>>4470558 - last bread

Got my numbers from many sources. One source is here

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

You're trying to tell me that an inner structure of inner steel columns measuring 87 feet by 133 feet were magically softened, melted by jet fuel fuel that burns at a lower temp that won't even affect thick steel (and even harder to imagine an aluminum plane penetrating steel and concrete, like a hot knife thru butter)....and all these magical events somehow affected the sturdy steel columns 50 or more stories below where there was no fire.....well, they just gave up, didn't they? Their spirit was so broken they just gave up. What's the use of us supporting this tower, as designed, let's just be defeated and fall. That's an awesome fairy tale that will go down with the ages.

>>4470764

The aerodyamic physics of flight of a plane the size of a 747, 757, makes it literally impossible for a plane that size to fly that low to hit the Pentagon.

As far as "how many people would be needed to be in on it"…I'm guessing you've never heard of compartmentalization…..it's a common known fact about compartmentalization in the pentagon and other goverment orgs….only a few upper tier folks need to know in order to pull off a massive operation.

>>4470932

That's exactly what I'm telling you. A large plane, flying that low at the speed needed, would have torn up the Pentagon lawn long before the contact point, yet all pictures show a pristine, undisturbed lawn. Laws of physics of how a plane flies, demands that air must flow over the top of the wings and create a massive upflow of air under the wings; this is what creates lift; basics of flight. This lack of upflow of air is what would've either, caused the plane to crash earlier or, at least, destroyed the Pentagon lawn….it didn't happen, according to the available pics.

>>You're telling me that the pentagon itself would have had to been in on it,

Exactly what I'm telling you. Did you forget, or are you obliviously to, Donald Rumsfeld, on 9/10/01, holding a presser about the Pentagon missing 2.1 TRILLION!!!! dollars. "Not missing, just unaccounted for"…..If not for compartmentalization, and only the upper echelon knowing, how did this escape attention? How convenient 911 happened the next day and attention was diverted. I'm too tired to continue this debate…..you decide for yourself how naive and gullible you wanna be….or do some research if you really wanna know. Or you just might be a worthless shill…I don't care one way or the other.

>>4471212

Exactly!….It's astounding to me that anyone could watch those towers coming down at freefall speed, turning to dust before their very eyes, and yet accept that "this is the way it happens". We need to be careful and aware because, we live in a world of idiots. Too unpredictable how they will react in any given situation.

>>4471268

Of course…and countless other proofs to be shown.

But, the masses will buy what MSM has told them to buy. I'm all for HRC, Hussein, and all the rest serving life at Gitmor or hung, but I wouldn't have a problem with all MSM being convicted first. The sheep would have nobody to tell them how to think….maybe, with hopes beyond all hopes, they would wake up.

>>4471310

fiat=perceived or mandated value..1 says it has massive value; 1 says it has no value; which is real?

gold=actual value due to its utility

To me, it's a common sense thing. Which is more useful to you if and/or when the shtf to the extreme? Gold, paper, or internet document?