There were 4 planes full of passengers on 911.
So which plane did all these passengers get on? Some tupolev that crashed over alaska? lol.
There was only 1 which 'supposedly' crashed in a field with no actual plane wreckage remember?
Don't forget andyh it's pointless to discuss 9/11 on the internet forums
Absolutely! Unless you're in it for laughs and tbh this is hilarious.
I know that the media used broadcasting to program people heavily on 911, we all saw the bbc reporter stood in front of building 7 before it came down saying it had collapsed lol...
But to say that they used video imagery and then planted plane parts there afterwards...I just don't wanna go there man its too much lol.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
There were 4 planes full of passengers on 911.
So which plane did all these passengers get on? Some tupolev that crashed over alaska? lol.
There was only 1 which 'supposedly' crashed in a field with no actual plane wreckage remember?
Don't forget andyh it's pointless to discuss 9/11 on the internet forums
Absolutely! Unless you're in it for laughs and tbh this is hilarious.
I know that the media used broadcasting to program people heavily on 911, we all saw the bbc reporter stood in front of building 7 before it came down saying it had collapsed lol...
But to say that they used video imagery and then planted plane parts there afterwards...I just don't wanna go there man its too much lol.
Not to mention the latest video posted from loose change that suggests BT now believes there were planes hitting the buildings afterall
For what its worth, I think that planes did indeed hit the buildings, but they weren't the original ones. Duplicate planes with a programmed autopilot flight path were created, the passengers were taken somewhere and had their voices cloned, were killed and dead bodies put on the duplicate planes . CIA actors went on to falsify the phone calls, whilst the duplicate planes loaded with dead bodies crashed into the buildings via GPS guided autopilot.
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
You also said that Dr wood was wrong, when she suggested the wing tips would not go through the building.
You are contradicting yourself.
Either Dr Wood was right about the wing tips not going through the building , or the wing skin was not compressed.
You can't have it both ways, you're arguing against yourself.
Can you not see that. or are you pretending not to see that?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. How is it you can't understand my perfectly reasonable position? Could it be because your brain is so desperately trying to protect your belief system? I suspect so.
THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING. A 12 INCH SECTION OF ONE WING WAS COMPRESSED BY ABOUT 4 INCHES TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 FEET AS IT CONTINUED PLOUGHING IN TO THE BUILDING.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
I can't actually believe that you require an explanation.
1) Very few people report seeing 'air liners' usually witnesses report either no planes or 'other aircraft'
(I have posted many examples)
2) Black box recorders could be planted, I mean if they're stitching up Islamic extremists why not be able to plant evidence.
3) Of course the damage is going to be consistent with aircraft hitting, that would be what would be planned.
4) Passengers were not on the plane, they were falsely boarded onto the other plane that crashed in a rural area. conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/
That still doesn't show me any evidence that holograms were used to falsify the planes, but OK
1) Very few people walk around NYC looking straight up in the air, you would see the plane before you would hear it. People looked up when they heard it, by that time of course it was either too late, or you couldn't see it anyway due to the number of skyscrapes obscuring your view.
2) Why would you go to the trouble of planting FDR's in the rubble, then deny you had them? Wouldn't that falsified data help bolster your assertion that it was terrorists with Stanley knives that hijacked and crashed the planes?
3) Why then, have you been trying to wrongfully point out that the damage is not consistent with a plane hitting the building?
4) I don't dispute this point, though it wouldn't make sense as to why this fact would be needed if no planes were involved. Why board them onto another plane at all? Why not just put them on a bus, drive hem out to a ditch and pop them in the head?
This is going to be the last time that I explain 'teach you'.
I don't have any proof of holograms, CGI or the other options that are suggested by 'No Planes' theories'.
Please take some time to fully digest that information before, you'll need not ask me about it again and expect a different answer.
What I'm am suggesting is akin to what Dr Wood is suggesting about the use of DEW.
Dr Wood can not tell us what or where exactly this DEW is.
I can not say what or where these illusions came from.
Dr Wood can not say how this generator/coil/hurricane powered technology that she relies on John Hutchinson to evidence.
I can not say what was used instead of planes or how the illusion was performed.
So like Dr Wood we both know that DEW's and holographic/cloak technology exists, but can't prove it's use on this scale.
Then we look at the remaining evidence, what Dr Wood concludes is DEW due to no other logical explanation.
I conclude no planes, somehow the footage/event was faked, due to no other logical explanation.
Dr Wood can explain how DEW energy effects matter, I can't explain how holograms/CGi/ etc.. can replace 'no planes' however not being able to explain how an illusion was preformed, does not mean that an illusion was not performed, I still remain convinced that the planes could not have been controlled at that speed/altitude, could not have penetrated the steel regardless of the' no deceleration' and I agree that it was the 'perceived aeroplane' that came out the other end of the building, thus it used the kinetic energy twice?
However in reality the CGI/hologram technicians screwed up there so had to cover this up with a smear and a story of debris.
I have gathered enough information for me to question this, if you want to stick to your guns then please yourself, I have not said that Dr Wood was wrong about DEW, thus I agree with you, it's just that the two theories are based on some credible information (the existence of those technologies on a smaller scale) And on both cases we need to make a leap of faith to the scale of WTC events to believe them.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 10:55 #430
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 10:58 #431
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
You also said that Dr wood was wrong, when she suggested the wing tips would not go through the building.
You are contradicting yourself.
Either Dr Wood was right about the wing tips not going through the building , or the wing skin was not compressed.
You can't have it both ways, you're arguing against yourself.
Can you not see that. or are you pretending not to see that?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. How is it you can't understand my perfectly reasonable position? Could it be because your brain is so desperately trying to protect your belief system? I suspect so.
THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING. A 12 INCH SECTION OF ONE WING WAS COMPRESSED BY ABOUT 4 INCHES TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 FEET AS IT CONTINUED PLOUGHING IN TO THE BUILDING.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
I can't actually believe that you require an explanation.
1) Very few people report seeing 'air liners' usually witnesses report either no planes or 'other aircraft'
(I have posted many examples)
2) Black box recorders could be planted, I mean if they're stitching up Islamic extremists why not be able to plant evidence.
3) Of course the damage is going to be consistent with aircraft hitting, that would be what would be planned.
4) Passengers were not on the plane, they were falsely boarded onto the other plane that crashed in a rural area. conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/
That still doesn't show me any evidence that holograms were used to falsify the planes, but OK
1) Very few people walk around NYC looking straight up in the air, you would see the plane before you would hear it. People looked up when they heard it, by that time of course it was either too late, or you couldn't see it anyway due to the number of skyscrapes obscuring your view.
2) Why would you go to the trouble of planting FDR's in the rubble, then deny you had them? Wouldn't that falsified data help bolster your assertion that it was terrorists with Stanley knives that hijacked and crashed the planes?
3) Why then, have you been trying to wrongfully point out that the damage is not consistent with a plane hitting the building?
4) I don't dispute this point, though it wouldn't make sense as to why this fact would be needed if no planes were involved. Why board them onto another plane at all? Why not just put them on a bus, drive hem out to a ditch and pop them in the head?
This is going to be the last time that I explain 'teach you'.
I don't have any proof of holograms, CGI or the other options that are suggested by 'No Planes' theories'.
Please take some time to fully digest that information before, you'll need not ask me about it again and expect a different answer.
What I'm am suggesting is akin to what Dr Wood is suggesting about the use of DEW.
Dr Wood can not tell us what or where exactly this DEW is.
I can not say what or where these illusions came from.
Dr Wood can not say how this generator/coil/hurricane powered technology that she relies on John Hutchinson to evidence.
I can not say what was used instead of planes or how the illusion was performed.
So like Dr Wood we both know that DEW's and holographic/cloak technology exists, but can't prove it's use on this scale.
Then we look at the remaining evidence, what Dr Wood concludes is DEW due to no other logical explanation.
I conclude no planes, somehow the footage/event was faked, due to no other logical explanation.
Dr Wood can explain how DEW energy effects matter, I can't explain how holograms/CGi/ etc.. can replace 'no planes' however not being able to explain how an illusion was preformed, does not mean that an illusion was not performed, I still remain convinced that the planes could not have been controlled at that speed/altitude, could not have penetrated the steel regardless of the' no deceleration' and I agree that it was the 'perceived aeroplane' that came out the other end of the building, thus it used the kinetic energy twice?
However in reality the CGI/hologram technicians screwed up there so had to cover this up with a smear and a story of debris.
I have gathered enough information for me to question this, if you want to stick to your guns then please yourself, I have not said that Dr Wood was wrong about DEW, thus I agree with you, it's just that the two theories are based on some credible information (the existence of those technologies on a smaller scale) And on both cases we need to make a leap of faith to the scale of WTC events to believe them.
What I am trying to enable you to see, is that your comparisons are not the same. There are signatures (ballistics as you said) that prove DEW's were used on site. There are no ballistics to suggest real planes were not used, and plenty of ballistics to suggest they were real planes.
If there are signatures of holographic planes, I haven't seen them and have asked for you to please provide them.
Of course you're entitled to believe what you want, but I am suggesting that AT BEST, the evidence is incredibly weak.
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
Are you discussing 9/11 on an internet forum, how pointless
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 11:05 #433
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
Are you discussing 9/11 on an internet forum, how pointless
Well the above is the prominent conspiracy theory angle I am aware of as it has reasonably well proven MMO.
The result is the same regardless.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 11:05 #435
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
You also said that Dr wood was wrong, when she suggested the wing tips would not go through the building.
You are contradicting yourself.
Either Dr Wood was right about the wing tips not going through the building , or the wing skin was not compressed.
You can't have it both ways, you're arguing against yourself.
Can you not see that. or are you pretending not to see that?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. How is it you can't understand my perfectly reasonable position? Could it be because your brain is so desperately trying to protect your belief system? I suspect so.
THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING. A 12 INCH SECTION OF ONE WING WAS COMPRESSED BY ABOUT 4 INCHES TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 FEET AS IT CONTINUED PLOUGHING IN TO THE BUILDING.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
I can't actually believe that you require an explanation.
1) Very few people report seeing 'air liners' usually witnesses report either no planes or 'other aircraft'
(I have posted many examples)
2) Black box recorders could be planted, I mean if they're stitching up Islamic extremists why not be able to plant evidence.
3) Of course the damage is going to be consistent with aircraft hitting, that would be what would be planned.
4) Passengers were not on the plane, they were falsely boarded onto the other plane that crashed in a rural area. conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/
That still doesn't show me any evidence that holograms were used to falsify the planes, but OK
1) Very few people walk around NYC looking straight up in the air, you would see the plane before you would hear it. People looked up when they heard it, by that time of course it was either too late, or you couldn't see it anyway due to the number of skyscrapes obscuring your view.
2) Why would you go to the trouble of planting FDR's in the rubble, then deny you had them? Wouldn't that falsified data help bolster your assertion that it was terrorists with Stanley knives that hijacked and crashed the planes?
3) Why then, have you been trying to wrongfully point out that the damage is not consistent with a plane hitting the building?
4) I don't dispute this point, though it wouldn't make sense as to why this fact would be needed if no planes were involved. Why board them onto another plane at all? Why not just put them on a bus, drive hem out to a ditch and pop them in the head?
This is going to be the last time that I explain 'teach you'.
I don't have any proof of holograms, CGI or the other options that are suggested by 'No Planes' theories'.
Please take some time to fully digest that information before, you'll need not ask me about it again and expect a different answer.
What I'm am suggesting is akin to what Dr Wood is suggesting about the use of DEW.
Dr Wood can not tell us what or where exactly this DEW is.
I can not say what or where these illusions came from.
Dr Wood can not say how this generator/coil/hurricane powered technology that she relies on John Hutchinson to evidence.
I can not say what was used instead of planes or how the illusion was performed.
So like Dr Wood we both know that DEW's and holographic/cloak technology exists, but can't prove it's use on this scale.
Then we look at the remaining evidence, what Dr Wood concludes is DEW due to no other logical explanation.
I conclude no planes, somehow the footage/event was faked, due to no other logical explanation.
Dr Wood can explain how DEW energy effects matter, I can't explain how holograms/CGi/ etc.. can replace 'no planes' however not being able to explain how an illusion was preformed, does not mean that an illusion was not performed, I still remain convinced that the planes could not have been controlled at that speed/altitude, could not have penetrated the steel regardless of the' no deceleration' and I agree that it was the 'perceived aeroplane' that came out the other end of the building, thus it used the kinetic energy twice?
However in reality the CGI/hologram technicians screwed up there so had to cover this up with a smear and a story of debris.
I have gathered enough information for me to question this, if you want to stick to your guns then please yourself, I have not said that Dr Wood was wrong about DEW, thus I agree with you, it's just that the two theories are based on some credible information (the existence of those technologies on a smaller scale) And on both cases we need to make a leap of faith to the scale of WTC events to believe them.
What I am trying to enable you to see, is that your comparisons are not the same. There are signatures (ballistics as you said) that prove DEW's were used on site. There are no ballistics to suggest real planes were not used, and plenty of ballistics to suggest they were real planes.
If there are signatures of holographic planes, I haven't seen them and have asked for you to please provide them.
Of course you're entitled to believe what you want, but I am suggesting that AT BEST, the evidence is incredibly weak.
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 11:19 #438
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.
In a city where the majority of the sky is obscured by buildings and the fact thhat most people don't go about their day constantly looking at these rooftops I would imagine it to be quite normal that most people didn't see the planes. Afterall, even if they were missiles or missiles with holographic projections, most people didn't see that either.
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.
In a city where the majority of the sky is obscured by buildings and the fact thhat most people don't go about their day constantly looking at these rooftops I would imagine it to be quite normal that most people didn't see the planes. Afterall, even if they were missiles or missiles with holographic projections, most people didn't see that either.
''Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.''
If that's your exception than those bits like the black boxes were planted, they could have been used during a simulation and later planted, at the scene, or put in the 'drones', Bits of Boeing could have been put in the drones.
Edit I had to reconstruct the post, I'd made a mistake with the lay out
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....
With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...
Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021,
in USD.
No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.
Today4895 Yesterday3600 Week17391 Month42326 Total1140750 Your IP Address: 216.73.216.195Your Browser and OS: Unknown - UnknownThursday, 27 August 2026 15:27
Who Is Online
Guests : 1275 guests onlineMembers : No members online
