NEW - TMZ Investigates The 9/11 Coverup -The Fifth Plane
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
We will soon be seeing people comment here that there were no planes.
The "No Plane-Hologram" theory was introduced to distract, muddy the waters, and make us look ridiculous to steer others from investigation.
There were planes...just not the ones that they said. The airliners were landed and swapped.
Not saying that a swap couldn’t be done but why would they swap the airliners? The DS doesn’t give 2 sh*ts about the people, the more people that died that day, the more “righteous” the cause.
You're right about them having no compunction about mass murder to achieve what they want.
In support of the plane replacement hypothesis these are my top 3.5 reasons why it was necessary.
Reason 1. To build up the story the plan involved passengers and crew making cellphone calls out. In 2001 it was impossible for consumer cellphones to make and hold a connection while traveling in air. It had to be done on the ground. Meaning that the commercial aircraft had to be diverted and grounded shortly after takeoff. (In some of the calls you can hear a coach in the background talking to the person on the phone, including in one transcript the words "very good".)
Reason 2. Top commercial pilots have testified from flight simulator runs that they are unable to recreate the flight paths into the towers. It's too difficult. This implies the aircraft were military grade and under remote control. (There were radar sighting of an AWAC airplane near the towers at the impact times. Also, eye witness claimed that the planes lacked the distinctive paint markings of the commercial carrier.)
Reason 3. Aviation engineers and pilots have claimed that the jets were operating outside their performance envelope upon approach. In other words they were traveling too fast at sea level. This implies that the substituted planes were retrofitted with structural reinforcements in order to sustain the increased shear forces.
And for my extra secondary reason, the two planes that struck may have been rigged with incendiaries in order to create those dramatic fireballs we see. In Hollywood action movies gasoline is used for making movie-dramatic explosions with large orange fireballs. Jet fuel is slow burning and ill suited for that purpose. Implying that for the special effects they needed their own specially prepared planes.
Disclaimer. With the events of 9/11 much is fluid and open to interpretation and challenge. To clear up things up we need vast amounts of classified information to be released to the public.
Ok, your reasons do make sense as to why planes would be replaced. The video of the “plane” flying into the pentagon, is obviously not an airliner, and that does lend credence to your reasoning.
THIS! ☝️
Swapped for military tankers remotely controlled and filled with incendiaries.
All the passengers from the planes that took off could fit on one plane. They were sparsely filled...a quarter to a third full each for the four planes.
We do not know what happened to those people.
Again, why bother with swapping planes? Like I said, the DS does not care about how many people that die. We know they killed thousands in the buildings that day. Why save a few hundred that were on the planes?
Outside of deep intelligence circles no one truly knows the fates of the people who boarded the planes. My presumption is that the passengers were killed (gassed?) after having fulfilled their roles. Maybe, just maybe, the pilots were in on it and allowed to live. It would be pretty wild if one of the pilots were brought out on stage in a press conference.
Rumor is that none of the supposed hijackers boarded any of the planes. Some were purportedly spotted days after the big day.
At this point, I would not be surprised.
Ok, friendlyfuzzybear gave a more in depth perspective and the two of you seem to be saying the same thing. I can see why they would switch based upon those reasons.
I agree with you about the No Plane/Hologram theory being an idea deliberately injected into discourse for sake of muddying the waters.
One of my pet peeves is the common tendency of people to conflate holography with 3D project technology in general. They're not the same. Holography is a particular form of 3D light display. It is accomplished by projecting a laser through a previously stored optical interference pattern. (Reversing the path of the "reference beam".) There is no way whatsoever that holography could have mimicked the appearance of incoming jetliners in the open sky.
That mini-rant out of the way, the other major effort to muddy the waters was the DEW theory of Judy Wood. Judy Wood is 100% counter intelligence. With 9/11 re-emerging as a hot topic the DEW pushers are once again swarming social media channels.
Well… I remember watching the news that day and one of the planes went right through the tower completely intact before exploding after it partly emerged from the other side. After that there was a black text box over the part of the screen so you could not see it again when they replayed it. Not sure how any real plane could do that.
The street level videos of the planes hitting the towers are clearly fakes. In one of them you can see the layers of the image
Yeah, planes versus no-planes is one of the topics where fist fights nearly break out between 9/11 Truthers.
I do agree with you that many of the videos that are replayed to the public are suspicious in their appearance and are suggestive of CGI manipulation. I think this is where the no-planes theory gets its legs. But it's not an either-or situation.
In my mind what fits the bulk of the evidence is the proposition that real, but substituted, planes did strike the twin towers ... and studio CGI was applied to the film reels. The towers were of course taken down through explosives in controlled demolition. The planes were the excuse and show pieces.
Regarding the video evidence, I've spoken to 9/11 researchers who claim something curious. They say that the video shown on day one is distinctly different from the "same" videos displayed on day two and onward. This includes the color of the sky changing - becoming hazy whitish instead of the actual clear blue sky of the morning of 9/11/2001. If true this strongly indicates doctoring and/or pre-production preparation. So what you remember is interesting. Until there is a declas release of film footage, one of desiderata of researcher is to source home video tapes of telecasts shown on 9/11 versus telecasts shown on subsequent days.
Who cares about the planes? What's clear is that all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. How long does it take to set that up? Months?
Yes, most likely months. Many pin the beginning of the work to when small construction crews started coming into the buildings daily with the night shift. The cover story is that they were repairing the elevators. Then there were the "art students", the now infamous E-Team. Evidently two (or more) distinct teams were involved in the rigging.
One of the most outlandish finds is a book called Gelatin - The B-Thing. It is an apparent confessional. 9/11 - The Israeli Art Project - Gelatin The B-thing Although the video title suggests the "usual suspects", I've heard claims that they were either Austrian or Swiss. Such eccentric artists do not just come from anywhere.
I don’t think the passengers existed. The phone calls sounded fake. Anyone know snhkne personally that was on one? The Pentagon was hit by a missile that was fired from under the overpass directly across the grass. I’ve got the footage. It’s undeniable. The plane that “crashed” in the field…I think we all know about that. So, that leaves the two that hit WTC 1 & 2. Those weren’t passenger planes we saw, on TV. There are plenty of reports of no planes seen by people firsthand. Only select footage, which could absolutely have been digital. There’s too much evidence that they were. A wing will not cut through like that. Ever. They’re very flimsy. Weak. They would’ve broken off and flown back from impact. That’s common sense. Explosions were detonated. That’s a fact.‘Putin’s satellite footage threat to show it, backs this up. Why else would satellite imagery/footage prove anything? Other than showing no planes. Im just using common sense.
I don’t know anyone personally but this lady was supposedly on the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/remembering-9-11-barbara-olson-fought-for-life-until-her-final-minutes-now-ted-olson-does-too
There were no planes! The Israeli Mossad, posing as art students, installed all the detonating devices! It is well documented with photos! It was knowingly executed! PNAC pamphlet from 1998 states the plan clearly, it even has the World Trade Center towers in cross hairs. It states that the west needed a catalysing event to justify, to it citizens, attacking middle eastern countries refusing to bow! Taking their oil and creating business opportunities for western companies with massive deployment of soldiers! People were joking that there were 710 reasons to invade Iraq! Now read 710 after turning it 180°. Millions have been following the obvious subversion of reality and actually never thought it would ever change! That was the dark corrupt world, we lived in, until the White Hats came along! We have been awake for decades!
This was a great doc. I never knew about the additional plane. I've dug deep into the 9/11 stuff, and never once came across this. The fact that TMZ is talking about it is wild. The fact that they're coming at it from a "the government hid this from you" angle is even more wild. Hopefully it leads to more people demanding truth.
Here's the video on Catbox since it's blocked on youtube outside the US. https://litter.catbox.moe/x1imejlovrlvtyex.mp4
Gaslighting fake news to push hijacker narrative
This crew would not still be alive