Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

https://vid8.poal.co/user/Anticlutch/et7UNOt

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Remember: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams!

[–] • 2 pts

Correct. But the fire created by it does create enough heat for the steel to begin to lose strength. This basic fact is learned in any engineering curriculum.

[–] • 0 pt

The World Trade Center was supposedly one of the strongest, most well-built, most well engineered buildings in the world. And it was the first time a skyscraper has been felled by a fire, and it happened three times (also tower 7 which was not even hit by a plane), demolition style. Not jet fuel

[–] • 0 pt

Disagree. Jet fuel burns at over 1000 C. Steel loses half its strength at only around 600 C. Extrapolate that and the steel has probably lossed close to 60 to 70% of its strength. Couple that with a plane taking out one side of a building's support and you'll have a collapse.

You frame the fact that this would have been the first time a skyscraper succumbed to fire. But you conveniently leave out the structural damage caused by the impact.

I'm with you on say WTC 7 and how that's rife for controlled demolition. But no. The Twin Towers fell due to structural damage and the intense heat of the fire weakening the steel.

[–] • 2 pts

Notice the person filming appears to be centering the tower not hit by a plane, as if they know it will be hit. This could be due to video manipulation. The perpetrators filmed the event, no doubt. Applications for the digital film industry can remove the aircraft like photoshop.

Questions to ask before trusting the video:

Why is this video only showing up now? Who filmed it? Who released it? Chain of custody?

[–] • 0 pt

Why is this video only showing up now? Who filmed it? Who released it? Chain of custody?

This video was out many many many many years ago.

[–] • 0 pt

So you can show me the original site it was posted?

[–] • 1 pt

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Fucking neck yourself kike.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

I'm guessing OP blocked you like he blocked me. What a niggerfaggot. Acting like a redditor with a post history search.

Just in case OP ever reads this....

Lost my old account password as I refuse to link my email to any website.

You might not know this but videos could be doctored, even 20 years ago. Find the hundreds of other videos, including home recorded ones, that magically have the plane missing from them.

Yes yes. Neck myself. I'm a kike....good one. You didn't disappoint as I pointed out earlier. Got anymore or are these the only replies that you have for when people point out how retarded you are?

Good job on blocking me though. You definitely didn't run away when presented with how much of a retard you are. ....and what a huge faggot to link a post you created about a false flag attack.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It was in the opposite side. Hint, there are four sides to the building.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I just checked google maps and Wikipedia, from what I can tell this video appears to face west across what must be either the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridge that you can see in the lower portion of the video. Wikipedia says the plane hit wtc 2 on the south face. This means the plane should have traveled from left to right in the video, not directly towards the camera. So if that were true it would be near impossible to not see a giant commercial jet approach from that angle. I was skeptical but now i believe.

[–] • 0 pt

That is the most retarded nonexplanation I've ever seen attempted. You can see the direction the explosion moves through the building, left to right on screen. So no faggot.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I just checked google maps and Wikipedia, from what I can tell this video appears to face west across what must be either the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridge that you can see in the lower portion of the video. Wikipedia says the plane hit wtc 2 on the south face. This means the plane should have traveled from left to right in the video, not directly towards the camera. So if that were true it would be near impossible to not see a giant commercial jet approach from that angle. I was skeptical but now i believe.

[–] • 0 pt

9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 77 and 85. Parts of the plane, including the starboard engine, leave the building from its east and north sides, falling to the ground six blocks away.[2]

South face (of second tower hit)

This video is looking slightly North East (on the assumption the towers are perfectly aligned NSEW)

[–] • 0 pt

I swear it still looks like the angle is west but if the video were looking north east, you should definitely see the plane approach since you would be looking at the south face of WTC 2.

[–] • 0 pt

The video IS facing west, taken from the east river on a boat. The bridge in the foreground is the Brooklyn bridge. The building with the green pointed top is the Woolworth building (which today would probably be blocked from view thanks to the newer 8 Spruce Street tower). The shorter building in the foreground is most likely 333 Pearl Street apartments. The smoke plumes blew towards the South-Southeast over Brooklyn: https://geospatialmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1.jpg. The maker of this video is facing the EAST face of the towers, and can visibly see the NORTH face of the towers. The plane struck the 2nd tower, the south tower, on its south face. As such you SHOULD see a plane going left to right on this video, but you don't as it was digitally manipulated out of the video.