Ukraine invasion






Britain creates another military protectorate in Ukraine — expert

UN calls for action after Russian kid appears in Ukraine’s extremist database

 


Trump not setting conditions for resolving conflict in Ukraine — US NATO Envoy

 



 



Zelensky’s Ukraine fails to reach peace agreements, opposition politician says

 








 





Zelensky does not need talks, he came to UN to beg for money — diplomat






 


NATO recognizes Russian army unstoppable despite all investments in Ukrainian military

 
Did you read this in your newpapers?

Ukraine’s Zelensky asks Trump to provide his county with Tomahawk missiles — British daily

Europe cannot help Ukraine without US support — Kallas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Service of Ukraine has received an order from the president’s office to collect, repair, and prepare for use several dozen Russian Geran-2 UAVs that were shot down or landed by the Ukrainian military using electronic warfare equipment.

On 16 September, the repaired drones were delivered to the Yavoriv training ground in western Ukraine, near the village of Starichi and the International Centre for Peacekeeping and International Security of the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Academy.

The drones were repaired in Lviv by the Lviv Aircraft Repair Plant and the Lorta company.

In the coming days, the Security Service of Ukraine plans to launch a strike using Geran-2 drones against a NATO military facility in Romania from western Ukraine. The target is expected to be the Romanian Air Force’s 57th Air Base ‘Mihail Kogălniceanu’, situated 26 kilometres north-northwest of Constanța. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, the base has become one of the largest on NATO’s western flank and is responsible for supporting Kyiv.

Following the well-established pattern, a campaign will subsequently be launched in Ukrainian and Western media outlets and on social networks, accusing Russia of attacking a NATO country and demanding that the bloc intervene in the Ukrainian conflict.

see more at
 
Did you read this in your newpapers?

Ukraine’s Zelensky asks Trump to provide his county with Tomahawk missiles — British daily

Europe cannot help Ukraine without US support — Kallas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Service of Ukraine has received an order from the president’s office to collect, repair, and prepare for use several dozen Russian Geran-2 UAVs that were shot down or landed by the Ukrainian military using electronic warfare equipment.

On 16 September, the repaired drones were delivered to the Yavoriv training ground in western Ukraine, near the village of Starichi and the International Centre for Peacekeeping and International Security of the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Academy.

The drones were repaired in Lviv by the Lviv Aircraft Repair Plant and the Lorta company.

In the coming days, the Security Service of Ukraine plans to launch a strike using Geran-2 drones against a NATO military facility in Romania from western Ukraine. The target is expected to be the Romanian Air Force’s 57th Air Base ‘Mihail Kogălniceanu’, situated 26 kilometres north-northwest of Constanța. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, the base has become one of the largest on NATO’s western flank and is responsible for supporting Kyiv.

Following the well-established pattern, a campaign will subsequently be launched in Ukrainian and Western media outlets and on social networks, accusing Russia of attacking a NATO country and demanding that the bloc intervene in the Ukrainian conflict.

see more at

The UK and EU really reporting heavily the violation of airspace.

As far as I know this is almost very common and dates back decades where each side would fly into the others air space and wait to be challenged by the other party and then turn back.

I remember all the way back to the late 70s/80s Jaguar fighters being scrambled to intercept Russian aircraft. We would do the same.

To treat these just routine flying exercise and scramble time tests as an act of aggression is ridiculous imho.

Routine exercises and tit for tats.
 

I'm very intrigued by this and good on Tucker to carry the Truth Seeking movement as 9/11 was definitely an inside job that allowed it to happen, facilitating the white flag incident to justify the start of all these wars in the ME to capture oil resources and justify spending on war machine.

The disintegrated aircraft that supposedly hit the pentagon is still to be identified. Such a load of B0ll0X I'm surprised people believe the authorities in there blatant and obvious lies.

Fact of the matter is, the US desperately needed to stop Saddam selling oil in Euros as other ME states were considering doing the same. Euro was rising and dollar sinking.

People now talking about the end of the Dollar standard again. That'll really put a stop to US funding their wars all over the world as well as funding other nations to wage war on their behalf.
 
The disintegrated aircraft that supposedly hit the pentagon is still to be identified. Such a load of B0ll0X I'm surprised people believe the authorities in there blatant and obvious lies.
This is of course, not true. But you would need to look at some of the extensive evidence from different sources.
After the investigation was completed, the wreckage and debris were removed from the crash site. Some pieces were kept as evidence for FBI investigations and later for court proceedings related to terrorism cases. Smaller pieces and rubble were disposed of or placed in evidence storage. Artifacts and debris from the event have occasionally been included in museum collections and memorials.politifact+2

Aircraft debris from Flight 77 was never "missing"; official photographic documentation and eyewitness accounts confirm its recovery and handling according to established procedures.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
  2. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...remains-aircraft-debris-recovered-from-911-c/
  3. https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/investigation-of-flight-93.mp4/view
  4. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a66052053/pentagon-911-plane-crash-myths/
  5. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-911-pentagon-airplane-debris-598153051732
  6. https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Med...c-engineer-reflects-on-911-pentagon-wreckage/
  7. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-911-09152023102155.html
  8. https://museum.dea.gov/museum-collection/collection-spotlight/artifact/pentagon-rubble
  9. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-airplane-debris-found-202313034.html
 
This is of course, not true. But you would need to look at some of the extensive evidence from different sources.
You video and your AI chat can't be opened.

The most dubious thing is that you don't see traces of damage of the wings on the pentagon and the most important second(s) is missing on the FBI crash video so there is much room left for speculations that it was something else than the missed plane, like a rocket or a cruise missile loaded with some explosives.
Even the wings from Boeing are not made of plastic so there must be peaces which could be found, also after an explosion with fire.

That's what duck.ai answer when I asked where the wings from the crash are left:

The Wings: The wings of the Boeing 757 are approximately 27 meters long. They were severely damaged by the force of the impact and the explosion.

The Damage: The wings broke through the outer walls of the Pentagon and caused massive destruction inside the building. The impact caused a large fire and significant damage to the structure. The exact location of the wings after the impact is difficult to determine, as they were largely destroyed by the explosion and fire. Parts of the wings may have been found in the rubble of the building or in the surrounding area, but they were not documented as separate, intact pieces.
 
Last edited:










 
You video and your AI chat can't be opened.

The most dubious thing is that you don't see traces of damage of the wings on the pentagon and the most important second(s) is missing on the FBI crash video so there is much room left for speculations that it was something else than the missed plane, like a rocket or a cruise missile loaded with some explosives.
Even the wings from Boeing are not made of plastic so there must be peaces which could be found, also after an explosion with fire.

That's what duck.ai answer when I asked where the wings from the crash are left:

The Wings: The wings of the Boeing 757 are approximately 27 meters long. They were severely damaged by the force of the impact and the explosion.

The Damage: The wings broke through the outer walls of the Pentagon and caused massive destruction inside the building. The impact caused a large fire and significant damage to the structure. The exact location of the wings after the impact is difficult to determine, as they were largely destroyed by the explosion and fire. Parts of the wings may have been found in the rubble of the building or in the surrounding area, but they were not documented as separate, intact pieces.

Wings in plane crashes aren't tough enough to go through a building like the Pentagon (at least according to civil and structural engineers).

Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s nearly 125-foot wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University.

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen says, “it didn’t happen.”

https://www.amazon.com/dp/158816635...58[ofsxid|readers_also_read[ofsvid|on-1220415

Similar claims have also reappeared asserting that no debris consistent with airplane wreckage was found at the Pentagon, but this is also false. The FBI has released a number of photographs from the site showing parts of the plane and specific debris with airline markings.
Though this physical evidence clearly confirms the details of The 9/11 commission report, eyewitness accounts are similarly potent. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” Allyn Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon, told Popular Mechanics last year. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.”
1759014872377.png
 
Wings in plane crashes aren't tough enough to go through a building like the Pentagon (at least according to civil and structural engineers).

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen says, “it didn’t happen.”
Another witness said that the right wing went up, not in the ground, after it was hitting some poles ..

If the metal flowed into the structure, IMO you should be able see some metal on the one or the other of the pictures.

What also looks strange is that the explosion looks like coming out of the building while usually the fuel tanks are in the wings, if the wings could not cut into the building.

As duck.ai knows the following it can't be said for sure where the tanks were in this case:
"The fuel tank of a Boeing 757 is located in several areas of the aircraft.
The main fuel tanks are housed in the wings, and there is also a central tank located in the fuselage of the aircraft.
Here are the details: Wing tanks: Each wing has its own fuel tank, which stores most of the fuel. These tanks are designed to supply fuel to the engines during flight. Central tank: In addition to the wing tanks, there is a central tank located in the fuselage of the aircraft. This tank can also store fuel and is often used to distribute the weight of the aircraft evenly. The exact capacity and specific operating conditions may vary depending on the variant of the Boeing 757 (e.g., 757-200, 757-300)."

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building.
But there is only a statement, without any evidence. Very, very few pictures. No pictures from the turbines which should have left visible marks also on concrete walls. Why?
The discussion about what hit the pentagon came up very early after the incident and the first pictures - but nothing was explained.
 
That one picture with a ball of flames can not hide the aeroplane which is no where in sight.

No wings, no tail, no nothing. Anyone with an integral conscience and a brain who wishes to question the version put forward to us should be able to discern, an aeroplane could not possibly disintegrate into a small hole and go up in a small short flame.

I remember posting a picture of an adjacent office, approx 10 metres to that hole, with a book open on a chair that was simply standing.

Supposedly after that ball of fire engulfed and swalled up disintegrating a plane with metal. However, many of the pictures, from that legendary thread on these boards have been removed from the internet.

Also, Condeleeza Rice stating no one could have imagined anyone doing anything like this, when on the same day as 9/11, they had a test scenario about civil airlines as a weapon and flying into high rise buildings.

There is so much evidence and so many questions to be answered it is amazing the truth is not investigated but typically covered up.

This is why increasingly citizens do not trust their governments to be acting in their interests. They are in fact acting in the business interests of many other companies where money is to be made.
 
Last edited:
Another witness said that the right wing went up, not in the ground, after it was hitting some poles ..

If the metal flowed into the structure, IMO you should be able see some metal on the one or the other of the pictures.

What also looks strange is that the explosion looks like coming out of the building while usually the fuel tanks are in the wings, if the wings could not cut into the building.

As duck.ai knows the following it can't be said for sure where the tanks were in this case:
"The fuel tank of a Boeing 757 is located in several areas of the aircraft.
The main fuel tanks are housed in the wings, and there is also a central tank located in the fuselage of the aircraft.
Here are the details: Wing tanks: Each wing has its own fuel tank, which stores most of the fuel. These tanks are designed to supply fuel to the engines during flight. Central tank: In addition to the wing tanks, there is a central tank located in the fuselage of the aircraft. This tank can also store fuel and is often used to distribute the weight of the aircraft evenly. The exact capacity and specific operating conditions may vary depending on the variant of the Boeing 757 (e.g., 757-200, 757-300)."


But there is only a statement, without any evidence. Very, very few pictures. No pictures from the turbines which should have left visible marks also on concrete walls. Why?
The discussion about what hit the pentagon came up very early after the incident and the first pictures - but nothing was explained.
Google's AI overview says the Pentagon was built much tougher than the aluminum Boeing 757-200, so the plane was mostly destroyed.
1759074452690.png


Here is a picture of a high-pressure turbine rotor pulled from the wreckage.
1759074579202.png


Here is a book you might like with a download link to a copy.

That book has some criticisms. I don't know why the Perplexity AI link from my prior post didn't work for you.
"Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by David Ray Griffin has been widely criticized for its methodological and evidentiary flaws in challenging the mainstream narrative of the 9/11 attacks. The core criticisms of Griffin's work are:

Selective and Misrepresented Evidence​

Griffin relies heavily on selective readings of reports, eyewitness accounts, and scientific studies, often emphasizing anomalies or apparent contradictions without acknowledging the broader evidence base or potential rational explanations. This approach can lead to misleading conclusions that overstate uncertainties and minimize mainstream scientific consensus.slate+2

Unsupported Conspiracy Assertions​

The book posits that 9/11 was either allowed to happen, actively assisted by, or entirely orchestrated by elements within the U.S. government, while providing little substantiated evidence for such serious allegations. Assertions such as the use of controlled demolitions, government-planted explosives, or fake cell phone calls are based primarily on speculation, circumstantial anomalies, or misinterpretations of official data.researchoutput.csu+3

Dismissal of Refutations and Peer Review​

Griffin and others in the "9/11 Truth" movement routinely dismiss peer-reviewed research and expert consensus that contradicts their claims, instead highlighting a small number of dubiously peer-reviewed papers that support their narrative. Notably, key works cited by Griffin, such as the "nano-thermite" paper, have faced questions about their review process and expertise of contributors.slate

Logical Fallacies and Cumulative Mysteries​

Critics note that Griffin structures his arguments by accumulating perceived mysteries or unsolved questions (e.g., building collapses, NORAD response, identity of hijackers) and suggests that, en masse, these point to a larger conspiracy. This style overlooks alternative explanations and fosters a "connect-the-dots" mentality, absent direct evidence for government orchestration.research.lu+2

Immunity from Refutation​

One pointed criticism is that Griffin's theory is self-confirming; any contradiction is seen as evidence of a cover-up, and all attempts at refutation by mainstream sources are dismissed as part of the alleged conspiracy. This renders the theory largely immune to evidence or rational debate, akin to dogmatic belief systems rather than scientific inquiry.slate

Conclusion​

In summary, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is criticized for selective evidence, conspiracy-driven reasoning, and a lack of rigorous standards for extraordinary claims. The mainstream scholarly consensus finds Griffin's arguments methodologically weak and unconvincing.popularmechanics+2

  1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.html
  2. https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/files/8616461/CSU264346.pdf
  3. https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/article/rev...plan-to-undermine-the-9-11-conspiracy-theory/
  4. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/test_blogs/2008/02/bill_moyers_reading_recommenda_1.html
  5. https://portal.research.lu.se/files/5854039/1890358.docx
  6. https://app.pangobooks.com/titles/9-11-unmasked
  7. https://www.friendsjournal.org/2008088/
  8. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195513
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
  10. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a2043/4220721/
 
Google's AI overview says the Pentagon was built much tougher than the aluminum Boeing 757-200, so the plane was mostly destroyed.
View attachment 343733

Here is a picture of a high-pressure turbine rotor pulled from the wreckage.
View attachment 343734

Here is a book you might like with a download link to a copy.

That book has some criticisms. I don't know why the Perplexity AI link from my prior post didn't work for you.

Aluminum does not truly disintegrate but slowly corrodes, with an aluminum can taking 200 to 500 years to break down in a landfill, depending on its thickness and the environmental conditions. While aluminum's oxide layer provides some protection, it is not as effective as steel's rust, leading to a slow but prolonged decay.
Why it Doesn't "Disintegrate"
  • Unlike organic materials, aluminum is a metal and will not biodegrade.

  • It creates a protective oxide layer that slows corrosion, but this layer does not prevent it entirely, as it can grow and then erode over time.

  • In many cases, aluminum will break down into smaller pieces but will never completely disappear from the environment.
The Importance of Recycling
  • Recycling is crucial for aluminum because of its long lifespan in landfills.

  • Aluminum is infinitely recyclable, meaning it can be melted down and turned into new products repeatedly without losing its quality.
 
High impact force alone cannot disintegrate solid aluminum, as the metal is very strong and durable, capable of absorbing significant energy. However, extreme impact, especially in the presence of other conditions like acidic environments, erosion, or exposure to specific chemical substances, can cause aluminum to erode, corrode, fragment, or otherwise change its form. While high-impact forces alone will deform aluminum, a combination of high impact with other destructive forces like high-speed water jets can lead to erosion corrosion, which will break the metal down.

How High Impact Affects Aluminum
  • Deformation and energy absorption: Aluminum alloys are designed to absorb energy during impacts, which typically results in deformation, such as dents or bending, rather than disintegration.

  • Cracking and fragmentation: Under extreme impact, aluminum can fracture and break into smaller pieces.

  • Erosion corrosion: High-speed water jets impinging on aluminum can cause a form of erosion corrosion, which gradually breaks down the material over time.
Factors that Cause Aluminum to Disintegrate
  • Chemical reactions:
    Aluminum can dissolve in acidic or highly alkaline environments.

  • Corrosion:
    Aluminum is susceptible to various forms of corrosion, which can weaken and degrade the material over time.

  • Erosion:
    High-speed particles or fluids can physically wear away the surface of aluminum.

  • Specific chemical agents:
    Exposure to certain liquids, like Gallium-Indium, can cause aluminum to disintegrate at the microscopic level.
Environmental Behavior
  • Not truly destroyed:
    In the environment, aluminum cannot be destroyed but only changes its form, such as dissolving in water or binding to particles in the air.

  • Corrosion vs. Rust:
    Aluminum forms a protective oxide layer that prevents it from rusting like iron, but it can still corrode through other processes.
 
Compare it to the Boeing Crash in India. Remember it had just taken off with full load of fuel. Hitting a number of buildings and exploding.

Then compare damage to that of the pentagon hole in the wall.

1759101115719.png
 
Back
Top