Picture this: MH370 V 9/11
Hello boys and girls!
Say after me: “Must”, “Hit”, “Steel”, “Plane”, “Kite”
Thank you, now run along!
Here is a photo of the very same MH370 aircraft that has gone missing:
Yes, it is, in fact, the very Boeing 777 aircraft which was MH370.
SHANGHAI – The Malaysian Airlines jet which went missing on Saturday over the gulf of Thailand, had previsouly been involved in a minor ground collision in China in 2012.
This emerged from a report (see below) released by the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA), a French authority responsible for investigations into civil aviation incidents.
The missing Boeing 777-200 carries the registration 9M-MRO, which is the same one recorded in the incident report by BEA, on August 9, 2012.
According to the report and witness accounts, while taxiing at Shanghai’s Pudong International Airport, the wing of the Malaysian jet hit the tail of a China Eastern Airlines A340-600 plane, which was stationery at the time.
There were no injuries, but the Malaysian Boeing suffered substantial damage to its wing, with the wingtip shearing off and left hanging from the tail of the Airbus concerned.
The Boeing underwent a full repair and was reportedly then cleared to fly.
So, the wingtip sheared off because it came into contact with A340’s STATIONARY aluminium tail.
Now let’s look at an Airbus 340:
A Boeing 777’s wingtip will be sheared off by an A340’s tail! Aluminium V aluminium and the Boeing 777 had the momentum. But sure, tails, particularly at the lower area where they meet the fuselage, are more robust than a wingtip… granted. But I can and will and always shall assure you that a reinforced steel box section of a substantial, stationary building is far more substantial than an A340 (or A380) tail section.
Now, let’s just prove that assertion allowing for no more argument on this point (other than from a slightly inept politician or troll that is):
Here is an Airbus A380 at a Paris airshow in 2012:
Airbus flew a double-decker Airbus A380 to the 2011 Paris Airshow to put on display and to hopefully attract additional customers. However, while taxiing, the world’s largest airliner’s wing clipped a building ripping off the right winglet and putting the aircraft out of service and unable to fly.
A picture speaks a thousand words doesn’t it? 🙂
Get the picture?
That building is neither a World Trade Tower nor a Pentagon. I have stated over and over that those planes did not slice through those buildings on 9/11
I do not know what anyone (even our esteemed physicists and scientists and structural engineers need before they stop talking shit about aeroplanes having pierced reinforced buildings. Even Architects for 9/11 truth still stick to the story that planes flew into those buildings!
They never did. But no bugger listens unless you can flash a PhD or your some form of celebrity in the form of a politician or renowned Air Force pilot or physicist.
People just like being told something is fact by someone else that they feel they should respect the opinion of because they’re renowned for one reason or another.
One wingtip sheared off by one building. I rest my case!
While, let me just republish the “Superbird” story and the rest once more…
And have a look at this one. Particularly keep a close eye on the two wooden “telephone poles” on the left of the screen as you watch the plane come directly toward you. And take special notice of the furthest pole to the left. It just slices through the wing with no problems. It is not steel and concrete and it has no substantial mass behind it as the buildings (floors) on 9/11 did.
How people refuse to acknowledge all of this is beyond my comprehension.