It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 64
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:16 PM
A reply to: neutronflux

Good old Name calling. Btw, what's a hack?
Forbidden under ATS rules.

Same old and stale texts.
Try to do better.
This is not worth any serious attention.
READ the offered abundant evidence for once.
Instead of obsessive posting text-repeats, that have been clearly debunked.

posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 10:49 PM

originally posted by: LaBTop

It's a VERY sophisticated and thorough video analysis of the two videos shot by DoD security camera boots

Other Truthers disagree with this analysis.

Video research by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler -- Analysis of the security camera videos showing the plane crossing the lawn at the Pentagon.

posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 07:53 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

And you still posted falsehoods of seismic evidence of CD. And you still posted falsehoods somehow the “evidence” was removed within three days of 9/11? Somehow first responders dug under 11 and 29 stories of rubble?

You say there was no buckling when it’s right there in the video evidence and reported by police crews from helicopters?

But you say with all seriousness fire related collapse based on reasonable assumptions was impossible? Based on what published study fire related collapse is impossible? While there are at least three studies that concludes fire related collapse was the most probable cause.

While there is zero evidence of CD from the video, audio, seismic, thermal imaging, and metallurgical evidence?

Please cite what study claims the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7 was most probably CD? Which is different than trying any BS to say fire collapse was impossible.
edit on 15-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Ok LaBTop you claim you owned multiple construction firms what did they construct, my background was in in structrual fixings and support elements,cladding curtain wall systems and some fire protection products. I could be 40 storeys up or in the tunnel of a hydro electric scheme. Did product recommendation to Archtects and STRUCTURAL Engineers and proved that by site testing sometimes to destruction, i would also do CPD ( Continuing Professional Development ) seminars for Architects & STRUCTURAL Engineers they have to do a minimum number a year to keep up with latest products and solutions. Not one of those people EVER thought it was CD and they know a LOT more than YOU

i KNOW PLENTY of construction company owners who are businessmen not tradesmen so why dont you confirm the largest STRUCTURAL steel building you built if any

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:28 PM

I have only been looking into 9/11 for the last month. The great thing about waiting 17 years is that all of the work is already done for you; you just have to piece it together.

I have only made one post on the subject, one which was only 1,300 words. But after 3 weeks of learning more I have rewritten much of my first post and I will be placing a 15,000 word post here, in this thread instead, as it seems more appropriate here. That will get divided up into a dozen and a half post, but I do not think the OP will mind. Much of what I write you have probably known for years, and for some of you it will be a reaffirmation of your beliefs. Just think of it as a short summary of the conspiracy.

I saw my first UFO/Alien Flying Vehicle in 1965.
This was right around the time that the CIA invented the term, “Conspiracy Theory”.
A term they invented to help cover-up their involvement in the murder of JFK.

It was only years later, upon reaching adulthood, that I became aware of that term and their involvement in the murder. But I already knew as a teenager that the government was lying about UFO’s. Because by then I had seen my second one and I knew that THEY EXIST and that the government/military was covering them up.


After the first tower fell I told my spouse, “A plane cannot make a building fall down.”
Their response was, “No, I’m watching it on TV right now, the second building is falling!”

This made me get out of bed.

I ignored the whole thing until last month. I knew if they were still talking about this after 17 years, then there must be something to it, and that I was not going to like what I found.

But last month I noticed a video titled “What Happened To The Passengers?” I thought “Duh, they all burned up!” Yet this odd question finally drew my interest and I had to see why they used that title. So I watched my first video on the subject, and after about 20 minutes, you know what, I still stand by my statement.

“A plane cannot make a building fall down.”
UFO AND JFK ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME CONSPIRACY. They had to kill him because he was going to expose the other. THAT is why JFK was such a huge cover-up. It was not just to protect LBJ and the other big wigs involved, it was to protect the big secret – the UFO reality.

That is why all the people aware of it did not expose it, because it was much bigger than just one President. It was a government and military wide cover-up that had been in place for over a decade. All the people involved were not going to let some short term guy expose them.

One of the offshoots of this was that JFK was going to change the money system and opt out of Vietnam. With him out of the way it kept the money system intact and it allowed the new bosses to go to war in Vietnam and make more money. So there were a lot of reasons to off the guy.

The twin towers sit half empty and contain a major health issue – Asbestos. A Jewish billionaire buys the World Trade Center, allows the government to blow it up, collects the insurance money and then watches as that same government declares war on enemies of the Jewish state.


The people that blow up buildings for a living say the government is not telling the truth.
The engineers who design the buildings say the government is not telling the truth.
The engineers who design the steel say the government is lying.
The engineers who design the planes also say the government is lying.
The engineers who design the fuel say the government is lying.
The first responders at the Towers say the government is lying.
The first responders at the Pentagon say the government is lying.
The first responders at Shanksville say the government is lying.
And of course the airline pilots say the government is lying.
Even the people who make the cell phones say the government is lying.


Yes, the same government/military that lied about there being no base at Area 51 and never dropping Agent Orange and never planting a mine under the USS Maine to start a war.

Don’t be a joker and ask for quotes, just watch the videos, as there are hours and hours and hours of the professionals listed above on film discussing the government’s cover-up of 9/11. THEY SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. That means the government is LYING. They say that the government’s official stand is incorrect and the government will not do anything to correct its mistake.



After just watching videos a for few days there were 5 SMOKING GUNS that are so easy to see that you have to be lying to yourself to not see them. Or you’re getting paid to lie on the internet by the government (must be a nice day job).


According to the people who build and fly them, if the throttles on a 767 were worked up to the “official” speeds of well over 500 miles per hour, as supposedly seen on 9/11, the jets would literally fly apart, losing their wings and tail, they would fall out of the sky, short of their target. Their airframes would lose structural rigidity and begin to come apart, veering one way or the other, they would drop and head toward the ground, not continue straight on their course. There are some jokers here on ATS that think they know better than the people who build and fly these planes every work day for a living. So let’s repeat that; they would NOT fly into the towers because they would not keep on course.

This is such a huge fault line, not only in the 9/11 liars club, but in the governments’ 9/11 logic too, that it deserves its own 3,000 word post, which I will post later.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:30 PM

“Hello, Mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham”. This is perhaps the most obvious lie. The government changed their cell phone story to “airline phones” to cover-up their mistake, once it was pointed out that cell phones do not work from airliners flying at cruising speeds. YET FLIGHT 11 DID NOT EVEN HAVE PLANE PHONES! AND ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND RECEIVED CALLS FROM KNOWN CELL PHONE NUMBERS, NOT AIRLINE PHONES. As you probably know, ALL THE CALLS WERE MADE DURING THE TIME THAT EACH PLANE WAS OVER 10,000 FEET UP. Cell phones did not work at that height. ALL THE CALLS WERE ALSO MADE WHEN EACH PLANE WAS GOING OVER 400 MPH. That is too fast for the cell phone towers to keep up and the calls drop before going through. You can test this yourself, go drive your car 400 mph and see if you can make a cell phone call.

Barbara Olsen’s phone call is the one that started the whole box cutter thing. Yet it has been proven that she could not have made that call. And that was the call that the government used as their identifier for the whole terrorist scenario.
The most famous phone call, the “Let’s roll!” call, also never happened the way they said it did. The timing shows that call was made after the event had already happened. And the phone call was not ended until the lady on the ground hung up, which was after she learned the flight had crashed. The “plane” phone call was still live at 10:03, when she hung up. HOW COULD THAT CALL STILL BE LIVE IF THE PHONE – AND THE PLAN IT WAS ON – HAD CEASED TO EXIST?

We even have one flight attendant saying before hanging up – “It’s a frame.” While others hear another woman’s voice saying, “You did great.” Either way, none of these calls match the governments’ story.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:32 PM

Because - you guessed it - there was no airliner wreckage. The first photos taken at the impact zone not only show no debris from the wings, the fuselage, the seats, the luggage, the bodies, the engines, or the tail - but they show that billowing, black smoke was coming from large construction dumpsters in front of the Pentagon - and they also show a perfectly fine green grass lawn. WE CAN SEE THE TRACKS MADE BY THE FIRETRUCKS, BUT THERE ARE NO MARKS ON THE LAWN MADE BY A MULTI-TON AIRLINER.

At a press conference the next day, fire chief Ed Plaugher said there were no recognizable airplane parts. Real plane crashes leave plane parts strewn about as well as body parts. Over three million parts in an airliner and they find nothing at the crash site? What about the “C” piece or the 3 foot piece of blue and red on the grass you say? So one, single 3 foot piece makes up for a whole disappearing airliner? How do you have a whole fuselage and only find the lettering you need to stop questions? Where is the rest of the fuselage? The “C” piece that was in the building and the small American Airlines silver label that the FBI conveniently found, you think those were not planted pieces of evidence? Like placing demolition charges into the twin towers beforehand, it would have been much easier to place ruined pieces of an airliner into the area of the Pentagon that was being worked on. HENSE THE REASON THAT THERE WAS WORK BEING DONE ON THE PENTAGON IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS TO PREPARE THE CRASH SITE.

That’s how an engine can show up in a building. Just looking at it, it looks like a Pratt and Whitney engine. But then you might recall the early story where Pratt said go ask Rolls and Royce said that was not one of their engines and that it would not be found in that type of airliner. We have even been told it belonged to a military A3 Skywarrior, which uses a Pratt and Whitney engine. If that is true, either a US military A3 hit the building or the military engine was already sitting inside the military building, because there is no aircraft wreckage that matches it. But over time stories change, and we can see why Rolls Royce would not want to admit that was not their engine, because they want the money that the airline and military contracts supply them. And if it is their engine it too could have easily been placed in the building during the remodeling process. And of course to save money, they only put one engine in the Pentagon. No reason to waste all that money putting a second engine in the building.

Surely you must have also noticed that right above the crash hole there were rooms missing their outer wall. One had a computer monitor still sitting on the desk and another had a stool with an open book still sitting on it, just like nothing happened. There were even unbroken windows just below the point of impact! Why was this not all burned up? Where was the great big fuel fire that brought down the steel twin towers? You guessed it - there was no great big fuel fire. Only in the beginning do we have a ball of fire, and that might even be in the wrong spot.

Some 9/11 apologists claim that the 757 vaporized on impact and left virtually no wreckage while going through three rings of the building. Vaporization means heat intense enough to melt all the metal; aluminum, steel, carbon and titanium, and heat the liquids into gases. Supposedly that cannot happen with jet fuel. It also means it would burn up all the DNA to the victims that the liars of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology said they found. Well we know that did not happen because the book and computer monitor are still sitting there like nothing happened.

And what about the hole? Why was the hole in the Pentagon only 60 feet wide? The wing span was around 125 feet. The wings did not break off before entering the building because there were no wing parts on the lawn. The whole in the reinforced steel of the tower clearly showed the whole shape of an aircraft wing, why not the Pentagon? The vertical tail of the jet is 40 feet tall with the landing gear up. It should have cut right through the Pentagon, yet the roof held up for about 20 minutes after the crash! The engine pods are said to be 9 feet in diameter. Where are the holes from those two titanium engines?

There were video cameras all along that side of the Pentagon roof; they can be seen in the footage with the firemen. There were also cameras on the hotel, store and gas station. There were 85 video cameras in the Pentagon area that might have captured footage of the plane. The FBI quickly confiscated the film from all of them. Why has all this footage not been shown? Easy answer, because it probably would have shown a drone exploding and minutes later, an airliner overflying the building as another explosion went off.

Several eyewitnesses said that a “small white plane” flew north of the gas station before exploding at the Pentagon. It has been said that “An airplane crashes and smashes, but a missile pierces the target.” And that “The military’s weapon of choice to strike reinforced, hardened targets is the tomahawk cruise missile.” Rumsfeld called it a missile, but how can several people at a close distance mistake a missile for a plane?

Did someone say hologram?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:33 PM
Seems there were several things flying around the Pentagon that day.

Could a cruise missile have gone down the radar flight path that the FAA calls out, while the drone went around the gas station? A Tomahawk will go 550mph, yes, that magical 767 speed! But does a Tomahawk travel so fast no one can see it?

The only video footage released does not show an airliner hitting the building. An airliner that large would have been easily seen in the video, because the jet is 155 feet long and it would have easily covered the entire picture frame. What that video with the changed date and time might actually show is an outside explosion, the one by the heliport. This is hundreds of feet closer to the camera than the impact zone. So what the video could show, if it was not edited out, would be the “small white plane” drone. Maybe the place we all thought was the crash area, the impact zone, was not an outer impact at all, but, according to witnesses inside the building, an internal explosion. Obviously rigged during the construction process to blow from the inside, just like the explosives at the WTC. This would mean that the big fire ball occurred in the wrong place. And that there was no cruise missile. Instead there was an outer drone explosion and an inner pre-planted explosion.

But like Shanksville, something went wrong. At the Pentagon, it seems to be the timing that was off. It could be that the small white drone and large jet should have reached the Pentagon at the same time, showing up as a terrorist airliner crash. THE DRONE WOULD CRASH AS THE REAL JET OVERFLEW THE BUILDING – MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE AIRLINER HAD CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. And at this time the inner explosion would have gone off too.

But things got out of time sync, with the drone arriving at 9:32am. The helicopter that was flying above the helipad at that time may have been involved and may have remotely blown the drone up just before it hit the building. Because there is no evidence on the outer walls of any impact. But there is lots of junk lying around and scorch marks. There are photos of firemen spraying fires with debris lying in a large dirt area. This does not look like the grass area of the impact zone where the other firemen are. So do we have two burning areas, one clear of plane debris, another full of white debris? Many of these small white pieces could have come from a drone. Could that 3 foot piece of blue and red stripes have also been part of the drone, dressed up to look like an airliner?

COULD IT BE THAT THE DRONE WAS SUPPOSED TO HIT THE IMPACT AREA BUT MISSED ITS TARGET, AND THE HELICOPTER CREW BLEW THE DRONE UP BEFORE IT HIT THE WRONG PART OF THE BUILDING? A part of the building that was not rigged to blow. A part that did not contain the people who were trying to track down the missing money? They could not have two crash holes, so the drone had to be stopped before it hit the building.

Pilots say that flying a circle around the Pentagon with the building on their right side makes no sense because that is the side with the least visibility from the cockpit. If a terrorist really wanted to fly a big plane into one of the worlds largest buildings, all they had to do was dive straight down the roof line. But interestingly, they hit the one part where the least people were, the emptiest part of the building, the part that was just remodeled. The part that was supposedly making the outer wall stronger! Why? Remember all that lost money? Researchers say that was where the offices were that held the people who were looking for all that lost money. How convenient.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:35 PM

Because, you guessed right again, there was no airliner wreckage. The three high school students said they saw a fighter jet fly over ten seconds after the crash. Another eye witness says that a small white aircraft flew horizontally right over her and the tree line and did not even disturb the trees before exploding.

The first people to reach the crash site have said the hole was only 5 or 6 feet deep. We all know a large airliner cannot be swallowed up by the ground leaving a hole 6 feet deep. You’re lying to yourself and the rest of us if you think otherwise.

Many of the first responders claim there were no bodies, no aircraft parts, no luggage, you name it. OVER THREE MILLION PARTS IN AN AIRPLANE and they find nothing at the crash site? Not even ONE of those cool little airline booze bottles we all like? Yet the black boxes and terrorist ID’s were miraculously found 8 miles away and in good shape? Or stuff was found in the pond that just happened to fly into it where no one could see it until after the FBI showed up?

Nena Lensbouer was the first to go up to the smoking crater and she described a hole 5-6 feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard. She described hearing “an explosion, like an atomic bomb, not a crash.”

“We were so early that they hadn’t had a chance to set up a barrier for the press. … I was able to get right up to the edge of the crater. … All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. … There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.” - Jon Meyer

“We haven’t seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane… there was no tail section, no jet engines, no large sections of fuselage in view anywhere near the impact crater”. - Capt. Frank Monaco

“Like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it… there were no bodies there… not a drop of blood… It’s as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed.” - Wallace Miller

“When we arrived almost nothing was recognizable. The only thing we saw that was even remotely human was half a shoe”. - Jeff Phillips

“Several trees were burned badly and there were papers everywhere. We searched. … I was told that there were 224 passengers, but later found out that there were actually forty. I was stunned. There was nothing there.” - Faye Hahn

“We arrived in the immediate area and walked up to the crater and the burning woods. My first thought was, ‘Where is the plane?’ Because most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that. I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris.” - FBI agent Wells Morrison

“There was no plane,” according to Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville. “Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.” Reporter: “They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” Reply: “No. Nothing. Only this hole.”

We are supposed to believe that two Boeings hit the steel WTC towers and were strong enough to cut out cartoon plane shapes in the steel but not in the soft ground in Pennsylvania? We are supposed to believe that a large Boeing supposedly flew into a little 20 by 5 foot hole that is too small to hold half the 3 million parts of a 757? This is not even funny, it is absurd.

And from a plane that supposedly flew right inside the ground in a high-speed fiery explosion, the FBI would later lie and say that they removed 95% of the plane. That would be dozens of truck loads, yet the people constantly around the site said that they never saw the FBI take anything of volume away.

Since they did not have any remains in the hole, the government came up with the idea that human remains were found in the trees. The official cover-up states that in December, “the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers” had all been identified. What a croc of cow dung.

The government has never allowed access to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders it allegedly recovered. The FBI did not allow a detailed investigation of the crash site, and it filled in the crater with dirt followed by topsoil and had the small area of scorched trees cut down and shredded into mulch, most likely hiding explosive residue from a missile or other source. And why such a small area of burnt trees?

Once again, where was the great big fuel fire that brought down the steel twin towers? Video footage shows there was no big fuel fire. And there were no holes in the ground from the titanium engines. Only one hole for the fuselage in between the wings. Yet the USGS Shanksville map of 1994 shows the “wing” scars were already there. Somebody knew that scar was there and decided to drop a missile or drone in the middle of it. Sounds like part of their plan did not work and they used a backup plan to get out of it. That back up was a strip mine scar near Shanksville, a field that was basically a scrap metal yard! A place that nobody would be around to witness a plane crash.

The twin tower crashes probably came off just as planned, but the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes did not. This makes some wonder, was the plan to have this “plane” hit the White House, or was it to hit Building 7?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:36 PM

Why? Remember all that lost money? Well Building 7 was, among other things, a CIA building. Researchers say Building 7 had evidence of their criminal workings in it and it had to be destroyed. This building also housed the Office of Emergency Management's Emergency Operation Center. Well gee, isn’t that a coincidence!

Remember our Jewish billionaire, that was Larry Silverstein, the property developer of the WTC. Before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers were with him when he was on the phone with his insurance people to see if they would approve the controlled demolition of the building, supposedly because its foundation was unstable and expected to fall. According to Larry, a controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives, apparently UNAWARE THAT IT TAKES MONTHS OF PLANNING AND SETUP TO DEMOLISH A SKYSCRAPER.

Witnesses’ say that officials around Building 7 started evacuating the area an hour before it collapsed, giving warnings that the collapse was definitely going to happen. These warnings of the collapse are seen in a dozen videos. Two television networks even announced that Building 7 had already collapsed before it even happened. CNN announced that the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing" an hour before the event. The BBC announced the collapse 23 minutes before it happened, with a correspondent talking about how Building 7 collapsed even though it is still standing and seen on TV right behind her.

STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COME DOWN BECAUSE FURNITURE AND PAPERWORK ARE ON FIRE. The firemen at building seven, just like in the towers, said there were EXPLOSIONS which brought the building down. Before the explosions people were told to leave the area. THEY KNEW IT WAS COMING DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS DROPPED DOWN ON PURPOSE. Building 7 did not come down because a corner was damaged earlier. If that was true then the building would have come down in a different manner than it did. We can see that it did not fall because one side of it was damaged, it fell straight down and with that typical bend at the top that denotes a controlled demolition. It was dropped just like the towers. Same thing. Yet NO plane. Gee, isn’t that special.


EXPLOSIONS. That is what the firemen heard in all three buildings before they fell. People on the street heard them too. There are dozens of videos where people describe hearing explosions before the buildings fell. And yes, originally explosions could be heard in the videos for WTC 7 as well, before they edited them out. The 9/11 Liars for the government movement, want you to believe there were no explosions. Go and watch the videos for yourself. We have dozens of firemen, police, news people and people on the street saying that there were explosions coming from both the twin towers and Building 7.

Squibs from explosive charges can be seen in videos and photos of the collapses of both towers. This means we have visual evidence of explosions occurring on lower floors of the towers well before “air” or any other effect should have caused the explosions being seen. All these buildings were racked by inner explosions. THE PEOPLE THAT BLOW UP BUILDINGS FOR A LIVING SAY THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE BEING BLOWN UP! The towers had LAYERED EXPLOSIONS; set to blow the steel into neat 30 foot lengths so they could easily be removed, which like JFK’s limo, happened right away. The government got the steel out of the crime site and onto ships to China as fast as they could, even though China was paying out the least dollar amount for steel in decades. Someone blew up those towers and they turned to DUST.

Every film of the towers falling shows them turning to DUST. All the concrete was pulverized. And there is no big 107 floor pile of steel left over after they fell down. Building 7 was half the height of the towers, yet the Building 7 pile is bigger than the tower piles. There is no BIG tower mound like there should have been. Just huge clouds of dust, like the buildings just floated away.

A plane cannot do that.


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:38 PM
Initial Conclusion:

The government claims the conspiracy was a group of Middle East airline hijackers.
This is so full of holes that it sinks fast, just like the towers.


1 – THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS WAS MISSING. People in the three WTC buildings and the Pentagon were involved with looking for that missing money.

2 - A PLANE CANNOT BRING DOWN A BUILDING. Never happened before 9/11, never happened since.

3 - A FIRE CANNOT BRING DOWN A BUILDING. Never happened before 9/11, never happened since.

4 - AIRPLANE FUEL CANNOT BURN STEEL. Never happened before 9/11, never happened since.

5 - NANO THERMITE - MADE BY THE US MILITARY - WAS FOUND IN THE BUILDINGS. It is very rare and very expensive and not something that terrorist have access to. They would have to be sold this by the military and that makes no sense at all because that is a secret the military would not want out. So even if rich Arabs could buy this for their cave dwelling friends, the military would not let it out and chance that it would get into the hands of the enemy.

6 – PRESIDENT BUSH'S BROTHER WAS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SECURITY FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. And Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, one of the airlines and airports involved in 9/11. We are talking about security for a building that had already been bombed once before. Are we supposed to believe that terrorist just happened to get hold of Nano Thermite and worked their way into three of the WTC buildings setting explosives for weeks and weeks without anyone in security catching on?

7 - HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF GOLD BRICKS WERE IN SAFETY DEPOSIT VAULTS UNDER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. Is this why the lobby was wasted, because there were explosions in the basement when the gold was stolen? Eyewitnesses say they saw gold bars being removed by the Government Agents while the tops of the towers burned. Isn’t that just rich. Nothing like a little diversion while robbing a bank. A ten –wheeled truck and cars full of gold were found crushed under the towers. So how much of that gold is still missing?

8 - THE MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WERE ANCHORED TO BEDROCK. The Tower bottoms were actually built into the Hudson River bed. This is why they had to be blasted apart at the bottom with something so strong that IT BURNED FOR MONTHS. Thirty one of the columns were 36-by-16-inch box shaped columns made of two-inch thick solid steel at the foundation. Sixteen of the columns measured 52 inches by 22 inches triple thick steel boxes that were 5 inches thick at two ends matched perpendicularly with one 6 1/2 inch and two 6 inch thick slabs of steel.

The box columns reduced in size and thickness at the upper floors, but were still substantial steel columns for which an aircraft of any size would not pose any serious threat. The minimum thickness was 2 1/4 inches for the columns between the impact zone for the alleged plane that supposedly hit Tower 2 between the 77th and 85th floors.

Before the alleged planes even got to the inner core columns they would have had to get past the outer columns. That would be an impossible feat in and of itself. The inner core was interlaced with steel and connected in 59 places on each side and one on each corner, to outer box columns that were 14 inches by 13 inches on the lower floors with 2 inch thick steel on two sides and over 3/4 inch thick steel on the other two sides. The outer box columns tapered to 13 by 14 inch box columns that were1/4 inch thick at the upper floors. Even though the outer columns did not have the strength of the inner columns they would have been an insurmountable barrier for any plane.

The alleged planes would have struck floors that were 4 inche thick concrete, poured on 22 gauge fluted steel plates, interwoven underneath with supporting steel trusses. There is no possible way that any part of an aluminum plane, especially not the wings, striking such a building could pierce edgewise through the barrier posed by the concrete floors and supporting fluted steel flooring and trusses.

9 - THE HIJACKERS PASSPORT WAS FOUND ON THE SIDEWALK. This is the biggest joke of all. The terrorist pass port survived the plane crash and the giant fireball, fell 700 feet and just happened to end up on the sidewalk like someone just dropped it there?

10 - THE GOVERNMENT DECLARED WAR ON A MIDDLE EAST COUNTRY. Which happens to have a lot of oil.

11 - A BUILDING CANNOT FALL IN FREEFALL BY ITSELF. Never happened before 9/11, never happened since. This goes against the law of nature. Big No No.

NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION: “FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.” An aluminum plane hitting a steel beam is the same as a steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving, the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. TRY PUNCHING A STEEL BEAM. NO MATTER HOW FAST YOUR HAND IS TRAVELING, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BREAK THROUGH IT BECAUSE YOUR HAND WILL BREAK FIRST.

A poor little bird can punch a hole in an airliner. Just think what a steel beam would do.

There are thousands of pages and hundreds of films that show how the three buildings fell at freefall speed. Freefall rate means solid steel and concrete was falling into and THROUGH other solid steel and concrete as effortlessly as passing through air. In the real world solid things offer much greater resistance to a falling solid mass than air does. The only way they cannot is in controlled demolitions where the solid remainder of the building is literally rendered to such a non-resisting state as to offer no more resistance than air. Solid things offer more resistance to a falling solid mass than air unless you disintegrate them with explosives.

If fire had weakened its support columns, the top part of the buildings would have tilted and then simply fell off of one side of the building. The whole building would not have fallen from the bottom leaving a crater with molten steel that burned hot for months

The engineers who design the buildings, the steel, the fuel and the planes all tell us that THE ONLY WAY THE BUILDINGS COULD FALL AT FREEFALL SPEED IS IF THEY WERE DESTROYED FROM WITHIN ON PURPOSE.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:39 PM

You’re on ATS, so you ought to know how cover-ups work, plant “evidence”, spread disinformation, kill dissenters if need be. The Government states what they want to be historical fact, and then they lie and deceive in any way possible to keep that lie as fact. Many scientists are government employees, consultants or federally-funded. They are paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government, unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic and evidence. Those theories that go against the governments “facts”, even if they are supported by evidence, are not discussed or discredited, they are ignored. And as you know, ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest.

Knowing that 9/11 is a government-sponsored scam, we should be wary of every detail presented. Actors can be paid to say they had a wing in their office, or that it was an airliner that flipped over upside down. And of course we should be leery of videos that could have been arranged ahead of time, like a fire fighter film crew that just happens to be in the right place at the right time and to be the ONLY PEOPLE TO FILM THE FIRST CRASH. Gee, what a coincidence. They were only 10 blocks away and filmed the plane at low altitude with expensive equipment, yet it is hard to tell what the flying image is, even when slowed down frame-by-frame. Like the Pentagon parking lot video dated September 12, someone might have tampered with the video so that no one can tell exactly what they are seeing.

And why should we automatically believe the second crash videos? They show no deceleration, have well-timed zoom-outs by amateurs, grainy planes with artificial-appearing lighting, an airliner that looks pitch black in profile and on its underside on a brilliant sunny morning, frame to frame deformation in tails, wings, engines and body. Disappearing wings and stabilizers in single frames, discolored sky in some frames, soundless impacts, planes morphing into liquid-like buildings without metal-to-metal smashing, premature and off-center flashes or explosions, and explosions and squibs near and far from the impact.

The real conspiracy is


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:43 PM

We have film of planes hitting the two towers. The government says officially that Flight 175 was going 590 miles per hour when it hit the building, which is how the government explains the plane going through the outer building walls.

As always, there are only three options (yes/no/maybe – I care/I do not care/does not matter to me), either:
1) The plans went right into the building like the films show.
2) The planes blew an entry hole into the building
3) There were no planes

There were some people who saw the tower explode but said they saw no plane. David Handschuh took a photo moments after the second crash. His explosion photo seems to match the explosion in the films. “I was underneath it. I was looking at the tower. I had my camera in my hand. I heard the noise. I never saw the airplane. . . . I was less than a hundred yards away from the building.”

The problem with #3 is that some people say they saw planes, and they were filmed, meaning it had to be something like a hologram. Was a sub launched tomahawk missile shot into the towers while a B2 flew above and cloaked it in a hologram? How crazy is that! There had been a UFO observed, but if that was the stealth bomber, how did it fly over without being clearly seen? Were we so well adapted to alien technology in 2001 that we could cloak a plane?

Not impossible but almost as improbable as #1.

The problem with #1 is that - it makes no sense – how can it be plausible? You have all seen the films; there is NO ejection of materials from the aircraft. THE PLANES PASS THRU THE STEEL LIKE BUTTER.

Even the wing tips pass through the steel like butter, even though those tips are so fragile they cannot be walked upon! The people who design and make and fly these planes say THAT makes NO sense. They say the plane would be obliterated into pieces by the steel box columns and steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.

There should be a sharp slowdown as the plane crumpled to fit into the 60 feet of space of the North Tower and the 35 feet of space of the South Tower, Instead, we see both planes enter the towers in the same uniform motion.

“Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aero plane would have decelerated sharply, crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.”

Both planes are completely inside the towers, with no pieces showing. The distance from the outside of the North Tower to the core beams was 60 feet. The distance from the skinny side of the South Tower to the core was 37 feet. A 767 is 159 feet long so most of the plane has got to be outside of the tower in both cases since there is simply no room for the entire length of the plane to crumple into. Why didn’t we see 99 feet of airplane sticking out of the North Tower or falling to the ground below? Why didn’t we see 122 feet of airplane sticking out of the South Tower or falling to the ground below?

The NIST states that “the aircraft completely disappeared into the building in a fifth of a second.”

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear without slowing down, and with no plane wreckage showing on or in the towers – and none on the ground below?

No confirmed debris exists from two 767 crashes into two skyscrapers? Considering the history of airplane crashes, it does not make sense that an airliner can smash into a dense steel and concrete tower and disappear without a trace. And we are supposed to believe that it happened twice in 17 minutes on the same city block?

The experts who build these things say that in a crash between an aluminum plane weighing 140 tons and a steel tower weighing 500,000 tons, the plane would be crushed. But it would not just disappear. Aluminum has lower yield and failure strengths than steel and a Boeing 767 mass has only three hundredths of one percent of the tower’s mass.

Higher speeds increase kinetic energy by the square of speed and a frontal area of under 25 square meters would create local damage. A plane flying into the tower should break up, shatter and scatter pieces everywhere. An airline fuselage is basically a hollow aluminum tube. Of the large parts, only engines and landing gear would stay in one piece after a collision.

A 140-ton airplane flying at over 400 mph should cause local damage, but not damage the entire structure. The engines at full throttle going over 450 mph could possibly fly through a steel tower, but whatever blew holes in the towers, only 13% of the upper outside columns on a few floors were broken and the upper structure of the towers was not harmed.

Wing tips and tail would shear off on impact and land on the ground below. Wing tips have enormous forward momentum at impact but begin to decelerate as the nose and fuselage collides with a steel wall, five floors of steel-truss-steel-reinforced-concrete, and a steel inner core. THIS WOULD CAUSE TOTAL DESTRUCTION TO THE PLANE, NOT MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT FLEW THROUGH A TOWER OF BUTTER. We should have seen video footage of the repelled wreckage bounce to the ground. The tail section should have slowed down and broken off too.



During the second tower crash, as seen frame by frame, the plane and wings are halfway through the building, yet the wings, which are full of fuel, are still in one piece and not on fire! AND THERE IS NO HOLE IN THE TOWER BETWEEN THE FUESALGE AND THE ENGINE?

The most probable leaves us with #2. The problem with #2 is that the hole blowout would have to include the wing area too.

Once again, THE PEOPLE WHO DESIGN AND MAKE THE PLANES SAY THAT THE WINGTIPS WILL NOT CUT THROUGH STEEL, NO MATTER HOW FAST THEY ARE GOING. We have seen wood telephone poles sheer wings off during crashes. Why do we have wingtip cuts on the buildings?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:45 PM
We know that, starting in August; people were doing construction inside the towers in the middle of night. These must have been the people who were setting explosives to the supports. If they set explosives that an energy beam would detonate prior to the planes impact, to allow the plane to pass through the outer walls, would they have to set this same explosive set up on each of the top floors? Because how could they be sure which floor the plane would hit? This explosive set-up would create the plane like cut out gap where the plane would slide through, wing tips and all. But when the plane did hit, the other explosives on the above and below floors did not go off. How could that be?

The other thing is, the actual offices that were hit by the plane crashes were actual targets themselves, and not just happen stance. The Marsh & McLennan Companies in WTC1 were targeted because of their 9-11 fraudulent trading activity connections. We are talking Big dollar crimes – hundreds of billions - by Big shot people. Of course the big boss was not in that day, but his people were. The innocent and crooked, all 239, and their offices, full of computers and paperwork, were destroyed on purpose to cover-up what was going down – which was people in the know about a 9/11 event were making money off the stock market ahead of time. But I digress.

The point is – the ability to take out a certain floor of offices - how does that type of flying accuracy exist?

Professional pilots say that type of accuracy does not exist, not in airliners.


Like professional snipers failing to recreate Oswald’s supposed shooting excellence, in controlled test, every pilot that tried to replicate hitting a twin tower dead on failed. Like the Oswald trials, EVRY ONE of them failed their simulation. Two thirds could not even hit the building. And these were proven, excellent pilots. The best they could do was a glancing blow off the tower sides. The worst saw their plane snap apart in mid-air before even reaching the tower.


In all the simulations, the only way pilots could reproduce the 9/11 hits were to do it at landing speeds. Do any of the films show landing speeds?

At 1000ft the air is so dense that turbofan engines struggle to handle the volume of air going into it. Structural loads and pressures on the air-frame are not equal and some parts of the plane can’t handle the stresses. Boeing says not to exceed 360 knots at 1000 feet. That does not mean the airplane cannot go faster, but if it does at some point the structure will fail and the airplane will crash.

Boeing follows two rules, Velocity Max Operating and Velocity Not to Exceed. Professional pilots and aviation experts say that if they break these rules, if they go faster than 360 knots at 1000 feet, the airplane might come apart. This is due to air resistance increasing as you fly lower, where pressure increases below 10,000ft, with that pressure even worse at 1000ft, which is where all the 9/11 planes were “officially” exceeding those speeds.


“Atmosphere at 30,000 feet is 1/3 the thickness of atmosphere at 700 feet.” This would cause approximately 3 times as much drag so the top speed would be about “1/3 of the top speed at 30,000 feet”, or 300 mph at best, with no wind.

Or we could quote SubjectX: “So if a moving object @ 35,000 feet requires two engines to maintain a speed of 568 mph then according to our calculations it will need a combination of 3.2 times two engines to develop the required THRUST to do the same at 700 feet.”

This means the 767 would need 6.4 engines to go as fast as Flight 175 was supposed to have done.

Which of course means it could not have gone that fast, and if it did not go that fast, how could those flimsy 767 wings cut through all that steel? Aluminum wing struts cannot cut through steel girders no matter how fast they are travelling. Those planes should have crumpled or partly bounced off when hitting the towers and the tail section should've broken off and fallen to the ground.

Boeing says “a 767 incurs aerodynamic stress after 360 knots” (414mph).

The National Transportation and Safety Board, Radar Data Impact Speed Study claims Flight 175 was going “590mph” (512 knots) when it hit the tower.

That means the plane was flying 152 knots (176 mph) faster than it is permitted to do so.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:46 PM
The Pentagon has similar problems. As I mentioned before, the Pentagon hole is too small, both vertically and horizontally. The engines hang 9 feet below the wings. The 757 tail is 40 feet tall with landing gear up while the maximum height of the hole was only 20 feet before the façade collapsed; Photographic experts have shown that the width of the hole is 52 feet across. The 757 wingspan is 125 feet, over twice the width of the collapsed hole. Like Shanksville, there is simply no room for the plane to disappear into.

The Pentagon pilot must not have been worried about getting shot down, since he flew in a big circle around the Pentagon. First thought was that maybe the pilot could not find the White House? Supposedly he flew right over it, either not knowing it was there or not knowing it had its own missile defense. Of course the White House failed to launch its missiles. This leads me to think the pilot knew that would not happen, because his job was to make sure the plane was seen by as many people as possible before it overflew the Pentagon at the time of the INTERIOR explosion.

The FAA claims he dove from 7,000 feet and smashed into the outside of the Pentagon, dead center at the first and second floors, traveling at an alleged 530 mph. He did this without ripping the wings off when hitting the 5 light poles. He also did this without scraping the engines on the front lawn or bothering the construction material and without hitting any lamp posts on the service road, not that a plane with that wingspan could do that, but he did, supposedly. And he did it without killing a single uniformed Air Force member.

But unlike what the FAA claims, the impact zone at the Pentagon shows a flat trajectory, yet high enough that the grass was not even messed up. Designers say wind buffering from the wings at high speed should not even allow the plane to fly flat under 60 feet, as the air creates a cushion off the ground. The physical force of this air cushion created by a high-speed airliner traveling flat near the ground makes it impossible to land it at high speed. And a ground-hugging 757 putting out 100,000 pounds of thrust would blow large trucks and cars right over. This did not happen.

And of course pilots say there is no way they could fly flat along the ground at that speed and still hit the building like that. And, unlike the terrorist, these are trained, everyday professional pilots.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg - U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions and a commercial pilot for 35 years says:

“I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11. I don’t believe it’s possible for a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s.


“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

“The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.

The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.

There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”

edit on 16-10-2018 by spiritualarchitect because: more info

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:51 PM




Multiple eyewitnesses’ saw a “small white plane” fly to the north of the gas station before exploding at the Pentagon.

A person near Shanksville said a “small white plane” flew right over her before it crashed.

None of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA were commissioned to positively identify the aircraft. There is nothing at all which connects the four “hijacked” planes to any of the crashes. The people who investigate plane crashes, the NTSB has confirmed that – for the first time in its history – it took no part in investigating an air crash. And the FBI has refused to release any real information about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the "Black Box" Cockpit Flight Data

Recorder allegedly found miles from the alleged crash site of Flight 93 and the black boxes that the firemen claimed they found at the twin towers. Government officials have never produced a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration.

What about the jet engine which supposedly fell out of the South Tower? It was photographed by the FBI at the junction of Church and Murray streets FOUR BLOKS AWAY! Then it went into a land fill on Staten Island. Problem is it has been identified as NOT being an engine that was in one of those airliners. Again, another planted plane part.

The video footage of the first crash, when paused, seems to show a large two engine jet just like the second tower jet later. Since, as described by close in witnesses, the second jet was not a United Airlines airliner, it would make sense that the first jet was of the same type as the second, and not an American Airlines airliner.

Remember the film from the high-rise, right before the second plane hits the tower? The girl yells “What the hell is that?”

It is obvious by her statement that it is not an airliner, because we all know what airliners look like.

Remember the film from many blocks away, where right after the second crash the woman walking by on the right say’s “That’s not American Airlines!”

Obviously she too saw something that was not a regular airliner.

There are people in the streets below that say the second plane was not an airliner, that it had no airline logo’s or windows. Many said the plane was black, while some said it was military grey. Some also say that it had a bomb or something attached under the plane. It is clear in the close up videos that there is a large pod or something under the fuselage that should not be there, unless it was a military plane. This could be a weapons pod. There are also no strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage. All of this means it was not United Airlines Flight 175.

People on the streets during the first crash said it sounded and looked like a missile.

So two towers, two crashes and no proof that either one was an airliner.

Two of the aircraft didn’t even take off on 9/11, per the BTS database for flights 11 & 77. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics is the METICULOUS DATA BASE that the FAA keeps so they can track and know where EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT is in the sky over the United States. The BTS is so exact that it is purported to never be wrong, so why would it be wrong four times on only 9/11? The two aircraft that struck the towers could have been drones, meaning no people on flights 11 & 175 were on those planes. And flights 77 and 93 did not crash at the Pentagon and Shanksville, because there is no evidence of any airliner crash at either site.

The BTS database shows that Flight 11 has no departure time, meaning that it never took off on 9/11. This exact same oddity is repeated for Flight 77, the other American Airlines flight on 9/11 which allegedly took off from Dulles.

Another strange thing is that Flight 93, though it did take off, was not even a regular flight on 9/11, it was only set up in the last 2 hours before it flew. And it was loaded with passengers twice at Newark. Flight 93 and 175 both flew that day, and they both went to Cleveland.

The government states that these were the planes that crashed:
American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA)
United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA)
American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA)
United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA)

Well 11 and 77 never took off, so they could not crash. And four years later, according to United Airlines, 175 and 93 were still flying, as they were identified by their tail numbers. So we know those plans did not crash either. Even now they are still not listed as “Destroyed”, as they should be, but “Cancelled.” Cannot blame them for not wanting to destroy perfectly good aircraft. They are probably ALL still flying today under different tail numbers.

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:53 PM

Boeing marketed the 767 to the U.S. Air Force to replace their KC-130 tankers. This military aircraft has no passenger windows and is a refueling tanker aircraft. Yeah, it’s full of fuel.

In 2001, flying a jetliner remotely could have been done using the flight control computers that were on the planes. Officially, “The 757s and 767s supposedly used on 9/11 both contain integrated flight management computer systems which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."

Magnetometer readings from 9/11 indicate the initial tower holes were created by some kind of energy pulse. This can be seen in films of both tower crashes, right before the planes hit the buildings. They show up in the area right below the fuselage, directly in front of the large pods under the plane. EASY ANSWER IS THAT THESE ENERGY PULSES BLEW HOLES IN THE STEEL TO ALLOW THE PLANES TO PENETRATE THE BUILDING. This would probably solve many of the questions regarding the actual crashes. It would also mean that they were not airliners but large military jets, meaning the US military and government were involved.

Of course the problem with the above is still the same. Because video and radar data showed that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767 travelling near sea level. A 767 drone, with a pilot flying remotely, sitting safely inside a building somewhere, would still face all the challenges of a pilot flying a simulation. The only way they could remotely fly into a building like that would be at landing speeds. Once again ask yourself, do the films show landing speeds?

Even if we go with the idea that these were souped up military 767’s full of fuel, all the flight problems of high speed still remain – the aircraft would fly apart – wings going one way and fuselage the other. THE OTHER OPTION IS THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING THAT FAST AND THAT MILITARY 767’S SOMEHOW BLEW AN OPENING IN THE TOWERS BEFORE HITTING THEM.

This makes the most sense, although the radar speed data does not allow this. COULD IT SIMPLY BE THAT THE MILITARY FAKED THE RADAR DATA? Maybe the planes were only going 300 mph? You better hope so, because if not, that leaves us with cruise missiles and – you guessed it - holograms.

We have all seen the video images of controlled missiles taking out moving trucks. This means that a controlled missile could easily take out a non-moving office space in a skyscraper. It could also blow through the outer steel wall of the towers and the massively thick concrete and steel floors. It could also create a nice round hole in the Pentagon and Shanksville. It would also mean that the glow we see on the building before impact is the hologram light itself, not an energy beam explosion.

But was/is it even possible to create a 3D hologram around a cruise missile? And doing it from another aircraft flying above it – which itself cannot be seen? How do you disguise a B2 over New York City?

The chopper video, the one which shows the towers from a distance and the smoke blowing to the right – THAT VIDEO CLEARLY SHOWS THE FRONT OF THE AIRLINER COMING THROUGH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWER. But unlike the French video, which seems to show something similar, there is no shadow cast on the tower? How could we have a shadow cast in one video and not another? WHEN THAT VISUAL OF THE FRONT OF THE AIRLINER IS CUT OUT AND PLACED NEXT TO THE VISUAL OF THE FRONT OF THE AIRLINER BEFORE THE CRASH – THE TWO MATCH UP PERFECTLY. We are seeing the front of the airliner coming through the other side of the building. Since a poor bird would wipe out the nose of an airliner there is no way in Hades it could pass through the tower in one piece, looking like we see it in the video. SO THIS IS CLEARLY VIDEO FORGERY OR A HOLOGRAM – TAKE YOUR PICK.


1 – Airliners cannot fly that fast and stay in one piece.
2 – The images of the airliners entering the towers are not realistic.
3 – Building 7 was blown up on purpose without even using the plane excuse.
4 – There is no plane wreckage at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania.
5 - Can a 3D hologram be projected onto a cruise missile going 570 miles per hour?

Were all 4 airline crashes actually cruise missiles? If so that explains the radar speeds and all the holes. Meaning the cartoon cutouts in the towers were pre-set to blow out those shapes.

If all 4 were actually planes – and two blew holes into the tower sides - it could leave us with this:
Flight 11 - American Airlines - North Tower - actually a Military remotely flown drone 767 fuel tanker – flying under 400 mph.
Flight 175 United Airlines - South Tower – just like above, a Military 767 fuel tanker.
Flight 77 American Airlines – Pentagon – a Military drone – the “small plane”.
Flight 93 United Airlines – Shanksville – as above, another Military drone – another “small plane”.



1 - If it was a hologram – if the military had the ability to fly along above a missile and project a 3D hologram image onto and around it - WHY USE THE IMAGE OF A MILITARY PLANE WITH A POD AND NOT AN AIRLINER WITH WINDOWS AND LOGOS?


edit on 16-10-2018 by spiritualarchitect because: more info

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:57 PM

Operation Northwoods - 1962

“In the pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby. THE ONE FROM THE AIRPORT WOULD HAVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON BOARD WHO HAD CHECKED IN AS ORDINARY PASSENGERS UNDER FALSE NAMES. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft. Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane’s designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters. THE WORLD WOULD BE TOLD THAT A PLANE LOAD OF BLAMELESS AMERICAN HOLIDAYMAKERS HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY SHOT DOWN by Fidel Castro’s Communists – and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime.”

Remember the Maine?

(much credit goes to Phil Jayhan for his questions and BTS statistics)

Of a total 760 seats there were less than 300 passengers, on the 4 alleged flights. This means that each of the passengers could stretch out across their entire row of seats. Four airliners, same day, when does THAT happen? And remember this; none of the hijackers names are on any of the passenger list for these plans, not even one Arab name appears.

The passenger manifests have been changed multiple times; there is no CCTV of passengers or hijackers, no official testimonies of people working the airports that day, no boarding cards. Three planes were scheduled to fly to Los Angeles, arriving around the same time. Yet there is no sign of Flight 175, Flight 11, or Flight 77 passenger pickups or victims’ families at Los Angeles Airport at scheduled arrival time. No media sightings of waiting victims’ families and worried friends, eager for information, as we would expect from three commercial plane crashes. Where were the grieving families at the airports? Where were the frantic loved ones at the airports looking to find out where their family members were? In all these years have you seen one documentary or anything in video footage of families at airports talking to the media? Did anyone take someone to the airport that day and watch them board one of those flights and see the plane take off with that person on it? Can we see proof of a real manifest for any of these flights that were signed by the pilot? Can we see proof at all that there were any passengers on these flights?


ANSWER: NO – NOT FOR ANY OF THE FOUR FLIGHTS OF 9/11. Not a foot of footage of video evidence for this has ever been shown. Could it be that there is no video of any of the passengers at any of the terminals or airports because it never did exist?

How can a passenger purchase a ticket for a Flight which will not fly on 9/11?

This could happen. Flights are canceled all the time and combined with other flights. But there are no records of this happening on 9/11. Yet the official story is that people were on Flight 11 and that they boarded at Flight 11’s gate.

How does a passenger fly on a flight which never takes off on 9/11?

The passengers all disappeared on 9/11. That is what most everyone says. They might have purchased tickets for these flights, but they could have never actually taken off. Why? Because the BTS database is accurate and definite. Flight 11 did not depart on 9/11.

Where did the passengers go, if not onto flight 11?

Were these passengers herded into rooms at the airports? Were they tricked onto boarding another flight, which they thought was flight 11? They had to have gone somewhere, because they didn’t board or fly on flight 11. There are no reports of any problems at any of the airports, and yet they all disappeared. So if they were not on Flight 11 and not at the airports, where were they?

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 05:59 PM

The fact that there were no disturbances at any of the airports shows that the passengers disappeared without a struggle. And without any video footage of them at all. The fact the government has not produced even one video showing any of the passengers could be that the passengers were in a part of the airport where they should not have been, and getting on planes they were not supposed to be on. Could this be why the government cannot produce the video of any of the passengers on 9/11? The fact that ALL the passengers disappeared without incident could mean that they were willing participants in the 9/11 deception.

One problem with this idea you will remember is that one flight attendant said before hanging up – “IT’S A FRAME.”



Could all of the cell phone conversations have been staged? The main problem with this idea is that would mean the people who claim to have lost friends, etcetera on 9/11 would all have to be lying. They too would have to be in on the big deception. It is much easier to think that the missing people WANTED TO GO MISSING so they could restart their life, living under new identities. Were all these people led to believe that there would be no deaths on 9/11? DID THEY THINK THAT THE ONLY DEATHS WOULD BE THEIR FAKE DEATHS?

Now for the heavy cloak and dagger stuff. Was this a total set-up where certain people were told that they could start a new life fresh if they enrolled in a certain secret government program? Out of the 58 passengers that were supposed to have died in the Pentagon crash, 21 of them had connections with the Pentagon. Were these people written off as being dead when instead they were moved on to secret black military projects?

It could happen. In fact it happens all the time, on a smaller scale. It is called the witness protection program. They could have been told they had to end any and all correspondence and make a complete break with their past life.

And only afterwards, when it was too late, were they aware that other people actually died in Washington and New York? They could have gone into this thinking no one would be killed, that only empty drone aircraft would be destroyed.

Everything about Flight 11 was repeated at Dulles International Airport. Same thing, two different airports. Flights 11 & 77, the two American airlines planes, one from Boston, one from Dulles. According to the BTS they never took off.

All of the passengers of flight 77 disappeared without incident, yet they did not take off on flight 77, because the BTS shows it never took off on 9/11. And likewise, no reports disturbances at Dulles, like what might happen if an entire plane-load of passengers were being redirected against their wills, in a public airport. They all disappeared without trace and without trouble, and like Flight 11 at Boston Logan, without video of them.

So two groups of people, one from flight 11 at Boston and one from flight 77 at Dulles would both disappear without any trouble. And both groups of people would never get on board either of the flights, 11 or 77. Because the BTS database tells us these flight never departed.

According to the closest witnesses of the Flight 175 crash, it is quite obvious it was not a commercial airliner with passengers on board. If commercial flight 175 did not hit the South Tower then what happened to those passengers on flight 175? This is a third group of missing people. If they were not on that plane, and all evidence tells us they weren’t, then where did the passengers from flight 175 go to? Were the planes switched in mid-air? Taken over by remote control and flown into the towers? Where did this third group of people, the passengers from flight 175 disappear to?

If there were actual passengers on these planes, why do we not have airport video of them in the airport? Could it be that the gov did not want them recognized? Could it be that they were pawns in a cover scheme? If so, did we suddenly have over 200 new people in the witness protection program?


Since Flight 11 & 77 never flew – there were no passengers on those flights. Researchers have found that some names were taken from the SSDI list of deceased people, meaning they were already dead. The other names appear to have been made up to fill out the amount of seats needed to justify an actual flight log.


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 06:01 PM

So now we come to Flight 93, which like Flight 77, left no sign of an airline crash. No bodies, no luggage, no engines, no wings, no tail, no nothing. Five million parts in an airplane and they find nothing at the crash site? Oh sure they say they found terrorist passports and black boxes 8 miles away, like they were blown there by the wind. And oh yeah, the FBI just happened to find a few things in a pond, hundreds of yards away, underwater where no one could see them. And then later they claim to have found an engine underground, that just so happens to fit right into the scoop that placed it there for the photo op. Lame lies for what is clearly planted evidence after the fact.

As for passengers, we know from eye-witnesses that Flight 93 was boarded twice. By two groups of people at two separate locations at Newark Airport. This is may be the reason why flight 93 was 41 minutes late in taking off. So why is there a second group of people boarding from the tarmac?

The researchers who have studied this say that the passengers of flight 77 from Dulles are the same group of people at the second boarding at Newark airport. The passengers at Dulles caught an earlier flight which took them to Newark where they got on Flight 93.

At Boston Logan International Airport, the passengers from both flights 11 & 175 are combined into one flight. This would become Delta Flight 1989 and it would land at Cleveland International Airport. While flight 93, now having also the passengers from flight 77, will also land at – wait for it - Cleveland International Airport.

Above Stewart AFB, in New Windsor, New York, it was said that flight 11 and 175 were so close together that they almost collided. The supposed reason for this is that this is when 2 military drones took off. These drones would replace the flight paths of Flight 11 and 175. Stewart is the crossing point of 2 hijacked airliners and also the approximate location of where the transponders were switched.

SHORTLY AFTER THIS, FLIGHT 175, NOW HAVING BEEN REPLACED BY A MILITARY DRONE ON RADAR, WILL CHANGE ITS TRANSPONDER TO DELTA 1989 AND MAKE AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT CLEVELAND, WITH REPORTS OF A BOMB ABOARD. This plane would contain roughly 200 people, the people from flights 11 & 175. Flight 93, would do the same thing, also landing at Cleveland airport.

At 10 a.m., Cleveland airport was evacuated due to rumors that a hijacked plane with a bomb was going to land. People throughout the airport were told to go home.

Delta 1989, with the passengers from 11 & 175, landed at 10:10. It was held at one end of the airport, at the FAA center, which was controlled by the FBI that day. Flight 93 landed at 10:45. Flight 93 was held at the other end of the airport, where the passengers were taken into the NASA Center, also controlled by the FBI that day. These two flights, Delta 1989 and United flight 93 had roughly 260 plus people between them, the same number as the “4” flights, 11, 175, 77 & 93.

Both planes were sitting on a runway, but miles away from each other. One plane was at the west end of runway near the NASA center. This was confirmed by the Associated Press. The other plane was sitting at the south end of runway near the I-X-Center, also confirmed by two eyewitnesses. The passengers were taken into these two ends of the airport, away from the normal public and passenger areas of the airport. While FBI agents supposedly checked the planes for bombs, the passengers were interviewed by the FBI for hours. If this was all a preplanned event, this time was spent finalizing things and getting all the passengers established in their new lives.

Cleveland Mayor Michael White held a televised news conference at 11 a.m., after the emergency landing. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, he said air controllers could hear screaming on the plane. He said there was an unconfirmed report that the plane might have been hijacked or was carrying a bomb. But in the middle of the news conference, he reported that it had not been hijacked, and later in the day he said no bomb had been found.

THE PASSENGERS FROM ALL 4 FLIGHTS, 11, 175, 77 AND 93 ALL ENDED UP AT CLEVELAND AIRPORT. Emergency landings because of reports of a “bomb” aboard gave a good reason to close and evacuate the airport, so that complete control could be taken for these ‘special passengers’ from Flights 1989 and 93.

new topics

top topics

<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in