The first video has a huge piece of evidence. It looks like something connected with the building first. Maybe a missile. Don't know. It seems to be a missile of some sort. But there was no explosion. So it might've just been a missle with nothing to make it explode, which would just weaken the walls for the impact of what looks to be a 747 for a maximum amount of damage to the building. But Mark Burnbank said it had a blue logo on the front with no windows. Common for a cargo plane. He was close to the WTC with probably a very good visual of it. The second plane did the same as well. On the second plane you can clearly see the missile ignite and launch.
Also, if you look at when the WTC collapses compared side by side to a controlled destruction of a tall building, they are very very similar. It's almost like it implodes on itself. Also in controlled destruction it goes from the top to bottom. Same as the WTCs did. Think about it, if the WTC got hit at the top, the top would be very weak and the bottom wouldnt have any more stress on it then it normally would other than the plane smacking into it. It just goes from the top right down to the bottom. When a building falls, pieces remain, like the plumbing for instance. It remains. Bathtubs, toilets, etc.... The WTC went from the tallest building in NY to rubble in 10 seconds. Buildings that fall apart from stress take a few hours, even days to get this way. Also on some of the videos taken from when they collapsed, you can see explosions under the cloud of smoke by about 10 stories. I thought it was just floors collapsing. But if the floors started to collapse, it wouldnt blow a concentrated cloud out of only a few windows. It would most likely be around the entire building.
Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC 7) bought a 99 year lease on the WTC complex 6 weeks before 9/11 for 3.2 billion dollars. He got an insurance policy with it. A 3.5 billion dollar policy that specifically covered acts of terrorism. Odd?
On Sept. 6, 2001, the put volume on United airlines was 4 times what it normally was for this time of year. A put option is a bet that stock will fall. The next day, it was more than 5 times than what it should be for Boeing. And on Sept. 10, the American Airlines put volume was more than 11 times than what it should be.
And as for the Pentagon, when the supposed hijacker turned the plane around, it was a 330* turn at 530 MPH while descending 7000 ft in 2 1/2 minutes. You cannot turn the plane going that fast. It will literally fall out of the sky. The plane would stall and would go down. They also said it bounced off the lawn in front of the Pentagon. There were no marks in front of the Pentagon.
Their explanation for the absense of pieces from the plane was that it mustve been incinerated from the intense heat of the jet fuel. But they were able to recognize 184 out of 189 people? Problem there? Not to mention the turbines of the engines are made of steel and titanium alloy. Titanium melts at 1,688*C according to the Periodic Table of the Elements. Kerosene aka jet fuel (hydrocarbon) measured up to 1,120*C only if the fuel is remains constant.
There should be damage where the wings hit the building and where the rear stabilizer hit the building. Yet there is no damage and even the windows are intact. The turbine engines on Boeing are 6 tons. It supposedly hit the wall at 535 MPH. I think that would definitely leave some kind of mark on the building.
That right there is enough proof that the WTC and the Pentagon was either the goverment or attacks by a completely different nation. It definitely wasnt what the Gov't told us it was. Not to mention, the flight numbers are still around. They retire flight numbers when they crash.
And this is possibly the longest post I've ever written or ever will write. Lol.
