What Really Struck the Twin Towers?

[Stuart Wright]

The latest blog post from James Perloff suggests, as others have also
said, that cloaked missiles, not drones, were used to strike the World
Trade Center Towers and more.

https://jamesperloff.com/2018/06/22/what-struck-the-twin-towers-revising-my-outlook/

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 6/22/2018 10:17 PM, Stuart Wright wrote:
> The latest blog post from James Perloff suggests, as others have also
> said, that cloaked missiles, not drones, were used to strike the World
> Trade Center Towers and more.

"cloaked missiles"? Unlikely...

There is another conspiracy theory that the 2 buildings were blown up
INTERNALLY! :)

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[Thomas Heger]

Am 22.06.2018 um 16:17 schrieb Stuart Wright:
> The latest blog post from James Perloff suggests, as others have also
> said, that cloaked missiles, not drones, were used to strike the World
> Trade Center Towers and more.
>

There are MANY different theories about the reason, why the twin towers
fell and what could have possibly struck them.

I personally think, that Judy Wood's theory is correct, more or less.

The mechanism of destruction is actually very unusual. The closest
mechanism is called 'Hutchison effect', invented by the Canadian John
Hutchison.

Hutchison showed, that certain high voltage and high frequency beams
could, if carefully tuned, destroy steel.

The remains of the Twin Towers look a little similar to what Hutchison
produced on small scale.

Another assumption was, that some sort of 'time machine' was used, which
teleported the material into another dimension.

This is at least a little plausible, since from the roughly one million
tons of material the towers were build from only 10 to 20 percent were
found later.

So: where did the towers go? (that was Judy Wood's question).

Another theory tries to utilize 'scalar waves', possibly coming from a
spaceship and/or the Brookhaven National Lab.

There are also theories, the Russian 'woodpecker' signal or HAARP caused
the destruction.

But jets of any kind (or missiles) are imho not among the plausible
solutions to the WTC riddle.

Also explosives (even nukes) were assumed, but were unlikely used. This
would also rule out 'nano thermite' or similar.

TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Amount of evidence that planes hit the towers: Massive.

Amount of evidence that anything other than planes hit the towers
or caused them to collapse: None.

Come back when you have actual evidence.

--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org

[KWills Shill #3]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 13:38:25 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 22.06.2018 um 16:17 schrieb Stuart Wright:
>> The latest blog post from James Perloff suggests, as others have also
>> said, that cloaked missiles, not drones, were used to strike the World
>> Trade Center Towers and more.
>
>There are MANY different theories about the reason, why the twin towers
>fell and what could have possibly struck them.
>

But 100% of the available evidence shows planes hit them and this
lead to the collapse.
Fortunately, you will provide the VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence for
the claim you present, if your claim is in any way possible.

>I personally think, that Judy Wood's theory is correct, more or less.
>

There is no evidence to support her crazy assertions.

>The mechanism of destruction is actually very unusual. The closest
>mechanism is called 'Hutchison effect', invented by the Canadian John
>Hutchison.
>
>Hutchison showed, that certain high voltage and high frequency beams
>could, if carefully tuned, destroy steel.
>

Even if that were true, the steel in the towers was not
destroyed. But, fortunately, you will offer the VALID, VERIFIABLE
evidence that the steel was actually destroyed and not just weakened
as all available evidence currently shows happened.

>The remains of the Twin Towers look a little similar to what Hutchison
>produced on small scale.
>
>Another assumption was, that some sort of 'time machine' was used, which
>teleported the material into another dimension.
>

You constantly use your baseless assumptions to support your
impossible delusions.

>This is at least a little plausible, since from the roughly one million
>tons of material the towers were build from only 10 to 20 percent were
>found later.
>

Only the smallest of fractions of material was not found. Less
than 1% was not accounted for.
What was not present was likely that which went over the water.

>So: where did the towers go? (that was Judy Wood's question).
>

They didn't go anywhere.

>Another theory tries to utilize 'scalar waves', possibly coming from a
>spaceship and/or the Brookhaven National Lab.
>
>There are also theories, the Russian 'woodpecker' signal or HAARP caused
>the destruction.
>
>But jets of any kind (or missiles) are imho not among the plausible
>solutions to the WTC riddle.
>

100% of the available evidence shows planes hit the towers.

>Also explosives (even nukes) were assumed, but were unlikely used. This
>would also rule out 'nano thermite' or similar.

At least you recognize that.

--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg

All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

[Thomas Heger]

Am 23.06.2018 um 16:44 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
>> The remains of the Twin Towers look a little similar to what Hutchison
>> produced on small scale.
>>
>> Another assumption was, that some sort of 'time machine' was used, which
>> teleported the material into another dimension.
>>
> You constantly use your baseless assumptions to support your
> impossible delusions.
>
>> This is at least a little plausible, since from the roughly one million
>> tons of material the towers were build from only 10 to 20 percent were
>> found later.
>>
> Only the smallest of fractions of material was not found. Less
> than 1% was not accounted for.
> What was not present was likely that which went over the water.
>

Well, no!

The towers consisted - like most buildings - from about 10% building
materials, like concrete, steel, glass, aluminum, plaster boards,
carpets and other.

Since the towers were about 400m high and had about 100 floors, the pile
of rubble had to be a cone of roughly the hight of the tenth floor
(supposed the materials were ground to fine dust and were compacted into
such a pile without any air).

But the material barely covered the street level.

This is visible in many photos from that day, which were made prior to
the cleanup.

Such photos show cars, trucks and ambulances in the rubble. And they
have certainly not flown at the level of the tenth floor.

TH

[KWills Shill #3]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:14:59 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 23.06.2018 um 16:44 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
>>> The remains of the Twin Towers look a little similar to what Hutchison
>>> produced on small scale.
>>>
>>> Another assumption was, that some sort of 'time machine' was used, which
>>> teleported the material into another dimension.
>>>
>> You constantly use your baseless assumptions to support your
>> impossible delusions.
>>
>>> This is at least a little plausible, since from the roughly one million
>>> tons of material the towers were build from only 10 to 20 percent were
>>> found later.
>>>
>> Only the smallest of fractions of material was not found. Less
>> than 1% was not accounted for.
>> What was not present was likely that which went over the water.
>
>
>Well, no!
>

Well, yes! This has already been proved, as you know.

>The towers consisted - like most buildings - from about 10% building
>materials, like concrete, steel, glass, aluminum, plaster boards,
>carpets and other.
>

And?

>Since the towers were about 400m high and had about 100 floors, the pile
>of rubble had to be a cone of roughly the hight of the tenth floor
>(supposed the materials were ground to fine dust and were compacted into
>such a pile without any air).
>
>But the material barely covered the street level.
>

Why LIE about this? It's been PROVED, multiple times, that your
claim is nothing but a lie.
If you truly NEED to be proved the pathological liar you are,
again, I can do so.

>This is visible in many photos from that day, which were made prior to
>the cleanup.
>

It's quite visible that there are several stories of debris, as
you already know.

>Such photos show cars, trucks and ambulances in the rubble. And they
>have certainly not flown at the level of the tenth floor.

The pictures you are referencing were taken days AFTER. And you
already KNOW this.
I realize you have a very hard time being honest, but do try.
I note you dishonestly snipped away most of my post. You often do
this rather than face your lying being exposed. It's as if you think
being dishonest will somehow erase your dishonesty.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 6/23/2018 10:43 PM, KWills Shill #3 wrote:
>
> Amount of evidence that planes hit the towers: Massive.
>
> Amount of evidence that anything other than planes hit the towers
> or caused them to collapse: None.
>
> Come back when you have actual evidence.

Evidences of passengers present in those 4 planes? :)

[Thomas Heger]

Am 25.06.2018 um 11:44 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
...

>> Since the towers were about 400m high and had about 100 floors, the pile
>> of rubble had to be a cone of roughly the hight of the tenth floor
>> (supposed the materials were ground to fine dust and were compacted into
>> such a pile without any air).
>>
>> But the material barely covered the street level.
>>
>
> Why LIE about this? It's been PROVED, multiple times, that your
> claim is nothing but a lie.
> If you truly NEED to be proved the pathological liar you are,
> again, I can do so.
>
>> This is visible in many photos from that day, which were made prior to
>> the cleanup.
>>
>
> It's quite visible that there are several stories of debris, as
> you already know.
>

Actually yes, since there was debris visible. It was also a lot of stuff.

But one million tons of material look different and the pile of rubble
must have been really enormous.

If the material would be ground to dust and compactified into a solid
block, the rubble would have reached roughly the tenth floor.

What we actually see is a pile reaching to the fourth floor. That is
still a lot, but MUCH less then what would be expected.


The hight is clearly visible, since the lobby of the WTC had columns of
a certain form, what makes them easy to identify.

The lobby was about three stories high.

...
TH

[KWills Shill #3]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:46:34 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.06.2018 um 11:44 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
>...
>>> Since the towers were about 400m high and had about 100 floors, the pile
>>> of rubble had to be a cone of roughly the hight of the tenth floor
>>> (supposed the materials were ground to fine dust and were compacted into
>>> such a pile without any air).
>>>
>>> But the material barely covered the street level.
>>
>> Why LIE about this? It's been PROVED, multiple times, that your
>> claim is nothing but a lie.
>> If you truly NEED to be proved the pathological liar you are,
>> again, I can do so.
>>
>>> This is visible in many photos from that day, which were made prior to
>>> the cleanup.
>>
>> It's quite visible that there are several stories of debris, as
>> you already know.
>
>Actually yes, since there was debris visible. It was also a lot of stuff.
>
>But one million tons of material look different and the pile of rubble
>must have been really enormous.
>

It was, as you already know.

>If the material would be ground to dust and compactified into a solid
>block, the rubble would have reached roughly the tenth floor.
>

Only if all of it stayed at the base of each building. But as you
already know, having seen the videos, the debris spread out. Some
reached Harlem.

>What we actually see is a pile reaching to the fourth floor. That is
>still a lot, but MUCH less then what would be expected.
>

Liar. That is very much what would be expected.

>
>The hight is clearly visible, since the lobby of the WTC had columns of
>a certain form, what makes them easy to identify.
>
>The lobby was about three stories high.

Which has what to do with you presenting claims you KNOW are not
true?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 28.06.2018 um 12:06 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
>> If the material would be ground to dust and compactified into a solid
>> block, the rubble would have reached roughly the tenth floor.
>>
> Only if all of it stayed at the base of each building. But as you
> already know, having seen the videos, the debris spread out. Some
> reached Harlem.
>

Well, that alone is highly suspicious.

E.g. if I would drop a stone from the Eiffel tower, it would be at least
strange, if it hits the ground somewhere else than at the bottom of the
tower.

Debris from the twin towers hit also the building WTC 7. This is also
strange, since horizontal velocity is of significant pace is not what we
expect from gravity.

TH

[Stuart Wright]

There appears to be evidence that the planes, drones in my opinion, served
only as a diversion while demolition work was in progress. The elevator
upgrade performed after hours 2 weeks before Sep 11th could have been
people setting up the thermate charges.
https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

[KWills Shill #3]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:50:54 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.06.2018 um 12:06 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
>>> If the material would be ground to dust and compactified into a solid
>>> block, the rubble would have reached roughly the tenth floor.
>>>
>> Only if all of it stayed at the base of each building. But as you
>> already know, having seen the videos, the debris spread out. Some
>> reached Harlem.
>
>
>Well, that alone is highly suspicious.
>

No it's not.

>E.g. if I would drop a stone from the Eiffel tower, it would be at least
>strange, if it hits the ground somewhere else than at the bottom of the
>tower.
>
>Debris from the twin towers hit also the building WTC 7. This is also
>strange, since horizontal velocity is of significant pace is not what we
>expect from gravity.

It behaved EXACTLY as one would expect.

[KWills Shill #3]

Fortunately, that's not what happened. If it were, the k00ks who
claim it would have presented the valid evidence long before now.

[Stuart Wright]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 02:54:41 -0700, KWills Shill #3
<comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:53:56 GMT, Stuart Wright
><preac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Stuart Wright <preac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The latest blog post from James Perloff suggests, as others have also
>>> said, that cloaked missiles, not drones, were used to strike the World
>>> Trade Center Towers and more.
>>>
>>> https://jamesperloff.com/2018/06/22/what-struck-the-twin-towers-revising-my-outlook/
>>>
>>
>>There appears to be evidence that the planes, drones in my opinion, served
>>only as a diversion while demolition work was in progress. The elevator
>>upgrade performed after hours 2 weeks before Sep 11th could have been
>>people setting up the thermate charges.
>>https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g
>
> Fortunately, that's not what happened. If it were, the k00ks who
>claim it would have presented the valid evidence long before now.

Well, you know how it works. Any false flag event worth its salt
demands a faulty government commission report that soaked the tax
payers to produce. It takes at least a decade for evidence to be
exposed and documented, and a generation for the epiphany of validity
to occur. By that time, the perps are long gone, and the opposition
silenced.

[KWills Shill #3]

It's been far more than a decade. In fact, it's approaching 17
years. If there were any evidence that anything else had really
happened, it would have come out by now.