I still say that these particular planes did exist and were just cover for the explosives.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
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."
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.