Pentagon and the flight 93 "crash" were both cruise missiles.
As to what hit the towers? I give it a low chance it was CGI, and most likely it was gray drone airliners being flown remotely from a 3rd aircraft seen flying higher up as the planes crashed into the towers (which were more rigged with demo)
Bullshit, the official story is that it went straight down and made a tiny divot in the ground which sucked up all evidence larger than a phone book.
The scattered parts miles away are another piece of nonsense. Maybe the missile did eject some body parts pretty far, but no airliner crashed around that field.
We've SEEN real airliners get shot down by missiles. Like that one in Russia or ukraine or whatever. There are entire rows of seats with dead people, massive pieces of fuselage. That was a REAL plane shot down. The 93 flight is complete bullshit. Even the cellphone calls debunk the official story. Hollywood even made a propaganda piece to hoist the "let's roll" narrative as heroes so no one could question the bullshit story....
I remember hearing an early live news report from PA where the journalist stated that scuttlebut on the ground is that it was shot down. There were fighter jets spotted in the air, and reports from the ground claim hearing an explosion before the plane crashed.
The wing tips have clearly damaged the aluminium cladding on the building. Here is a video of the engine that was found on the ground at the site. https://youtu.be/gVoL6NAyR-8 apparently from what I recall it was slightly the wrong model for the commercial plane that was supposed to hit it.
The only 2 people in that video NOT running for their lives and still giving direction are those 2 FBI agents... just saying. And they are directing people NOT to run the opposite direction. Seems sus to me... but could just be the FBI on their jackets
First off, it is important to clarify I'm not a proponent of TV fakery at all. To my mind, all that has been satisfactorily debunked. Notably not by AE911Truth or the Scholars, who merely dismiss or deny it, but by independent researchers not affiliated with them.
So: If you look closely at some photos, including this one, some parts of the cladding, and underlying structure, appear to have been blown outward (and some sideward) rather than impacted inward.
Also there is no reason the wings all the way to the tip would make an impact on the structure beyond on the aluminium cladding, yet this is seen in some images. The fatter part of a wing, closer to the body of the plane, contains fuel and the mechanism for the flaps, and is therefore somewhat weighty, more sturdy (relatively); but the narrow parts, to the tips, are fragile. They have a similar function and construction to the nose cone.
You may argue that the weight and momentum of the plane (behind the nose cone) will make a hole; but there is relatively (when considering them hitting those towers) no weight behind the wings, especially where they narrow. The building should have prevented their passage into it, but it didn't. The plane, in it's entirety appears to penetrate into the South Tower (when you watch the footage frame by frame), leaving a plane-shaped-hole in the steel structure.
Also there is a delay with the entire explosion anyway (in the south tower), again discernible by carefully watching close up footage, frame by frame.
Now, by way of explanation: I speculate plane shaped holes were rigged somehow to blow in the sides of the buildings, with explosives, some kind of thermate perhaps, who knows; and timed to blow out when the apparent plane struck.
It is not clear if this is the entire source or purpose of the explosions that happen after we see the planes. In the only footage of the north tower impact, it is possible to discern a delay in the blowing out of the right side wing-shaped hole. It happens a few frames after the main explosion, and even more frames after the plane is last discernible . You can just see it before the smoke hides it, when you scroll through the footage, zoomed in, frame by frame.
I can think of another semi-explanation, but it's more "woo" and you wont like it.
https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding/i-jVmJjrG/A bars on the bottom left are all bent inwards. If you believe it was a hologram, show this technology exists. That you can project a solid image viewable from all angles in daylight with no medium to project upon. At this point it's easier to just crash a plane into the buildings.
To fly those planes into the buildings at those speeds was impossible, therefore not easier. There are holograms that are projected onto particles suspended in the air, though they don't call it holograms - "volumetric projection" - and done on a small scale - so who's to say that the medium would have to be static, visible to the human eye, or even solid - although perhaps a specially coated drone/missile of some kind could have been the medium?
Operation Northwoods the planes were swapped out for different ones. There is evidence from the radar and tracking data this happened. Other evidence such as transponders still working after the planes had supposedly crashed. And the engine identified in the street allegedly was the wrong engine for the plane that hit the building.
The speeds that they were going, at the altitude that they were, are impossible for those planes to maintain for any period of time without basically breaking up, wings falling off etc. They are only designed to go fast at very high altitudes in much thinner atmosphere. And even then, not that fast. Look into Pilots for 9/11 truth.
Yes that is correct from what I recall. I don't remember where the speeds came from as I don't believe the black boxes were ever recovered from the WTC buildings but I could be wrong on that. The claim is at the specific altitude the planes were flying, they would likely tear apart. The attack on the pentagon is similar, they found the speed and maneuvers the plane was doing were almost impossible for a Boeing 757. The air traffic controllers thought it was a military plane the way it was flying.
please look into pilots for 911 truth, especially if you are a plane enthusiast. They are at odds with the mainstream of AE 9/11 truth. They bring up this about the large passenger plane air speed limitations at low altitude. It's detailed in the manufacturers documentation, the speed beyond which structural failure occurs. The planes were flying well beyond what some of them say is even possible at that altitude (for those large passenger planes). You should read what they have to say. They have even made a couple of documentaries.
This is also mentioned in the documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor". Neither groups speculate the same explanation as I have done above. I believe they tend towards the idea of smaller, radio-controlled military drone aircraft being used.
I remember the flight paths possibility being questioned. Sure, manufacture says it's out of spec. Anyone who knows anything will say you're not supposed to be able to do aileron rolls in a 747, but sky king did it.
Holograms and space lasers seem a lot harder (impossible) to coordinate than a plane flying into the building with controlled demolition termite already already in the buildings.
They were smeshed by planez. And subsequently brought down by charges planted in the elevator shaft by the front ACE Elevator co.
WTC7 was a classic implosion that they tried to hide from the media for two years afterwords. If 7 was brought down by explosives, so were the other two. Physics does not allow for those buildings to fall like that without explosive assistance.
I have always thought it happened as the media covered it, however it was obviously at the very least allowed to happen by the deep state, and more likely planned.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams but it can weaken them to the point where they can no longer support the weight of the structure.
The problem is a lot of effort has been made (September clues etc) to deliberately inject bad or flat out ridiculous ideas into the 9/11 debate. The sort of flat earth nonsense that makes people automatically reject the idea malfeasance happened at all. It blows my mind the mods here would go to such lengths as to believe in imaginary star trek level technology than the far more obvious reality that a plane crashed.
We still do not have invisible beam space lasers capable of evaporating 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in seconds. That is not a thing, but blowning up buildings has been in the human wheelhouse since the 1773 when they blew up the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Ireland. When we get space lasers, you’ll know about it.
I absolutely agree planes hit the WTC, it’s the pentagon I’m not convinced about
Pentagon and the flight 93 "crash" were both cruise missiles.
As to what hit the towers? I give it a low chance it was CGI, and most likely it was gray drone airliners being flown remotely from a 3rd aircraft seen flying higher up as the planes crashed into the towers (which were more rigged with demo)
I'm pretty sure flight 93 was shot down. It was found scattered over a 7 mile radius.
Bullshit, the official story is that it went straight down and made a tiny divot in the ground which sucked up all evidence larger than a phone book. The scattered parts miles away are another piece of nonsense. Maybe the missile did eject some body parts pretty far, but no airliner crashed around that field. We've SEEN real airliners get shot down by missiles. Like that one in Russia or ukraine or whatever. There are entire rows of seats with dead people, massive pieces of fuselage. That was a REAL plane shot down. The 93 flight is complete bullshit. Even the cellphone calls debunk the official story. Hollywood even made a propaganda piece to hoist the "let's roll" narrative as heroes so no one could question the bullshit story....
u/dukey did not say the official story was true. He said it was very likely shot down.
I remember hearing an early live news report from PA where the journalist stated that scuttlebut on the ground is that it was shot down. There were fighter jets spotted in the air, and reports from the ground claim hearing an explosion before the plane crashed.
The wing tips have clearly damaged the aluminium cladding on the building. Here is a video of the engine that was found on the ground at the site. https://youtu.be/gVoL6NAyR-8 apparently from what I recall it was slightly the wrong model for the commercial plane that was supposed to hit it.
The only 2 people in that video NOT running for their lives and still giving direction are those 2 FBI agents... just saying. And they are directing people NOT to run the opposite direction. Seems sus to me... but could just be the FBI on their jackets
First off, it is important to clarify I'm not a proponent of TV fakery at all. To my mind, all that has been satisfactorily debunked. Notably not by AE911Truth or the Scholars, who merely dismiss or deny it, but by independent researchers not affiliated with them.
So: If you look closely at some photos, including this one, some parts of the cladding, and underlying structure, appear to have been blown outward (and some sideward) rather than impacted inward.
Also there is no reason the wings all the way to the tip would make an impact on the structure beyond on the aluminium cladding, yet this is seen in some images. The fatter part of a wing, closer to the body of the plane, contains fuel and the mechanism for the flaps, and is therefore somewhat weighty, more sturdy (relatively); but the narrow parts, to the tips, are fragile. They have a similar function and construction to the nose cone.
You may argue that the weight and momentum of the plane (behind the nose cone) will make a hole; but there is relatively (when considering them hitting those towers) no weight behind the wings, especially where they narrow. The building should have prevented their passage into it, but it didn't. The plane, in it's entirety appears to penetrate into the South Tower (when you watch the footage frame by frame), leaving a plane-shaped-hole in the steel structure.
Also there is a delay with the entire explosion anyway (in the south tower), again discernible by carefully watching close up footage, frame by frame.
Now, by way of explanation: I speculate plane shaped holes were rigged somehow to blow in the sides of the buildings, with explosives, some kind of thermate perhaps, who knows; and timed to blow out when the apparent plane struck.
It is not clear if this is the entire source or purpose of the explosions that happen after we see the planes. In the only footage of the north tower impact, it is possible to discern a delay in the blowing out of the right side wing-shaped hole. It happens a few frames after the main explosion, and even more frames after the plane is last discernible . You can just see it before the smoke hides it, when you scroll through the footage, zoomed in, frame by frame.
I can think of another semi-explanation, but it's more "woo" and you wont like it.
https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding/i-jVmJjrG/A bars on the bottom left are all bent inwards. If you believe it was a hologram, show this technology exists. That you can project a solid image viewable from all angles in daylight with no medium to project upon. At this point it's easier to just crash a plane into the buildings.
To fly those planes into the buildings at those speeds was impossible, therefore not easier. There are holograms that are projected onto particles suspended in the air, though they don't call it holograms - "volumetric projection" - and done on a small scale - so who's to say that the medium would have to be static, visible to the human eye, or even solid - although perhaps a specially coated drone/missile of some kind could have been the medium?
Operation Northwoods the planes were swapped out for different ones. There is evidence from the radar and tracking data this happened. Other evidence such as transponders still working after the planes had supposedly crashed. And the engine identified in the street allegedly was the wrong engine for the plane that hit the building.
The speeds that they were going, at the altitude that they were, are impossible for those planes to maintain for any period of time without basically breaking up, wings falling off etc. They are only designed to go fast at very high altitudes in much thinner atmosphere. And even then, not that fast. Look into Pilots for 9/11 truth.
Yes that is correct from what I recall. I don't remember where the speeds came from as I don't believe the black boxes were ever recovered from the WTC buildings but I could be wrong on that. The claim is at the specific altitude the planes were flying, they would likely tear apart. The attack on the pentagon is similar, they found the speed and maneuvers the plane was doing were almost impossible for a Boeing 757. The air traffic controllers thought it was a military plane the way it was flying.
please look into pilots for 911 truth, especially if you are a plane enthusiast. They are at odds with the mainstream of AE 9/11 truth. They bring up this about the large passenger plane air speed limitations at low altitude. It's detailed in the manufacturers documentation, the speed beyond which structural failure occurs. The planes were flying well beyond what some of them say is even possible at that altitude (for those large passenger planes). You should read what they have to say. They have even made a couple of documentaries.
This is also mentioned in the documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor". Neither groups speculate the same explanation as I have done above. I believe they tend towards the idea of smaller, radio-controlled military drone aircraft being used.
I remember the flight paths possibility being questioned. Sure, manufacture says it's out of spec. Anyone who knows anything will say you're not supposed to be able to do aileron rolls in a 747, but sky king did it.
https://youtu.be/7HUp4yJ60L4
What are you talking about "suspended particles"? What are they? What are they suspended in? How?
And yet with my own eyes I watched it.
Holograms and space lasers seem a lot harder (impossible) to coordinate than a plane flying into the building with controlled demolition termite already already in the buildings.
Keep it simple, something.
They were smeshed by planez. And subsequently brought down by charges planted in the elevator shaft by the front ACE Elevator co.
WTC7 was a classic implosion that they tried to hide from the media for two years afterwords. If 7 was brought down by explosives, so were the other two. Physics does not allow for those buildings to fall like that without explosive assistance.
I have always thought it happened as the media covered it, however it was obviously at the very least allowed to happen by the deep state, and more likely planned.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams but it can weaken them to the point where they can no longer support the weight of the structure.
Wily e Coyote? Or shape charges? Take your pick.
There were no "commercial ' airliners. Wording makes all the difference.
A hologram just flew over my house!
Take an aluminium can and throw it through your car door. Oh wait, you can't.
Do any of you actually know how thin the aluminum is on aircraft?
Do any of you know how thick the steel beams were on WTC?
It was cgi peeps.
Wings on jets are usually full of fuel. Throw a full can of coke at your car door, see what happens.
And make sure the can is doing 500 mph
The problem is a lot of effort has been made (September clues etc) to deliberately inject bad or flat out ridiculous ideas into the 9/11 debate. The sort of flat earth nonsense that makes people automatically reject the idea malfeasance happened at all. It blows my mind the mods here would go to such lengths as to believe in imaginary star trek level technology than the far more obvious reality that a plane crashed.
We still do not have invisible beam space lasers capable of evaporating 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in seconds. That is not a thing, but blowning up buildings has been in the human wheelhouse since the 1773 when they blew up the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Ireland. When we get space lasers, you’ll know about it.
I try to ask "what would it change?".
Even if it was star trek ass lasers, what's the takeaway?
Nothing. Like you say they're deliberately injecting bad information to scare off casuals.