I've never seen anything quite like this representation before. #Sept11
Paul Peeters
@palpeet
Sep 11
Als je de rook weghaalt en ziet hoe de torens daadwerkelijk instortten, ziet het er opeens heel logisch uit en neemt het alle redenen om vraagtekens te zetten weg

Sep 13, 2026 · 9:35 PM UTC

284
837
28,240
7,266,030
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked
Replying to @kitson
That's because it's slop, not based on an elemental reconstruction, and doesn't even match the known paths of the building components even slightly. Nobody is interested in that except for people who don't know how many states there are in the US.
9
13
498
29,962
Replying to @kitson
Annoys the hell out of me hearing conspiracies by non-engineers about how the towers fell weird when that is exactly how they should fall for that type of building system.
11
663
55,833
Replying to @kitson
Pure propaganda devoid of any science whatsover. Made just to push the proven false narratives by countless structural engineers. Don't fall for this crap.
3
2,976
Replying to @kitson
Slop is what you feed pigs before you slaughter them. This is slop.
1
103
12,963
Replying to @kitson
Apparently, steel forgot how to be steel on 9/11/2001.
2
96
27,078
Replying to @kitson
Let's watch a 3d animation and compare it to reality
1
81
20,055
Replying to @kitson
2
1
66
44,595
Replying to @kitson
Michael Bischoff@MichaeIBischoff
Sep 13
9/11 planed staged Controlled demolition vs. an everyday Controlled demolition #Staged #ControlledDemolition #explosives
3
2
58
23,112
Replying to @kitson
Building 7 and no plane in Pennsylvania still makes the whole thing suspicious
7
2
53
15,012
Replying to @kitson
Another bot spewing Israeli propaganda. What happened to building 7?
8
43
11,776
Replying to @kitson
This retarded graphic is revisionist history and 100% not what happened. This is what an actual controlled demolition looks like and its identical to what the twin towers looked like on 9/11

ALT Demolition Wow GIF by JustViral.Net

3
1
39
9,825
Replying to @kitson
Physics is laughing at this joke.
2
38
10,426
Replying to @kitson
So imagine being in one of the smaller buildings when the whole Trade Center collapses on top of your building. Such a horrible way to die
37
9,191
Replying to @kitson
CGI representation means absolutely nothing. All that matters is Newtons law and that fires could not melt steel beams.
1
27
4,629
Replying to @kitson
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
@RichardGage_911
Sep 11
[RG911Team] 9/11 explained in 3 minutes. For those who understand the laws of physics…
2
10
5,156
Replying to @kitson
Yeah quite amazing how somebody can create a program that ignores physics for a building collapse.
1
17
5,255
Replying to @kitson
Left out the squibs many floors down from the blast zone. Nice try though.
2
12
9,417
Replying to @kitson
jesus christ how do people manage to deny 9/11.....
5
16
13,551
Replying to @kitson
Nobody buys the BS anymore. PNAC got their "new Pearl Harbour" Cheney got his wars & isreal got their desired regime changes. US & EU got a lot of refugees
1
15
4,903
Replying to @kitson
Because it is fake AI The vertical beams are all cut with thermite charges so that they nearly fall into its own footprint at free fall speed. This is a classic controlled demolition. In a legit collapse you will see these vertical beams tip outward, slow progressive collapse.
3
11
2,349
Replying to @kitson
BS! 3 towers all fall in with the speed of free falling. 1 tower magically fell down with no plane ever hitting it. Kerosene doesn't melt harden-steel and turn almost everything into asbestos dust... youtu.be/qjLJ4tw7jqs?si=0f09…
1
1
8
1,921
Replying to @kitson
But it didnt happen like that.
12
6,190
Replying to @kitson
Controlled demolition bud. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt iron
15
8
6,867
Replying to @kitson
A progressive collapse would look like a progressive collapse. Not like a collapse where the underlaying structure is weakened/destroyed. NIST modelled a progressive collapse of the towers, and it didn't look anything like that. The towers came down at a speed of approximately 10 floors a second! Through hard steel, a lot of it.
8
4,283
Replying to @kitson
I still do not believe that it would’ve happened that way I believe that the top part of the building would’ve fallen off before the entire bottom would’ve collapsed
3
8
8,339
Replying to @kitson
Such an obvious controlled demolition. Especially building 7.
9
3,892
Replying to @kitson
Smoke or no smoke, the collapse became the pretext. 28 redacted pages, an iraq war with nothing to do with any of it, contractors billing for two decades. argue the physics all you want, the paper trail is the real question. who got paid?
1
7
2,987
Replying to @kitson
Oversimplified bullshit.
7
8,298
Replying to @kitson
Problem is the smoke was there so there's no way this is correct. Its just guessing like science does.
1
7
2,871
Replying to @kitson
Yea, when you create an image that looks logical and you change what actually happened and the visual representation doesn't follow physics
1
1
4
1,291
Replying to @kitson
Tower 7?
6
4,462
Replying to @kitson
Imagine if building could just 'fall apart' like that?!
5
2,721
Replying to @kitson
What about tower 7?
1
6
6,352
Replying to @kitson
Yes but it’s not accounting for the rubble at the bottom inconveniently leaves that out there should be at least 16+ stories of rubble from each tower it all turned to dust which is physically impossible
1
6
8,940
Replying to @kitson
What’s also interesting is this shows how building 7 caught fire, if you look closely you can see quite a bit of debris landing on the roof
4
3,232
Replying to @kitson
Except for thermite not explained, steel beams didn't melt from jet fuel
3
4
11,466
Load more