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.

Source: https://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! 👻🦍🐓♥️🥰

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
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.

Source: https://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...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Zz04_-f0GE

[ExomatrixTV]

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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!

• source
• 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.




see the start of the detonation





Here is the short footage.

https://ufile.io/cymndybr

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by palehorse (here)
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.

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.


The actual footage at 4.02 below

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

[onawah]

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

Posted by onawah (here)
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... "

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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)]

Posted by Patient (here)
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.



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.



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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by palehorse (here)
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.

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.
Attachment 52128

The actual footage at 4.02 below

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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)]

/Joke



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

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)]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Attachment 53749

/Joke



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

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)]

Posted by Eric J (Viking) (here)
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). 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 from MIT, the kinetic energy of that impact is calculated as follows:

E_South =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.



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.



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


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.



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



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

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, 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.



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.

Posted by Eric J (Viking) (here)
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...

[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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
^^

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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)]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
^^

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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/