Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

The reporter clearly states that some people thought they saw a missile. 

 

Then in the other clip they modified the audio in the live stream and replaced missile with plane but by mistake left in the start of the word missile. 


ah.......l thought you double posted accidentally......l only watched one of them.
l'll listen to both then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

yea I did double post by mistake then updated the correct video but found out it is age restricted. 


yeah....l was just scratching my head trying to work out what you had / hadnt posted / edited.
l have a YT account so l'll have a look.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

no planes on 9/11 for sure, I have no doubt. these are the reasons why. 

 

1) it is not possible for an airplane to fly at that altitude at that speed without breaking up

2) the impact of the plane in to the buildings as visible on the videos, is not valid physics and a video manipulation is proven without any doubt 

3) the impact hole is consistent with a missile impact on the video and photo evidence

4) the audio recorded from a meeting are consistent with a missile impact. 

5) the mainstream media had several missiles/plane edits in its audio 

6) videos of the plane approaching looks like a missile was in the original footage based on the panning. 

7) evidence from skygate documentary on transponder hacking and flight path irregularities. 

8) problematic passengers lists including raytheon employees and other irregularities. 

 

1 hour ago, legion said:


Pentagon AND the twin towers ?

 

1 hour ago, SimonTV said:

 

 

Pentagon was a missile and shaped charges, possibly from a helicopter or a land to land not sure to be honest but definitely a missile hitting pentagon. The punch out hole photo evidence on its own proves this. After the initial impact they did shaped charges to increase the damage. 

 

The twin tower was tomahawk missiles likely from american US naval vessel that had been manipulated in to firing. They hit the secure data centers of securities brokers and law firms responsible for investigating financial fraud. Then rolled on or sprayed on nano thermate gel which was sprayed on to the steel reinforced concrete floors in the months prior and the state of the art computer controlled remote top down detonation. 

 

Building 7 was taken down with existing controlled demolition as it was likely wired up for self detonation as part of its security measures. 

 

Shankesville was likely a bomb blowing up a trailer or they used a light jet to blow up with a missile. 

 

59 minutes ago, legion said:


photos - videos - witnesses ?
 

 

48 minutes ago, legion said:


where does anyone mention missiles into the towers ?
 

 

41 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

The reporter clearly states that some people thought they saw a missile. 

 

Then in the other clip they modified the audio in the live stream and replaced missile with plane but by mistake left in the start of the word missile. 

 

34 minutes ago, legion said:


ah.......l thought you double posted accidentally......l only watched one of them.
l'll listen to both then.

 

33 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

yea I did double post by mistake then updated the correct video but found out it is age restricted. 

 

27 minutes ago, legion said:


yeah....l was just scratching my head trying to work out what you had / hadnt posted / edited.
l have a YT account so l'll have a look.
 


l didnt hear the M slip....

l did hear one of the news anchors state he'd heard that some people thought they saw missiles - hearsay IMO
 

l'm with you on all your other points around that day except - no planes = missiles at the towers
 

Edited by legion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, legion said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


l didnt here the M slip....

l did hear one of the news anchors state he'd heard that some people thought they saw missiles - hearsay IMO
 

l'm with you on all your other points around that day except - no planes = missiles at the towers
 

The M Slip is right at the start of September Clues, literally 1 minute in. The reporter is asking Winston

 

Quote

Are you in the North side there where the M... plane made contact

 

 

https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, legion said:


sounds more like hesitation and the start of the classic - erm  - that most of us do when talking

That's up to you if you want to believe that. But lets not forget Winston is next to the building looking at the size of the hole as the second plane hits. But he doesn't mention a plane, his microphone doesn't pick up the noise from a screaming commercial jet or the resulting explosions of it crashing into the building he's standing next to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missile YouTube videos, don't prove anything I'm afraid. The reporters are saying they do not know what hit the first tower, some people thin it may be missiles, some think it may be a plane, when the second plane hits the second tower they then conclude, the first tower hit was most probably a plane.  He says Missile as a normal slip as clearly missile is also on his mind. 

 

The Winston part of the footage;  Winston is on the ground facing the first tower which has been hit, hes looking up over 1000ft to tell us what he can see, while hes doing this the second plane comes from behind the second tower (he cannot see the plane approaching) when the second planes hits the second building, Winston can then see all the debris and fire coming through the other side of that building.

 

I've read this thread in its entirety over the past few days and some of you, dont actually want to know the truth, you just want you're theory to be correct.  If you want the truth you're going to have to look at the sources a little better and more critically, some of the theory's and "evidence" you accept and push because it fits you're narrative makes you look stupid and damages you're credibility. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lake said:

 

Please expand on this with the links to prove .... thank you.

https://rense.com/general63/hiding.htm

 

 

and for balance

 

Quote

The 737-300,400, and 500 use CFM56-3 engines, the 737-600,700,800, and 900 use CFM56-7 engines. I believe UA's 767s are PW4000 powered, and AA's are GE CF6 powered. If I remember right, the CFM56 shares similar shaft design with CF6, and the only part of the CFM56 that deviates designwise from CF6 are the compressors, which are Snecma M6 derrived.

The theory that the engine is planted is total BS. Stupid people just wanting attention make that kind of crap up.

 

 


 

Quote

Admittedly the engine shown is not a JT9/PW4000 as used by United on the 767. However, the fundamental concepts behind large modern turbofans are all very similar. In the link I have provided the only solid material in the engine is basically confined to the black areas of the cross section. All other colors (including white) are just air which has undergone varying degrees of molestation.

I wish I had an appropriate forum to illustrate many of the things I am trying to discuss here. Much of it is simple in concept but difficult to illustrate with even a 2-D cross section (let alone black and white text). Although I fail to eloquently make my point here, I will provide a real world example to show how an off-design condition (which would certainly be the case for the engines we are discussing) can affect an engine.

Engines are transported in specially designed cradles which may be strapped to a tractor trailer or freighter aircraft as cargo. These cradles generallly have 2 main components separated by a shock absorbing interface. If a careless individual would so much as misrig one of the tie down straps on an engine shipment cradle, a bearing inspection could be required. This can necessitate a complete disassembly of the engine just to ensure that the loads encounted during shipment did not damage the internal bearings. The loads in question would have been realized while the engine was being transported on a tractor trailer at 55-65 mph!

The instantaneous g-loading in the above case can actually be quite severe if an engine is not secured properly, but the conditions under which this damage can occur (highway driving) is experienced quite frequently by most people. This is a quick and dirty attempt to illustrate how a slight off design operational condition can damage an engine that was conceived to operate with great longevity *within its operational envelope*.

To those without an interest in jet engines (maybe 3 of you!), the point I am attempting to illustrate is really no different than considering an egg or a Coke can. Compare the loading that these 2 items can endure in the vertical vs. horizontal cases.

 

 

i distinctly remember this issue flying in and out of forums. It really stuck with me as the engine was never taken up by the big voices and there was a quiet agreement that the engine was all wrong and didnt match the claimed plane

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aceofspades said:

The missile YouTube videos, don't prove anything I'm afraid. The reporters are saying they do not know what hit the first tower, some people thin it may be missiles, some think it may be a plane, when the second plane hits the second tower they then conclude, the first tower hit was most probably a plane.  He says Missile as a normal slip as clearly missile is also on his mind. 

 

The Winston part of the footage;  Winston is on the ground facing the first tower which has been hit, hes looking up over 1000ft to tell us what he can see, while hes doing this the second plane comes from behind the second tower (he cannot see the plane approaching) when the second planes hits the second building, Winston can then see all the debris and fire coming through the other side of that building.

 

I've read this thread in its entirety over the past few days and some of you, dont actually want to know the truth, you just want you're theory to be correct.  If you want the truth you're going to have to look at the sources a little better and more critically, some of the theory's and "evidence" you accept and push because it fits you're narrative makes you look stupid and damages you're credibility. 

Shut up. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Aceofspades said:

Get some real evidence in here, not all that fake nonsense.

 

that Judy Wood is terrible, gives us a point sniggers and moves on, absolute rubbish. 

 

Ok, I've found a way to get rid of all that 'fake nonsense' you were on about ...

 

I've switched you to IGNORE!

 

Bye.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aceofspades said:

The missile YouTube videos, don't prove anything I'm afraid. The reporters are saying they do not know what hit the first tower, some people thin it may be missiles, some think it may be a plane, when the second plane hits the second tower they then conclude, the first tower hit was most probably a plane.  He says Missile as a normal slip as clearly missile is also on his mind. 

 

The Winston part of the footage;  Winston is on the ground facing the first tower which has been hit, hes looking up over 1000ft to tell us what he can see, while hes doing this the second plane comes from behind the second tower (he cannot see the plane approaching) when the second planes hits the second building, Winston can then see all the debris and fire coming through the other side of that building.

 

I've read this thread in its entirety over the past few days and some of you, dont actually want to know the truth, you just want you're theory to be correct.  If you want the truth you're going to have to look at the sources a little better and more critically, some of the theory's and "evidence" you accept and push because it fits you're narrative makes you look stupid and damages you're credibility. 

Fuck off

 

56 minutes ago, Aceofspades said:

Get some real evidence in here, not all that fake nonsense.

 

that Judy Wood is terrible, gives us a point sniggers and moves on, absolute rubbish. 

Fuck off

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lake said:

ilndksgc.gif.3cfed69fd8d4ea24eadbad56f4f7589f.gif

 

1801241352_thishitpentagon.jpg.fcf88b2b86b55116de908e4b28e0862f.jpg

 

For the Pentagon I mean!

brilliant!

posting a cut and paste picture on a thread about tv fakery

 

irony is astounding

 

plus it will just rile some members who are trying to get their opinion across and encourage the trolls to double down on the p55 take

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been having a delve.

No-one...and I mean no-one has ever mentioned the Twin Towers window cleaners. 

 

Over worked, under paid and were snubbed in 2000 for their Xmas bonus apparently. How much can a window cleaner take before they snap and act..? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2022 at 2:26 PM, Aceofspades said:

that Judy Wood is terrible, gives us a point sniggers and moves on, absolute rubbish. 


Have you read her book in its entirety and come to that conclusion? watched interviews? lectures and presentations? Or are you basing your opinion on your opinion rather than raw data combed through by a forensic material sciences expert. Of course this doesn't mean it is true does it but the evidence laid out within is eye opening at the very very least. 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...