but a lot of the videos clearly show a plane hitting the building.
Not plausible ?
Because so many people witnessed it ?
Oh. ?
Did you know many people interviewed said they never heard nor saw any planes - but that didn't make the media did it. Wonder why ?
I've always found the "no plane theory" interesting - in much the same way as the recent bullet photo whizzing by DJT's noggin.
Video can be made to show anything. The statement " Certainly puts to rest the "no planes" theory. " was, imo, made by someone with no experience in either aviation nor mechanical engineering and further suggests that, either, little homework was done on the subject or a boatload of research was done where the speaker came to the opposite conclusion but for whatever reason, e.g. threat, or financial / legal intimidation, but something or someone changed that person's tune.
The little flash in front of the plane before it impacted - remember that ? Static or plasma discharge - wasn't it ? Yeah, no. Why the heck do people not follow up on this ? Apparently I'm the only one who remembers video from the 70's and 80's where old airliners and other small aircraft were flown low, into objects for stress analysis ? Steel light posts don't bend or break when hit by aluminum wings. Buildings made with reinforced three foot steel I-beams do not give way to flying pop cans, no matter how fast they were supposedly travelling. Planes impacting a building from tip to tail disappearing without some form of deformation - there was no change in forward velocity from tip to tail - that does not happen - there is a rate of change of velocity with respect to time when one mass meets another.
Does some virus affect our ability to think rationally... to see conspiracy where we want to ? No. It means people fake things for whatever agenda or narrative they've been ordered, or threatened, or volunteered to perform. The Trumpenstein ass-sassination show ought to clarify that.
Didn't mean to rant, just had a lot on my mind. Cheers eh.