So, now let's look at the WTC site. Clearly, two things hit the WTC towers that day. There is footage of planes hitting the towers. We have video
tapes of planes hitting the towers. We have eye witnesses of planes hitting the towers.
However, what kinds of planes those were are up to debate.
1. One woman witness who lived in a nearby apartment said that one plane looked like a military plane.
2. The planes on the videos I've seen look like holographic planes or doctored videos. I'm not a graphics expert, so I can't tell the difference,
but I do know basic science, and I know whatever it was didn't behave according to basic physics.
(And I'm sorry, they excuse that the the aluminum had more tensile strength than the towers or that they did that because the planes were going
really fast doesn't hold up. The faster the plane was going, the more the plane would have crashed to pieces. Unless the plane was going warp speed
and was acclererating into another time/space continuum, nothing would make it go through the tower walls as if they were not even there.)
Maybe they were holographic planes, I haven't looked at the evidence enough for it, but for now, I'm thinking that the planes used to crash into
the towers were not jet airliners, but rather, the videos were doctored to hide exactly what it was that smacked into the side of the towers.
Why? The evidence does not add up.
1. There should have been debris all over if it was an aluminum jetliner. There was not.
2. Do jet planes really blow up like that when crashed into an immoveable object? Has that ever been caught on film before, big explosions like that
in a jet crash?
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. I'm not sure, but it looks like the giant explosions were like a giant special effects scene in a
movie. You know how cars always explode in movies when they crash off a cliff? Well, in real life, they don't do that. Cars don't just explode. Do
jets just explode into huge black balls of fire just because they hit something?
Is that normal, or is that pyrotechnics at work? Honestly, I don't know, but it looks a lot like something you would see in a movie scene....like in
that Nicolas Cage movie where these hijackers hijack a plane and then run it into a building on the strip and it blows up in a big fireball.....yeah,
3. However, regardless or whether or not those two giant fireballs were normal, clearly evidence was planted on the scene.
See the following quote from another ATS thread:
What happened to the people on the planes on 9/11?
What I have come to believe is that the planes that the people boarded on 9/11 are not the same planes that were used to hit the World Trade Center or
1. The Hijackers of the Planes were not at a level capable of what was accomplished on 9.11. This is really the major evidence. Under pressure, we are
supposed to believe Amateur Pilots were able to hit the target dead on like that?
"Hijacker Hani Hanjour moves from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area in California, staying with an unidentified family. He lives with them from
late April to early September. For most of this time he takes English lessons in an intensive program requiring 30 hours of class time per week, at
the ELS Language Center at Holy Names College in Oakland. He reportedly reaches a level of proficiency sufficient to “survive very well in the
English language.” Yet in 2001, managers at an Arizona flight school will report him to the FAA at least five times, partly because they think his
level of English is inadequate for him to keep his pilot’s license. Due to his poor English, it will take Hanjour five hours to complete an oral
exam meant to last just two hours (see January-February 2001). At the end of this period, Hanjour enrolls on a rigorous one-year flight training
program at the renowned Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, in Oakland. However, he only attends the 30-minute orientation class, on September 8, and then
never returns. "
2. We all know that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There were no imprints where wings should have been and there was no sign of a major plane in
the wreckage inside. The 'plane' also happened to conveniently hit the vacated area of the Pentagon that was undergoing construction. There's also
more things wrong but those are the major to me.
3. The 'plane' that crashed in the Field was missing. There was a charred area and a few scattered debris no larger then a small rock, but no plane.
Someone had gotten there first.
4. They were conducting a simulation that morning of hijacked planes and had unmanned remote planes in the air. Successfully confusing air traffic
control and the whole situation.
5. The WTC Buildings were shut down the weekend prior to 9/11 for 24-28 hours while their electrical system was updated or some nonsense like that.
Admittedly, anyone and anything could have entered the buildings at that time. The man who blew the whistle on that was never asked for a statement
from the 9.11 Commission. Wonder why.
6. Bomb Sniffing drugs were called off of patrolling around the area a few days prior to 9.11
7. One person in particular who called his mom used his full name and asked his mom if she believed him. was this a message?
Here is the link to that thread:
So, obviously evidence was planted. But why, and by whom? And why?
(Continued on next thread.)
[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]