tower had a huge fireball come out the back side... There is no such one sidedness of the north tower explosion.

We all saw the fireball at WTC2 because there was a loaded Boeing crashing.

Because it was a much smaller aircraft at WTC1, the amount of jetfuel available was much less, AND an honest video of the actual impact is not available for close analysis.

 

[EMH]

it was a much smaller aircraft at WTC1

It was either

a much smaller aircraft
a missile
a bomb inside

but not a big Boeing passenger jet...


A friend's brother was in the South Tower, got out right after North Tower exploded. I asked him if he heard a plane approaching the North Tower before it exploded. He said no. He just heard the explosion. Planes flying close by are kinda loud... Nobody he knew who survived saw anything approach or hit North Tower.

 

[Gamolon]

That's a total fraud. That "plane" is going about 30mph

30 mph?!?!?!



How did you arrive at that speed?

 

[Gamolon]

Who cares?

There are skyscrapers all over the planet except Antarctica. They must all deal with the same gravity. Do you think that the 105th level of the North Tower that only had to support the weight of 5 more levels contained the same amount of steel as the 5th level that had to support the weight of 105 levels?

No matter what happened on 9/11 or why, how is it that Two Decades have gone by in the nation that put men on the Moon without scientists and engineers discussing the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers?

Consider the shape of the Eiffel Tower. Duh!

It is 10,000 tons of wrought iron and does not have to support twice its own weight in concrete. Each of the Twins had 100,000 tons of steel.

I'm curious.

Did you use the same scientific knowledge you used to create your "paper/washer" model which YOU later invalidated with your own comments?

 

[Gamolon]

Quick Zionist Fascist credibility check

Is this controlled demolition?

Once again, you use an edited video. I wonder why you never use the longer video?

 

[Gamolon]

Facts and evidence show that nuclear events took place there that day.

Yet you provide none in your post. Why?

 

[Gamolon]

Other angles show the back and the one side all fired out at the same time = explosion was inside and had no momentum.

What "other angles"? You links?

 

[PeterPilot]

Yet you provide none in your post. Why?

Because the official narrative failed 20 years ago. There are many other things for the curious mind to consider.

 

[Gamolon]

Because the official narrative failed 20 years ago. There are many other things for the curious mind to consider.

So you have no evidence to provide to support your claims?

That's interesting.

Is that how you "truth seekers" debate? Using unsupported claims?

 

[PeterPilot]

So you have no evidence to provide to support your claims?

That's interesting.

Is that how you "truth seekers" debate? Using unsupported claims?

20 years ago Gam. 20 years ago the official narrative you still defend was rendered invalid, pure BS. You're stuck in the past, unable to think for yourself. No, you're not alone. Joe Biden 'thinks' like you do.

 

[PeterPilot]

It was either

a much smaller aircraft
a missile
a bomb inside

but not a big Boeing passenger jet...


A friend's brother was in the South Tower, got out right after North Tower exploded. I asked him if he heard a plane approaching the North Tower before it exploded. He said no. He just heard the explosion. Planes flying close by are kinda loud... Nobody he knew who survived saw anything approach or hit North Tower.

My bet is it was A and C. A small drone combined with explosives planted in the offices of Marsh & McLenan and elsewhere.

 

[PeterPilot]

So you have no evidence to provide to support your claims?

That's interesting.

Is that how you "truth seekers" debate? Using unsupported claims?

The debate was over 20 years ago dude. When the government Commission acknowledged that "we found no evidence" for 60+ elements of the official narrative, the debate was over. When the presentation, facts and evidence, arranged by the Lawyers Committee on 911 was rejected and hidden away by the US Attorney in Manhattan, that corroborated that the debate was over. The official narrative fails at every turn.

 

[Gamolon]

The debate was over 20 years ago dude. When the government Commission acknowledged that "we found no evidence" for 60+ elements of the official narrative, the debate was over. When the presentation, facts and evidence, arranged by the Lawyers Committee on 911 was rejected and hidden away by the US Attorney in Manhattan, that corroborated that the debate was over. The official narrative fails at every turn.

Ah yes. The "60" instances of the words of "no evidence" in the report. Did you actually look those instances up and read them for yourself our are you just parroting what others have said?

 

[Gamolon]

When the presentation, facts and evidence, arranged by the Lawyers Committee on 911

What facts and evidence? Can you give an example or are you going to continue to not provide any?