No Planes?

[stevcolx]

When I saw the videos of the planes hitting the tower I couldn't believe it. How can an Aluminium Aircraft with a Plastic Nose disappear into a steel building.

Obviously it can't. Well now I know for sure. There were no planes on 9/11. I had a suspicion that there were no planes. I just couldn't prove it.

Then I watched 'September Clues' who very cleverly exposed the truth that there were no planes. And seeing it makes it's so obvious it defies belief how anyone could believe the Official Fairy Story. I posted it on my Facebook page and a fellow conspirator said he was going to unfriend me for trying to destroy the truth movement with silly theories.

Hello? The whole story is a silly theory!!

John Lear was correct!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE

:blackwidow:

[risveglio]

There were definitely planes. I guess you can claim it was some hologram but there was definitely planes.

[stevcolx]

In the videos released by the Media there were planes but in reality no. You should watch that documentary I posted. It explains why!

[risveglio]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

[Eram]

Hi Stevcolx,

Yes it is hard to imagine at first that planes entered the buildings the way the footage showed us, but there's a good explanation after all.
In the end it all comes down to speed and mass.

If you take something of a certain mass and you throw it at something else, and you keep increasing the speed every time you do it, there will come a time that this object will pass through the still standing object.

There's a sound physics formula to determine this which I can't find right now. (I will get back on this)

Just think about how a steel plate can be cut by a water jet.
It's the speed that makes it possible.

-E7u0LNUpO4

This is a pingpong ball gun, shooting through tin cans:
YYNCGZCul1Q

What you also have to take into account is that the planes did not actually cut through all the steel box columns, but mostly broke the bolts by which the box columns were connected to each other.
You can see this by studying close up photo's of the impact zone(s).

Further, some people claim that even the tips of the wings made a cut through entry into the building, which is a false observation.

Here's a solid website which explains how planes flew into the buildings.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/

[John Simpson]

Hi, I've spent far too much time of my life trying to understand what happened on 9/11, and I watched all this a long time ago, I must have watched the videos 1000's of times now. Once you've watched them in slow mo enough times you see it for what it is, and that is 100% fake, the planes just disapear. The mind job is so big that many so called 'truthers' just can't understand that they've been hoaxed.

[risveglio]

So how did they get my eyes and the eyes of plenty of us on the street to see a plane hit the building?

[John Simpson]

I dunno, maybe you're just gullable, maybe you and others suffered from mass hallucination, power of suggestion, holograms, perhaps they put LSD in the water that morning? Who knows! After all David Copperfield made the staute of liberty disapear.

The videos are the only proof that remains, and you can see they're fake all day long.

[stevcolx]

I read that site. I still agree with the September Clues video. No planes hit those towers. That would explain why there was questionable wreckage, no black boxes, impossible physics, impossible speeds and evidence other than videos that have many flaws in them. Now you could argue that there were many witnesses that said they saw the planes. But who were the witnesses? Actors? Remember the media faked the plane videos so it is obvious they used fake witnesses to back up their fake plane videos. Practically all the 9/11 witnesses were paid actors.

And the photos and videos are conflicting. There shouldn't be any media conflicts. But there are, and especially so if you are going to do a load of fakery!

http://www.septemberclues.info/images/Beams39KHALEZOV.jpg

Now this is strange!

http://www.septemberclues.info/images/Beams57SAURET.jpg

Can someone explain?

And the obvious Nose in Nose out video. Obviously a Fake Plane!

And this? A laughable fake!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slGnbmdkB3A

No planes hit the Towers. No plane hit the Pentagon and definitely no plain buried itself at Shanksville! Fake Wreckage, Fake Witnesses, Fake Videos, Fake Naudet Brothers evidence. There was a lot of fakery going on to convince the public that 9/11 was done by 19 Hijackers in Airplanes.

http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/IMPOSSIBLE_trajectories_Compared2.jpg

http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/ENGINEinMURRAYstreetLOL.jpg


It's all smoke and mirrors and lot's of Fakery!

http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m551/equinox911/1-12-201111-15-19AM.png

[uzn]

Well, WTC was the first Steelbuilding ever to collapse because of a fire (supposedly).

U heard about the plane B-25 hitting the Emire State in 1945 (mentioned in some Documentations).

This Picture looks familiar :) maybe someone got inspired here:

33006

33005

33007

They rebuilt the destroyed rooms afterwards. No big structural damage. As i remember it was quite full on fuel (i meight be wrong here).

33008

33009

That was real :)

[samildamach]

Remember the Pentagon.good footage of the after effects just no plane wreckage.rolls Royce engines are made out of titanium none were ever recovered.Defiantly no plane there

[Eram]

I agree that there's a lot of smoke and mirror regarding 9/11 and it is a difficult puzzle to solve.

In the end it all depends on what evidence and what claims you place more value.

Most crimes that get solved, do so because the hard evidence that leads toward the answers and in the case of 9/11 and planes, there is a load of hard evidence that says that real planes were used.

Why deny hard evidence in order to make a far fledged theory work?

There were no impossible speeds and impossible physics at work with the planes.
Just impossible maneuvers for an untrained pilot and even most trained pilots to have pulled it off.

26H-WzIe858

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/misinfo-impossible-speeds-of-aircrafts/

Lots of plane parts have been found besides the engine and landing gear, even on top of WTC 5.

The engine exit path from alleged flight 175 (WTC 2) into Murray street can even be deducted from different footage angles and pictures.
https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/581775_10200343796991324_1978179742_n.jpg?oh=49d698d65e956083b544fb6b5e753a1a&oe=575B8C9D

WTC 2 had a distinct sway as a result of the impact.
YHVDMJ7Dgzg

[uzn]

Just to lighten you up:
GNN 911 redux, its from 2002. But i still like it. It doesnt help the thread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3BeZ6DnGQ

[Frenchy]

Oh , COME ON, children ! Don't you realise there was an atual ENGINE found, projected a long way by velocity ?
Strange thing is, this ENGINe, happened to NOT be FROM the type alledged ! !

I would've liked to have been there when the individual who organised putting the Engine there, said, it doesn't matter, what typ just get any old engine and do your job ... just make sure it IS an aircraft engine ! !, not some old Buick or Chevvy !

But on a serious note,
I'm sorry to see so many disinfo agents spending ther time on PA. 9/11 is thoroughly cut & dried, not only that, there's an abundence of "piss-taking " prior announcements, in the many different forms, from Simpsons, Mario Bros, to illuminati playing card games.....

Some disinfo agents tried to discredit Dr Judy Woods, despite her magnificent work, saying no trace of Thermite found ! or her theory of " Hutchinsons research " is crazy,
In short, Exotic weapons were certainly the cause of Dustification, and other elements were brought into use, such as Holographics, Pre-Demolition charges etc.etc...

For what it is worth imho, this same Directed - Energy beam, is the tool being used to create , ( or propogate ) , Sink Holes, in many cases, after all TPTB have GPR so they can locate undergroung streams, culverts, upon which to create devastation... Not convinced ? the prime example, is that where a whole double line of cars fell into a linear culvert... There is absolutely NO reason for that total linear collapse, unless assisted by an Energy-Beam...

[Kindred]

I'm afraid that the only 'engine' they found was not of the type used on those planes... FAR TOO SMALL.
Here's a real expert (John Lear) talking about this sham of planes flying Through buildings... aluminum tin cans CANNOT go through hardened steel beams that are over 2ft wide of 3/4" thick (or more!) material.
YQBlv7sZGVE

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Eram]

The Engine that was found on Murray strt. was only the chore part of the engine and therefore not too small.

There are to this day many questions as to the plane it could have belonged to. Probably not flight 175, which was also noted by mister Lear.

The engine that was found on Murray strt is certainly not one of those that are displayed in the 9/11 museum.
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article185897.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/pieces-of-the-engines-and-landing-gear-of-united-airlines-flight-175-which-hit-the-south-tower-of-the-world-trade-center-pic-getty-images-36075760.jpg

This is the engine on Murray strt.
TMSx33Mz_w4

For those who can look on facebook:Here's a pretty good analyses of how this engine exploded out of the corner section of the south tower and landed on Murray street:
https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/media_set?set=a.10200343791751193.1073741825.1646648597&type=3&hc_location=ufi

[uzn]

@Kindred : Yeah right, here is a video of a testcrash of an airplane against two wooden telegraph poles. At 6 minutes in the Video you see that the WOODEN Telegraph Pole just cuts the wing of !!!! I know that this airplane is quite slow in comparison to a flighing one, but it gives you a feel for the fragility of an airplane.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4

[Eram]

UZN,

Please note that at 6:50 min into the youtube, the commentator says: "The basic wing structure remains intact."

The inner telephone pole cuts a deep wedge into the facade of the wing, but this is just the aluminum cladding. Not part of the basic wing structure.
Remember that a wing of a Boeing 737 ( or any similar plane) has to be able to carry a full size engine in the middle of it's wing.
This is not paper mache.

The wing would have taken down many wooden telephone poles. ;)

[Matt P]

A hollow aluminum tin can would have to be moving a hell of a lot faster than an airplane in order to go through steel like butter. Go drop a watermelon off a 100 foot bridge and watch it explode when it hits the WATER as if that water was concrete.
Almost all the media eyewitnesses were employees of the media companies.
The maneuvers the so-called planes made before hitting the towers were impossible for who they said did the flying. If anything actually hit the towers it was probably a missile, many of which are large and look kinda like a plane, especially if you only catch a glance.
All planes supposedly used in the attacks were found to be still in existence and flying after 9/11.
Actual plane crashes leave parts of planes everywhere, not a scrap here and a scrap there. And those engines?! My grandfather designed aircraft engines for GE all his life. Massive titanium and steel and there would be no chance you wouldn't find them ALL. Fire doesn't melt airplane engines, just like it doesn't melt steel buildings.
Yeah, John Lear.
We KNOW every single part of the 9/11 story is a ridiculous lie. Why cling to any part of it?

Matt

[Eram]

Why cling to any part of it?



Because the lie about 9/11 has to be exposed, otherwise we will keep to be f8cked.

Many many people of high education and expertise, together with a group of tireless volunteers have been working for years to build a case in order to expose the truth. Some of whom lost their jobs as professor, or architect in their effort to come forward with their findings.
Using real science and hard evidence as their tools.

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth" have come a long way. :)

Here is a new project from engineer Jonathan Cole in which he demonstrates by experiment that the downward motion by the wtc towers can only be reproduced by an "out and down" sequence (explosions).
Hopefully, one day it is efforts like these that will help to break open the covered up case of 9/11

TJNzaMRsN00

[gnostic9]

Remember the Pentagon.good footage of the after effects just no plane wreckage.rolls Royce engines are made out of titanium none were ever recovered.Defiantly no plane there

The construction of the pentagon was begun on september 11th 1941, must be just a coincidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

[aviators]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

[stevcolx]

That is why they say WTC-7 is the smoking Gun to WTC-1 and 2.

All demolished.

Where's the plane boss?????

[Eram]

I guess in the end, the most important part is that we all agree that 9/11 was an inside job.

Here dr. Graeme MacQueen talks about 9/11 and how to proceed:

8Z0Lsyox2zg

[risveglio]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

I am not saying that the planes are necessarily what brought the buildings down. I am saying that unless it was some sort of trick, hundreds of us saw the plane hit.

[aviators]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

I am not saying that the planes are necessarily what brought the buildings down. I am saying that unless it was some sort of trick, hundreds of us saw the plane hit.
No plane involved in WTC -7. opens the door for no planes involved at all.
The Pentagon and Shanksville events are other smoking guns.

Not sure if this footage has been debunked.
Ball hits the tower. Notice the background trickery. Skip to 4 min. Mark.
LPKq2K2dh6k

[stevcolx]

Watch the video from my original post. They did well in faking the planes and witnesses but they left some evidence that experts can use to investigate with like in this video!

gORu-68SHpE

[risveglio]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

I am not saying that the planes are necessarily what brought the buildings down. I am saying that unless it was some sort of trick, hundreds of us saw the plane hit.
No plane involved in WTC -7. opens the door for no planes involved at all.
The Pentagon and Shanksville events are other smoking guns.

Not sure if this footage has been debunked.
Ball hits the tower. Notice the background trickery. Skip to 4 min. Mark.
LPKq2K2dh6k

So we feel comfortable claiming that every person on the street that day that clearly saw and reacted to the plane hitting the building was on LSD? Yeah. Makes sense. I wonder why truthers have a reputation of being lunatics.

[Peace of Mind]

Very strange.

People can find ease in believing in aliens, and seeing ufo’s without any hard evidence to substantiate those beliefs. Yet, have a hard time fathoming the possibilities of holographic airplanes.

Today…deceased musicians still perform in front of sellout crowds by way of “holograms”, many firework displays are holographic. In 2006 Japan revealed a new Television with sensory technology (3d, smell, and touch)... I’m still wondering why the T.V.’s has yet to hit the market. And 5 years ago the internet was hit with waves of videos showcasing new cloaking technologies for fabrics/materials.

It seems to me that people are subconsciously forced to believe in a dead terrorist (that was never actually revealed in any way, shape, or form to the masses… other than the t.v).

They just want to believe their governments will never do such wicket things (even after all the blatant lying, and the obvious incompetence in the administration. Even after all the fear mongering/lies/deceiving). We still hold on to these hindrances, and the sad thought that someone/thing else is going to save us. But, Who/What is going to save a species that is afraid to live, and stand?

Who do you know is willing to help someone/thing that isn't willing (or showing signs) of helping themselves? who?!?!

We're a confused species...a specie where the deaf,dumb,and blind lead the masses...and the most "Aware" of us hides in the shadows singing daily with the choir and congregation, smh.

Ever wonder why the US Air force is involved with events like this?

http://www.tradeshowhologram.com/

Peace

[risveglio]

Very strange.

People can find ease in believing in aliens, and seeing ufo’s without any hard evidence to substantiate those beliefs. Yet, have a hard time fathoming the possibilities of holographic airplanes.

Today…deceased musicians still perform in front of sellout crowds by way of “holograms”, many firework displays are holographic. In 2006 Japan revealed a new Television with sensory technology (3d, smell, and touch)... I’m still wondering why the T.V.’s has yet to hit the market. And 5 years ago the internet was hit with waves of videos showcasing new cloaking technologies for fabrics/materials.

It seems to me that people are subconsciously forced to believe in a dead terrorist (that was never actually revealed in any way, shape, or form to the masses… other than the t.v).

They just want to believe their governments will never do such wicket things (even after all the blatant lying, and the obvious incompetence in the administration. Even after all the fear mongering/lies/deceiving). We still hold on to these hindrances, and the sad thought that someone/thing else is going to save us. But, Who/What is going to save a species that is afraid to live, and stand?

Who do you know is willing to help someone/thing that isn't willing (or showing signs) of helping themselves? who?!?!

We're a confused species...a specie where the deaf,dumb,and blind lead the masses...and the most "Aware" of us hides in the shadows singing daily with the choir and congregation, smh.

Ever wonder why the US Air force is involved with events like this?

http://www.tradeshowhologram.com/

Peace

I already said that unless it was some sort of hologram, there were definitely planes. I do have a hard time believing that there were holograms. I could easily believe that there was a controlled demolition planned to coincide with the planes hitting but I am pretty sure planes hit. The holograms you speak of above often require the viewers to be viewing from a certain angle. There are eye witnesses to a plan hitting from different angles.

Now don't claim that I have a problem believing in a wicked government just because you believe in unicorns. I am pretty sure all governments are wicked which is why I consider myself a voluntarist. Now I don't hold an opinion either way because that was a traumatic, life changing day for me. I would not be the least bit surprised if it was uncovered that the US government was involved but I am pretty sure the planes was part of the plan regardless. I have a friend who was on one of those planes. What did they do with those passengers who are all missing? Teleport them to the moon?

[Peace of Mind]

Very strange.

People can find ease in believing in aliens, and seeing ufo’s without any hard evidence to substantiate those beliefs. Yet, have a hard time fathoming the possibilities of holographic airplanes.

Today…deceased musicians still perform in front of sellout crowds by way of “holograms”, many firework displays are holographic. In 2006 Japan revealed a new Television with sensory technology (3d, smell, and touch)... I’m still wondering why the T.V.’s has yet to hit the market. And 5 years ago the internet was hit with waves of videos showcasing new cloaking technologies for fabrics/materials.

It seems to me that people are subconsciously forced to believe in a dead terrorist (that was never actually revealed in any way, shape, or form to the masses… other than the t.v).

They just want to believe their governments will never do such wicket things (even after all the blatant lying, and the obvious incompetence in the administration. Even after all the fear mongering/lies/deceiving). We still hold on to these hindrances, and the sad thought that someone/thing else is going to save us. But, Who/What is going to save a species that is afraid to live, and stand?

Who do you know is willing to help someone/thing that isn't willing (or showing signs) of helping themselves? who?!?!

We're a confused species...a specie where the deaf,dumb,and blind lead the masses...and the most "Aware" of us hides in the shadows singing daily with the choir and congregation, smh.

Ever wonder why the US Air force is involved with events like this?

http://www.tradeshowhologram.com/

Peace

I already said that unless it was some sort of hologram, there were definitely planes. I do have a hard time believing that there were holograms. I could easily believe that there was a controlled demolition planned to coincide with the planes hitting but I am pretty sure planes hit. The holograms you speak of above often require the viewers to be viewing from a certain angle. There are eye witnesses to a plan hitting from different angles.

Now don't claim that I have a problem believing in a wicked government just because you believe in unicorns. I am pretty sure all governments are wicked which is why I consider myself a voluntarist. Now I don't hold an opinion either way because that was a traumatic, life changing day for me. I would not be the least bit surprised if it was uncovered that the US government was involved but I am pretty sure the planes was part of the plan regardless. I have a friend who was on one of those planes. What did they do with those passengers who are all missing? Teleport them to the moon?

A hologram can be emitted from a projectile, like a "missile"...making it look like a plane, a ufo, an asteroid, etc.

I didn't see the planes, but I was around there, heard explosions going off in the buildings and saw both buildings fall, demolition style. Many of the reports are no longer even spoken about...like the terrorists they supposedly captured on the GW bridge...among other things.

You're the first person I've heard to admit to knowing someone that was actually on one of those planes. Perhaps you may have more insight on this matter than you currently know. As for me...I don't know what exactly hit the buildings, I just know this event could very well be done with holograms. Magicians have been making large objects disappear/reappear for the last few decades. The potential is there...we just don't really know (or have evidence) if your friend or anybody else was actually there. But, the possibility that your friend was held somewhere else can be considered as well. I'm not stating specifics on the matter, just aiding in exploring all possibilities... while eliminating much of the doubt. And, I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune, truly.

Peace

[aviators]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

I am not saying that the planes are necessarily what brought the buildings down. I am saying that unless it was some sort of trick, hundreds of us saw the plane hit.
No plane involved in WTC -7. opens the door for no planes involved at all.
The Pentagon and Shanksville events are other smoking guns.

Not sure if this footage has been debunked.
Ball hits the tower. Notice the background trickery. Skip to 4 min. Mark.
LPKq2K2dh6k

So we feel comfortable claiming that every person on the street that day that clearly saw and reacted to the plane hitting the building was on LSD? Yeah. Makes sense. I wonder why truthers have a reputation of being lunatics.

Respectfully nothing lunatical about sharing potential pertinent information.
If you do your own research you will find many things that point to no planes.
For instance search pentagon exit hole.
We may never know what happened that day but we can conclude the official story is fubar.

[Cardillac]

read David Icke; he states that projected holographic images including not only the visual but the aural and olfactory senses as well has been around since at the very latest the '80s (satellite technology)- hence the possibility that no planes whatsover were involved in NYC on 9/11-

just my own personal opinion but I believe genuine explosives were used as part of the illusion that holographic 'planes' caused the explosive damage but what really brought the towers down (unravelled them) is, I believe, exactly what Dr. Judy Wood states in her "Where Did the Towers Go?"-

so I think it was a combination of real explosives used to justify the (illusionary) impact of aircraft (they looked 'genuine') that were actually holographic images, but what demolished/dustified the WTC was a satellite technology particle beam weapon as Dr. Wood states in her book-

please be well all-

Larry

[stevcolx]

There are countless of eye witnesses. There is a video from a street vendor. When the first plane hit, many thought it was just a accident by a private jet. There were planes. This video is bull****.

There were no planes involved in building 7. ....

I am not saying that the planes are necessarily what brought the buildings down. I am saying that unless it was some sort of trick, hundreds of us saw the plane hit.
No plane involved in WTC -7. opens the door for no planes involved at all.
The Pentagon and Shanksville events are other smoking guns.

Not sure if this footage has been debunked.
Ball hits the tower. Notice the background trickery. Skip to 4 min. Mark.
LPKq2K2dh6k

So we feel comfortable claiming that every person on the street that day that clearly saw and reacted to the plane hitting the building was on LSD? Yeah. Makes sense. I wonder why truthers have a reputation of being lunatics.

Your missing the point. How many of these witnesses who said there were no planes were aired on TV. I could hazard a guess as to not a lot. The TV Stations faked the planes and most of the the witnesses. I wonder if you actually watched the video. They told you who the witnesses were. Go watch the video then you can rant and rave about people on LSD and Truthers!

[bettye198]

Thank you for all the posts everyone. It seems that there are still some Avalon members who believe the lie. But there is proof at every turn if your perception can accept a new belief.
It is a known fact that stealth bombers used hologram technology back in 1999. And if you believe that much of our advanced technology did not officially come from nerds in laboratories but off planet exchange you will handle holographic events with a logical mindset. It is part of a grand agenda to steer the human mind away from reality. Think of the movie Truman where Jim Carrey thought everything was vast and hunky dory. Then when he found the great wall around his town . . . .back to holograms. I have read and known about holograms back in the 1970's duping the religious public with apparitions of the Virgin Mary and Jesus and how about the Medjugorie apparitions and the twirling sun? If you can reign in the masses with the God miracle on a vast scale you got 'em.

I knew without doubt or question that an aluminum plane cannot go through solid steel and concrete without breaking off and falling to the ground. Yet, here is the real video of what was on the television.
ek-Q0T9wK2g
Quite impossible don't you agree?

My thoughts are pretty much aligning with those who cannot embrace the Lie. They could have used energy directed weapons plus nano thermite explosives ( this was traced first from residents in the building weeks before watching certain floors with men and wiring) to the actual particles found in the dust+tritium and nano thermite particles military grade. And sadly our Firefighters and police have since died of horrible respiratory diseases since 911.

We could devote a whole thread to the aftermath of 911 there are so many stories. I met a woman who actually escaped.

[risveglio]

Escaped? There were survivors. Luckily more of the people that I know that worked at the towers survived than didn't but that is unfortunately not true for most of us in the area. Say I concede that I saw a hologram, how do we explain the missing passengers of the planes?

[Curious77]

You're ignoring the reality that the WTC towers were built to withstand not just one commercial jet flying into it --

but many --

Aluminum planes (even alleged ones) no matter how fast they are going will not penetrate steel.

As many have figured out there were no planes.

A plane didn't arrive at the Pentagon because CNN' Jamie McIntyre was there to SHOW us that no such
thing happened -- and certainly CNN didn't send an incompetent crew to the Pentagon that day who
missed seeing a plane.

Further, the female soldier who was sitting right behind the round hole -- about 16 feet - also made clear NO PLANE.
She walked out of the hole before it collapsed. She had her son with her.

Hole looks like a bunker buster was used --

9/11 is farce to invade Afghanistan -- Iraq.

Oh, yeah -- and to bring down WTC towers which were a problem due to asbestos
and DEMOLITION was not going to be allowed -- Scaffolding was going to have to be
built at great expense to owners and building taken down as it was put up.
WTC was a white elephant on the market -- many floors empty.
Problems also with costs of heating/cooling --

[Curious77]

The one guy I saw on TV saying "no plane" wasn't actually interviewed -- the fake reporter walks away from
him -- no questions. It was all faked.

[Eram]

As for the question about weighing different pieces of evidence: How about all the witness testimonies that said they experienced a sway of the tower when the (alleged) plane hit it?
If you take the time to go through all the main stream documentaries, then you find a lot of these.

Some of them even return in "inside job" documentaries with testimonies of experienced secondary explosions, or a collapsing lobby.

Actors?
corrupt(ed) WTC based employees?

I can't find a solid reason to discount such testimonies and therefore have to judge it as an important piece of evidence in favor of "real planes".

[risveglio]

This is why I have a problem with the no planes argument besides seeing a plane. A friend of mine that worked in the South Tower said that they were being evacuated when an announcment came out that the North Tower was hit by a plan but the South Tower was clear. His co-workers proceeded to go back upstairs when he decided to go to the restroom. He claims that while he was in the rest room, the building started shaking and he and another gentleman in the restroom both felt it. Now maybe there was an explosion set above, but he felt the building shake and fortunately was able to get out before the building collapsed.

[Curious77]

#1 -- there were very obviously actors on the street that day involved in moving disinformation about what was happening.
#2 -- others on the street also made clear that there were no planes -- only explosions.
That was also true of Pentagon.
And CNN reporter with his film crew (Jamie McIntyre) also made
that quite clear -- including the films by the crew ...
though he was forced to retract his report!
I'm sure they sent not only an incompetent reporter and crew to
report that day on the story -- not only incompetent but blind, deaf
and delusional.

[shaberon]

Hmm so...this is between: witnesses who observed planes; witnesses who did not, presumably also denying the sound of planes; and non-witnesses who are sure that the second group must be mistaken, because there actually were holograms.

That's a hot mess.

[Curious77]

John Simpson --

Actually, at the Pentagon it's believed that a plane was flown OVER the Pentagon as
bombs were set off -- to those who saw the explosions it distracted from the fact
that the plane flew on.

They also suggest that at some time the same plane was flown near the WTC.

Everyone should also recall Jamie McIntyre's report from the Pentagon -- NO PLANE.
He worked for CNN and he and his team were assigned to the Pentagon as the alleged
"hijacking" story went on. They were there before any explosion and afterwards.
He reported NO PLANE hit the Pentagon.
A NORAD pilot was also sent up to "find out what hit the Pentagon."
Report came back -- "Nothing hit the Pentagon."

But Jamie McIntyre was forced hours later to retract that story. Impossible to do as
there is video. No plane, no debris other than something that could be hand-carried.

Also female soldier behind the wall made clear NO PLANE.

Best guess is that it was a bunker buster. Dimensions are right for it.

[andy2001]

The WTC1/2 where hit by a planes. But they not where not the planes claimed in the official story. They where hit by remote controlled planes. There was something fired from the underside of the plane. This impacted just before the plane, which is thought by many to be some sort of incendiary. It's also possible that the impact area was prepared ahed of time. The engine from the plane that hit the south tower fell down to the street. It appears to be a different engine to flight 175. While it has been claimed that someone dropped it of there, and dropped of the wrong engine, this is unrealistic with so many people around.

[Curious77]

There were no panes on 9/11 -- just the illusion of planes while the buildings
were wired with explosions -- and certainly the STEEL CORE of the building
was wired to break the steel girders up into convenient lengths to dispose of them.
All typical of what demolition experts do.

Alleged "engine" was found long after 9/11 -- an obvious plant -- and true, it doesn't
match. So a mysterious engine having nothing to do with the alleged flights suddenly
appears on the street. Sad.

[Curious77]

Shaberon --

No -- this is about actors on the street directing the story to line up with the preplanned myth.
Though I can see the plotters and those who profited need to keep the myth of planes going --
after all, they have FILM showing planes. That would mean that our networks were actually
involved in creating faked videos -- or were accessories in playing those videos.

This is about actual witnesses -- like the soldier sitting right behind the alleged area of impact who
makes clear there was NO PLANE. She was there with her son that day -- and she and her son walked
out of what actually looks like a bunker-buster round hole.

And like the NORAD pilot who was immediately sent up by his commander to find out, "What hit the
Pentagon?" The pilot flew over the Pentagon and around the area and then returned to confirm that
"Nothing hit the Pentagon."

There was one plane flown around that day -- near the WWT center towers and near the Pentagon and
likely over DC -- but that plane didn't hit anything. As it flew OVER the Pentagon explosives were set off --
just like what they did at the WTC.

Firemen are another way to confirm all of this -- as they repeat -- boom, boom, boom -- explosions.
Explosions which were preset to go off to look as though something had hit the towers -- and the Pentagon.

No one believes the official myth any longer.





Hmm so...this is between: witnesses who observed planes; witnesses who did not, presumably also denying the sound of planes; and non-witnesses who are sure that the second group must be mistaken, because there actually were holograms.

That's a hot mess.

[Akasha]

Genghis6199's 9/11 Taboo (it may have been uploaded before but was "scrubbed from the net" some time ago) :

D7IroNwVkk8

[Curious77]

No -- there may have been one plane which was flown nearby the WTC towers at some point --

and that plane was probably also flown around DC area and OVER the Pentagon as bombs went off.

But there were no planes and certainly no crashes.

It was all fakery -- in fact, brought to your by TV.

[mojo]

still all these years later and no data...???

817RAobvVvQ

mGB9A4ODmFo

[yankee451]

If it wasn't a plane, then what was it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLa_CyFAIM

[integralpart]

I thought the plane was exploded into thousand pieces? But there is definitely a plane, I saw it with my own eyes...

[RaiseMachine]

Here's a very interesting documentary released last month. One of the best on 9/11 in my opinion. Goes into the technology that was probably used.
5Zz04_-f0GE

[Michelle Marie]

Here's a very interesting documentary released last month. One of the best on 9/11 in my opinion. Goes into the technology that was probably used.
5Zz04_-f0GE

And for those who would rather read text, here are some notes (so far):

9/11 Alchemy

******Manipulating the Aether*******the underlying sea of energy that life is maintained in.
Judy Wood -- COLD Directed Energy Weapons
Tesla---electrostatic fields
_______________________________
"The Dark Side of Tesla Technology"
@14:20
Mark Passio
www.whatonearthishappening.com

Tesla's technology was weaponized
LOOK AT HIS:
**experiments in vibration and resonance
**experiments in scalar wave technology
He understood electrostatic fields AND
electromagnetic fields.
Hurricanes are very similar to Tesla coils--they build up the static field.
_______________________________
Charge Cluster Anomalies
Ken Shoulders
www.svn.net/krscfs
Bore holes in ceramics (aluminum oxide)
Disruption of electron bonds appears like melting
_______________________________

There was a spike in earths electromagnetic field for every event on 9/11.
"A hurricane is like a giant Tesla coil."

Dry air can act as a sort of capacitor.
A capacitor that holds an electric charge.

DoD talking about using the spectrum as a warfare domain.

By 1962 the Dept. Of Defense began weaponizing lasers as part of a technology that has come to be known as Directed Energy Weapons.

@21:00 three types mentioned
~~~~
Veteran's Affairs Committee:
Gulf War (1991)
In 2007 electromagnetic weapons and microwaves had been used in Iraq and it was asked if these could be contributing to the illnesses. Although they said it was unknown as to have effected illnesses, the EU European Environment Agency called for immediate action to reduce exposure to microwaves, following an international scientific review, which concluded that the safety limits set for the radiation was "thousands of times too lenient."
_________________

Scientific Technological Elite -- (((weaponized technology for their own agendas)))
SAIC -- Science Applications International Corps. * leidos *
~~~
DEPS -- Directed Energy Professional Society
--->>>GOVT Contractors:
* Boeing
* Booz Allen Hamilton
* Lockheed Martin
* Raytheon
* Northrop Grummin
___________________
+ Applied Research Associates, Leidos, SAIC
NIST = National Institute for Standards in Technology

Judy Wood filed lawsuit against these companies for using false science and for all of the conflicts of interest. Signed affidavit from John Hutchinson.
Pointed out connection of the work of these companies and the nature of the destruction.

John Alexander (1983) from Los Alamos National
"You know people in the military are well aware of what you've been doing."

WEAPONIZED ***and*** CLASSIFIED

Prof. Morgan Reynolds filed a lawsuit against SAIC stating that a "767 wide body jetliner could not have done what video images depict -- such as attain the velocity of 540 mph. at 1,000 ft or less above sea level or penetrate solid structural steel from nose to tail, wing-tip to wing-tip, without exploding, without slowing, without degrading, crumpling or losing a single part."

_________
ARA -- Applied Research Associates
* Investigated WTC 7
* Aircraft impact analysis
* Directed Energy Weapons
* Weather Modification Research
* Defendant in Qui Tam court case
+++hurricane research

WTC 7 listed as "Progressive collapse" on their website
__________
SAIC
* Ground Zero clean up
* Psychological operations
* Directed Energy Weapons
* Investigated WTC destruction
* Defendants in Qui Tam court case
***CIA*** over half of them have security clearances

David Kay***weapons of mass destruction/U.N.
High ranking official of SAIC
Wayne Downing--also with SAIC--these guys push for war
Both with stocks in the company--urging for war
David Kay then admits...NO WMUs

SAIC got government contracts with no bidding for over $100 Million
...but later got far more...
$280 Million for computer system for worldwide surveillance for email and telephone communications

Revenue $$$ 4.5 Billion as of April 2018
Those are our tax dollars.
______\\\\_____
Quince Imaging
Specializes in 3D Court Projection
Founder.....Scott Williams
Two of the three founding fathers were long time SAIC employees
Adrian Gautchsi ***

Advanced optics and holography specialists
______________
Quasi Crystals
* used for lasers, among other things
* Also negative refractive index used to project an image

SPIE creates holographic images
DEPS - Directed Energy Professionals Society

Patents (many) found related to Quasi Crystal technology
Get patent info at 1:17:38

Cold Fusion~~Steven Jones on Alex Jones
Thermite + Sulpher = Thermate

Oxygen = 16
Sulpher = 32
Join two oxygen molecules together
Sulfidation of the steel

Ken Shoulders -- charge clusters @ 1:22:30
Dielectrics -- produce nuclear effects

Orbs @ 1:38:48
Dust particles interfering with the projection

Tom Bearden -- Tesla Scalar Wave theory
1:39:13

Holographic technology used at Dulce, NM, to stage a Project Bluebeam experiment
1:48:06

Andrew Johnson -- what was used was some type of image projection technology.
Practical Holography -- book by M. Koenig (2001)
SPIE Hologram

Implied Consent, they say what they are doing, if you don't say no,
There is a "Tacit Agreement" 1:56:30

The suggestion is that they use holograms for planes and Directed Energy a Weapons to cut the plane shaped holes into the buildings.

Metal turns to jelly -- wasn't hot.
Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear reaction

John Hutchinson & Energy
Electrostatic and magnetic fields, microwaves and RF generators

MM

[Bill Ryan]

A couple of days ago, this last video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zz04_-f0GE) ^^ took me down quite a rabbit hole of linked presentations which I've yet to emerge from. :)

I'd like to comment further a little later (there's a lot to say!), but my overriding observation is that the 9/11 research community is a huge, complex dog-eat-dog rat's nest of barbed antagonism, stiletto-backstabbing, mutual denigration and character assassination.

One or two of the principal names have to be very skilled, planted intel assets — there seems no other explanation — but, assuming so, they've done such a good job that fingers are pointed to all 360º of the compass. And I have no really strong ideas myself who best to trust.

I'll stick to Ufology, Cryptozoology, the Skinwalker Ranch, Ancient Aliens, Psychic Phenomena, Climate Change, Dave Paulides' Missing 411, and Time Travel. Those questions are FAR simpler. :) And, dare I say it, the protagonists are actually a lot easier to make judgments about and deal with, too.

[Michelle Marie]

9/11 Alchemy
part II notes

Recalculation of Jesus' birthday...born on 9/11
@1:58:05

1987 - Ronald Reagan --->> 9-1-1 Emergency Number Day.

Arthur C. Clarke:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Neither missiles nor airplanes would cause a spike in the earth's magnetic fields.
Some materials bent outwards, some bent inwards.

Damage resembles "Hutchinson Effect"
Bending of metal

Hole in the road at 6:00 a.m. on 9/11
Reports of concrete cracking up.

Metals seem to be accelerated in time.

LENR-Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Luminance without heat.

Thermal blooming. Cause beam to wander or break apart.
Turbulence
@2:13:20

Electrical problem as well.
On video footage purple or rainbow colored

Holograms can be altered by applied magnetic field.
Could explain why wing disappeared--not visible.

Power was down. Cell phones weren't working.

Paper survived while humans and metal did not.

Levitation effects.
Comments:
1) "It picked me up and threw me against the wall."
2) "It was almost like being picked by a tornado."
3) "It just picked me up and threw me about a block."

Fuming--not from fire.

Continued emissions from WTC debris piles has been well-documented.

Organic materials were found which indicates this was not a high temperature process.
**************
Yes, Bill...there's quite a lot to this presentation. I've watched a lot of 9/11 videos in the past, but I don't recall looking into the companies that produce all of these technologies. They do present a lot of rabbit holes to go down!

I've seen other things about the Tesla technologies come up lately. One was that paper from the Philadelphia Experiment that you provided the link to. I have not connected all the dots, but I do feel there is a connection, and I'm going to continue researching until I can make the connections. Patents seem important. Flash mentioned patents on another thread and I grabbed some links from there.

I'm almost done with the notes...probably 3/4 by now. I'll get more later. I hope they are helpful. Maybe they will inspire further research or comments.

MM

[Denise/Dizi]

It is nice to see that people are still willing to examine events, to get to the truth of the matter.. No mater how much time has passed , and what the theories are.

But because this particular event, spurred the rest of my later events I have a particular interest in it...

I don't know who pulled off 9/11, but my opinion was, it absolutely was an inside job.

I began to look at WHO was renting to upper floors of the towers, and I found THAT to be the most interesting clue.

(Did anyone see the footage that showed HOLES burned into the ground blocks away, almost as if they hit the wrong thing, when they were "Sighting in" a laser weapon? )

While most would have you believe it was bankers.. I found it interesting that many COMMUNICATIONS businesses had offices up there, many that never paid rent. Were they trying to do something with those towers that required the entire tower be taken out? Were the towers themselves compromised in such a fashion, that the only solution was to blow them up? Just a thought. Rather than try to find out HOW they did it, I try to figure out WHY.. We may never know for sure.

Although the obvious reason affect us to this day, more control over us in other ways....

[Bill Ryan]

I'd like to comment further a little later (there's a lot to say!)

A first installment. :)

1) I'm becoming gradually more and more persuaded of the 'no planes' idea, at least in part. At first, I thought it was ridiculous hokum (though I was very polite to John Lear, a clip from our Camelot interview with whom is featured in the video). But there are so many anomalies — including sincere witnesses who swear they saw a passenger plane hit the Pentagon — that some kind of VERY convincing holographic creation seems compelling.

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes famously say: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

2) Re Flight 93, in 2009 I interviewed 'Elizabeth Nelson', a personal witness to the decision being made to shoot down Flight 93. She was in the room. I knew her well, and I believe her 100%.


http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93.html

She never saw the plane come down, of course. And given that particular situation (the military personnel involved didn't appear to know about the False Flag setup), they might have been trying to shoot down a radar ghost. (If a hologram can be seen in the visible spectrum, just maybe it's detectable in the radar spectrum, also, though the physics is certainly rather different.)

3) I was uncomfortable with the video's shoot-down of Steve De'ak. It was Steve De'ak (alias Yankee451) who made the "What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?" video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLa_CyFAIM
Steve De'ak is also interviewed by Sofia Smallstorm, here, and comes over as very sincere — even though in his response to comments on his "What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?" video, he's often pretty spiky and occasionally stoops, maybe just in frustration, to sharp, ridiculing responses. (This seems to be de rigeur in 9/11 research.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSrjVvue8g

[shaberon]

There was a spike in earths electromagnetic field for every event on 9/11.

Dry air can act as a sort of capacitor.
A capacitor that holds an electric charge.

DoD talking about using the spectrum as a warfare domain.

By 1962 the Dept. Of Defense began weaponizing lasers as part of a technology that has come to be known as Directed Energy Weapons.

Oxygen = 16
Sulpher = 32
Join two oxygen molecules together
Sulfidation of the steel

So these are tidbits from within the video, where they have also "recalculated Jesus's birthday", which is a sign of trouble.

A "spike" for each event would be saying that earth's magnetic field suddenly increased from milli-Gauss to something that would pull over your refrigerator. So this must mean localized spikes or something.

The only kind of capacitor is one that holds charge, such as a battery. The earth is an infinite capacitor, the surface and the atmosphere being the opposite sides. Lightning being the usual example of a discharge. If there were not 1,000 lightning strikes every second, all this energy would bleed into space, so, there is constant action of energy conserved in the system.

Laser was invented in 1962, so, this is to say, they have been considered for weapons since the beginning. There isn't a peaceful 1920s laser that got hijacked.

I'm pretty sure you can't join two oxygen molecules together and get sulfur. Oxygen does not even exist in its elemental form. All the oxygen we breathe is already two molecules bonded--O2. It does this instantly and naturally. Maybe they mean a process of nuclear fusion, like in the sun or a bomb, which is the only way to...fuse nuclei...would make sulfur.

I don't agree with the official story, but most of the other ones are also full of fluff.

On "no planes", I am still stuck between: the group who saw planes; the group observing the same area that insists there were no planes and; the group that wasn't there who insists they are holograms.

Has anyone ever seen a "projected hologram"?? I have made real ones--they are childishly simple--but they are on film. Although it is simple, it requires an optical table weighing multiple tons, for the least vibration will ruin it. If such a picture could be projected, moved, and animated...it no longer sounds like sensitive holography.

[yankee451]

Hi Bill,

You might like this article:
Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11:
http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

[yankee451]

The text below is a draft copy of a message to my friends François Sebesi and François Roby, who will speak at a French conference on 9/11,
“SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – DUTY OF MEMORY
Technical and scientific proof of the appalling imposture."

But it applies to truthers everywhere.



Aug. 27, 2018



Hello, I’m Steve De’ak, sending greetings to my friends, Francois Roby and Francois Sebesi, to attendees of the conference, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – DUTY OF MEMORY, and to 9/11 Truth Seekers everywhere.

It has been seventeen years, but I can remember exactly where I was, and what I was doing, when the World Trade Center was attacked. I’m sure most of us can. For those of you who were too young to remember, 2001 was a time when cell phones didn’t have cameras, when Internet “social media” was a text-only chat room, and when YouTube was nothing more than a gleam in the all-seeing eye of the Intelligence services. Compared to today, in 2001, online resources were limited.

Shock and Awe

For me, I was driving to work when I heard the news, and when I arrived, I recall, at first, no one knew what happened. Like a scene from a disaster movie, an explosion had left the North Tower of the World Trade Center with a gaping, grinning hole in its side, belching clouds of dust, paper and smoke. As the networks focused their cameras on the north face of the North Tower, the first witness reports rolled in; some people said it was a bomb, some said it was a small plane, and some people said they saw missiles, but CNN chose to lead with what one of their executives, Sean Murtagh, said, which was that it was a large commercial jet; providing a clue as to how the ruse was accomplished. Using the power of suggestion, they were setting the stage for the assault on our senses, and the challenge to our collective sanity, which was just around the corner, when they broadcast what we thought, was a plane flying through a steel building.

Shock and Awe is a term used to describe a military strategy of rapidly dominating an enemy by applying overwhelming force. On 9/11 the enemy was We the People, and the overwhelming force was the firepower of the Western propaganda machine. It was then that the Powers that Be declared war on the rest of us, and as is so often the case in war, the initial bombardment was intended to beat us into submission and eliminate any chance of resistance. Under a relentless, days-long barrage of terrifying images, and descriptions, of the horror taking place in lower Manhattan, we were predictable putty in the propagandists’ hands; for a while. Today though, with the benefit of a decade and a half of hindsight, in the archived broadcasts from the morning of September 11th it can be seen how easily we were fooled.

The networks disregarded the reports from witnesses on the street in favor of the story told by their executives, and because there was only a short 18-minute period between the explosion at the North Tower, and the “live” shots of UA 175, we didn’t have time to question anything. As a testament to the efficacy of propaganda, still to this day, what appears to be the vast majority of humanity is hopelessly spellbound by what amounted to a cheap special-effect, delivered with a straight face by Government and Media figureheads that allegedly have the best interests of We the People in mind, but which were in fact preying on, and manipulating our trusting nature (and indoctrinated faith in authority), into making us believe impossible things.

Their apparent goal was to force us into choosing between maintaining one’s intellect, by seeing 9/11 for the fraud it is, or following the crowd and fading into what the late Gerard Holmgren called, “Intellectual Senility.” Unfortunately, the world chose the latter, with the fruits of our shared apathy and willful ignorance being a burgeoning global police state, endless war, and a shameful record of looting, murder and torture.

As time passed and the fog of war lifted, people started to realize something was seriously wrong with the official story, and many turned to the 9/11 Truth Movement for comfort, thinking at least someone was doing something about it. We could see money being raised, petitions being signed, court cases being opened, billboards being displayed, and even Richard Gage on CNN, but if you set aside the rhetoric and examine the results of their activism, all the truth movement has accomplished is to prevent an open discussion of the facts.

Finding the truth, the actual truth, about what happened that day, is almost impossible by following the work of the truth movement. The leaders will simply ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments and carry on like they never saw it. They then publicly argue among themselves, as if only their hypotheses carry any weight, while pointing a hypocritical finger at each other (and everyone else), for being a spy. I am no expert, but this is exactly what I would expect from false prophets in a bogus peace movement; I suspect this is what controlled opposition looks like.

By now it should be obvious exposing the truth was never the goal; that their intent all along was to divide and conquer us. Good propaganda always targets emotion, not reason, which reveals why truth seekers are often angered when someone challenges whatever it is we believe happened on 9/11, because we are emotionally attached to it. But the truth is what it is, whether or not it agrees with us, or with what the 9/11 Truth Movement is selling. If the Truth is the goal, it should be a threat to nobody, or as Flannery O’Connor put it, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”

The reality is I can only be sure about me. I know I’m not on anyone’s payroll, but when I examined the evidence I came to a completely different conclusion than the rest of the truth movement. Nobody should take my word for anything; I urge everyone to scrutinize my research, and conclusions, carefully, and I wish the leaders of the truth movement would say the same. None of us should take at face value any claim without first examining the evidence for ourselves, but we have been too busy raising families, and living our lives, to afford more than a cursory glance at 9/11. Sorting through the dead-end clues, and false leads, requires a time commitment most of us aren’t prepared for. The fact is very few people are able to do any research at all, so we trust other people to bring us the truth; something we have been trained to do since we were old enough to read the news in the daily papers. We aren’t immortal beings with endless time, so more often than not; the way we arrive at ‘the truth’ is to believe whatever suits us.

This explains why truthers almost never consider the best way to control the opposition is by leading it. It also illustrates why it is so difficult for us to recognize that the leaders of the opposition are more interested in keeping us occupied with red-herrings and infighting, while the war machine marches on, than they are with exposing the lies that started the wars to begin with.

We’re lying to ourselves. You know whether or not you’re being honest in your investigation, and you know how to verify whether or not the leader you’re following is being honest, too. Since grade school, we were taught the best way to acquire knowledge is by using the scientific method, and it is long past time for the 9/11 Truth Movement to apply it to 9/11, to prove, or disprove, something; anything. Anyone that sincerely wants the truth needs to examine whatever 9/11 hypothesis they’re attached to, and ask themselves if it can withstand such scrutiny. If it can’t then it can’t be the truth.

Speak out. Expose the lies. Stop the wars.

Fortunately, the veneer is wearing thin, and the truth is rising. Thanks to the work of people, such as Francois Sebesi and Francois Roby, the scientific method is making a comeback in 9/11 research. I know these two gentlemen through a peace project on which we’ve been collaborating called, “9/11 Crash Test.” If you haven’t heard about us, you can thank the 9/11 Truth Movement for that; we are not under their control, consequently they are forced to ignore us.

In the spirit of the “Mythbusters” show, the idea is to mount a real section of wing from a 767 on a rocket sled, and collide it at 550+ MPH with steel box columns built to the same specifications of the World Trade Center, at the point of impact. My colleagues and I are attempting to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis, something no other truth group dares to attempt. By using physics, and empirical experimentation, we can prove the jet impacts were faked by the media, but proving what didn’t happen is only part of the project; if we ever do manage to get rocket-sled test center time, we will also attempt to prove what did happen. We will do this by using the photographic evidence we all have at our disposal, to recreate the damage as found.

A genuine forensic investigation begins with examining the evidence at the crime scene, but this is evidence the truth movement won’t touch. Obviously, if the popular groups are under control, then logically the truth will be found where they fear to tread; the impact holes at all three 9/11 sites. Identify how they were cut, and you will identify the most likely suspects.

9/11 Crash Test proposes diverting a tiny portion of the millions of dollars the American truth groups accept, to prove once and for all, whether or not what we were shown on television depicted a real event. For a fraction of what AE911T collects every year, we could eliminate the “no planes” contention altogether, and in the process, eliminate a major hurdle in uniting the opposition under one banner. Seizing this opportunity would demonstrate to the world that the disparate 9/11 Truth Groups can work together to apply the scientific method to solve problems, which would instantly change the public impression of the movement from one of tinfoil-hat wearing nutters, to one of serious peace activists, capable of challenging the status quo. Personally, I can think of no greater problem that needs solving than 9/11’s endless War on Terror.

Our project, 9/11 Crash Test, is just one example of an idea that can stop the impasse, and inertia, of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I’m sure there are other ideas, and this conference is the perfect place to discuss them, but to continue signing the same petitions, and following the same leaders in circles, is madness. Something needs to change.

Six years ago 9/11 Crash Test released its first video entitled, “Tired of War without End.” In that video I said that if you’re like me, and don’t want to leave your grandchildren a world where they can be sent to war believing impossible lies, then We the People must work together to expose the truth. It is now 2018, and this anniversary marks a grim milestone (that looms like a tombstone), for the 9/11 Truth Movement to consider. Anyone born after September 11, 2001 will be able to enlist in the US Military to fight in the wars, borne of a lie, told before they were born. If this Orwellian nightmare isn’t the kind of world you want to leave to your children, then it is up to each of us to speak the truth. It can be difficult at first, but you’re not alone; 9/11 Crash Test has your back.

Seventeen years ago no one knew what happened, but those days are over. Today we can prove what happened, and the only thing standing in our way is the 9/11 Truth Movement. Thanks again, to Francois Roby, Francois Sebesi, and to concerned people the world over, for giving the truth (and peace), a chance.

Very Sincerely,



Steve De’ak

[yankee451]

Re Flight 93, in 2009 I interviewed 'Elizabeth Nelson', a personal witness to the decision being made to shoot down Flight 93. She was in the room. I knew her well, and I believe her 100%.

Okay, but that is still not proof of the existence of the flight. The fact is the same sources that want us to believe a real flight was shot down, are the same sources that want us to believe a plane crashed in Shanksville, which the evidence shows was not the case.
MQTNy6Jb26A

A Different Take on Shanksville - http://yankee451.com/?p=4712
Taboo Truths: Uncovering Flight 93 - http://yankee451.com/?p=4343

[Bill Ryan]

Re Flight 93, in 2009 I interviewed 'Elizabeth Nelson', a personal witness to the decision being made to shoot down Flight 93. She was in the room. I knew her well, and I believe her 100%.

Okay, but that is still not proof of the existence of the flight.

Yes. I'd gone on to say:

She never saw the plane come down, of course. And given that particular situation (the military personnel involved didn't appear to know about the False Flag setup), they might have been trying to shoot down a radar ghost. (If a hologram can be seen in the visible spectrum, just maybe it's detectable in the radar spectrum, also, though the physics is certainly rather different.)

Steve, delighted you're here with us. Do please comment more. :sun:

[yankee451]

Bill Ryan;Yes. I'd gone on to say:
She never saw the plane come down, of course. And given that particular situation (the military personnel involved didn't appear to know about the False Flag setup), they might have been trying to shoot down a radar ghost.

Indeed. If anyone would have to believe, it would be the military people involved. Few people are as indoctrinated as the military; the front line in believing the big lie.


Bill Ryan;Steve, delighted you're here with us. Do please comment more. :sun:

Thanks, Bill, I'm happy to be here. It's hard to shut me up about 9/11 ;-)

[yankee451]

A couple of days ago, this last video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zz04_-f0GE) ^^ took me down quite a rabbit hole of linked presentations which I've yet to emerge from. :)

I'd like to comment further a little later (there's a lot to say!), but my overriding observation is that the 9/11 research community is a huge, complex dog-eat-dog rat's nest of barbed antagonism, stiletto-backstabbing, mutual denigration and character assassination.

One or two of the principal names have to be very skilled, planted intel assets — there seems no other explanation — but, assuming so, they've done such a good job that fingers are pointed to all 360º of the compass. And I have no really strong ideas myself who best to trust.


No kidding, and more than just one or two of them. The easiest way to control the opposition is to lead it, after all, and it HAS been 17 years of being led to where the truth movement is today (which is as you described it.) They couldn't have done a better job of muddying the waters and confusing truth seekers, even if they weren't written into the script. But it isn't that hard to discover the truth to 9/11; just look for the evidence the leaders won't touch.

[Arcturian108]

Ive seen that before. Seems to me like someone bigger then him shut him up as he has made subsequent statements contradicting these. It’s too bad

Yes, I think word got to him fairly quickly to keep his mouth shut (he started talking about how great of a friend Larry Silverstein is, in a very conspicuous way, which sounds like mob talk to me -- "Oh yeah he's a great friend"), but Trump always brings up that he lost a lot of friends in the WTC buildings on 9/11, and he holds grudges for a long time. He was also asked about investigating 9/11 on the campaign trail and he dodged the question. Hmmmmm.

I think he has something up his sleeve, but all things around Trump are extremely polarized, so he has to direct that polarization carefully, and he does a good job at that. Decades of multi-million dollar marketing experience no doubt comes into play with that. If he says 9/11 is an inside job, then it instantly becomes a Trump-polarized issue. If we really want 9/11 truth then we don't want that. We want a bipartisan and non-political investigation. So it's not as simple as people just frankly speaking what's on their mind. Politics is like that.

There is at least one court case regarding 9/11 that is making its way through the courts right now, but I think it will ultimately require military tribunals to really dig out the real culprits, who are going to involve an international network with the intelligence agencies. Americans, Brits, Germans, Saudis, Israelis, Pakistanis, and Afghanis were all involved, and probably others on top of that. But there's already a paper trail and/or other evidence in public domain linking all of those countries to what happened on 9/11. The hijackers themselves were Saudi nationals, some of whom spoke Hebrew if I remember correctly, brought first to Germany and then sent to the US. The CIA was wiring money to Afghanistan via the Pakistani ISI. That's public record too. There's plenty already out there just waiting to be acted on. They never thought they'd lose control of the justice system, I guess.

Lately I have been agreeing with John Lear when he says there were no planes hitting the towers , and thus no "hijackers" on 9/11, and the whole thing we watched on TV was a sophisticated hologram of the buildings being hit by planes. After listening to the full Trump video above, it again seems that the way we saw the buildings sliced by the planes was completely impossible.

[Bob]

i sure would want to understand how anyone with any technology can beam a laser signal of at least 100,000 watts of visual power with all the computer technology to create a 360 degree white light animated hologram with no computers and no lasers present that can do that. That thought about a hologram is so alice'n-wonderland technologically it boggles the mind to even think such technology is possible.. I am totally up on lasers, holograms and every technique to broadcast a hologram and that concept that such technology was deployed at that location and is highly highly improbable that the technology exists yet alone deployed for something of that SIZE across that area to be visible from 360 degrees.

[DaveToo]

Lately I have been agreeing with John Lear when he says there were no planes hitting the towers , and thus no "hijackers" on 9/11, and the whole thing we watched on TV was a sophisticated hologram of the buildings being hit by planes. After listening to the full Trump video above, it again seems that the way we saw the buildings sliced by the planes was completely impossible.

Holograms can't cause buildings to sway at the moment of impact.
Nor can they shoot plane parts out of the building at the moment of impact.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Lately I have been agreeing with John Lear when he says there were no planes hitting the towers , and thus no "hijackers" on 9/11, and the whole thing we watched on TV was a sophisticated hologram of the buildings being hit by planes. After listening to the full Trump video above, it again seems that the way we saw the buildings sliced by the planes was completely impossible.

That's interesting, isn't it?

I got into the 9/11 truth stuff around 2002 or 2003, but I was immensely skeptical of the "no planes" theories for years, just because of how absurd the whole thing sounds. But the more I got to thinking about that thin aluminum fuselage slamming into those massive steel columns, especially compared to what supposedly happened at the Pentagon (aluminum wings "vaporizing" on the concrete facade), too much doesn't add up.

Donald Trump was nobody to me back then, either. I was too young to remember his real estate fame from the 1980s, and never cared about reality TV shows. So I never paid any attention to his comments until more recent years. But you're right, he seems to have doubted that planes could have done that from the very first day as well, and he believed there were bombs in the buildings too. For as stupid as he often acts (which is completely intentional), the guy must have an IQ around 180 or something. He's a quick study and that's no joke. And he's mean, too. The guys responsible for 9/11 probably all have ulcers by now, waiting to see where all of this political drama is going to go, especially after he gutted the Bush family during the primaries.



Holograms can't cause buildings to sway at the moment of impact.
Nor can they shoot plane parts out of the building at the moment of impact.

Nor can planes hit one side of a building and instantly eject an engine out of the other side, and even the news anchors that day were commenting on how bizarre that was.

There were bombs in the basement that detonated simultaneously with the "plane impacts," which were probably also explosives. There is lots of eyewitness testimony to basement explosions, it appears on the seismic records, and the French filmmakers who just happened to be at the WTC that morning also captured the chaos in the lobby from the basement explosions when they first entered the buildings. So it's on film. The idea of a fuel-air fireball coming down the elevator shafts from some 100 floors up (one of the excuses half-heartedly offered by NIST with no investigation) is total nonsense and there is no evidence of it. Only two elevators covered that distance and one of them, the main freight, had an operator who survived and reported no fireball, ever. The explosions in the basement blew out elevator banks in the lobby, they were so severe. Off the top of my head, I think there was a guy named Philip Morelli who was a construction worker, and one of the eyewitnesses who testified to that blast. There were others as well, but it's been years since I was up to snuff on all of this stuff.

Yep, just looked it up and Philip Morelli was the guy's name. He's just one of the witnesses to the basement explosions. I can't remember the other guys' names. One of them was a Puerto Rican who knew Pen Jillette. Firefighter testimonies also spoke to the destruction in the lobby that came up from the basement, including smoke that was still coming out of the shafts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c3gyprsa9Y

That's what caused the buildings to sway. It's on the seismographs too.

Btw, Morelli was obviously confused by what happened and said he was told that the main freight had fell, but that wasn't true. The guy operating the main freight fell a few floors on impact before the brakes caught, and he broke his leg, but there was absolutely nothing about a damned fireball coming all the way down the height of the towers into the basement. Those elevator shafts were supposedly just contained by gypsum board. Hardly the right material for delivering a hypothetical FAE across many hundreds of feet.

Notice he also says he knows people who were killed in the basement.

[DaveToo]

Holograms can't cause buildings to sway at the moment of impact.
Nor can they shoot plane parts out of the building at the moment of impact.


Nor can planes hit one side of a building and instantly eject an engine out of the other side, and even the news anchors that day were commenting on how bizarre that was.

It wasn't instantly. If you watch the videos carefully you will see the exact delay you would expect.



There were bombs in the basement that detonated simultaneously with the "plane impacts,"

Not simultaneously, but within seconds, yes.



There is lots of eyewitness testimony to basement explosions, it appears on the seismic records, and the French filmmakers who just happened to be at the WTC that morning also captured the chaos in the lobby from the basement explosions when they first entered the buildings. So it's on film.

Correct.


The idea of a fuel-air fireball coming down the elevator shafts from some 100 floors up (one of the excuses half-heartedly offered by NIST with no investigation) is total nonsense and there is no evidence of it.

Correct.


Only two elevators covered that distance and one of them, the main freight, had an operator who survived and reported no fireball, ever.

Correct.


The explosions in the basement blew out elevator banks in the lobby, they were so severe. Off the top of my head, I think there was a guy named Philip Morelli who was a construction worker, and one of the eyewitnesses who testified to that blast. There were others as well, but it's been years since I was up to snuff on all of this stuff.

Correct.



That's what caused the buildings to sway. It's on the seismographs too.


If I push you at your chest you will sway/move/fall in the direction I am pushing you.
If there is an explosion in the basement of a building that shakes the building, and you are standing on the 80th floor of that building, you won't be pushed to
the side. You might loose your footing and fall down, but you won't be pushed to the side.

The buildings swayed in the same direction of the force of the airplanes.
They didn't sway in the opposite direction, in a 90 degree direction nor in a 270 degree direction.

Only an extremely powerful hologram could cause that. :)


This planes/no planes argument is really trivial in the big picture.

The biggest shock and awe event that occurred on 9/11 was the nuclear destruction of the three towers. Everything else was small potatoes.

But the biggest and most important thing that we can all agree on is that 9/11 was a false flag inside job that allowed the bogus "War on Terror" to be rammed down our throats.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It wasn't instantly. If you watch the videos carefully you will see the exact delay you would expect.

This is a pretty minor point in the grand scheme of things, considering how much we already agree upon, so I'm not going to make a big deal out of this whole question. But, I don't know how exactly one could determine what amount of delay to expect in a realistic scenario. All I know is that the timing doesn't "look right," and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Even the news anchor in this clip notices that something was not right, if you listen starting around the 1:50 time stamp:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRC2_o6K7nA

Here's his exact words in the clip above:


[News anchor:] You know, Donald, we were looking at pictures all morning long of that that plane coming into building number two, and when you see that approach the far side, and then all of a sudden, within a matter of milliseconds, the explosion pops out the other side.

[Trump:] Right.

Like I said above, I was skeptical of the "no planes" stuff for years, and I'm still not arguing that they were holograms (I watched the Naudet footage over and over and I'm skeptical that the people on the streets of NY saw or heard the first plane at all! I never saw anyone looking up, and this is restricted airspace to by flying so low). If you look at the structure of the buildings, and look at the plane parts that supposedly went through there like a hot knife through butter, you're talking about relatively small plane debris going through a very massive steel structure with enormous box columns in its center, not to mention thick concrete slab floors on steel trusses, and of course the steel perimeter columns.

I looked at the available structural plans and models of the buildings for years, and there is no way I can realistically visualize an aluminum plane, even with steel engine components, going through that building so quickly, or even at all. And neither could Donald Trump that morning, though he had the question instantly whereas it took me several years to come around to it.


If I push you at your chest you will sway/move/fall in the direction I am pushing you.
If there is an explosion in the basement of a building that shakes the building, and you are standing on the 80th floor of that building, you won't be pushed to
the side. You might loose your footing and fall down, but you won't be pushed to the side.

I get your point, but those blasts were big enough to register on seismographs. And those buildings were built to sway to some extent, and often did sway slightly even with the wind. I also think they detonated something at the impact sites, so that could also cause swaying. I guess my point is that there are multiple things that can explain swaying, besides just planes.


The buildings swayed in the same direction of the force of the airplanes.
They didn't sway in the opposite direction, in a 90 degree direction nor in a 270 degree direction.

Is there a video or some other source that documents the direct and amount of sway of the buildings on impact?


Only an extremely powerful hologram could cause that. :)

I'm also skeptical of the hologram theory, for the record.


The biggest shock and awe event that occurred on 9/11 was the nuclear destruction of the three towers. Everything else was small potatoes.

I agree with you on the evidence for nuclear detonations too. I realize that also sounds absurd to people, and it also sounded absurd to me at first, but that's a whole separate discussion. There are plenty of indications of it, though, from sublimating steel, to the particle sizes in the dust, to the massive amounts of tritium being produced by all the water being dumped on the hot debris piles.


But the biggest and most important thing that we can all agree on is that 9/11 was a false flag inside job that allowed the bogus "War on Terror" to be rammed down our throats.

Yep.

[DaveToo]

Here's his exact words in the clip above:


[News anchor:] You know, Donald, we were looking at pictures all morning long of that that plane coming into building number two, and when you see that approach the far side, and then all of a sudden, within a matter of milliseconds, the explosion pops out the other side.

[Trump:] Right.


In the Evan Fairbanks video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBEQFrArWCw

at 1:00 the timing is as would be expected. There is a delay.

It is possible to easily calculate the time required for the engine to exit the other side of the building.
We know the speed of the plane, the width of the building. It's just a physics formula.



If you look at the structure of the buildings, and look at the plane parts that supposedly went through there like a hot knife through butter, you're talking about relatively small plane debris going through a very massive steel structure with enormous box columns in its center, not to mention thick concrete slab floors on steel trusses, and of course the steel perimeter columns.

You're using the language that many people mimic.

Most people say "well how could an aluminum plane possibly cut through thick steel columns?"

That's the thing. It couldn't and it didn't!

Well then how did it enter the building?

None of the steel columns were cut by the plane!

Each steel assembly was connected with the next assembly by bolts.
The bolts popped!
The small bolts were no match for the incoming plane's momentum.
And the plane then simply pushed the steel inwards, it didn't cut the steel.

Look at all the photos/videos carefully.
You will not find a single column that was cut along its length.
You will see the columns break from the columns below right at the joints where the bolts used to be.

The plane also was shredded between the columns (open window space)
The shredded plane parts easily pushed their way into the building



Is there a video or some other source that documents the direct and amount of sway of the buildings on impact?

There are several. I don't have their links now though. It wouldn't be too hard to find.

[Didgevillage]

Hologram technology is much more advanced, capable of creating imagery and sound.
The damages to the sides of the Twin Towers were results of explosions, not any flying objects hitting the affected sides.

Prior to 911, workers were wiring something and these workers probably were Masons, who would shut up or testify falsely at the drop of a hat. Obviously bombs were everywhere in the buildings, for the explosions I mentioned as well as for demolition, Building 7 style.

What do professional pilots say? They wouldn't be able to fly the planes they way they did.

[Denise/Dizi]

Oh , COME ON, children ! Don't you realise there was an atual ENGINE found, projected a long way by velocity ?
Strange thing is, this ENGINe, happened to NOT be FROM the type alledged ! !

I would've liked to have been there when the individual who organised putting the Engine there, said, it doesn't matter, what typ just get any old engine and do your job ... just make sure it IS an aircraft engine ! !, not some old Buick or Chevvy !

But on a serious note,
I'm sorry to see so many disinfo agents spending ther time on PA. 9/11 is thoroughly cut & dried, not only that, there's an abundence of "piss-taking " prior announcements, in the many different forms, from Simpsons, Mario Bros, to illuminati playing card games.....

Some disinfo agents tried to discredit Dr Judy Woods, despite her magnificent work, saying no trace of Thermite found ! or her theory of " Hutchinsons research " is crazy,
In short, Exotic weapons were certainly the cause of Dustification, and other elements were brought into use, such as Holographics, Pre-Demolition charges etc.etc...

For what it is worth imho, this same Directed - Energy beam, is the tool being used to create , ( or propogate ) , Sink Holes, in many cases, after all TPTB have GPR so they can locate undergroung streams, culverts, upon which to create devastation... Not convinced ? the prime example, is that where a whole double line of cars fell into a linear culvert... There is absolutely NO reason for that total linear collapse, unless assisted by an Energy-Beam...

Those engines lol.. Still makes me laugh... But in a sad way...

When I was researching for myself the "Attack".. I came across a film that I can't find when looking online myself.. and it had actual footage of them shooting video from above the streets, NEAR the buildings, and there were HUGE round holes in the ground where nothing fell and nothing collapsed.. There wasn't any indication percussion forced air to blow these holes OUTWARD... The footage was never to be seen again by my eyes, no matter how many times I tried to refresh it and watch it again. It was a "One time viewing" courtesy of ??? It IMPLIED that they missed their target with their beam weapon and rather than shooting a hold through the middle of the buildings they hit a spot on the street in several locations instead!

While I cant prove that was what the holes are, that is surely what it looked like to me.. At the time however someone was "Sharing" some rather unusual videos with me, that I was never able to find again.. Using remote control over my device. I WISH I could find that video on mainstream sites and share the link.. It certainly would have others scratching their heads as well, because if that isn't what those holes were, what were they? They certainly didn't belong there.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

In the Evan Fairbanks video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBEQFrArWCw

at 1:00 the timing is as would be expected. There is a delay.

It is possible to easily calculate the time required for the engine to exit the other side of the building.
We know the speed of the plane, the width of the building. It's just a physics formula.

You mean a formula for calculating unresisted travel through the air? Yes, that would be awfully simple to do. But don't you think that would be missing a little something?


None of the steel columns were cut by the plane!

Each steel assembly was connected with the next assembly by bolts.
The bolts popped!
The small bolts were no match for the incoming plane's momentum.
And the plane then simply pushed the steel inwards, it didn't cut the steel.

The end-to-end bolts would have been the least amount of resistance provided by the exterior.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtcExtColumnsLarge.jpg

Each set of perimeter columns was fastened to the floor trusses and the concrete slabs sitting on them in a staggered fashion as you see above. The perimeter column sections were also attached to each other via the spandrel plates.

The spandrel plates were welded, as per chapter 2 of FEMA's report (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm):


In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction.

Welds, done correctly, are supposed to be stronger than the steel itself. That's standard for any kind of welding. So the steel itself would have had to be have been torn before the spandrel plates gave way regardless of the bolts. The perimeter columns were welded to each other in a staggered fashion across the whole exterior building face.

If a bird, made of meat and small bones, can knock a big dent in a fuselage, then what would concrete slabs on steel trusses behind those columns do?



Is there a video or some other source that documents the direct and amount of sway of the buildings on impact?

There are several. I don't have their links now though. It wouldn't be too hard to find.

Since it's not that hard to find them, maybe you could post them later, because in all the years I looked into 9/11, I never saw or heard of anyone measuring the amount of building sway through available videos. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm skeptical.

NIST tried measuring the amount of deflection visible in the columns around the fires and even that was problematic, because the exterior aluminum coverings were loose and half-detached from the actual steel in so many places that you couldn't tell what angles you were even looking at. I can only imagine that trying to calculate building sway from videos, looking at the buildings from an angle, would also not be a straightforward process, and even after that amount of sway is determined, to try to correlate it to mathematical models of either plane impacts or explosive detonations would be even more complicated, not to mention highly theoretical.

[Didgevillage]

Bombs could have been built-in from the time of the construction.

The Twin Towers, symbolizing the columns in the Philistine temple hairless Samson supposedly destroyed, were meant to denote the end of the Old World to usher in the New World Order.

Thus the Twin Towers, just like the Fukushima reactors, were designed from the get-go to be destroyed at a later date.

One more plane was needed to hit Building 7 nearby, but there wasn't.
Siverstein "pulled" it anyway for insurance money.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Bombs could have been built-in from the time of the construction.

I've heard that theory, but there are some problems with it, mostly to do with degradation of conventional explosives over all those years, and lot of indications of things going on in the buildings just prior to 9/11, like bomb-sniffing dogs being removed and a lot of suspicious "construction" by foreigners.

The idea that they were built with the intention of destroying them later is not at all far-fetched to me though. The buildings were almost named "David" and "Nelson" because David and Nelson Rockefeller were the driving forces behind their construction. Nelson was the governor of New York at the time and David was providing the financing if I remember correctly. They carved out the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and gave it police and political independence that neither the state of New York nor New Jersey had jurisdiction over. The whole complex seems to have been created for criminal activity that no one else had oversight over from the beginning.

WTC7 also housed a lot of legal documents relating to financial fraud and other conspiracies. The Enron scandal's paperwork was in there, for example. There was also a lot of gold stored at the WTC complex that went missing after the attacks. They managed find ways of making lots of things conveniently "disappear" during those attacks, including top FBI counter-terrorism expert John O'Neil.

[DaveToo]

The WTC1/2 where hit by a planes. But they not where not the planes claimed in the official story. They where hit by remote controlled planes. There was something fired from the underside of the plane. This impacted just before the plane, which is thought by many to be some sort of incendiary. It's also possible that the impact area was prepared ahed of time. The engine from the plane that hit the south tower fell down to the street. It appears to be a different engine to flight 175. While it has been claimed that someone dropped it of there, and dropped of the wrong engine, this is unrealistic with so many people around.

This... (more to follow).

[DaveToo]

If a bird, made of meat and small bones, can knock a big dent in a fuselage, then what would concrete slabs on steel trusses behind those columns do?



People often try to use this example.

They can and DID cause serious damage (concrete slabs) to the plane!

Rest assured, we would have seen a totally different result had the face where the plane impacted
been made up of just solid concrete and no windows!

Oh say, solid concrete 10 feet thick or more.
Then you would have seen the plane bounce off the face, smashed into thousands of pieces.

Basically the plane was sliced to shreds, with most of it either being sliced through the windows
and the rest pushing inwards the steel columns at the bolt joints.

[DaveToo]

The buildings swayed in the same direction of the force of the airplanes.
They didn't sway in the opposite direction, in a 90 degree direction nor in a 270 degree direction.

Is there a video or some other source that documents the direct and amount of sway of the buildings on impact?


Only an extremely powerful hologram could cause that. :)

I'm also skeptical of the hologram theory, for the record.



I'm sorry for taking this long to answer your question! :)

Sometimes I leave a thread and forget to return to it for a long time!

Here's a link to an excellent analysis of the WTC2 swaying.
They sped up the impact 8x so it really can be seen quite easily.
At normal speed it still can be seen but not as easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk5NQgU-9G4

Holograms can't make a building sway like this. :)

[DaveToo]

I'd like to comment further a little later (there's a lot to say!)

A first installment. :)

1) I'm becoming gradually more and more persuaded of the 'no planes' idea, at least in part. At first, I thought it was ridiculous hokum (though I was very polite to John Lear, a clip from our Camelot interview with whom is featured in the video). But there are so many anomalies — including sincere witnesses who swear they saw a passenger plane hit the Pentagon — that some kind of VERY convincing holographic creation seems compelling.


I will just address the planes striking the towers in N.Y.

For me, the most compelling pieces of evidence that planes struck the towers are the following:

1. WTC2 swaying at the exact moment of impact. The swaying also happens to match the direction of impact.
The plane was flying in a south-north direction. and the swaying we see is from a south-north direction, back and forth.
The swaying is not in an east-west direction, nor west-east direction, nor north- south direction.

If we leave aside a plane impact, could you please give me a list of other explanations for the swaying?

2. Engine seen leaving the WTC2 corner a split second after impact, then traveling in the exact same trajectory it was traveling at impact, ricocheting off a building and then landing at Church and Murray St.

3. A precious video that I saved and believe is still on YouTube that was taken by an amateur (bless his heart) where he is talking to his friends the moment after the WTC2 plane impact.

It's not the video that's compelling but rather the AUDIO!
For if you work the audio forwards or backwards like Sherlock Holmes solving a crime, you find it all fits together perfectly like a puzzle.

You hear the plane approach.
You hear the massive boom explosion.
A couple of seconds later you hear the guy tell his friends to duck!

Now think for a moment, what reasons can you think of for someone to yell out to their friends to duck, at that precise point in time?

I can think of a good one! :)
Oh say... you see a huge piece of flying fireball debris (engine) heading straight your way and you don't want to be hit by it!

A few seconds later you hear a thud sound.
And then a final thud after that.

Several things were happening at this time.

The Murray Church engine was ricocheting off a building and then landing on the street.
Landing gear was also making its way in between two buildings (the gear wasn't found for around 10 years or so).

The guy shooting the video was close to the exact path that the engine was traveling in.

It was this video that sealed the deal for me about planes/no planes.

[Bill Ryan]

I found this pretty interesting. In this new on-stage interview with retired agent John Desouza, David Paulides asks him abut 9/11, as he was right there working the scene as an active agent.

Desouza states that not a single tiny scrap of any airplane part was found by anyone, anywhere — not even the landing wheel assemblies.

That short section is just a few minutes, between 27:30—32:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxV3txLrmo4

[Johnnycomelately]

I watched the opening few minutes of this, and then from about 25:00 to the end (so all the 9/11 talk, including the question about Judy Woods and his answer). But first I read the 1st and 4th pages of the thread, which is new to me.

First, I have to say that Desouza comes across as less than rock solid in his testimony. He didn’t address the aircraft-undercarriage parts (landing gear) that were reported as found nearby years after the event. And when asked about Judy Woods, he had in mind that she was a stewardess (presumably the one that contradicted some part of the official story). I am not a fan of Dr. Woods’ theory about directed energy beams from space, but he, having written a book, should know about it.

I am still unsure of the presence/use of any planes in (any of) the collisions.

Due to testimony from one of the pilot orgs about the availability then of an external un-interuptable autopilot system, and also having confidence that an airliner could be hardened to perform as the towers-two did (mainly the speed, maybe modifications to tweak the impact dynamics), those two seem possible — but naw for Shanksville and the Pentagon though.

Vid analyses of the towers’ flights are intriguing — glitch-in-the-matrix stuff.

To me it would make sense to fake those planes by video construct, because any misstep would give the game away. If those two planes were real, switcheroos or not, things could have gone wrong. IMO, the resultant collapses were pre-ordained, the planes were just meant to explain it.

I don’t have enough knowledge to say it couldn’t have been kinetic. I also don’t know if there might have been a plan-b, like a downtown nuke, that would have put one of two or three not-Afghanistan countries in the crosshairs. Could be that we dodged a bigger bullet.

Aside to DaveToo, welcome back! (tomorrow, 2.20.23, from here). I invite your comment on this post of mine. If you happen to go off, and get yourself unsubd (I notice that 2 or 3 contributors to this thread are now such), please don’t send me with you. ~8O

May as well say it here: happy weekend, everybody! 👻🦍🐓♥️🥰


I found this pretty interesting. In this new on-stage interview with retired agent John Desouza, David Paulides asks him abut 9/11, as he was right there working the scene as an active agent.

Desouza states that not a single tiny scrap of any airplane part was found by anyone, anywhere — not even the landing wheel assemblies.

That short section is just a few minutes, between 27:30—32:00.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxV3txLrmo4

[PlasmaVortex]

hello everyone, it is my opinion that this is the best 9/11 documentary, it goes into secret technology that can manipulate matter at will, this being the key aspect of 9/11 most people don't even realise. Chris Hansen also goes into detail about quasi crystals which were said to be forbidden to be possible, these are significant because whistleblower Edgar rothschild fouche mentioned the existence of quasi crystals 13 years prior to their "discovery" by an israeli scientist...


5Zz04_-f0GE

:bump:

[ExomatrixTV]

911-Conspiracy Finally Solved!: Names, Connections, Motives, 911Matrix of Details Exposed!

CdE1Cwnymzc
I uploaded that video 10 years ago to one of many different YT channels I ran, with permission from the maker of it, who was part of my "project infopowement network group".

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

The Shocking Truth About WTC 7 and The Twin Towers: Stunning Evidence Of Controlled Demolition 2023 Update!

https://sp.rmbl.ws/s8/2/W/9/5/M/W95Mk.gaa.rec.mp4


source (https://rumble.com/v2xyjcg-july-3-2023.html)
starts at 5:00 in to this video.

[palehorse]

Here is a video taken from the back of the towers, the "airplane" is supposed to be on the opposite side of this footage, as you can see the explosion on all 3 visible sides of this video, it is clear it was a controlled detonation.

Here are 4 frames that will explain it better.

https://images2.imgbox.com/1c/af/KVEKhkvt_o.png

https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/7d/ha5MPWyz_o.png
see the start of the detonation

https://images2.imgbox.com/25/56/9GMaqNwf_o.png

https://images2.imgbox.com/84/5d/0bStTqni_o.png

Here is the short footage.

https://ufile.io/cymndybr

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Here is a video taken from the back of the towers, the "airplane" is supposed to be on the opposite side of this footage, as you can see the explosion on all 3 visible sides of this video, it is clear it was a controlled detonation.

Here are 4 frames that will explain it better.

https://images2.imgbox.com/1c/af/KVEKhkvt_o.png

Fake.

The frames are from the famous footage known as "FDR Drive". The original footage has been doctored (planes removed). It did the rounds on twitter some years back. I strongly suspect it was a COINTELPRO ploy to smear, by extension, 9/11 research and to make the conspiracy connection look nuts. Interference of this type has blighted the 9/11 truth movement pretty much since day one, as it has with the JFK assassination.

How do you keep normies waking up to a 'conspiracy'? Incredulity, that's how. Muddy the waters with bogus theories, e.g 'there were no planes' or 'the planes were holograms', so when it's introduced to Mr. A. Normie he runs a mile and it's mission accomplished.

To control the narrative you first infiltrate it, then subvert it, by introducing silly/impossible or just fake evidence. That's exactly what they did post 9/11, dropping lie after lie after lie, shifting it further and further from (the) reality to a faraway point where people now simply roll their eyes when they hear the phrase "conspiracy theory".

Right now there are a million and one bots crawling social media inserting scripted storylines into the consciousness stream of the people, whether it's about 9/11, or Ukraine, or transgender outrage -- whatever it may be -- to mould that narrative for crowd control purposes.

There were planes on 9/11, not necessarily the same planes they're claimed to be, but they were real, physical planes; we even have a very reputable witness from this very forum (Doug) who saw with his own naked eyes the approach of the second plane.

i.e. this one: A frame from the original footage.
52128

The actual footage at 4.02 below
7YLm3pkAiJQ

[onawah]

Lots of very insightful info regarding 911 in this discussion featuring Garry McKinnon LIVE

Garry McKinnon LIVE/Hacked NASA, Exposed Massive UFO Cover-Up
Crypto Alchemist
9.23K subscribers
11/1/23

"Since approximately 1980, a secret space fleet code named 'Solar Warden' has been in operation unknown to the public...

Gary McKinnon hacked into NASA and DOD computers looking for evidence of this program... Find out what he discovered and what cast him into a decade long battle with US Authorities who in the end gave up extradicitng him for fear of the publicity it would bring to his case..

NASA Whistleblower Donna Hare talking about the UFO photoshopping operation she worked on at NASA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR6Wc... "

frPxjfbUMdk

[Patient]

I remember very clearly on that day...

The TV feed switched to the Pentagon where apparently "...a plane has hit the Pentagon.." and they had a live picture looking at the building.

My mind quickly braced itself for the horrible images that I expected to see which would include seats from the plane wreckage and maybe some of those seats with passengers still in them.

Instead, I quickly said to my wife "There is no plane wreckage anywhere - do you see anything from the plane?"

There was absolutely no plane parts anywhere. No luggage, seats, parts of the plane's exterior, etc. And considering that it was supposed to have hit it as it flew just feet above the ground there absolutely should have been some part of a plane somewhere.

I recall a lot of papers littered and blowing around that came from the building. I also recall testimony from someone that they witnessed a flatbed truck bringing a set of wheels from a plane to the location to drop it off at the site. (and maybe they had a picture - I can't remember)

Jesse Ventura interviewed a woman on his show "Conspiracy Theory" who was working in the Pentagon on that day. She was working in an office near where she heard an explosion. She walked over and she walked out of the building through the hole from the explosion as she was looking to see if there was anyone that needed help. She said that there was no evidence of any plane there.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

There was absolutely no plane parts anywhere. .

Yeah the Pentagon impact is quite another matter. The idea, or at least the possibility, that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, has serious weight behind it.

There are a few pictures of scattered 'plane debris' though.

52131

But that's hardly good enough as evidence, these things can be easily stage-managed. Arguments over the physics of the impact versus structural integrity of the building (the implication being the plane disintegrated instantly on impact and there was almost nothing left so salvage) is also kind of moot, because we have zero footage of the event itself except a few fuzzy frames of an explosion (conveniently absent of an identifiable plane) from a carpark CCTV camera, and very few eye witnesses.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-05-2016/KiwVO1.gif

It's absurd to believe that the headquarters for the Department of Defense, the most heavily guarded military installation in the world, has no surveillance apparatus monitoring surrounding airspace. But we know for certain there was footage, and plenty of it, but they confiscated every tape in existence to prevent that footage getting out. If what hit the Pentagon really was Flight 77, as alleged, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't, what did hit it (likely a missile). Which begs the question, where did the real Flight 77 go?

[palehorse]

Here is a video taken from the back of the towers, the "airplane" is supposed to be on the opposite side of this footage, as you can see the explosion on all 3 visible sides of this video, it is clear it was a controlled detonation.

Here are 4 frames that will explain it better.

https://images2.imgbox.com/1c/af/KVEKhkvt_o.png

Fake.

The frames are from the famous footage known as "FDR Drive". The original footage has been doctored (planes removed). It did the rounds on twitter some years back. I strongly suspect it was a COINTELPRO ploy to smear, by extension, 9/11 research and to make the conspiracy connection look nuts. Interference of this type has blighted the 9/11 truth movement pretty much since day one, as it has with the JFK assassination.

How do you keep normies waking up to a 'conspiracy'? Incredulity, that's how. Muddy the waters with bogus theories, e.g 'there were no planes' or 'the planes were holograms', so when it's introduced to Mr. A. Normie he runs a mile and it's mission accomplished.

To control the narrative you first infiltrate it, then subvert it, by introducing silly/impossible or just fake evidence. That's exactly what they did post 9/11, dropping lie after lie after lie, shifting it further and further from (the) reality to a faraway point where people now simply roll their eyes when they hear the phrase "conspiracy theory".

Right now there are a million and one bots crawling social media inserting scripted storylines into the consciousness stream of the people, whether it's about 9/11, or Ukraine, or transgender outrage -- whatever it may be -- to mould that narrative for crowd control purposes.

There were planes on 9/11, not necessarily the same planes they're claimed to be, but they were real, physical planes; we even have a very reputable witness from this very forum (Doug) who saw with his own naked eyes the approach of the second plane.

i.e. this one: A frame from the original footage.
52128

The actual footage at 4.02 below
7YLm3pkAiJQ



Oh Mark thanks. I just lost my post here, something went bad with the database.. but anyway, I wrote that despite of planes, it seems there was a controlled demolitions in all buildings, simply because of materials strength (duress), a plane structure is built on AL alloys and the building is carbon steel/stainless steel/etc.. there is no way a plane can cut through a building like that, just my perception.

[Eric J (Viking)]

Some of us here are divided whether there were planes that hit the building…

I have seen so many videos showing supposed planes hitting the towers, but were they films added to the narrative which were pre made to fool us into this story.

Some people say they were holograms. ?

I have seen the videos of the supposed Israeli’s jumping for joy when the planes hit the towers, but was this psy ops ?

What do you think Avalonians. Planes or no planes. 🤷‍♂️

[Hermoor]

The general public may never know the honest answer to the question you posed.

Nevertheless, I look forward to reading further replies here in case I learn something new.

All that really matters to me for sure is the towers and WTC building 7 all came crashing down via controlled demolition. It was planned for a very long time ahead of the day itself. Then it was deliberately covered up and swept under the carpet.

The Shanksville 'plane wreckage site' and the Pentagram 'plane strike' concoctions also both stink like a trawlerman's boots.

I consider it highly likely that the orders, plans and scripts for 9/11 came directly from the global apex of 'human' control, or near as damn it.

There's no way a false flag of that magnitude went down without a green light from the biggest parasite(s) of them all.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

53749

/Joke

:happythumbsup:

In all seriousness, this is has been picked apart, laboriously, and many times, notably and lately here:


No Planes? (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89340-No-Planes)
If the purpose of the thread is to canvas Avalonians as to whether they believe planes were involved or not, my opinion, solid as granite, says:

Yes, there were planes.

[Eric J (Viking)]

53749

/Joke

:happythumbsup:

In all seriousness, this is has been picked apart, laboriously, and many times, notably and lately here:


No Planes? (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89340-No-Planes)
If the purpose of the thread is to canvas Avalonians as to whether they believe planes were involved or not, my opinion, solid as granite, says:

Yes, there were planes.

How did the planes disappear into the buildings with no trace… 🤷‍♂️

Ps the ‘no planes’ thread you posted is inconclusive…

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

How did the planes disappear into the buildings with no trace… 🤷‍♂️

What exactly do you mean by 'no trace'? Think about that statement for a minute.

To conclude no trace existed of those planes you'd have to perform a search of the buildings for wreckage, on the day of the event, before they collapsed. Which of course is impossible. I think what you're really trying to say is, why did the planes go into the buildings, and not break into a thousand pieces on the surface?

The answer is physics.

My analysis of that physics, for what it's worth, I've detailed elsewhere in other posts. But here it is again -- again for what it's worth.

Question:
How can two Boeing airframes, with aluminium wings, slice through the exterior of a pair of giant buildings, constructed of steel and concrete, like a hot knife into butter, then disappear inside those buildings, right out to their wing tips...?

Here is a scientific paper published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, entitled: “Chapter IV: Aircraft Impact Damage”. (Viewed here (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf)). Further chapters and information to be found here http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/.

If these findings are to be accepted and believed, they determine that UA175, which hit the South Tower, did so with 3,658MJ of kinetic energy.

The paper has this to say about the wing damage to the outer columns:

The external columns were impacted at a very high speed and the process is controlled mainly by local inertia. As the fuselage and wings cut through the steel facade of the Towers, the affected portions of the column sheared off. It was found that the momentum transfer between the airframe and the first barrier of external columns was responsible for most of the energy dissipated in this phase. The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction of that energy. A more exact calculation performed in Ref. [2] give a slightly larger value E external_column =26MJ.

What force, driven by purportedly aluminium, could cut through those exterior columns like a "hot knife into butter"? The steel columns on the outside of the WTC in question were also clad in aluminium. Inside was a mere shell of medium-grade A36 plate steel, and it was only 9.5mm thick. 9.5mm is all. Which is to say, it's hollow, and not high grade steel, or reinforced steel, just a hollow shell. The wingtips alone hit this barrier with 26 million joules of kinetic energy.



However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis. The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns (9.5mm). It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns. (<-- my emphasis)

That's a rigid knife, in other words, interacting with a less rigid other body.

A typical Boeing 767 (UA175 that hit the South Tower) weighs upwards of a 100tons. According to this paper (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf) from MIT, the kinetic energy of that impact is calculated as follows:


ESouth =½ MV02=3658MJ

3,658MJ megajoules (one megajoule equals 1 million joules).

From the same paper, this illustration below shows the basic orientation of the aircraft (in this case Flight 11) and the structure that it contacted.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=51824&d=1694697518

In rudimentary terms, each plane, travelling at ~500mph, struck a prefabricated steel lattice structure containing mostly fresh air, with a force of three and a half thousand megajoules of energy.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=51825&d=1694700952

Of significant importance is first barrier it contacted -- the external steel columns. Though made of steel they were hollow fabrications [as previously described] of medium grade A36 construction steel, approximately 10mm thick at the height of the building they were struck (the steel was thicker at lower floors), meaning they would not have put up quite the amount of resistance many believe.

cross-section of steel columns
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=31294&d=1443204591

It's a matter of "rigid vs. deformable body mechanics", as the paper states.

A sticking point for many is the thin, flimsy wing-tips that supposedly, by themselves, sliced through the steel columns like a knife through butter. As pictured below.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=31293&d=1443204489

But when you superimpose the outline of the plane over the hole (south tower), a different profile is presented.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=51826&d=1695485299&thumb=1

The slice-hole does not extend to the wing tips.

Look again.

(The paper concludes):

...the length of the damage area was approximately 31m, which is shorter than the wing span which is 47.57m. Therefore, it can be concluded that the extreme portion of the wings didn’t cut through the columns but is actually deflected themselves.
The slice-holes extend little further than the portion of the wing that holds the two engines -- the largest, heaviest and most sturdy component of each wing.

The engines, I think it can be fairly deduced, carried the bulk of the energy that carved these holes. The exposed tips of the wing, upon impact with the steel columns, did not cut a gash right through them, but plastically deformed (concertinaed) and travelled into the building as might be expected.

Personally, it doesn't stretch my imagination to believe what we saw occur on 9/11 -- two jetliners slamming into two towers, and creating two plane-shaped holes -- happened indeed as we saw it.

What caused such critical destruction to the floor structures (which led to the collapse) and the core columns (the strongest part of the building)...that is another matter. A secondary event almost certainly was involved, meaning surgically deployed explosives, the cutting of load-bearing structural beams, and/or maybe energy weapons -- something at any rate to cause critical failure to bring those towers down to rubble, which two planes (blamed on Al-Qaeda) could not do by themselves.

That in my opinion is the real crux of the conspiracy.

In summary:
The speed at which these planes were travelling (upwards of 450mph) is actually impossible at sea-level. Flying this fast in such dense air would tear the engines apart, and possibly rip the wings off. That's just a fact. Ergo, UA175 and AA11 aren't what they appear to be. Either they've been enhanced, with superior engines and reinforced airframes, or they're military-grade lookalikes. I believe, personally, this is the most likely scenario. For more on that theory see Bill Ryan's interview with REBEKAH ROTH, 11 September, 2015 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85202-Bill-Ryan-s-interview-with-REBEKAH-ROTH-11-September-2015)

Now let us review the original premise: that no planes were involved. A rather preposterous claim given thousands of people witnessed the event. One attends this forum - thepainterdoug (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?21016-thepainterdoug), from New Jersey. UA175 crossed over his head moments before it struck the south tower -- he saw it with his own two eyes. In addition, some sixty videos exist of the second impact.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=53041&d=1715081800&thumb=1

No evidence has been found of CGI in these clips. Many tools exist for image analysis. Today, it's very hard to hide that telltale digital footprint -- the techology has become that good. CGI from 23 years ago? Not a chance that's going undetected. Yet no sign or trace of manipulation has been found in any of the 9/11 footage. So that theory is also out.



Ps the ‘no planes’ thread you posted is inconclusive…

Depends how you define conclusive. I've done my homework on 9/11 involving a great deal of analysis and over a great many years. I investigated the evidence, and followed it to wherever it led. It led to the above, which I include here in summary. And for me it's pretty conclusive: two planes (whatever they were) struck the World Trade Center on 9/11.

They did not however bring them down -- or Building 7.

But that's just me... :bigsmile:

[Eric J (Viking)]

Thanks Mark very detailed summary, I’ll have to do some more research.

https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9frJsS5p3uR/
Hmmmm…. 🤷‍♂️🤔

THE KEY FOR NO PLANES

Short video


https://old.bitchute.com/video/yzZKR0XwdO7a/

Also here…no planes in these vids

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

^^

A lot of fakery in those videos Eric. Like the clip at 4.07 in: https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9frJsS5p3uR/

This is the Evan Fairbanks footage. Here, the plane has been digitally removed. Below is the original. It's a notable clip for me. I watched it on television on the afternoon of September 11. It was first time I saw that second impact.

My reaction was basically
:jaw:

ToVbPf3deEc

As for the people claiming "they saw never any plane"...it's statistically assured that from some points on the ground you may not have seen anything at all. I've walked the streets of New York from top to bottom, east to west. In lower Manhattan particularly, you can see little of the sky or the Hudson river -- you're surrounded on all sides by skyscrapers. See the above video as an example. From here, at street level, the plane doesn't come into view until the very last second. Blink and you WILL miss it. Multiple TV stations also missed the second impact because their cameras were looking at the north tower and the giant hole in its façade. The north tower was blocking the south tower, which was hit from the south. From their camera angle, the approach of UA175 was completely obscured (by that north tower).

[Arcturian108]

^^

A lot of fakery in those videos Eric. Like the clip at 4.07 in: https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9frJsS5p3uR/

This is the Evan Fairbanks footage. Here, the plane has been digitally removed. Below is the original. It's a notable clip for me. I watched it on television on the afternoon of September 11. It was first time I saw that second impact.

My reaction was basically
:jaw:

ToVbPf3deEc

As for the people claiming "they saw never any plane"...it's statistically assured that from some points on the ground you may not have seen anything at all. I've walked the streets of New York from top to bottom, east to west. In lower Manhattan particularly, you can see little of the sky or the Hudson river -- you're surrounded on all sides by skyscrapers. See the above video as an example. From here, at street level, the plane doesn't come into view until the very last second. Blink and you WILL miss it. Multiple TV stations also missed the second impact because their cameras were looking at the north tower and the giant hole in its façade. The north tower was blocking the south tower, which was hit from the south. From their camera angle, the approach of UA175 was completely obscured (by that north tower).

I was born and raised in New York City, and what convinced me that there were no planes hitting the towers were quite a few home videos taken by people who lived in nearby apartments that never showed any planes, but clearly showed explosions.

[Eric J (Viking)]

^^

A lot of fakery in those videos Eric. Like the clip at 4.07 in: https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9frJsS5p3uR/

This is the Evan Fairbanks footage. Here, the plane has been digitally removed. Below is the original. It's a notable clip for me. I watched it on television on the afternoon of September 11. It was first time I saw that second impact.

My reaction was basically
:jaw:

ToVbPf3deEc

As for the people claiming "they saw never any plane"...it's statistically assured that from some points on the ground you may not have seen anything at all. I've walked the streets of New York from top to bottom, east to west. In lower Manhattan particularly, you can see little of the sky or the Hudson river -- you're surrounded on all sides by skyscrapers. See the above video as an example. From here, at street level, the plane doesn't come into view until the very last second. Blink and you WILL miss it. Multiple TV stations also missed the second impact because their cameras were looking at the north tower and the giant hole in its façade. The north tower was blocking the south tower, which was hit from the south. From their camera angle, the approach of UA175 was completely obscured (by that north tower).

Mark there are hundreds of video out there with no planes…I could say the same to you…a lot of fakery with the ones you have presented.

The argument works both ways.

I ask why would you try to fake videos without the planes. I know why you would fake videos with the planes.

I'm sorry but I’m not buying your logic. I’ll keep researching and post when I can. In the meantime here’s another one.

https://old.bitchute.com/video/WJmXfSuCZYhz/

[Eric J (Viking)]

^^

A lot of fakery in those videos Eric. Like the clip at 4.07 in: https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9frJsS5p3uR/

This is the Evan Fairbanks footage. Here, the plane has been digitally removed. Below is the original. It's a notable clip for me. I watched it on television on the afternoon of September 11. It was first time I saw that second impact.

My reaction was basically
:jaw:

ToVbPf3deEc

As for the people claiming "they saw never any plane"...it's statistically assured that from some points on the ground you may not have seen anything at all. I've walked the streets of New York from top to bottom, east to west. In lower Manhattan particularly, you can see little of the sky or the Hudson river -- you're surrounded on all sides by skyscrapers. See the above video as an example. From here, at street level, the plane doesn't come into view until the very last second. Blink and you WILL miss it. Multiple TV stations also missed the second impact because their cameras were looking at the north tower and the giant hole in its façade. The north tower was blocking the south tower, which was hit from the south. From their camera angle, the approach of UA175 was completely obscured (by that north tower).

I was born and raised in New York City, and what convinced me that there were no planes hitting the towers were quite a few home videos taken by people who lived in nearby apartments that never showed any planes, but clearly showed explosions.

Hi Arc thank you so much for your input. It’s a real shame we can’t get hold of those videos. Although I’ve seen quite a few folk saying there were no planes. Great if you could get them though… please post.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'd like to see the videos where no planes can be seen, only explosions.

I already have seen several plane-less clips on the forum over the years, and on youtube. In each instance so far this footage is doctored footage -- the plane has been digitally removed.

And I determine this with Logic. Here's one piece of logic to wrestle with.

You have two identical videos except, one has a plane in it, the other does not. We can use the Evan Fairbanks video on the previous page as an example. Which is real, which is fake? The answer is, one of these videos has a provenance that dates back to 2001. It exists in the public domain for all of those 23 years. The 'other clip' dates to the years after 2001, to the youtube years, to the same years in which the 9/11 truth movement was infiltrated. So which one is the fake? The answer is clear.

I guarantee it's the same case with each and every video that doesn't have a plane in it, except those where the plane is naturally obscured by a building.

If more logic is required >

To stage a fake terrorist attack involving planes slamming into a building...you USE actual planes and slam them into a building.

The whole 'there were no planes' is a phoney bone of contention. Also known as a slide.

Every time someone cries 'no planes', another C*I*A agent slaps himself him on the back for a job well done. It's the >>look here<< (don't look there) tactic.

The 'there' they want to distract us from (which seems to have worked to great effect judging by the existence of this thread); is why did the buildings collapse; why did Building 7 collapse; what hit the Pentagon; who really were flying these planes - or were they operated on remote control (almost certainly yes); in which case, what happened to the passengers; what happened to the hijackers; who were the hijackers and what EXACTLY was their involvement; what about their ties to Al-Quaeda; what about Al-Quaeda's ties to the C*I*A; how much did they know; how much did Bush know and Cheney know and that entire administration; and what about Bush's top Generals; why were they absent without leave that day; what about the military drills taking place simulating hijacked planes crashing into buildings -- when, at that very moment, real-life planes were crashing into real-life buildings -- why did none of the top brass lose their jobs for dereliction of duty; why, actually, were there numerous top-level promotions instead; and about a billion other questions they don't want you spending your time on.

[meat suit]

There was also a photo from soon after 911 showing a guidance device fixed underneath to one of the planes.
Why would you screw a guidance device to a hologram or whatever it was..
I think Alien scientist on youtube made a good case at the time for the passenger planes being swapped for the ones that hit the buildings at Hollowman (?) airbase which was in the filght path of both planes after take off that morning.

Sorry, sketchy memories... Its a while ago..

[Eric J (Viking)]

I'd like to see the videos where no planes can be seen, only

Perhaps we should agree to disagree Mark…

This was posted earlier with just the explosions there are hundreds of them floating around…only 5 mins.

https://old.bitchute.com/video/WJmXfSuCZYhz/

There’s a whole list here

https://old.bitchute.com/search/?query=911%20no%20planes&kind=video&sort=new

Anyway as I said it’s fine with what you believe…I don’t suppose we’ll ever know the whole truth. We all have differing truths I’ll stick to mine.

Be well

[Tintin]

I do wonder whether anyone anywhere has been able to replicate in a controlled experimental space, to exact scale, as in a model, say, and this is a crude image admittedly, an Airfix model plane fitted with mini engines hitting a scale mini of the WTC and then we get to see what really would happen. That would include duplicating the known weather conditions. The model would have to be exact though and accurate in as much scaled detail as possible to replicate the environment. It must be possible to do not using computer models but replicating the physical environment.

Obviously something more sophisticated than an Airfix, but, you get the idea.

Clearly there had been fishy footage (5 live images only on the day in the moment) from official channels (NBC, Fox, CNN etc.) released, and of course fishy footage released after the fact later on down the line. The *Naudet's footage wasn't shown until later on in the day in the US and not until the following day in the UK, I'm sure from memory, given the time difference.

I DO however want to see unedited what the 'dancing' Israeli's, found on Jersey side, actually filmed as they in their own words were there to 'document the event'. Five Zapruder's instead of one.

(*I remember one researcher back in the day discovered that 'Naudets' (plural) was an anagram of 'Duane St' and it was at that intersection that they were perfectly positioned to 'capture' something. Why though was their footage initially released without sound, and then later with on DVD?) I think I know the answer but don't really want to get bogged down in all this again.

I spent several hours every day for several months doing nothing else really other than focusing on all this. I've drawn my conclusions and am happy with them for now as they were drawn from diligent objective research.

I still would however like to see the experiment undertaken, and see the unedited Israeli footage, absolutely. Slim chance I'd get to see it unedited recalling that the 1975 JFK subpoenaed Zapruder film we know had several frames snipped out.

-----------------------

Related reminder: The Pentagon 'object'

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1039573785031139328/vid/352x262/YrVMLye_0h-lIH3S.mp4?tag=8

[Johnnycomelately]

I'd like to see the videos where no planes can be seen, only

Perhaps we should agree to disagree Mark…

This was posted earlier with just the explosions there are hundreds of them floating around…only 5 mins.

https://old.bitchute.com/video/WJmXfSuCZYhz/

There’s a whole list here

https://old.bitchute.com/search/?query=911%20no%20planes&kind=video&sort=new

Anyway as I said it’s fine with what you believe…I don’t suppose we’ll ever know the whole truth. We all have differing truths I’ll stick to mine.

Be well

Hi Eric. I watched the vid at your first link, and am still undecided about this. And I’ve seen a good handful of vids on it previously.

The most anomalous feature, here in a different (~150 compass degrees different) POV from the news broadcast, is that airliner’s-nose looking shape that seemed to egress in line with the ingress.

Gotta admit though, none of those clips were eyes-on at moment of impact. But yeah, for that they seem sketchy, and I don’t really doubt they were, considering all the other shenanigans.

You be well too.

[Tintin]

I do wonder whether anyone anywhere has been able to replicate in a controlled experimental space, to exact scale, as in a model, say, and this is a crude image admittedly, an Airfix model plane fitted with mini engines hitting a scale mini of the WTC and then we get to see what really would happen. That would include duplicating the known weather conditions. The model would have to be exact though and accurate in as much scaled detail as possible to replicate the environment. It must be possible to do not using computer models but replicating the physical environment.

Obviously something more sophisticated than an Airfix, but, you get the idea.

Clearly there had been fishy footage (5 live images only on the day in the moment) from official channels (NBC, Fox, CNN etc.) released, and of course fishy footage released after the fact later on down the line. The *Naudet's footage wasn't shown until later on in the day in the US and not until the following day in the UK, I'm sure from memory, given the time difference.

I DO however want to see unedited what the 'dancing' Israeli's, found on Jersey side, actually filmed as they in their own words were there to 'document the event'. Five Zapruder's instead of one.

(*I remember one researcher back in the day discovered that 'Naudets' (plural) was an anagram of 'Duane St' and it was at that intersection that they were perfectly positioned to 'capture' something. Why though was their footage initially released without sound, and then later with on DVD?) I think I know the answer but don't really want to get bogged down in all this again.

I spent several hours every day for several months doing nothing else really other than focusing on all this. I've drawn my conclusions and am happy with them for now as they were drawn from diligent objective research.

I still would however like to see the experiment undertaken, and see the unedited Israeli footage, absolutely. Slim chance I'd get to see it unedited recalling that the 1975 JFK subpoenaed Zapruder film we know had several frames snipped out.

-----------------------

Related reminders: The Pentagon 'object'

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1039573785031139328/vid/352x262/YrVMLye_0h-lIH3S.mp4?tag=8

'Dancing Israeli's' segment from James Corbett's "9-11 Suspects"

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833779981714915329/pu/vid/avc1/640x360/ACTJeurE1eNfJWpc.mp4?tag=12


Related video links added

[Tintin]

I've already seen all these clips dozens of times over but for others that do have questions here's another of interest. Fox Chopper 5 is fishy as hell. This is the NBC chopper 4 feed filmed in real time. It can be compared to the shot shown in https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ

NBC Live Chopper 4 feed - now, was this video edited, or not? The video shown in the saved broadcast included in the clip in one of the videos above appears to show an object travelling in from the right which could well be a plane, but it's difficult to really tell. Rich Hall did a whole show way back where he discussed 'blobs'.

This video shows nothing coming in from right of the screen over the East River:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1783206836218245120/pu/vid/avc1/640x640/iXDIJEJnOpYH6_V-.mp4?tag=12

Check in at 07:15 in the 18 shots video that Mark (Star Mariner) posted here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89340-No-Planes&p=1584133&viewfull=1#post1584133) and wait until about 07:18. Pause, and you'll see the 'blob' looking object just above the (2001) label on the closed bracket (https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ).

Accounting for the height of the chopper and a perspective on the trajectory of the 'object' (plane?) I'd aver there's a discrepancy, in that the downward trajectory of the 'object' is just way too steep compared to the imagery we've been shown of the 'plane' hitting WTC2, even allowing for adjustments to the perspective.

So, which has been tampered with, which hasn't? That is, which is the real unedited live broadcast, and how can that be proved?

No wonder it took so long going down through the warren............

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

No wonder it took so long going down through the warren............

Mate, I've been in that warren, you betcha! way down deep to the sub-levels.

The video you posted above was the NBC Live broadcast from 'chopper 4'. I ripped that video back in 2013 to analyse it frame by frame. Here is the original video with the plane. (converted to MP4 so it would embed).

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/2nd plane impact_ N_B_C LIVE, raw studio tape (no logo)_0.mp4

Here's a gif I made with a close-up of that plane. The objective here was to demonstrate this was a plane and NOT -- as was thought by some at the time -- an 'orb'; the craft here clearly has wings; it is a Boeing 767.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/plane_gif_003.gif


the downward trajectory of the 'object' is just way too steep compared to the imagery we've been shown of the 'plane' hitting WTC2, even allowing for adjustments to the perspective.

For that weird-looking trajectory, I highly recommends Rich Hall's presentation (link below). What he did essentially was overlay a 3D model of lower Manhattan with the various videos of the second impact. He used this model to plot an accurate radar track of the plane's trajectory. This analysis aimed to get to the bottom of that question, once and for all. The track from this video matched up with the others.

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=233&part=3&gen=3



So, which has been tampered with, which hasn't? That is, which is the real unedited live broadcast, and how can that be proved?

I might be able to give that a shot.

I've uploaded to the server my original collection of broadcast videos.

You can download them from the links below. Unfortunately they can't be embedded, they just don't play. That's due to their deprecated formats, being .mpg and .avi. These are low quality videos by today's standards.

And that's the thing.

These clips were downloaded, by me, in the weeks after 9/11; the oldest dates to October 2001.

That's some serious provenance. They've been in my possession unaltered all that time. ALL these old videos have planes in them. And every video I've seen without a plane dates to after this time-frame, way after this timeframe, indicating to me that those are the videos that have been doctored. In my opinion, they were implanted as a red herring to muddy the waters and defame conspiracy researchers.

When you download these videos (each only a couple of MBs) it's possible you'll need the old mpeg-2 codec to play them. Windows should download it for you, alternatively VLC (https://www.videolan.org/)Media Player (recommended).

I've provided screenshots to show what each video contains. Again, these are 22 to 23 years old, and the compression/quality is poor. Not sure if the meta data for these videos will show my original download date, but if not here is a screenshot of the folder I keep them in. This folder has been preserved from machine to machine since the old Pentium II I was running in 2001. Note the column marked 'Date'.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/wtc_video_folder.jpg

The videos:

1.
File: WTC - 2nd Plane Crash.08x.avi
Download date: 11-10-01 (11th October '01)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/WTC - 2nd Plane Crash.08x.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/WTC - 2nd Plane Crash.08x.avi

2.
File: World Trade Center Plane Crash4.mpg
Download date: 11-10-01 (11th October '01)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World Trade Center Plane Crash4.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World Trade Center Plane Crash4.mpg

3.
File: World Trade Center Best view plane.avi
Download date: Download date: 11-10-01 (11th October '01)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World Trade Center Best view plane.avi.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World Trade Center Best view plane.avi

4.
File: World_Trade_Center_Plane_Crash2 (4).MPG
Download date: 05-04-02 (5th April '02)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_Center_Plane_Crash2 (4).jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_Center_Plane_Crash2 (4).MPG

5.
File: World_Trade_center_Plane_Crash1.MPG
Download date: 05-04-02 (5th April '02)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_center_Plane_Crash1.MPG.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_center_Plane_Crash1.MPG

6.
File: WTC Bombing Spectacular ANGLE.mpg
Download date: 05-04-02 (5th April '02)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/WTC Bombing Spectacular ANGLE.mpg.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/WTC Bombing Spectacular ANGLE.mpg

7.
File: World_Trade_Center_Plane_crash_Terrorism.MPG
Download date: 05-04-02 (5th April '02)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_Center_Plane_crash_Terrorism.MPG.jpg
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/World_Trade_Center_Plane_crash_Terrorism.MPG

Where the evidence goes, the truth shows. That's a crappy rhyme, but you get my point. I don't have any agenda here, this is not about winning an argument. It's about finding the truth and speaking it, whatever the hell that truth might be. As Mike said in his terrific substack article here (https://mikeknittel.substack.com/p/two-dudes-win-gold-in-womens-olympic), "If I’m obsessed with anything, it’s the truth".

I've had these videos on my harddrive that go back virtually to the event itself; they contain footage of planes hitting buildings. If they did not, I'd be shouting it from the rooftop on this thread. But the planes are there, meaning, these are the original videos, unless someone can dig up copies of one or any of these same videos that does not contain a plane and pre-dates October '01/April '02. If they can, and prove tangible provenance as I have done, I will sit up and take notice, I promise.

And yet...

Another dollop of confusion is piled on top of this. One claims the planes are in the video but they're holograms. To me that's just wild conjecture, and there's no evidence to support it. Besides, Occam's Razor: we have a pair of plane-shaped holes in buildings; something plane-shaped has to have caused them and that something had to be physical. We also have part of a 767 engine lying on the street below.

It landed on Murray Street, NY
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3a364e05ed0dc80aabd8355b7ce31b29-c

It definitely wasn't a hologram.

Nor was part of the landing gear from UA175 found wedged between two buildings on Park Place.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--_20hCOv3--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18lusij3ozhkfjpg.jpg

On the question of Planes or no planes...we have television footage of the planes; we have physical artefacts recovered from those planes, and we have eyewitnesses in New York, and New Jersey, who saw the planes with their physical eyes.

Yes, statistical outliers exists -- some people didn't see a plane, most likely due to their location, with tall buildings blocking their view -- but the way I see things is, if there's a robbery and 100 people witness it and 97 said he wore a red hat and 3 a green hat, I'm going with the red hat. You cannot base your conclusions on statistical outliers, you have to follow consensus (and what the jigsaw puzzle amounts to over all with each and every piece you bring together) or you'll never get to the bottom of the case.

[just my opinion]

This has taken most of the afternoon to compose and compile so I hope someone finds it useful.

[Tintin]

No wonder it took so long going down through the warren............

Mate, I've been in that warren, you betcha! way down deep to the sub-levels.

The video you posted above was the NBC Live broadcast from 'chopper 4'. I ripped that video back in 2013 to analyse it frame by frame. Here is the original video with the plane. (converted to MP4 so it would embed).

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/2nd plane impact_ N_B_C LIVE, raw studio tape (no logo)_0.mp4

Here's a gif I made with a close-up of that plane. The objective here was to demonstrate this was a plane and NOT -- as was thought by some at the time -- an 'orb'; the craft here clearly has wings; it is a Boeing 767.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/Mark/plane_gif_003.gif

[just my opinion]

This has taken most of the afternoon to compose and compile so I hope someone finds it useful.

Great work :handshake:

Fair play, and thanks for making that time too, and it all does just take time, lots of it, and patience :)

Here's the Richard Hall presentation up front. I'll need to revisit that as it has been since at least 2013 since I've seen that. Again, thanks for providing the source:

https://cdn1.richplanet.net/mp4/233_03.mp4

For what it's worth the NBC footage is the most compelling, for me, in making a case for any passenger planes, and these are good images here to consider. Okay, that's the broadcast version audio to TV presumably as the narrative is nothing like the 'chopper' audio. The gif is helpful as it shows the wings more clearly.

[Eric J (Viking)]

🤔

NO PLANES Special Effects Expert COMPLETELY DESTROYS Official 911 Story!

https://old.bitchute.com/video/xYUELGxyDARg

xYUELGxyDARg

[DustOff72]

Good morning all! I'm new here at Avalon and looking forward to good rational public dialogue.

As a member of Pilots For 911 Truth back in the day, I would like to comment on the idea of no airplanes. Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots For 911 Truth, passed away a few years ago, maybe at the beginning of the Scamdemic.

There were planes that hit the towers that day, but they were drones, that is they were certainly NOT AA11 and UA175. When I first joined PFT they had video from a ground level parking lot camera outdoors in Manhattan. It was a wide angle lens recording vehicles entering the parking lot, but in the background was the north facing side of the North Tower. Though only a 3 or 4 second clip, it showed an airplane strike the face. It was impossible to tell exactly what it was, but it did appear much smaller than a Boeing. That was corroborated by early reports from mainstream media regarding phone calls to NYPD by citizens who had seen the strike, maybe 8 or 9 people called NYPD about that, and several specified that the airplane was a commuter or corporate jet type aircraft, a smaller aircraft. At some point in time that video was removed from PFT website, but I viewed it several times while it was there. I haven't tried in years, but the stories about citizen calls to NYPD also became very difficult to find.

As for the South Tower, many cameras recorded that one from many angles. Though the airplane nearly missed its target, obviously it corrected enough to hit it. The many pictures show the aircraft wing up, and revealed exterior plumbing and fairings that a stock 767 does not have. Also the engine that flew off the airplane and landed on a sidewalk was described by engine experts to be actually from a 747, not a 767. Other pieces of the aircraft were also found on the ground. Then about 10 years later as construction of some sort was being done at a Burlington Coats store, parts from the flap actuating system were found in a very small part of the Burlington Coats store. Naturally the cops recovered the stuff and would not allow any independent sources to examine it.

There were planes, but they were drones. No passengers.

Peace, out.

[Satori]

When discussing whether there were planes or no planes, I have found it helpful to start with the last of the four events of 9/11, not the first.

Shanksville, PA. No plane. But we were and still are told there was.

Pentagon, DC. No plane. But we were and are still told there was.

NYC, NY. Planes? No planes?

Each event involved and employed some type of delivery system and explosive device(s). But were they planes? We have to ask: What is a plane? (Must people be passengers for it to be a plane? Probably not.) A drone qualifies as a plane.

[Satori]

When discussing whether there were planes or no planes, I have found it helpful to start with the last of the four events of 9/11, not the first.

Shanksville, PA. No plane. But we were and still are told there was.

Pentagon, DC. No plane. But we were and are still told there was.

NYC, NY. Planes? No planes?

Each event involved and employed some type of delivery system and explosive device(s). But were they planes? We have to ask: What is a plane? (Must people be passengers for it to be a plane? Probably not.) A drone qualifies as a plane.

I hasten to add that whether “planes” hit the Twin Towers on 9/11 or not, most certainly explosive devices had been placed in those buildings, as well as others, e.g., WTC7, WTC6, prior to 9/11. Planes, kerosene, and contents fires did not cause any of those buildings to collapse at nearly free-fall into their own footprints on that day. No way!

[Tintin]

Good morning all! I'm new here at Avalon and looking forward to good rational public dialogue.

As a member of Pilots For 911 Truth back in the day, I would like to comment on the idea of no airplanes. Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots For 911 Truth, passed away a few years ago, maybe at the beginning of the Scamdemic.

There were planes that hit the towers that day, but they were drones, that is they were certainly NOT AA11 and UA175. When I first joined PFT they had video from a ground level parking lot camera outdoors in Manhattan. It was a wide angle lens recording vehicles entering the parking lot, but in the background was the north facing side of the North Tower. Though only a 3 or 4 second clip, it showed an airplane strike the face. It was impossible to tell exactly what it was, but it did appear much smaller than a Boeing. That was corroborated by early reports from mainstream media regarding phone calls to NYPD by citizens who had seen the strike, maybe 8 or 9 people called NYPD about that, and several specified that the airplane was a commuter or corporate jet type aircraft, a smaller aircraft. At some point in time that video was removed from PFT website, but I viewed it several times while it was there. I haven't tried in years, but the stories about citizen calls to NYPD also became very difficult to find.

As for the South Tower, many cameras recorded that one from many angles. Though the airplane nearly missed its target, obviously it corrected enough to hit it. The many pictures show the aircraft wing up, and revealed exterior plumbing and fairings that a stock 767 does not have. Also the engine that flew off the airplane and landed on a sidewalk was described by engine experts to be actually from a 747, not a 767. Other pieces of the aircraft were also found on the ground. Then about 10 years later as construction of some sort was being done at a Burlington Coats store, parts from the flap actuating system were found in a very small part of the Burlington Coats store. Naturally the cops recovered the stuff and would not allow any independent sources to examine it.

There were planes, but they were drones. No passengers.

Peace, out.

Many thanks for this :thumbsup:

It all largely jives with what I've managed to deduce over the years.

What may be of enormous interest to some here: in one of the documentaries made, and for the life of me I don't remember which one unfortunately, there was a segment (I think) of Peter Jennings broadcasting live, and flightradar data on-screen showing UA175 still airborne at least a half hour after it was supposed to have struck WTC2 along with other flights that hadn't grounded, yet. It's going to take me quite some while to try and locate that.

No, I didn't imagine it.

If I do locate that I'll most definitely share it here.

[DustOff72]

Good morning all! I'm new here at Avalon and looking forward to good rational public dialogue.

As a member of Pilots For 911 Truth back in the day, I would like to comment on the idea of no airplanes. Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots For 911 Truth, passed away a few years ago, maybe at the beginning of the Scamdemic.

There were planes that hit the towers that day, but they were drones, that is they were certainly NOT AA11 and UA175. When I first joined PFT they had video from a ground level parking lot camera outdoors in Manhattan. It was a wide angle lens recording vehicles entering the parking lot, but in the background was the north facing side of the North Tower. Though only a 3 or 4 second clip, it showed an airplane strike the face. It was impossible to tell exactly what it was, but it did appear much smaller than a Boeing. That was corroborated by early reports from mainstream media regarding phone calls to NYPD by citizens who had seen the strike, maybe 8 or 9 people called NYPD about that, and several specified that the airplane was a commuter or corporate jet type aircraft, a smaller aircraft. At some point in time that video was removed from PFT website, but I viewed it several times while it was there. I haven't tried in years, but the stories about citizen calls to NYPD also became very difficult to find.

As for the South Tower, many cameras recorded that one from many angles. Though the airplane nearly missed its target, obviously it corrected enough to hit it. The many pictures show the aircraft wing up, and revealed exterior plumbing and fairings that a stock 767 does not have. Also the engine that flew off the airplane and landed on a sidewalk was described by engine experts to be actually from a 747, not a 767. Other pieces of the aircraft were also found on the ground. Then about 10 years later as construction of some sort was being done at a Burlington Coats store, parts from the flap actuating system were found in a very small part of the Burlington Coats store. Naturally the cops recovered the stuff and would not allow any independent sources to examine it.

There were planes, but they were drones. No passengers.

Peace, out.

Many thanks for this :thumbsup:

It all largely jives with what I've managed to deduce over the years.

What may be of enormous interest to some here: in one of the documentaries made, and for the life of me I don't remember which one unfortunately, there was a segment (I think) of Peter Jennings broadcasting live, and flightradar data on-screen showing UA175 still airborne at least a half hour after it was supposed to have struck WTC2 along with other flights that hadn't grounded, yet. It's going to take me quite some while to try and locate that.

No, I didn't imagine it.

If I do locate that I'll most definitely share it here.

There was only 1 criminal trial held regarding the events of the day, and that was the trial of Moussaoui, the supposed 19th hijacker. During the discovery phase of that trial a dispatcher for United Airlines was deposed, and it was an embarrassment for the prosecution because the agent (Mr. Winter I believe) pointed out that according to data from ACARS https://www.aviationmatters.co/what-is-acars/ the aircraft that was UA93 that day was still flying and communicating within the ACARS system about 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville. Ooops!

[Tintin]

Good morning all! I'm new here at Avalon and looking forward to good rational public dialogue.

As a member of Pilots For 911 Truth back in the day, I would like to comment on the idea of no airplanes. Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots For 911 Truth, passed away a few years ago, maybe at the beginning of the Scamdemic.

There were planes that hit the towers that day, but they were drones, that is they were certainly NOT AA11 and UA175. When I first joined PFT they had video from a ground level parking lot camera outdoors in Manhattan. It was a wide angle lens recording vehicles entering the parking lot, but in the background was the north facing side of the North Tower. Though only a 3 or 4 second clip, it showed an airplane strike the face. It was impossible to tell exactly what it was, but it did appear much smaller than a Boeing. That was corroborated by early reports from mainstream media regarding phone calls to NYPD by citizens who had seen the strike, maybe 8 or 9 people called NYPD about that, and several specified that the airplane was a commuter or corporate jet type aircraft, a smaller aircraft. At some point in time that video was removed from PFT website, but I viewed it several times while it was there. I haven't tried in years, but the stories about citizen calls to NYPD also became very difficult to find.

As for the South Tower, many cameras recorded that one from many angles. Though the airplane nearly missed its target, obviously it corrected enough to hit it. The many pictures show the aircraft wing up, and revealed exterior plumbing and fairings that a stock 767 does not have. Also the engine that flew off the airplane and landed on a sidewalk was described by engine experts to be actually from a 747, not a 767. Other pieces of the aircraft were also found on the ground. Then about 10 years later as construction of some sort was being done at a Burlington Coats store, parts from the flap actuating system were found in a very small part of the Burlington Coats store. Naturally the cops recovered the stuff and would not allow any independent sources to examine it.

There were planes, but they were drones. No passengers.

Peace, out.

Many thanks for this :thumbsup:

It all largely jives with what I've managed to deduce over the years.

What may be of enormous interest to some here: in one of the documentaries made, and for the life of me I don't remember which one unfortunately, there was a segment (I think) of Peter Jennings broadcasting live, and flightradar data on-screen showing UA175 still airborne at least a half hour after it was supposed to have struck WTC2 along with other flights that hadn't grounded, yet. It's going to take me quite some while to try and locate that.

No, I didn't imagine it.

If I do locate that I'll most definitely share it here.

There was only 1 criminal trial held regarding the events of the day, and that was the trial of Moussaoui, the supposed 19th hijacker. During the discovery phase of that trial a dispatcher for United Airlines was deposed, and it was an embarrassment for the prosecution because the agent (Mr. Winter I believe) pointed out that according to data from ACARS https://www.aviationmatters.co/what-is-acars/ the aircraft that was UA93 that day was still flying and communicating within the ACARS system about 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville. Ooops!

And, this, a description of Dean Hartwell's book: Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11 - https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Planes_Without_Passengers.html?id=1KUkMQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y



This book came out in 2012 and has been updated and revised in the author's new book, "Was 9/11 a Movie?" This is the second edition of Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11. It is written by one of the leading researchers on the issue of planes and passengers, Dean T. Hartwell. This edition confirms the conclusion of the first book that no hijackings took place that day and puts together a more complete theory: Only two planes of the four planes alleged to be connected with the 9/11 plot actually flew on that day. And the passengers were not people who paid a ticket to go from one place to another. They were instead agents connected to the plot who were chosen to help cover up the crime. This theory is based primarily upon two facts: (1) the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which maintains information on all commercial flights in the United States, in its original form stated clearly that while United 175 and United 93 were scheduled and flew, American 11 and American 77 did not and (2) ACARS, a system much like electronic mail and GPS, shows that United 175 and United 93 were flying over the Midwestern part of the United States long after their supposed "crashes" on the east coast. Agents pretending to be passengers were seen at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport late that morning. They walked toward A NASA building to make calls to the media to straighten out an impression many had that the Internet reported that United 93 had landed in Cleveland. History should not be a lie agreed upon by the media, the politicians and others of influence. History must give us the most likely events based on the available information. This book aims to be a part of history we may not want to believe, but we should believe because it weighs the facts in an objective manner.

---

Although 'Drones (of some sort or another) without passengers' may be more apposite. What has always bothered me from watching as much of the film that is available, over and over and over again I must add, and included in official documentaries is the apparent melting of aircraft, or more likely what we may now refer to as UAVs, into the buildings.

[DustOff72]

Tintin

Yes, the events at Cleveland that morning were definitely part of the scam. Another mystery is Delta 1989 if I'm remember the flight number correctly.

But I agree completely that the passengers and crew were part of the scam, just names of actors in a play, just like the "hijackers"

I think it was the man called Woody Box https://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2011/04/pilots-strange-encounter-with-atta-at.html that through research at BTS and FAA tower records claimed that the records show that on departure at Boston (?) there were actually 2 different calls to Ground Control by UA 175, separated in time by about 15 minutes.