I just posted this in another comment...
There is nothing to explain. I lived in NY (Not NY city). I was working that morning. We had the radio playing a news station. I believe it was WCBS out of NYC.
A female reporter said over the radio that a small plane hit one of the towers. At that moment none of us thought to much about it.
I am pointing out that the reporter was female because of what she said next and how we all looked at each other.
A little while later she reported that another small plane hit the second tower. She wondered if the two planes had anything to do with each other and if it was an attack and not an accident.
The reason it stuck out at me that the reporter was female is because of another story from years before that had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet I connected those two stories and started to question the news since.
The first happened many years before.
Way back when Pope John Paul was shot another female reporter was talking about the Pope in the hospital. The hospital was operating on the Pope and her report ended saying that this is the first time that the Vatican admitted that the Pope had intestines.
At first glance those two stories should have nothing to do with each other. Yet through those two connections my eyes started to open.
I also remember that for weeks after 9/11 there were no pictures or videos of the towers or anything else being hit. I really remember that because I could not believe that with all the cameras all over the place nothing was captured.
Then almost out of nowhere videos of the jets hitting the towers were shown. That is when they showed a slow motion video of the jet hitting the tower. You could see the start of a fire where the jet hit and on the other side of the tower the very beginning of the jet exiting the building before smoke covered everything. At first it did not hit me that there is no way in the world that the jet could keep it's shape going through the building but I remembered the video. or more importantly I remember the bulge coming out of the building that was supposed to be the Jet exiting the building.
As far as I am concerned there is no way in the world that two Jets, two missiles and or two anything else took down those towers. Those towers came down perfectly within their footprint. All three of them.
If that was even possible you would think that the side of the tower that was hit would be the weakest side and would give way before the other side of the tower. Those towers did not fall with one floor after another collapsing. They fell in a free fall just like a controlled demolition.
There where NO Pictures and videos of the jets hitting for weeks later. I know because I was trying to find them to see for myself. There was nothing available.
Of course most people were in shock at the time and everyone was concerned about war. There was no reason to worry about seeing pictures of Jets hitting the towers.
I just wanted to know why the reporter thought they were small planes to start with. How could anybody mix that story up? It didn't occur to me that maybe something else took down the towers.
Q posted this one statement that really stuck out with me when it was posted.
That statement was Think for yourself trust yourself.
I know what I remembered. I also know that people are saying things now about seeing pictures and videos of those Jets hitting to towers right after it happened.
I am going to stick with trusting myself. There were no pictures or videos of anything hitting those towers for weeks afterwards.
Also the first videos that did come out are not the same as the ones we can see now.
I cannot prove this to you. I can only tell you what I experienced. As far as those millions of witnesses. I am not sure what they saw because there was nothing to see at the time
i am sorry but your memory is incorrect. There were videos of the first jet hitting the tower prior to the second one. Fox had videos of both playing non stop that whole morning. I worked evening shift at that time and several of my friends and i met at one of their houses and watched Fox replay those videos and others from other perspectives over and over that morning prior to going to work.
As far as what took down those towers i am in agreement with you, there was something more involved than just the planes hitting them,
I remember them saying it was small planes. But I remember watching on live tv and seeing planes .... but I was so horrified and I know in that state you can not always trust your eyes
No offense. But the whole problem was them taking the footage off of the tv, bc it was too inciting.
We didn’t watch the first plane hit, but we absolutely watched the second plane hit. Then we had videos come up of the first plane hitting, as well.
I do not believe the official narrative(s), but Dear Lord, they played nonstop on our TVs for 3 whole weeks.
I’m genuinely concerned that you somehow didn’t see any of that, live and on replay, because it was the only thing on television for weeks.....
Your whole statement about not seeing footage is odd.
(No offense- it just seems incredulous to me that anyone has this particular memory after 9/11
Also, what is this?
The first happened many years before.
Way back when Pope John Paul was shot another female reporter was talking about the Pope in the hospital. The hospital was operating on the Pope and her report ended saying that this is the first time that the Vatican admitted that the Pope had intestines
That was very odd. There was a time when people believed that the Pope was not as human as everybody else. That somehow God had set them aside for a special purpose.
I assume the reporter was a catholic and was amazed that the Pope could have problems just like anybody else.
I also have never met anyone in my entire life who didn’t know what intestines were and would even entertain the idea that the pope didn’t have them.
And I’m from dirt floor poor southern stock whose own parents didn’t even graduate high school.
I cannot imagine that being said in the last 100 years, let alone the last 50. It just makes zero sense. Not even people from Haiti would still think like that.
You may not question what you saw and heard, but Fren, I am.
Neither of those two statements is based in reality, and that worries me a great deal.
Maybe no one else will tell you this, but I cannot not tell you.
The reporter was not saying the Pope did not have intestines. Good grief man.
She was saying it was the first time that the church admitted that the Pope was a regular person just like everybody else.
The point was not that she thought otherwise. The point was that up until then the church did not admit that the Pope was only a man.
NOBODY thought that the Pope was not human.
The silly idea was that MAYBE The Pope may be more than human but the church never said that wasn't true until then.
Everyone knew that wasn't true. It's only that the church did not address it. It was most likely because of the mistaken belief that the Pope when he spoke was speaking for God. God had his hand on the Pope and somehow the Pope was now something more.
The church never said he wasn't but they never corrected any thoughts that just maybe he was.
That opened my eyes. Not because of what she said about the Pope. I realized how easily people including myself can believe almost anything if people in authority tell us it's true.
There is no way in the world two jets took down those two towers (three towers) It was only a fire and many other high rises have completely caught fire and did not collapse.
There is also no way a jet hit the pentagon and then the wings folded up and everything went into the building. Most of the wings should have been on the outside of the building. The hole in the wall was not big enough for the wings to go in.
You are correct. Weeks of deep diving on this and using my brain to know that objects don't melt into another object have led to my conclusion that there were no planes flying into towers or the Pentagon or a field. I also heard a couple early interviews with witnesses calling into radio stations about explosions. When asled about seeing planes hit, they said what planes. Why do people not think that this was a simple Hollywood production with a loop of film playing worldwide with a printed script to go with the movie? We watch crazy things on movies and TV that we know aren't real, yet people insist the footage of a plane melting inside a building is real. And yes, show me some plane parts.
I remember they "found" all the passports of the "terrorists". They couldn't ID hundreds of people that died. Yet at the greatest point of impact which you would assume would be the greatest damage being that the Jets "disappeared" they were able to found the passports.
That may very well be the first time in history that any, never mind three towers collapsed within their own footprints because of a fire.
A fire caused by jet fuel that burns at a lower temp then is required to melt steel in order for the building to collapse. To claim that building number 7 (the third tower to collapse) came down because fires fueled by office furnishings really pushes reality. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Why in the world do companies pay so much money to demolition experts to tear down mega structures so that they fall within their own footprint?
We now see all they need to do is start fires and just let the steel and concrete buildings collapse in complete control on their own.
I just posted this in another comment... There is nothing to explain. I lived in NY (Not NY city). I was working that morning. We had the radio playing a news station. I believe it was WCBS out of NYC.
A female reporter said over the radio that a small plane hit one of the towers. At that moment none of us thought to much about it.
I am pointing out that the reporter was female because of what she said next and how we all looked at each other.
A little while later she reported that another small plane hit the second tower. She wondered if the two planes had anything to do with each other and if it was an attack and not an accident.
The reason it stuck out at me that the reporter was female is because of another story from years before that had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet I connected those two stories and started to question the news since.
The first happened many years before.
Way back when Pope John Paul was shot another female reporter was talking about the Pope in the hospital. The hospital was operating on the Pope and her report ended saying that this is the first time that the Vatican admitted that the Pope had intestines.
At first glance those two stories should have nothing to do with each other. Yet through those two connections my eyes started to open.
I also remember that for weeks after 9/11 there were no pictures or videos of the towers or anything else being hit. I really remember that because I could not believe that with all the cameras all over the place nothing was captured.
Then almost out of nowhere videos of the jets hitting the towers were shown. That is when they showed a slow motion video of the jet hitting the tower. You could see the start of a fire where the jet hit and on the other side of the tower the very beginning of the jet exiting the building before smoke covered everything. At first it did not hit me that there is no way in the world that the jet could keep it's shape going through the building but I remembered the video. or more importantly I remember the bulge coming out of the building that was supposed to be the Jet exiting the building.
As far as I am concerned there is no way in the world that two Jets, two missiles and or two anything else took down those towers. Those towers came down perfectly within their footprint. All three of them.
If that was even possible you would think that the side of the tower that was hit would be the weakest side and would give way before the other side of the tower. Those towers did not fall with one floor after another collapsing. They fell in a free fall just like a controlled demolition.
There where NO Pictures and videos of the jets hitting for weeks later. I know because I was trying to find them to see for myself. There was nothing available.
Of course most people were in shock at the time and everyone was concerned about war. There was no reason to worry about seeing pictures of Jets hitting the towers.
I just wanted to know why the reporter thought they were small planes to start with. How could anybody mix that story up? It didn't occur to me that maybe something else took down the towers.
Q posted this one statement that really stuck out with me when it was posted.
That statement was Think for yourself trust yourself.
https://qposts.online/?q=trust+yourself&s=keyword
I know what I remembered. I also know that people are saying things now about seeing pictures and videos of those Jets hitting to towers right after it happened.
I am going to stick with trusting myself. There were no pictures or videos of anything hitting those towers for weeks afterwards.
Also the first videos that did come out are not the same as the ones we can see now.
I cannot prove this to you. I can only tell you what I experienced. As far as those millions of witnesses. I am not sure what they saw because there was nothing to see at the time
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zg0MPXXT/it-smells-like-panic-in-dc-with-/
i am sorry but your memory is incorrect. There were videos of the first jet hitting the tower prior to the second one. Fox had videos of both playing non stop that whole morning. I worked evening shift at that time and several of my friends and i met at one of their houses and watched Fox replay those videos and others from other perspectives over and over that morning prior to going to work.
As far as what took down those towers i am in agreement with you, there was something more involved than just the planes hitting them,
I remember them saying it was small planes. But I remember watching on live tv and seeing planes .... but I was so horrified and I know in that state you can not always trust your eyes
No offense. But the whole problem was them taking the footage off of the tv, bc it was too inciting.
We didn’t watch the first plane hit, but we absolutely watched the second plane hit. Then we had videos come up of the first plane hitting, as well.
I do not believe the official narrative(s), but Dear Lord, they played nonstop on our TVs for 3 whole weeks.
I’m genuinely concerned that you somehow didn’t see any of that, live and on replay, because it was the only thing on television for weeks.....
Your whole statement about not seeing footage is odd.
(No offense- it just seems incredulous to me that anyone has this particular memory after 9/11
Also, what is this?
I’m really scratching my head over this statement
That was very odd. There was a time when people believed that the Pope was not as human as everybody else. That somehow God had set them aside for a special purpose. I assume the reporter was a catholic and was amazed that the Pope could have problems just like anybody else.
I remember it well, as I lived through it.
I also have never met anyone in my entire life who didn’t know what intestines were and would even entertain the idea that the pope didn’t have them.
And I’m from dirt floor poor southern stock whose own parents didn’t even graduate high school.
I cannot imagine that being said in the last 100 years, let alone the last 50. It just makes zero sense. Not even people from Haiti would still think like that.
You may not question what you saw and heard, but Fren, I am.
Neither of those two statements is based in reality, and that worries me a great deal.
Maybe no one else will tell you this, but I cannot not tell you.
The reporter was not saying the Pope did not have intestines. Good grief man. She was saying it was the first time that the church admitted that the Pope was a regular person just like everybody else.
The point was not that she thought otherwise. The point was that up until then the church did not admit that the Pope was only a man.
NOBODY thought that the Pope was not human.
The silly idea was that MAYBE The Pope may be more than human but the church never said that wasn't true until then.
Everyone knew that wasn't true. It's only that the church did not address it. It was most likely because of the mistaken belief that the Pope when he spoke was speaking for God. God had his hand on the Pope and somehow the Pope was now something more.
The church never said he wasn't but they never corrected any thoughts that just maybe he was.
That opened my eyes. Not because of what she said about the Pope. I realized how easily people including myself can believe almost anything if people in authority tell us it's true.
There is no way in the world two jets took down those two towers (three towers) It was only a fire and many other high rises have completely caught fire and did not collapse.
There is also no way a jet hit the pentagon and then the wings folded up and everything went into the building. Most of the wings should have been on the outside of the building. The hole in the wall was not big enough for the wings to go in.
I'm with you. That's weird.
You are correct. Weeks of deep diving on this and using my brain to know that objects don't melt into another object have led to my conclusion that there were no planes flying into towers or the Pentagon or a field. I also heard a couple early interviews with witnesses calling into radio stations about explosions. When asled about seeing planes hit, they said what planes. Why do people not think that this was a simple Hollywood production with a loop of film playing worldwide with a printed script to go with the movie? We watch crazy things on movies and TV that we know aren't real, yet people insist the footage of a plane melting inside a building is real. And yes, show me some plane parts.
Wag the Dog
Rent it. Watch it.
I remember they "found" all the passports of the "terrorists". They couldn't ID hundreds of people that died. Yet at the greatest point of impact which you would assume would be the greatest damage being that the Jets "disappeared" they were able to found the passports.
That may very well be the first time in history that any, never mind three towers collapsed within their own footprints because of a fire. A fire caused by jet fuel that burns at a lower temp then is required to melt steel in order for the building to collapse. To claim that building number 7 (the third tower to collapse) came down because fires fueled by office furnishings really pushes reality. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Why in the world do companies pay so much money to demolition experts to tear down mega structures so that they fall within their own footprint? We now see all they need to do is start fires and just let the steel and concrete buildings collapse in complete control on their own.