New video of explosion at the Twin Towers without a plane

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

www.youtube.com...

Nope, wings not popping off here either...

Ahhh now i get it

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

No, not really. It is an explosive object with wings and a tail being launched into an object. Using the logic expressed by some, you should see parts of it go backwards...in accordance with Newton's third law right?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

1. The 'record breaking' is undeniable. It was Daily Records, not Monthly for Airlines, as the attacks and options against them were over a couple days.

2.The CBOE itself claimed it was going to investigate 'unusual' trading activity. This was not reported by Citizens originally, it came straight from the horse's mouth.

3. The "Data failure" and lost data from the CBOE when investigators(The FBI) asked for it went missing. Despite all other unusual activity, this is the largest
----RED FLAG----

4. The options made on the airlines are peanuts compared to the large corporations and banks inside the building. The airlines options themselves are used as false evidence and put to the forefront of the issue, when the activity and put offs involved with the other companies is UNDENIABLY shady.

5. The best official explanation is nothing like what you said, the idea is that people 'piggybacked' on investments others were making 'innocently' so the numbers are exaggerated, and we're to believe everyone on WallSt. is a Lemming when it comes to investing.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

No, not really. It is an explosive object with wings and a tail being launched into an object. Using the logic expressed by some, you should see parts of it go backwards...in accordance with Newton's third law right?

Holy crap you were serious with those vids?! Those are missiles. Not planes.

You inadvertently provided an example for why you don't see a tail section at the Pentagon haha.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

You inadvertently provided an example for why you don't see a tail section at the Pentagon haha.

The tail section of a 757 is made of carbon fiber, which shatters into small fragments on impact. I see lots of small carbon fiber fragments at the pentagon.

haha.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

CBOE? It was the SEC that investigated it and found that 95% of the options on one of the Airlines were purchased by an investor with no suspicious connections. Again, plenty of material showing it wasn't connected to the attacks.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What do you think an airliner becomes when somebody points it at a target? It is then a missile, an offensive weapon..and in the case of airliners with the oxygen cylinders in the nose...one with a "warhead".

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Jacobu12

The steel/scrap was sold off to China and others with a quickness.

This was an inside job.

That was one of the smoking guns I could see clearly happening in front of everyone. All the evidence was being sent out essentially to be destroyed before any kind of serious investigation. I think it was already being shipped out the same day or next day if I remember right all I know is it was one of them first couple days after 911.

I remember thinking if the recovered pieces, that were left from the building, that were being sent out for recycling, to the other side of the world, if they were being documented somehow, forget bagging and storing the evidence.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Did you actually read the post that I was replying to? Obviously not.

Here is the important part.

The impact would have sent a shockwave through the fuselage causing, at the very least, the tail to instantly eject outwards away from The Pentagon.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Maybe if you read other posts first, where certain people said that the tail should have been ejected from the force of the nose impacting, you'd have a different perspective.

Buy no, it's far more fun to be condescending to people.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

No, the conversation began with AgarthaSeed claiming the tail should have been ejected from the fuselage from the impact of the nose and landed on the lawn.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

And the United crash in Colorado Springs, USAir in Pennsylvania, and ValueJet in Florida. All three of those impacted the ground at a high rate of speed. Guess what wasn't found anywhere nearby, at least intact. Wings and a tail. What was left of the tail was found, destroyed beyond recognition, mixed in with the rest of the wreckage.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Seeing as the CBOE handles the puts, it makes sense they stated they were going to investigate it.

This also makes sense as to how the data could conveniently disappear. Many people investigated it, including the FBI.

Most of the Data as to who made investments in general that day was lost, the irony of your statement that it came up with no suspicious connections, when the CBOE suggested terrorism activity was possible and data was destroyed, is laughable.


And it's like you didn't even read my last post:

The options made on the airlines are peanuts compared to the large corporations and banks inside the building. The airlines options themselves are used as false evidence and put to the forefront of the issue, when the activity and put offs involved with the other companies is UNDENIABLY shady.

What part of this suggests it ends at airlines to you? The airlines are all that are talked about, because there was data dumped in third party sources. The original CBOE data was lost, the idea they could even identify ANYONE is a joke, or they would have handed names to the FBI when asked.

Just comb over the part about how the Airlines are a huge distraction, one more time, for me bae, thx.

It should be obvious though. What sounds better to place a put on? A business that will take a hit from terrorists using their 'product', or one that has it's literal headquarters and staff destroyed?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What do you think an airliner becomes when somebody points it at a target? It is then a missile, an offensive weapon..and in the case of airliners with the oxygen cylinders in the nose...one with a "warhead".

Think about it. A missile contains the explosive potential to destroy something much larger than the missile itself. That's it's design and purpose.

A passenger jet is designed to transport people. Upon impact it will not behave the same way as an actual warhead.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Buy no, it's far more fun to be condescending to people.

For the sake of argument, I do agree with you to an extent, even though you are technically wrong.

It was you being condescending, that irritated me to the point of attempting to be technically correct and call you wrong.

But technically any part of the Plane can survive in ricochet, and you're wrong specifically trying to apply Newton's law to this. Newton's law screams "Any part of the plane can ricochet".

That being said, in a 9/10 scenario, I completely agree with you.

Even though you're wrong.


I think it's safe to say the conversation is over.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

And the United crash in Colorado Springs, USAir in Pennsylvania, and ValueJet in Florida. All three of those impacted the ground at a high rate of speed. Guess what wasn't found anywhere nearby, at least intact. Wings and a tail. What was left of the tail was found, destroyed beyond recognition, mixed in with the rest of the wreckage.

I think you've misconstrued my original statement. By saying that the tail of the plane would've ejected away from the Pentagon, I wasn't saying that it would be launched like a cannonball fully intact.

I'm saying there would have been pieces of the tail strewn across the Pentagon lawn immediately available for anyone to see. Small pieces? Perhaps. On fire? Possibly. But the point is, the tail would not have continued forward into the Pentagon because of the force exerted in the opposite direction.

Comparing the 3 plane crashes you mentioned above is pointless because all of the impacts were from different angles and speeds. This is specifically about the official narrative of Flight 77.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Debris was thrown backwards onto the lawn. In every other crash, the tail continued going forward at impact. Debris was thrown in all directions, when the planes hit at extreme angles and exploded, which we saw here. The tail section continued forward, hit the wall, and shattered. We don't know if some of the debris from the lawn came from the tail or not. It wasn't recognizable without a close examination.

The one thing all impacts like this have in common is that there are no large pieces left afterwards. No matter the angle, a high speed impact destroys everything, and doesn't leave large pieces.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Let's just say shattered pieces hitting the wall, and bounce onto the lawn is the Debris he's talking about going in the reverse direction that is the 'tail'.

The whole Newton part applies to this, in that the majority of Debris on the Lawn would ACTUALLY be from the tail.

The size of the tail of an airplane is pretty large, and so even scattered fragments would be substantial debris is his point.


The only true variable is your own interpretations of how much debris was collected/photographed from there.


Edit: The additional force within the object is what I feel like we're not talking about. This is why the material at the back flys backwards, and can even 'shatter' before it hits anything from it's own tension.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Its funny how the SEC had no issues finding the evidence.