The collapse of WTC-7 by controlled demolition is sufficient to show that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy, however, I'd like to also show that the four plane crashes on 9/11 were faked as this forms part of the evidence that death and injury were staged on 9/11. Actually, through "controlled opposition" the perps have us far more focused on the controlled demolition because it can consume oodles of people's time and the last thing the perps want is to simplify analysis. They want everyone running around like headless chickens arguing over thermite, nanothermite, thermate, nuclear, directed energy weapons, and all the rest of it. Controlled demolition does not automatically mean that planes didn't crash whereas faked plane crashes automatically mean both:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a) - The four plane crashes on 9/11 were faked and no one was killed or injured in a plane.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b) - The power elite let us know that the crashes were faked by adding ridiculousness to the already ridiculous fakery.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) - Four planes crashed on 9/11 as reported in the official story.
An example of plane-into-building-fakery from the film, The Medusa Touch, where crash physics is followed more accurately than for the twin tower crashes.
1. AA11 and AA77 flights did not exist - With data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' website, Gerard Holmgren shows that two of the alleged flights, AA11 and AA77 did not exist on 9/11 (email interview with him about the flights).
2. Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator, on lack of credibility of all four plane crashes
"I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readily available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."
3. Flights 11 and 175 do not look like airliners - In the glimpse we catch of alleged Flight 11 penetrating the North tower it doesn't look like an airliner, or even a plane at all (it also seems to accelerate quickly as it hits the tower). Flight 175 looks simply like a grey plane object and lacks the definition of a 767 we would expect at the distance and clear day conditions.
Note: An argument against faked planes is witness testimony. I do not argue that there were no planes flying around: perhaps there were real planes or similar objects, or holograms were used as suggested by some or who knows what? It's irrelevant whether there were real planes or not flying around though because it's what they show us that counts ... and what they show us indicates fakery from a number of different angles.
4. Flights 11 and 175 (twin towers) footage defies Newtonian physics - When two objects collide an impact occurs. The greater the speed and mass involved (regardless of how it is distributed between the objects), the greater the impact. The lighter object will suffer the greater damage. If the lighter object is moving, while the heavier is stationary, the lighter object will suffer greater deceleration while in the opposite case the heavier object will suffer less deceleration (you always want to be in the semi-trailer not the sedan whichever vehicle is going at high speed). In the footage of both Flights 11 and 175, no deceleration is observed in the 200 ton airliners' "collision" with the buildings. In both cases, the airliner glides through the 500,000 ton building like a knife through butter. This is a physical impossibility.
5. Flight 175 pops out the other side of the South tower - Not only does Flight 175 impossibly glide into the tower, it seemingly pops out the other side although when you look closely what's shown is not a nose cone but simply dust from the explosion but, of course, the whole video is faked so it nevertheless looks like the nose cone. We are shown what looks like the nose cone pop out in this video and a witness, Mark Walsh, confirms seeing the plane, "ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side." (Mark's excited demeanour doesn't seem consistent with someone who's just witnessed a shocking tragedy.)
The perps needed the plane to crash into the building for their story, however, popping out the other side was really going above and beyond. Supports H1b.
6. Flight 93 (Shanksville plane) no recognisable wreckage - Witnesses did not recognise the site as a plane crash due to lack of wreckage.
Homer Barron: "It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane".
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)
More witness testimony
Hoodwinked in Shanksville - describes the strange changes in the story and highlights how the speculations about the plane penetrating the ground are simply ludicrous.
This video shows agency testimonies which simply do not tally with the evidence.
7. Flight 77 (Pentagon) lack of wreckage - There was no wreckage from Flight 77, only "debris". Only debris is not the result of an airliner crash. An airliner crash results in wreckage.
8. Flight 77 (Pentagon) hijacker skills - Many claim that the 330 degree manoeuvre into the Pentagon was an impossible feat but even if it were possible, it wasn't possible by "pilot" Hani Hanjour. His alleged flight instructor tells us (in a disguised voice to maintain anonymity) that little Hani would cry when he was instructed to attempt stalls and steep turns. This supports both H1a and H1b.
9. No answers to interception failure - Cynthia McKinney. former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate for the Greens party, 2008, asked in Congress, "Whether or not the activities of the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impaired the military's ability to respond to the attacks?" The response by General Richard Myers, Acting Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, was:
"The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe ... I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day, that was an FAA responsibility. But there were two CPXs [Command Post Exercises]; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska."
Seemingly, not impairing response and complete failure of response are one and the same thing.
Cynthia, like many others would simply like to know: "How did a multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence complex fail four times on one day?" She's never got an answer.
10. Phone calls from airliners on 9/11 - The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis of the problems with the alleged phone calls from Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson and the problems with the accounts of the phone calls being from mobile phones.
Bonus 11-14
11. No evidence of hijackers boarding the planes - The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis indicating that any evidence purporting to show hijackers boarding of the four flights is inauthentic.
12. No evidence for hijackers being responsible for changes to flight transponders - The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis indicating that there is no reliable evidence to support the claim that hijackers manually deactivated or altered the operation of the transponders aboard the 9/11 flights. Instead, there is a spectrum of evidence showing that hijackers did not board any of the flights.
13. Unexplained Black Box Anomalies for the Four 9/11 Planes - The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis that indicates the official account for the airliners' black boxes is false and raises serious anomalies including lack of serial numbers. Their analysis also indicates that flight data file for AA 77 was made before the FDR itself was reportedly found.
Bonus 14. Witness testimonies favour lack of planes - Gerard Holmgren produced a report on witness testimonies that indicated they supported the lack of rather than existence of planes at the WTC and the Pentagon.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com