Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Edgewood said:

Be wary that history is continually being rewritten....Those sources are also long after the fact.... not hard to invent a cover story, especially for something of this magnitude. Don't you also think that an art collective calling itself Gelatin......... as in gelignite....and blowing up the towers is just the kind of revelation of the method that the Illuminati are so well known for.

 

They were gelatin before 911 and ever since on a whole host of projects.

 

8 minutes ago, Edgewood said:

QUOTE:

 

What steps have you taken to corroborate any of that?

 

Edited by Arnie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arnie said:

 

They were gelatin before 911 and ever since on a whole host of projects.

 

 

 

So what? Don't you think these people know anything about long-term planning?


Stop with the fallacies please. Bring your pro game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgewood said:

Millions of tons?  100 mph? 

 

What are you talking about?

 

Typo that is kilograms. Whoops. The speed is from gravitational fall. Yoiu cannot have a claim that they fell close to freefall and not acknowledge what that entails after 4/5/6 seconds of fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

It's obscurred by vast amounts of dust. The metalwork is not turning to dust and there is an enormous amount of it.

 

Agree, the metal work just melts into liquid.... 

 

Burning jet fuel or even structural collapse does not turn steel into molten metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgewood said:

So what? Don't you think these people know anything about long-term planning?


Stop with the fallacies please. Bring your pro game.

 

So your pro-game is that Gelatin sounds like gelignite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Edgewood said:

Agree, the metal work just melts into liquid.... 

 

Burning jet fuel or even structural collapse does not turn steel into molten metal.

 

This is completely false. No steel is turned into liquid, the much used strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgewood said:

So about the melting steel support beams....wanna explain that away?

 

Yes. They didn't melt. Nowhere has it been claimed they melted. They bowed, steel loses significanty strength well with office fire temperatures.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

This is completely false. No steel is turned into liquid, the much used strawman.

 

You clearly are not familiar with videos of the collapse of the twin towers then.

 

Why are you here when you have no idea what you're talking about?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Yes. They didn't melt. Nowhere has it been claimed they melted. They bowed, steel loses significanty strength well with office fire temperatures.

 

I think you're done here.

 

Plenty of physical evidence and first hand testimonies about the abundance of molten steel during and after the collapse of the twin towers.

 

https://odysee.com/@cavernulous:f/gz1-ae911truth:7

 

 

Edited by Edgewood
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the announcement of 2.3 TRILLION dollars having been mislocated from stage left while everyone was glued to the goings on on stage right is worth remembering.

 

Not directly relevant to the absence or existence of a plane, sorry - I just don't like to see any debate on 9/11 without making sure everyone remembers that little item.

Edited by Tinfoil Hat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

And the announcement of 2.3 TRILLION dollars having been mislocated from stage left while everyone was glued to the goings on on stage right is worth remembering.

 

Not directly relevant to the absence or existence of a plane, sorry - I just don't like to see any debate on 9/11 without making sure everyone remembers that little item.

Plus that is precisely where the plane/missile/munition hit the pentagon. DIA Budget Office, how coincidental. Apologies, not just DIA budget office, RSW's Program and Budget Division (Resource Services-Washington) as well as Program and Budget and Managerial Accounting Divisions.

 

https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

And the announcement of 2.3 TRILLION dollars having been mislocated from stage left while everyone was glued to the goings on on stage right is worth remembering.

 

Not directly relevant to the absence or existence of a plane, sorry - I just don't like to see any debate on 9/11 without making sure everyone remembers that little item.

 

pretty sure there were 2 amounts , 2.3tril 1999 and 1.1tril 2000

 

and for clarity it was Rumsfeld who declared this accounting situation. It wasnt discovered by the democrats or a journalist. Rummy took the stage and announced it.

 

Quote

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy00/00-179.pdf
Results. The DFAS centers processed approximately $7.6 trillion in department-level
accounting entries to DoD Component financial data used to prepare departmental
reports and DoD financial statements for FY 1999. Of the $7.6 trillion in departmentlevel
accounting entries, $3.5 trillion were supported with proper research,
reconciliation, and audit trails. However, department-level accounting entries of
$2.3 trillion were made to force financial data to agree with various sources of financial
data without adequate research and reconciliation, were made to force buyer and seller
data to agree in preparation for eliminating entries, did not contain adequate
documentation and audit trails, or did not follow accounting principles.
We identified
but did not have adequate time or staff to review another $1.8 trillion in departmentlevel
accounting entries. The DoD Agency-Wide financial statements for FY 1999
were subject to a high risk of material misstatement. The sheer magnitude of
department-level accounting entries required to compile the DoD financial statements
for FY 1999 highlights the difficulties and problems that DoD encountered in
attempting to produce accurate and reliable financial information using existing systems
and processes. The largest number of department-level accounting entries were made
for the Navy General Fund because DFAS Cleveland Center processed both monthly
and year-end department-level accounting entries for the Navy General Fund. For
details of the audit results, see the Finding section of the report. See Appendix A for
details of the management control program as it relates to the processing of departmentlevel
accounting entries.

 

Quote

September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions

In a speech to the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25 percent of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for, and quotes a long-time defense budget analyst: "(Their) numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year." Coverage of this rather shocking story is nearly nonexistent given the events of the next day. (US Department of Defense, 9/10/2001; CBS News, 1/29/2002) In April 2002 it will be revealed that $1.1 trillion of the missing money comes from the 2000 fiscal year. Auditors won't even quantify how much money is missing from fiscal year 2001, causing "some (to) fear it's worse" than 2000. The Department of the Army will state that it won't publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack." (Insight, 4/29/2002) This $1.1 trillion plus unknown additional amounts continues to remain unaccounted for, and auditors say it may take eight years of reorganization before a proper accounting can be done. (Insight, 8/21/2003)

http://complete911timeline.org/context.jsp?item=a091001defensebudget

 

this kind of accounting obsfucation is well beyond Rumsfeld. This is a designed cock up system.

Edited by zArk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

False. Why would they hold together with millions of tons hitting them at 100+mph?

Not false, each floor only  drops one floor to the next before meeting resistance ,your assertion of millions of tons at 100 mph is clearly wrong as terminal velocity is 120 miles per second per second and one floor distance is not nearly enough to reach that speed in your chain of events ,so yes the floors would hold together with that amount of steel in them ,so I ask again how was that amount of just formed

,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2022 at 3:47 AM, Arnie said:

 

Typo that is kilograms. Whoops. The speed is from gravitational fall. Yoiu cannot have a claim that they fell close to freefall and not acknowledge what that entails after 4/5/6 seconds of fall.

Of course you can't claim close to free fall speed with your hypothesis, yet the buildings clearly did, therefore my only conclusion is you are obviously incorrect and since you are incorrect ,visa vee  so is the official story

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 1:52 PM, Arnie said:

 

Yes. They didn't melt. Nowhere has it been claimed they melted. They bowed, steel loses significanty strength well with office fire temperatures.

 

9/11 Heroes Saw Molten Steel Flowing Like Lava in Ruins of WTC

 

9/11 Witnesses: "Molten Steel- Like You're In a Foundry"

 

Edited by JCP
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 11:30 AM, webtrekker said:

I think the work of Dr Judy Wood, R.I.P, is of paramount importance when trying to determine the reasons behind the pulverisation (not collapse!) of the towers. It should be the basis of everyone's reasoning and below I have provided a link to her book 'Where Did The Towers Go?' I make no excuses for posting this link. If you want to buy the book then feel free, but I think it's information that should be available in the public domain and not just to people with £50 to spare.

 

[Click image to download PDF, or use the link below] The book contains many pages (around 550 I think) so is best viewed in Adobe Reader and not through your browser.

 

WDTTG

 

https://fudgeys.co.uk/WDTTG_towersocr_compressed.pdf

 

If you're stuck for time and want a quick summary then see her website - http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

 

Her old website is here and provides much of the information that is used in her book. Well worth a look.

 

 

 

 

 

 


I am now a decent way in to this book and will comment on it properly when I am done, but wanted to say thank you for posting it very important reading/information. Alarmingly some USA fires appear to follow similar patterns of melted metals, buildings turning to dust, things burning from the inside out (such as trees which still remain upright) etc that may elude to similar technology being used for those as well, Paradise California comes to mind. 

image.jpeg.8c28dba97eca1ab922349d81aded99de.jpeg
It would also explain why thermite or thermite compounds were found if indeed thermite was not involved at all.

 

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


I am now a decent way in to this book and will comment on it properly when I am done, but wanted to say thank you for posting it very important reading/information. Alarmingly some USA fires appear to follow similar patterns of melted metals, buildings turning to dust, things burning from the inside out (such as trees which still remain upright) etc that may elude to similar technology being used for those as well, Paradise California comes to mind. 

image.jpeg.8c28dba97eca1ab922349d81aded99de.jpeg
It would also explain why thermite or thermite compounds were found if indeed thermite was not involved at all.

 

 

It begs the question, doesn't it: 'If they have such powerful technology such as Directed Energy Weapons, surely they'd be wanting to try them out all over the place, and not just on the Twin Towers?'

 

I believe that they do possess this technology and that Hurricane Erin, just off the coast of NYC on 9/11 was no coincidence, but in fact a gigantic natural Tesla coil from where they obtained the energy. Look at the very strange eye of the hurricane.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Look at the very strange eye of the hurricane.

I do not know enough about hurricanes to spot a normal eye of a storm vs an unnatural one, what do you mean by very strange regarding hurricane erin? I am sure it was no coincidence though. Nothing apparently is anymore 😆

I do not believe that is how the energy is derived, many methods to produce "free energy"

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

I do not know enough about hurricanes to spot a normal eye of a storm vs an unnatural one, what do you mean by very strange regarding hurricane erin? I am sure it was no coincidence though. Nothing apparently is anymore 😆

I do not believe that is how the energy is derived, many methods to produce "free energy"

 

I'm no hurricane expert either, but compared to the relatively calm eye I've seen in most hurricane images, Erin's eye looks remarkably disturbed ...

 

2022-09-19_13-07-55.png.aeac7e1aab25c39cf56e3c302701bb7c.png

 

As for it being no coincidence you're damn right there! I know you are working your way through the book so I'll simply point you to Chapter 18 where she (Dr Wood) brings up the issue of why this hurricane, almost as large and poweful as Katrina, went unreported all day on 9/11, even though it had been on a direct course for NYC for 4 days previous!

 

Also, the winds in Erin were reported to be around 120mph, ony 20mph less than the 140mph designed wind loading for the WTC towers. How could any news channel not report this? Did they already know the hurricane was going to make a miraculous, unprecedented, 150° turn after 9/11?

 

Good on you for reading the book though. I'm sure you won't be disappointed and will be left with many new things to think about. 👍

 

 

 

 

Edited by webtrekker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main questions is, to my mind anyway, why weren't vast areas of NY EVACUATED prior to 9/11 given the existence of Hurricane Erin headed directly towards them and, to all intents and purpose, about to make landfall, causing widespread destruction and flooding?

 

Remember, this was the track of Erin ...

 

erin_track_WI.gif.0d240de4b3328363d508cb4951e109d3.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by webtrekker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, webtrekker said:

One of the main questions is, to my mind anyway, why weren't vast areas of NY EVACUATED prior to 9/11 given the existence of Hurricane Erin headed directly towards them and, to all intents and purpose, about to make landfall, causing widespread destruction and flooding?

 

 

 

Yes that one was weird ,from memory it stopped before land fall and started heading north up the coast when it was originally traveling in a south westerly direction, if it's the one I'm thinking of

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...