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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Tintin; 12th September 2024 at 09:45.
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
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.
Posted by Tintin
(here)
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'
'Dancing Israeli's' segment from James Corbett's "9-11 Suspects"
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
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:
Check in at 07:15 in the 18 shots video that Mark (Star Mariner) posted here and wait until about 07:18. Pause, and you'll see the 'blob' looking object just above the (2001) label on the closed bracket.
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............
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
Posted by Tintin
(here)
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).
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.
Posted by Tintin
(here)
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.
Posted by Tintin
(here)
So, which has been tampered with, which hasn't? That is, which is the real unedited live broadcast, and howcan 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 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'.
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, "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
It definitely wasn't a hologram.
Nor was part of the landing gear from UA175 found wedged between two buildings on Park Place.
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.
Posted by Tintin
(here)
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).
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.
[just my opinion]
This has taken most of the afternoon to compose and compile so I hope someone finds it useful.
Great work
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:
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.
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
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.
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.
Posted by Satori
(here)
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!
Posted by DustOff72
(here)
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
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.
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
Posted by DustOff72
(here)
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
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!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DustOff72 For This Post:
drneglector (14th December 2024), Ewan (10th December 2024), Harmony (11th December 2024), skogvokter (17th December 2024), Tintin (10th December 2024), Vangelo (10th December 2024), wondering (10th December 2024), Yoda (10th December 2024)
Posted by DustOff72
(here)
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
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!
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.
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:
drneglector (14th December 2024), DustOff72 (13th December 2024), Ewan (10th December 2024), Harmony (11th December 2024), Vangelo (10th December 2024), Yoda (10th December 2024)
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/201...h-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.
Re: No Planes?
Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
Reply With Quote
.jpg)
Bookmarks