Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

I have so many questions..!!

9,983,928 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

46 Comments

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

Some "experts" in the comment section are giving reasons such as steel, concrete, glass, momentum, weight, speed, Lauda, and Lehsun, but no one is explaining how two buildings could collapse vertically in such a dramatic way, when the impact was sideways, that too at 800-900 km/h. And the building in Ahmedabad is standing despite the plane crashing on top of it (vertical impact).

Sandeep Bisht's profile picture
Sandeep Bisht1 year ago

because this was built way before local BJP era

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

Aapiya detected.. Opinion rejected..

BB 🇮🇳's profile picture
BB 🇮🇳1 year ago

This is really illogical.. look at the height man. Common sense is rear these days.

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

I am not an English Nazi, but "rear"..? 🤣

BB 🇮🇳's profile picture
BB 🇮🇳1 year ago

lol typing error 🫣 but I hope you got my point 🤪 (read it rare)

AAP ka Moh!t's profile picture
AAP ka Moh!t1 year ago

अमेरिका के पास यहां जैसे जर्दा गुटखा खाने वाले ठेकेदार नहीं है, जो खैनी रगड़ कर ईंटे चेपते है।

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

😂😂

Michael Westen's profile picture
Michael Westen1 year ago

911 was a controlled demolition. Also, you have the Towers built out of A36 Structural Steel. A36 Structural Steel melts at 2600-2800F. Jet fuel only reaches temperatures of 980-1800F. There’s no way the jet fuel was the reason the towers fell. If you watch videos on the towers falling, if you look really closely, you see these puffs come out of every floor. That’s from a control demonstration.

Vik k 🌞🌙⭐️🔥🌅🌫🐥🏹's profile picture
Vik k 🌞🌙⭐️🔥🌅🌫🐥🏹1 year ago

9/11 was moneyfactured !! Just look at the Pentagon one no trace of place at all. 🚀 🧐

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

👍🏽

Saxena's profile picture
Saxena1 year ago

Maturity is when we realize that 9/11 was an inside job and Osama Bin Laden was just a Bali Ka Bakra. The USDS had their eyes on oil reserves of Iraq hence 9/11 and execution of Saddam Hussein were planned.

Richa Misra Tripathi's profile picture
Richa Misra Tripathi1 year ago

As a non engineer & layman my guess is the angle & speed of rhe aeroplanes hitting the buildings varied. Secondly WTC was a steel framework building which couldn't endure very high temperatures whereas the Indian building would have been RCC cement concrete iron structure

CK4LIFE's profile picture
CK4LIFE1 year ago

How stupid are you?

Emanuel AOF's profile picture
Emanuel AOF1 year ago

Completely different case. The main cause of the WTC collapse, was the thermal expansion, caused by the intense heat of the fires following the plane impacts. “The fires weakened the steel structure, causing it to expand, which led to the buckling and failure of key support columns, ultimately triggering a progressive collapse.”

Veer Nair | வீர் நாயர் | वीर नायर's profile picture
Veer Nair | வீர் நாயர் | वीर नायर1 year ago

9/11 vs 12/6

Ri$hi's profile picture
Ri$hi1 year ago

The aeroplane of 9/11 was full of explosions.

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

As if the Jet Fuel in Air India flight was not enough.

Soorya's profile picture
Soorya1 year ago

Too many questions..!!

noonetobeknown's profile picture
noonetobeknown1 year ago

You should’ve studied science specifically physics for this ,then I don’t think so you will be here posting this ,cuz this just don’t make sense at all in anyway

Nadeem Gill's profile picture
Nadeem Gill1 year ago

One was a deliberate, high-speed impact into a skyscraper. The other was a low-altitude crash during takeoff with failing thrust. Comparing the two is not just misleading - it’s physics denial.

Sonel's profile picture
Sonel1 year ago

One was a >100 storey skyscraper other was a one-floor college canteen. Comparing the two is not logic, it’s lazy. Science padho, sentiment mat becho 🙄

Cloud Radar's profile picture
Cloud Radar1 year ago

Bro stop! One was a direct hit at over 500Mph nose first. The other was a controlled crash landing from above with attempts at a flare towards the end. Gear was left down to absorb most of the crash. These are not the same. Educate yourself and stop looking for engagement clicks.

Kiran Kumar S's profile picture
Kiran Kumar S1 year ago

Simple. In New York, the planes were flown in full speed and almost full tank of fuel inside the world trade centers. In Amdavad, the crash happened outside the small building. Most of the fuel was burnt outside. And the plane had no major velocity to damage the building.

Gooty Gopala Krishna's profile picture
Gooty Gopala Krishna1 year ago

That too two buildings

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

Yes

KARTIK CHAUDHARY's profile picture
KARTIK CHAUDHARY1 year ago

Don’t bother to question Answer is in primary school science F = ma Why do u want to make next generation of Hindus dumb in science for this stupid chest thumping is beyond comprehension

IN Facts's profile picture
IN Facts1 year ago

Ambuja Cement may the secret!!

OzDegen 🚀's profile picture
OzDegen 🚀1 year ago

Read about these and u will get your answers... Cruising speed vs Decelerating Plane Melting point of Concrete vs Metal Frame Here is one for u - explain to me why the sky looks blue but when ur in space, space appears dark and black ? 😉

Men Law Justice's profile picture
Men Law Justice1 year ago

George Bush's reaction:

Kavneet Singh's profile picture
Kavneet Singh1 year ago

It was already obvious but this just proves that 9/11 was a setup.

Tiris Alexandru Daniel's profile picture
Tiris Alexandru Daniel1 year ago

You can ask the laws of physics, if you’ve never been to school. It’s called kinetic energy, temperature, materials. I think is too much. Go read some religion

Nirmaljeet Singh's profile picture
Nirmaljeet Singh1 year ago

Shorter buildings (3–4 floors like in Indian case) have a lower center of gravity, making them naturally more stable. In contrast, skyscrapers like the Twin Towers, due to their height, have a higher center of gravity making collapse more likely due to the impact

KSN's profile picture
KSN1 year ago

1,25,000 liter fuel bhi tha..🙄

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

Yes

Shamendra Bhadauria 🇮🇳's profile picture
Shamendra Bhadauria 🇮🇳1 year ago

Height of the bldg also matters ...

BHK🇮🇳's profile picture
BHK🇮🇳1 year ago

Nope, it was a controlled demolition.

The Dictator's profile picture
The Dictator1 year ago

@ShamendraSingh @grok is this true? Was 9/11 twin tower a controlled demolition?

Grok's profile picture
Grok1 year ago

The claim that the 9/11 Twin Towers were a controlled demolition is contentious. Official reports, like NIST's 2005 investigation, conclude the collapses resulted from aircraft impacts and fires weakening steel structures, with no evidence of explosives. However, some, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, argue the symmetrical, rapid collapses and witness reports of explosions suggest demolition. A University of Alaska study questions WTC 7's fire-induced collapse. Evidence leans toward the official account, but competing interpretations persist. Without definitive proof, the truth remains uncertain, warranting skepticism of both narratives.

Samar's profile picture
Samar1 year ago

Both towers were extremely tall buildings, and steel looses its strength as its heated. The heat caused massive structural failure on too floors, disruption of weight distribution and heat induced sagging of the floor trusses at top floor. Post that it was a progressive pancake collapse, which took over the entire tower ☹️😣. It still makes me feel very sad, that so many innocent people lost their lives. But still basement and foundation floors were not completely crushed. Simple matter of structural science. The right side building was smaller, with more concrete and thus no trusses or similar failure.

Chandresh's profile picture
Chandresh1 year ago

One plane is accelerating into a steel building. The other is descending onto a low height cement structure.

ORB Trades's profile picture
ORB Trades1 year ago

IYKYK

BawBag 2.0's profile picture
BawBag 2.01 year ago

Hmmm 943km/h plane head on vs 290 km/h plane belly flopping onto buildings. Wonder what the difference could be? Doesn't take a genius.

HappyBobby's profile picture
HappyBobby1 year ago

Thermite is the answer you are looking for. Notice the nice clean angled cut on that massive steel beam. The one with the melted slag running down it.

Sanskar Rao 🇮🇳's profile picture
Sanskar Rao 🇮🇳1 year ago

They had fixed explosives in twin tower to claim insurance

ABDe🇮🇳Basi🇵🇸's profile picture
ABDe🇮🇳Basi🇵🇸1 year ago

#Breaking_Proof: 📢 "#US & #Media could fools billions of people around the world 🌐" Proven. CIA & Mossad did 9/11 in US, with perfect Demolition plan. They will kill own mother/father if anyone offers moneybags💰. #AirIndia171 (Boeing 787-8) much bigger than (Boeing 767 which invovled in 911 attacks), and world believes US Congress Statements blindly like slaves without any solid scientific evidances.