I still say that these particular planes did exist and were just cover for the explosives.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
<[]<<<
There is no getting past,
"The Nose Out Shot."
NYC has zillions of cameras shooting the skyline constantly, yet we only see a couple of versions of the planes hitting the towers? How can that be? Oh, because whoever did the deed had the tech to manipulate the images, squash any dissent, and televise the same images over and over and over until the general public believes this to be the only versions available.
What zillions of cameras? Camera phones weren't even on the market yet back then.
There are a ton of old videos, YouTube memory holed them. NYC is one of the most videoed skylines in the world. Many still cameras on top of buildings just recording the skylines 24/7. Many of them were fake news cameras and they are not releasing the footage.
All the videos taken by random people were shown on the media. Does the media edit videos? Draw your own conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsGcIkevyHM
That looks pretty real to me and it was on youtube, the planes were used in conjunction with the explosives in the basement put there by GW. Read the comments go find those people saying they saw this and what they've been through and then tell them it was fake. I won't ever forget that day, and regardless of whether you believe the planes were real or not, PEOPLE DIED.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6VWmo8kDM8 do you see that shadow falling, that's really some incredible detail if they were able to fake it. I don't think that was a person, but people were diving off the towers so they wouldn't die in the fire from the planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPjhbt_pTnU More footage from people on the streets, tell me did they digitally edit in the sound too?
Prove what you say, and become a millionaire. Then you could make a film and be even more famous---like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(1982_film)
Kek, after a few seconds, I got it.
digitally inserted in real time. those planes landed safely.
where?
Previously on Lost…
Westover Massachusetts. Air Force Base, closed that day to all personnel. 10000 foot runway, needed for landing heavy. The timing between take off and the start of the phone calls is exactly perfect for all four flights. Reliable cell calls could only be made on the ground. Also there are witnesses.
Right, in 2001 those cellphone calls were impossible to connect from flight. Your explanation very likely answers a large piece of the puzzle. It also happens to fit with both the no-planes and with the plane-replacement theory. Planes or no planes has been one of the most contentious issues of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Currently there is a new initiative spearheaded by former fire chief and Congressman Curt Weldon to a new Presidential Commission to re-investigate 9/11. If you've listened to his recent interviews he wants the commission to be completely composed of civilians. No politicians whatsoever to run interference. I hope he is successful. It will be a powerful adjunct to the Comer/Luna declassification efforts, and independent of it.
Here's the link to their document calling for a new investigation. https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Weldon_Presidential_Commission_2025_v13.pdf
I've read other accounts that included different planes being subbed in while Westover was used as you mention; these accounts also describe the locations where the air traffic control could be fooled into accepting the swaps. Seemed very plausible to me, and I believe real planes were used.
But ... not being there, and not having done extensive research on it, my belief could be mistaken. Hopefully we will have an actual reveal that will be accepted.
We may never know. It could have all been faked.
The brother of my manager at work was injured in the fall of the Towers. He was a doctor that had rushed to the scene to aid any survivors, and was clobbered pretty bad. It is real life that makes "it's all fake" a pathetic denial of reality.
well obviously the buildings were real, and actually collapsed. but it's been proven several times over that the planes were digital inserts.
Not when they find the structural material of the airplane in the remains. Eyewitness accounts are not "digital inserts."
eyewitness accounts do not outweigh the evidence to the contrary, which is irrefutable.
Nonsense. Plenty of undoctored video images. And eyewitnesses didn't see any digital fakes. You are working hard to believe in a fantasy.
I don’t doubt that real people were injured in a real collapse. I don’t doubt that your manager’s brother was injured there. I don’t even doubt that planes hit the towers, though I expect explosives were used.
However, I don’t KNOW a single one of those things, I only believe them.
There are plenty of fake things that can be misrepresented even to people present, involved, witnessing. It’s probably very frustrating, but that’s what we have to deal with. Even when people are honestly stating what they perceived, perception can be mistaken, misremembered, or tricked.
I’ve run into this exact problem myself. Just understand it’s nothing personal. Give your testimony, and that’s all you can do.
Imagine you knew people who’d come back to life from being dead for 12 hours, then talked with someone who didn’t believe in God and thought the idea was ridiculous, except you knew of almost a dozen such miraculous events.
Same thing.
Simple. The planes and the towers and the collapse were all real. There were no explosives. There were no physical impossibilities. I haven't seen any faked imagery. All the doubt I have heard comes from people who don't understand collision dynamics, don't understand combustion chemistry, and don't understand inertial restraint of a rapid failure process. So they fill the holes of their ignorance with "common sense" imagination---which is simply in error.
I don't see any relevance to your imaginary hypothetical. If anything, the normal world and eyewitnesses are the ones who saw a real event, and the conspiracy theorists think the idea is so miraculous as to be ridiculous.
Re-read, fren. I didn’t state any hypothetical situation.
The comment is an assertion of dealing with epistemology - studying what we truly know and how we know it - with regards to other people, and what they cannot know in a world filled with liars, deception, and misperception.
I stated that I have had people tell me things were fake in a world where I had direct contact with the thing they were calling fake.
It’s not their fault, it’s a byproduct of what we are dealing with. Whether my tactic for dealing with that is good or not is a separate question, but I don’t see any other viable solution. Getting angry at it only hurts yourself, at best.
I quote: "Imagine you knew people who come back to life from being dead for 12 hours..." (and on) I guess you don't read what you write. Any reference to an imaginary situation is a hypothetical situation.
In epistemology, facts reign supreme. I am inclined to take someone's word for it, if they have no apparent "tells" or motives for dishonesty. If someone is known to be dishonest, I move any claims into the "maybe, I'll see" category. How do I know what they cannot know? That is asserting a negative, very hard to substantiate.
We agree on having experience with people who claim things were fake that they had no way of knowing were fake.
As someone trained in science and technology, I am inclined to give a lot of weight to any objective evidence, such as photographs. There was one video of one of the planes on its fatal run past intervening buildings, and hitting the Twin Towers. It had been deplored as "fake" because of the seeming dimensional mismatch of how distant the airplane was, relative to the buildings. One wingtip seemed to be in front of a building when it (seemingly) should have been behind. "Aha! Proof it was fake!" Well, it turned out that a very diligent anon plotted the alleged track of the airplane on a map of the buildings, along with building heights, and concluded that the video was factual. What was happening was the complete loss of monocular depth perception resulting from telephoto lenses, through the suppression of perspective. (I used to marvel at this, watching televised football games in the 1950s. Somehow the fans on the far side of the field seemed larger than the players in mid-field. For a telephoto lens at a distant target, everything in view was at the "same" focal ratio and thus at the same magnification. We EXPECT people who are truly farther away to be smaller. When they are not, we think they are larger.)
We are not far apart. I think I took your point mistakenly.
This book tho: https://youtu.be/um4wMilhv60