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

©2025 Poal.co

585

Since when were there no planes? now i'm seeing this shit everywhere. i watched a few of their vids and they're not making a very strong argument. the one which hit the pentagon has always been doubted and questioned if it was a plane or a missile. but the ones which hit the twin towers are clearly on video?

example, some guy trying to make an argument there were no planes in video below cause the chopper lady didn't register it, despite the fact that if you bother to look closely there is a plane and it is moving exactly like a plane, not a missile.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/648/863/original/4fd2915850793eb8.mp4

Since when were there no planes? now i'm seeing this shit everywhere. i watched a few of their vids and they're not making a very strong argument. the one which hit the pentagon has always been doubted and questioned if it was a plane or a missile. but the ones which hit the twin towers are clearly on video? example, some guy trying to make an argument there were no planes in video below cause the chopper lady didn't register it, despite the fact that if you bother to look closely there is a plane and it is moving exactly like a plane, not a missile. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/648/863/original/4fd2915850793eb8.mp4

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (95).
[–] • 4 pts (edited )

Yes. The nuclear bomb one is another gayop.

The planes hit WTC 1 and 2, but they used pre-planted charges to cut the support beams to collapse the towers. They literally found traces of thermite in the remains of the towers, although this fact is hard to find on the internet.

Flight 93 was supposed to hit building 7, it didn't because the passengers downed the plane, but they demolished that one anyway with the preset charges. The official explanation for building 7 is bullshit and based on a fake computer model. The building would have never collapsed from a fire. It was not structurally damaged from the collapse of 1 and 2. There's video proving it.

I don't know about what happened at the Pentagon. People speculate about two missing frames from a security camera, but there's smoking gun evidence about WTC 1, 2 and especially 7.

The "no planes", "nukes" and other BS is a distraction.

[–] • 10 pts

Doesnt matter. mossad did 911.

[–] • 2 pts

Again, the assertion that “no planes” is a distraction just because you don’t understand/believe it.

A hollow aluminum plane can’t penetrate a steel and concrete skyscraper. It has never happened and never will happen.

Anyone watch the first thirty minutes of September Clues and be informed just how fake and gay the original television broadcasts of the “planes” hitting the towers was. And how there are only a small handful of videos of this and they’re all based on the same two or three clips.

Anyone can make a video of a plane sprite going into the towers with simple video editing software and that’s all that happened.

You can literally look at the footage and see how fake the “planes” are. They look NOTHING like commercial airliners — no company insignia, strobe lights, etc.

September Clues even proved that one of the sound effects used in one of the fake plane videos was a .midi file of a cymbal crash, simply played backwards.

It’s physically impossible according to Newton’s 3rd Law for a small, light, hollow object to pass inside a solid, massive, denser object.

And guess what? It doesn’t fucking matter how fast the “plane” was going. If you say it does, you don’t understand easily demonstrable basic physics.

Just because you haven’t researched something doesn’t make it a “distraction.” Your talking out of your ass makes you the distraction.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

And guess what? It doesn’t fucking matter how fast the “plane” was going. If you say it does, you don’t understand easily demonstrable basic physics.

That's the thing. I do understand physics and it absolutely matters how fast the plane was going. A 147gr copper bullet traveling at 4000 FPS will go right through 3/8 inch of AR500 ballistic steel. The same bullet at 3000 FPS will do nothing. Energy increases at the square of velocity. I don't think the planes took down the towers, but a fleck of paint can go through steel if it is traveling fast enough.

[–] • 0 pt

A bullet =/= a hollow aluminum aircraft

A 3/8 piece of steel =/= 8 floors of concrete-filled steel trusses

Please devise and perform an experiment where you show that a relatively light and hollow object can pass all the way into a relatively solid and dense object.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The no planes theory is correct.

They utilized large drones (JASM) and cgi'd them to make then appear as planes on video.

September Clues full documentary shows faked videos frame by frame.

[–] • 0 pt

This.

Note that the official cause for wtc collapses were also bullshit.

In the official tests they could not create collapse unless the structural beams had there fire retardants stripped off (zero evidence or explanation given. Just magically gone), and time was greater than burn time and fire was hotter than the actual fire. More they could explain why the collapse was vertical and didn't even try.

[–] • 0 pt

Brand new account, zero evidence supporting your argument, the shills are pouring in in troves.

https://vid8.poal.co/user/Anticlutch/GqLR0gm?autoplay=off

The plane would have to be moving faster than an SR-71 at top speed, and then decelerate to the speed you see in the last frame instantaneously. Physically impossible.

Then after the first time the nose aired, there was a giant black bar covering the bottom of the screen so you couldn't see it in replays.