All great info. Thanks. I was aware of that. So, it is plausible that rather than pull off the incredibly difficult task of having unqualified hijackers actually hijack a plane with box cutters and then fly complicated jets on extremely difficult flight patterns (that pilots have claimed were very difficult for experienced pilots)... instead, create the illusion of planes hitting the towers--and land the real planes and transition them as explained in your notes above. This way, he gets the planes to add to his inventory. And he gets the causes of the explosions that were actually placed by the Mossad (not to mention the Mossad wiring the entirety of the towers for controlled demolition).
Of course, no serious person believes those planes were controlled by competent pilots, let alone amateurs
CGI theory spits right in the face of every person that witnessed the impact of what appeared to be a passenger jet and it ignores everything about HOW IT IS POSSIBLE retrofitted, remotely piloted, high explosive drones impacted both towers.
One more thing, the flight manifests of every flight raise a number of red flags. That is a different story, tho.
You had the FBI on the crime scene along with numerous other alphabet agencies. The evidence- the ruble was whisked away- along with any evidence that would point to the nature of building collapse.
Drones are more plausible, for sure. But there is still a lot of CGI evidence, which I admit might be CGI-created itself.
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants? Even in the video attached to this OP's post, the people supposedly looking up are not actually looking up at a steep enough angle to see the plane, and the person taking the video tracks the plane (but if you image there is no plane, it could just be someone turning on their camera and looking through it and panning over to the buildings). The voices/sounds could have been easily edited in.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Edit: when Trump is back and the truth is revealed, if he says they were drones, then I will be the first to track you down and say you were right and that I was wrong.
You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to support something you have believed, wrongly, for too long.
Rhetorical question:
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants?
It is on you to prove THEY WERE, not on me to prove they were not.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Hold on.... how do you know these people were not CIA plants??!!
However, I will easily answer that question >> Their perspectives were obscured by tall buildings, including the WTC. I would guess a great number of people saw a unique version of the impact, many only seeing the explosion and not the drone.
You don't get to pull the "prove it" card. Sorry. That cuts both ways. I do agree that the people I have heard say there were no planes could also be CIA. I'm done, though. I have to get to work. Thanks for your insights.
PS/edit... it's not cognitive dissonance. For a long time I believed they were drones (after first thinking they were planes for a short while)... and now I've moved on to a different opinion based on what I've seen put forth. That doesn't really depict a pattern of cognitive dissonance.
All great info. Thanks. I was aware of that. So, it is plausible that rather than pull off the incredibly difficult task of having unqualified hijackers actually hijack a plane with box cutters and then fly complicated jets on extremely difficult flight patterns (that pilots have claimed were very difficult for experienced pilots)... instead, create the illusion of planes hitting the towers--and land the real planes and transition them as explained in your notes above. This way, he gets the planes to add to his inventory. And he gets the causes of the explosions that were actually placed by the Mossad (not to mention the Mossad wiring the entirety of the towers for controlled demolition).
they were drones
Of course, no serious person believes those planes were controlled by competent pilots, let alone amateurs
CGI theory spits right in the face of every person that witnessed the impact of what appeared to be a passenger jet and it ignores everything about HOW IT IS POSSIBLE retrofitted, remotely piloted, high explosive drones impacted both towers.
One more thing, the flight manifests of every flight raise a number of red flags. That is a different story, tho.
You had the FBI on the crime scene along with numerous other alphabet agencies. The evidence- the ruble was whisked away- along with any evidence that would point to the nature of building collapse.
How do you explain the video of the planes wing going behind a building, when the plane is clearly in front of?
lol you mean the 'CGI glitch' video that was highly promoted as other videos of 9/11 evidence were removed from Youtube?
find it, post it, and I'll debunk it in 5 minutes
https://www.bitchute.com/video/w0g4jOtdLHE0/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HQu0SBQ5J8Qe/
Including the strange cylindrical lump under the fuselage on the right hand side which can be seen in some frames = Flight Termination System.
I believe flight 93 was intended to hit WTC7 but the remote take over failed, hence they had to pull it with dets.
Drones are more plausible, for sure. But there is still a lot of CGI evidence, which I admit might be CGI-created itself.
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants? Even in the video attached to this OP's post, the people supposedly looking up are not actually looking up at a steep enough angle to see the plane, and the person taking the video tracks the plane (but if you image there is no plane, it could just be someone turning on their camera and looking through it and panning over to the buildings). The voices/sounds could have been easily edited in.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Edit: when Trump is back and the truth is revealed, if he says they were drones, then I will be the first to track you down and say you were right and that I was wrong.
You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to support something you have believed, wrongly, for too long.
Rhetorical question:
It is on you to prove THEY WERE, not on me to prove they were not.
Hold on.... how do you know these people were not CIA plants??!!
However, I will easily answer that question >> Their perspectives were obscured by tall buildings, including the WTC. I would guess a great number of people saw a unique version of the impact, many only seeing the explosion and not the drone.
You don't get to pull the "prove it" card. Sorry. That cuts both ways. I do agree that the people I have heard say there were no planes could also be CIA. I'm done, though. I have to get to work. Thanks for your insights.
PS/edit... it's not cognitive dissonance. For a long time I believed they were drones (after first thinking they were planes for a short while)... and now I've moved on to a different opinion based on what I've seen put forth. That doesn't really depict a pattern of cognitive dissonance.