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.

Aspro,im just a loon already

Mex.


An answer on WTC7 Pretty please

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

True Aspro but ooooh isn't he awful

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.