9/11 seventeen years on

Calling WTC7 an irrelevance is just plain dumb. No wonder you're uncomfortable talking about it.

Haven,where did I say no planes, answer to that was never,but I did ask you to watch a documentary,i guess you didn't.

I'm sure of one thing. If 911 was an 'inside job' as some call it, we will NEVER learn the truth. No matter what evidence comes to light the government will stick to the official story. Look at the 19 terrorists for example - the BBC and SKY reported that some of them are still alive, their identities stolen presumably. Has the official narrative changed to reflect this fact? No, the same 19 names are still listed.

Torq


I'm not asking lots of questions

Basically I'm asking one very very basic question. In is not my fault that the tin foil hat loons are unable to explain what they believe.

How simple can a question get...
What do you believe DID happen.

Rather than going to school/university etc. these guys spend years watching you tube heavily edited videos.

Terry is actually proud in lacks ability to explain what he believes DID happen.

Terry

Do you believe 4 planes crashed on 9-11?




Terry

What do you believe DID Happen on 9-11?

I don't doubt for a second that planes and fire damaged the buildings, that much is bleeding obvious. What some of us are saying however is look at how all 3 buildings fell down. The first two litrerally exploded from the top to the bottom until there was virtually nothing left. The third one dropped like a stone exactly like a pro demolition job.

It just wouldn't happen like that if fire and crash damage caused them to fall. And if it was just people on an anonymous forum saying it your disbelief and ridicule might be justified. But it isn't just people like me who call the official explanation BS - literally thousands of well qualified physicists, architects and engineers have also said that those towers were demolished by explosives. Professional men and women with years of scientific expertise under their belts. Are they all tin foil hat loons as well?

terry, this is the reason why I said that you said there were no planes, I slightly take it back as we were talking about the second plane as seen below

scandanavian_haven 10 Oct 18 10:21 J
there are 43 different camera angles from this one video alone, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM, showing the 2nd plane hitting the tower, I can buy it was in inside job of course, but to say there were no planes tbh takes away from conspiracy and from there on in it descends in to ridiculousness.

terry mccann
10 Oct 18 10:43 Joined: 26 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 10,186 | Blogger: terry mccann's blog
Haven look at Rich halls doc on what hit 2nd tower,it could change your mind on that one, there is video evidence.



I have seen his documentary, a plane hit that second tower.

So answer me this  "the believe what my eyes tell me mob "..........................................................


The commercial Boeing 767 Aircraft which " reportedly "  crashed into the WTC....

At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots) and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board.

The physics do not work out : At 700ft above sea level the maximum speed that plane can fly  at is .....wait for it........... APPROX 350MPH ( 560 KM/H, 156 M/S or 304 Knots. )   ???

What you DID NOT see was a BOEING 767 CRASH INTO THE WTC !!!!!!

THE OFFICIAL NIST REPORT STATES THAT THE IMPACT SPEED OF THE COMMERCIAL 767 was in excess of 500mph !!!!!.......................... NOT POSSIBLE...................

In addition think about this :

If you watch a formula one car or for that matter an indie car flashing around the track in excess of 230mph and smashing into a crash barrier what happens ?

Does it simply melt into the crash barrier ?

Nope.. Tyres, wheels car body parts fly everywhere & whats left spins around uncontrollably !!! In addition it does not disappear ??????

LADIES and GENTLEMEN I have presented to you the FORERUNNER TO THE GREATEST DECEPTION THE WHOLE WIDE  WORLD HAS EVER EXPERIENCED.

and remarkably IT STILL GOES ON.

The above data is not made up, it is not opinion, They are the FACTS,.

The multi trillion dollar unanswered question is how they did it let alone how have they managed to create a deception which  could fool the world at that time and keep it on going for so long afterwards ????

Food for thought for you all on a quiet sunday and there is plenty of additional considerable empirical scientific evidence to throw into extreme doubt what the official NIST report contains.

So my stance is : NO COMMERCIAL PLANES  unless someone can provide me with any data / evidence other than the videos that show them. ( Bear in mind)  i am not questioning what everyone believe that they think they saw.

The perpetrators have access to technology which is a full generation or maybe two in front of what we have now. Impossible for us to know what they now have at their disposal now another 17 years on.

When considering how many lives were REPORTEDLY lost  on that fateful day...........  During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed (including the 19 hijackers) and more than 6,000 others injured. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes (including the terrorists), 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon......

1300 OF THE POOR SOULS WHICH LOST THEIR LIVES WERE NEVER RECOVERED AT ALL !!!!

dyno, if they were not commercial planes, who were the 265 fatalities on the 4 planes?

There is so much evidence to contradict the official line on 9/11.

Mex - take a look at the evidence both physical and eyewitness statements of Flight 93 crashing into Shanksville. The official line is so pathetic, that its insulting to the general public to expect them to believe it.

Haven,im thinking you couldn't have watched the correct video

Dyno

Where do you get your "scientific " info regarding the max speed of a plane at sea level?

Is it a safety guideline or are you saying it is a fundamental law of Physics?


There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that a plane did crash into WTC. Do you actually believe your "science " is evidence to suggest they did not crash?

Blackrock

Black boxes were found at Shanksville along with plane wreckage & human remains.

And you suggest should "look at the evidence "

But no plane crashed there,yer lying but why???

The only plane wreckage photographed is a small engine part which was obviously planted. The plane was supposedly buried 25 feet below the surface. No wreckage had broken off at impact and as the 'plane' tore into the ground, the earth apparently resettled itself, showing no sign that a plane had crashed.

A black box was produced to convince us but why was no other wreckage, ie wings, fuselage,etc etc not shown to us. Eyewitnesses arriving at the scene said there was no evidence that a plane had crashed. No wreckage, no bodies. Plane crashes always leave evidence behind but not in this case it seems.

Flight 93 certainly didn't land in the field they say it did,so what really happened to it and the people aboard?

Terry you have still not bothered to explain what you believe DID happen?

Did 4 planes crash Terry.

Terry why did you post the lies about passports?


Terry there is a massive amount of evidence to suggest 4 planes crashed.

Blackrock

There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest a plane crashed there.

Black boxes, plane wreckage, human remains, phone calls, eyewitnesses, phone calls, missing people, missing plane, DNA




So Black do you believe any planes crashed on 9-11? How many?

"This crash was different. There was no wreckage ,no bodies and no noise" - Somerset County Coronor Wallace Miller.

scandanavian_haven 14 Oct 18 11:53 Joined: 27 May 11 | Topic/replies: 8,017 | Blogger: scandanavian_haven's blog
dyno, if they were not commercial planes, who were the 265 fatalities on the 4 planes?

SH....

How do we know there were any fatalities from the planes at the reported areas ?

I didnt see any evidence of this at all ? Did you ? I heard many conflicting reports but no real evidence ? Am i wrong ?

It may be difficult to comprehend this but do you really believe that as inept as the US military appear to have been on this  "supposed " war games day , they would stand down and let a rogue flight or 4 roam around the east side of the country without intercepting them ?  Come on........ think this through properly. They have kept this story in place because people will not do so. Tragic,

https://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/List-of-Passengers-911.html

I agree that the military getting it so spectacularly wrong and flying the wrong way out to sea is obviously suspicious, which I've said already.

Terry you have once again failed in the most basic, simple tasks.

How many planes do you believe crashed on 9-11.


Instead you posted a quote without any link or without any context.


There is a massive amount of evidence that a plane crashed at Shanksville.

Dyno


Have you got any evidence to show us that US policy was to shoot down commercial jets flying in US airspace with hundreds of US passengers on board. By "rogue " I assume you mean hijacked passenger planes.

What about WTC7 Mexico,you haven't explained how the heck it come down all on its own and why-cheers

Terry, answer the bloody question mate. Mexico is like a broken record

Mexico .. I saw no evidence of a commercial 767 crashing into the tower as per the official nist report.. It is A DECEPTION.

I think you will find there was only one policy in place that day............... DECEPTION

Your research is so lacking of credible evidence it is embarrassing.

Now please do me a favour and go back over it again and again and again until you can spot your mistakes and how you have been deceived. You are not alone here. There are many just like you.

Just start with researching how the f*** any pilot, let alone a reported barely qualified hijacker pilot,  could have possibly flown the plane as per the official report... I await your response with eager anticipation.

Put a call into BOEING technical dept and ask them directly.

Dyno

You actually don't believe that 2 planes crashed into WTC?

Is that correct Dyno?




Dyno it was not US policy to shoot down US passenger planes that day.

Aspro,im just a loon already

Terry

WTF are you wittering on about a irrelevant sideshow WTC7 - FFS Terry explain what you believe DID happen.

How many planes do you believe crashed Terry?

Mex.


An answer on WTC7 Pretty please

SH... I am happy to see a list but it means very little with respect to the matter of them actually being aboard a crashed commercial plane.

Out of interest does that amount of " passengers and crew " spread across 4 commercial flights seem extremely low iyo ?

Hardly and you know it, full of CIA files all destroyed

Terry you are correct when you say you are a loon , next step is to ask a 7 year old when to use an apostrophe.

I assume you did not pass many exams Terry.

Mexico... Go do some research m8.. Your logic is inexplicably flawed. You have been deceived.

TOP TROLLING there mex

Terry I've already explained that WTC7 is a irrelevant sideshow- almost certainly destroyed by damage caused by fire, but it is basically irrelevant.

Terry how many planes do you believe crashed on 9-11?

Dyno,the guy is a troll for gawds sakes,he knows exactly what the truth is

Who the f uck are you to tell us what is or isn't a "sideshow" ?

Dont lose the faith Terry. We can help him through this. He just needs to wake up and we will be well on the way

Mexico you should proof-read your own posts before criticising others. I'm no expert but your 5:10 post has a very basic error. Easily done by all of us in the spur of the moment.

Meanwhile back in Penn USA, "I was looking for anything that said Tail,Plane,metal. There was nothing"-Photographer Rob Spankler

Here you go MEX.

On behalf of Terry.

NO COMMERCIAL PLANES CRASHED ON 911.

Obviously far easier to comprehend this at ShanKsville and THE PENTAGON however the evidence is all out there for him. Lets get him of the leash and let him chase down the balls.

Caused by FIRE

I've been waiting for the response to that answer dyno. Out of popcorn so going for the Vindaloo mix

Btw guys (loons ) you're doing a great job but I feel it's falling on deaf ears. Mexico isn't going to alter his point of view

True Aspro but ooooh isn't he awful

Aspro.. The hope is that other more sensible posters will read and consider to take another look at the official narrative. The more people that can see through the bull**** the better chance we may have of getting to the truth...

Signed .. THE ETERNAL OPTIMIST.

I think many posters agree with you guys; I too lean towards your narrative. It's a compelling argument.

If I was part of the cover up that the "truthers" believe in I would plant people like Terry on forums Youtube etc because the way they behave actually puts people off questioning the official line.

So Dyno Rod have a word with Tel cos he's not doing your cause any favours.

dyno, UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175, if you google it's image, does look like the plane that hit the South Tower from the 43 different angles video, I thouht it was a military plane at first but the planes lighter fuselage, darkened underbelly, jet engines and tail seem to be consitent. Though some ground witnesses at the time thought it was a military plane. Though some others thought it was BA.

It was a Tuesday, early morning, kids had just gone back to school, out of season so I wouldn't have thought it'd have been ordinarily full, mostly made up of busines/IT/finance passengers.

You don't have to watch of course Haven but its looks like something very different hit the 2nd tower,up to you ofcourse but whats the point of getting your info wrong?

what info is wrong exactly, post a link to the video

assuming it's one I haaven't already seen, is it the one with, what he describes as a ball like object hitting the tower?

That's the one Haven,so why don't you believe it and its not a trick question as it looked real enough to me unlike the plane hitting

I saw one video that may have been doctored but it was shown from different angles too. It was the plane come out the other side and that certainly didn't look like the tip of a plane to me. As I said, I'm not as deep as some of you here but that one did give me cause to think, especially when the tip formed a long shadow down the side of the building; surely (if the video isn't doctored) the tip would be crushed?

Terry, a few things.

Firstly, it doesn't look like a ball on the low quality, long distance camera angle, Richard D Hall says "in what has been described as a ball"...and then goes on for the rest of video referring to it as a ball, the question there is, who is he referencing having described it as a ball, though that is actually by the ball, not for a second does it look like a ball/missle.

Secondly, If it was a ball/missile that hit the second tower, it would have been a US military led operation not terrorists, if that was the case, do you really think that the US government at the very top of the chain would have sanctioned a terrorist act at that time of day and on that day? Because on September 11th 2001 @ 8.46am and 9.03am when those two planes hit the Twin Towers, it was a) a crystal clear, blue skied day with not a cloud in sight, and b) morning, if they were wanting to disguise a missile/ball attack on the towers, they would have never have chosen that day and that morning, it would be logical to think that they would have carried out the attack in the late evening on an overcast day where any amateur footage of the attack would have been pretty useless, and probably a month or two later where there would be less camera happy tourists. They also would have known the weather forecasts for that time/date a week in advance.

Thirdly, if it was a ball/missile that hit the second tower, then I'm assuming you believe that the first tower was also hit with a ball/missile, which again would make little sense, the first tower was hit at 8.46 on a clear morning, the second 17 minutes later, during those 17 minutes, literally millions of people in New York City, would have had their eyes transfixed on the crime scene, it's not plausible to think that the US government would have wanted the whole city to analyse/critique/watch them guide a ball/missile into the tower, it just defies common sense, Richard D Hall says that a computerised image of the plane was placed on top of the ball for TV purposes, so we are too believe on one hand, the public in NYC were to witness a ball like object fly into the towers but on TV the rest of the world saw Planes?

by the by*

Gentlemen, I urge you to abjure whatever credence you might give to any phantom aircraft theories. They are simply not true and only serve to weaken one's argument against the official narrative.

Good Morning, I think you may all be looking at an out of date analysis. This was superseded by the following investigation which was added by additional data and the construction of a 3D model to accurately track the path of the alleged plane.

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=233&part=3&gen=3

I've seen that on youtube already, and he disabled comments.

Interesting.

SH ... Have you watched 911 trillions. follow the money ?

Here is the youtube link to watch it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

haven't see it, will watch it at some point.

why would he disabled comments on the other video, why would he not want a free, honest and open debate about the information he's put forward, seems people spotted flaws and in his analysis, also dyno you usually post youtube links so I wonder if you knew the comments were disabled and posted a link from his site instead so it wouldn't be challenged? the donate button isn't disabled though.

I don't believe the official narrative at all, but fake planes theories just muddy the waters.

SH. I  wasnt aware that comments had been disabled on the youtube link.

In answer to your question ...Regarding 911 you seldom get a free honest and open debate if you promote something which sits rather closer to the truth than what they want you to be. That is what i have found during my research.

Flaws can become apparent as new evidence and further disclosures take place. Obviously when that occurs you have to look at what you previously believed and re evaluate accordingly.

The last 5 minutes of his report is hypothesis as he doesnt have the evidence to substantiate it ( which he states )

I would strongly recommend you watch follow the money. I hope it may help you understand better what we are dealing with here.

SH.. Then take the time to watch 911 the usual suspects.. link with comments available follows :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl85JSvDmsA&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ9gFFM6v6EloLGmQZFyeGqm

Bit
worried that Mex has disappeared after Dyno answered that question he kept on and on about, who knows how these sick bastards think and works?!

Could be after I pulled him up on his grammatical error after abusing yours Terry. Karma eh?

Either way, he is just sticking up for his beliefs, as you lot are, however; the insults do not need to be traded and most of them are coming from him. Rather childish imo

Here's a question for the physics experts.

The government's take on why the twin towers fell is because of crash damage and fire damage to six or so storeys, eventually leading to a total progressive collapse. From a purely theoretical standpoint as a scientific puzzle on paper: imagine an identical 110 storey tower and then completely remove floors 85 to 91 so that 19 floors are left hovering above the rest of the building. What would then happen if that 19 storey block was allowed to drop down onto the lower part of tower? Does the physics dictate that we should witness an explosive collapse like 911?

That sounds like bollocks to me but that is what the 911 commission claims.

Terry

WTF are you on about?

Disappeared?

YOU have still not explained what you believe happened?

How many planes crashed?


BTW - 4 is the sane man's answer

Torquemada,

Your last point is something I've always found quite hard to believe.  How or why did the building collapse and so quickly considering that essentially the lower part of the buildings were undamaged and had obviously always been supporting the structure above. 

Another thing I've found interesting in 911 footage is the state of the lobby in either one or both of the lobbies before the collapses.  It does look like something has happened at ground level that cant be explained by debris falling down lift shafts or falling from the outside.

Ah welcome back Mex,Btw you will win of course as the History books and main stream media will always poop out the official line for resons already given. That is so sad because this beautiful World and mostly lovely people deserve so much more then the God awful " New World Order" and all the lies and sh1tty life styles we now have to live after 9/11. A.I. Internet of Things,Smart Grid, 5G,Chemtrails, Vaccines etc. What a load of old misery that lot will led too

I know Leviathan. The official story is that the fire and crash area was weakened so much that the smaller portion of the building above the damaged fell down and crushed the rest of the tower all the way to the ground. Well that explanation just doesn't fit with what the collapses looked like to me. The buildings literally exploded all the way to the floor. And that's not even considering WTC 7. VERY VERY suspicious IMO.

Terry - still not able to answer simple 9-11 questions?


So do you believe vaccination is bad? Does it save lives or kill people?

Ask Bill GATES that Mex,he yer man, oh and surveillance ,data and control,

For someone who cant answer "simple 9/11 questions" I have You look the LOON with your monumental f uckary stick with official b0llocks,actually we all have but keep at it wont you

Terry

I once again ask you the most simple of simple questions & yet again you burst into tears & start to swear.

Have faith in your beliefs . Seek help if you are so ashamed by what you believe that you can't admit it.

Torquemada
Torquemada 15 Oct 18 14:55 Joined: 27 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 2,899 | Blogger: Torquemada's blog
Here's a question for the physics experts.

The government's take on why the twin towers fell is because of crash damage and fire damage to six or so storeys, eventually leading to a total progressive collapse. From a purely theoretical standpoint as a scientific puzzle on paper: imagine an identical 110 storey tower and then completely remove floors 85 to 91 so that 19 floors are left hovering above the rest of the building. What would then happen if that 19 storey block was allowed to drop down onto the lower part of tower? Does the physics dictate that we should witness an explosive collapse like 911?

That sounds like bollocks to me but that is what the 911 commission claims.

@ Torquemada. The official narrative for this tragic event is ridiculous. How they have got away with it defies sane belief. Something very strange happened to the towers that day and it is doubtful that it will be uncovered during our lifetime. One thing i am convinced about is that somewhere someone has access to advanced technology which has been harnessed to create weapons. There is nothing known to man which could have caused the towers to turn to clouds of dust in the way that they did.

The whole tragic episode is littered with anomalies which we all seem to go round and round in circles trying to unravel. You have to accept that this was always part of the plan.

Very few researchers  / investigators / scientists / truthers / conspiracy theorists can agree on the details and you have to accept that whoever was behind it all banked on this being the eventuality.

If you ask anyone anywhere to fully explain exactly what happened my best assumption is you wont find anyone who is  "hand on heart " capable of doing so.

Terry... You may be interested to watch this  youtube interview from 1992 featuring Bill Cooper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAv5eLfEdQ4

Thanks for that Dyno-layer. I'd love to hear from the science guys their opinion on my theoretical physics question.

Torq

Glad you want my opinion...

Your question is not a theoretical physics question.

You have not provided enough info for anybody to calculate the force needed to destroy the remaining "undamaged" part of the building.


A structure engineer / architect may have experience in building such tall buildings. They may know if the lower 85 floors of a building are generally designed to withstand 19 floors weighing X million KG falling at z meters per second.

I would be surprised if buildings are so massively over engineered that they would survive this force.


BTW really not sure why you talk about 6 floors being "completely removed " ?

If the question isn't a theoretical physics question I don't know what is!

I have provided all the info I know about. I don't know what weights or forces or fomulas are involved. That's why I asked for answers from the science guys. Are you a science guy?

I asked about 6 floors being removed because that's what was reported as being destroyed or severely damaged by the crash and fire. So weakened that the upper floors fell down through the damaged storeys before going on to crush the rest of the building all way down to the ground. I went one further by asking what the effect would be if there was nothing present in that gap at all.

I don't believe the block of upper floors would crush everything below it, but would be interested to hear from others with a scientific background.

BTW I'm not saying that I believe the lower part if the building wouldn't be severely damaged by the upper floors falling on it. I just don't believe that it would literally explode all the way down the ground - every single floor! Just not credible to me.

Torq

I believe you when you say you don't know what a theoretical physics question is.

It isn't anything to be ashamed about , so no worries.

Torq

The mass of the 6 floors did not disappear. It may well have increased as there was now a commercial jet on those floors.


Hence I wondered why you posed a question with missing floors.

Torq ,

Just because you posted all the info you know about, does not mean you have posted all the info needed to make a calculation.



I would be surprised if buildings are so over engineered as to withstand these millions of KG falling at speed onto the "undamaged " part of the building.

You didn't answer my question about if you are a science guy. What is your background?

And my question obviously was about physics and was theoretical.

Surely it shouldn't be too difficult for anybody of a scientific background to work out the relevant weights, forces and formulae etc? Can't you do that Mexico?

Mexico 16 Oct 18 18:56 Joined: 25 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 5,399 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Torq

The mass of the 6 floors did not disappear. It may well have increased as there was now a commercial jet on those floors.


Hence I wondered why you posed a question with missing floors.

Oh dear ! Was the commercial jet made of butter iyo ?

Dyno

The 4 planes which crashed on 9-11 were not made out of butter.


I can't really understand why anybody would read a point saying tgat floors did not disappear & the mass of these floors actually increased would come to the conclusion that the planes were made of butter.

Seems rather flawed logic to me.

Mexico. If you can present to me ANY evidence that 4 ( four ) commercial planes crashed that day in relation to what we are discussing then I will look at it.

Until then I will completely ignore anything else you post.

Any joy yet with the scientific answer to what Torquemada requested from you ?

Plenty of joy with Torqs request

I pointed out it was not theoretical physics & explained had not given enough info for a calculation.


Dyno - There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that planes crashed

Eyewitnesses, confessions, wreckage, human remains/DNA, radar, photo/ video, phone calls, black boxes, missing planes, missing people

Come on Mexico you can try harder than that.. I am not interested in what THE SUN printed the following day ..I want some proper evidence. I anticipate a very long wait

I have pointed out to you on several occasions that unless the alleged commercial airplanes had been reconstructed from butter prior to the alleged take offs on  9-11 then the whole official narrative is bunkum .. I am not going to go over that old ground again.

I can see zilch from you of any consequence in relation to the request from Torquemada.

Are you really of a scientific background mexico ?

Dyno

The planes were not made of butter

There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that 4 planes crashed.

There is just about zero evidence to suggest that commercial jets didn't crash into WTC


I don't consider myself a science expert, been a long time since studied the subject. I don't think that question is that relevant as don't need to be close to an expert to realise it is not a theoretical physics question & lacking info. As mentioned an architect/structure engineers etc. may have some experience in the matter.
Are buildings over engineersed to such an extent that millions of kg can fall at X ms-1 without destroying the lower part of the building?

Good lord Mexico. You cannot still believe there were 4 commercial Airplanes ????? The mind boggles !!!!!!

Just remembered this investigation which I somehow forgot to mention in earlier posts..

Primarily this is for Team Mexico however I somehow doubt they will take the time to consider the content.

This video is dedicated to everyone who still believes that real planes crashed on 9/11.

I ask everyone to forget everything you have learned or have been told about 9/11. Start here with a fresh clean slate and let your mind go blank. For the information in this video will prove conclusively that NO REAL PLANES were used on 9/11.

This subject has been talked about since at least 2005/6 ( and more likely since 2001 )  and despite years of ridicule it is this information that stands out as the truth.

Years of psychological mainstream media propaganda has poisoned peoples minds into accepting an official story so riddled with errors and impossibilities that it makes a mockery of all that we know about science, engineering and aviation today.

Keep an open mind and just listen to the real evidence and see for yourself that no real planes could've caused the damage we saw at all four crash sites on 9/11.

Impossible Physics, Speeds, G-Forces, Manoeuvres and Impact Dynamics.

Lack of debris, lack of any physical evidence, no serial numbers, no DNA identification or any bodies, false flight data recorder and no plane recovery identity done by the FAA.

The documentation that shows Flight's 11 & 77 did not take off on 9/11 and that ACARS data shows Flights 93 & 175 were still airborne after their alleged crash times. No passenger manifests, boarding cards, ground crew testimony no confirmed CCTV footage of any of the hijackers arriving at the airports or boarding the planes. And the fact that several hijackers were still alive after 9/11.

The evidence that goes for the no planes on 9/11 is quite extensive while evidence that goes the other way is almost non existent. It is this evidence that has been ignored and ridiculed by lying and corrupt media, politicians and military towards citizens who have demanded answers.

PLEASE DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS VIDEO AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE.


https://vimeo.com/115801417

Here is also a link for the youtube version youtube.com/watch?v=9teNgS3oC4E part 1

youtube.com/watch?v=-Yq6bbTBNuQ part 2

TTT.

Who'd have thought cold fusion and a directed energy weapon could do such things amazing work by Dr Judy Wood.
Please excuse my lateness of comment on this subject been having an educational time in recent months catching up on such issues.