How do you feel about what happened at the Pentagon?

• Hole is way too small for a 747.
• No way a 747 could have hit at the appropriate angle - would have had to fly too low.
• Leaked footage clearly shows the "impact" and there is zero evidence of a plane either before or after the impact.

Flight 77 was a 757. Much smaller than a 747, but still way to big for the small holes in the pgon

Fair enough, my mistake.

Just observing! Not trying to be an abrasive dingus like some other jokers in this thread.

Conventional technology and far more exotic technology took those buildings down.

Care to explain? What do you think did

Evidence shows that neither three major technologies/theories could conclusively achieve what happened on 9/11. Everything from the dust to the raging burning core for weeks to what happened to the metallic cars but not the rubber tires. Also, the paper falling was completely unaffected as we're a few survivor stories from the rubble. None of them fully explain it and there is evidence for many different technologies being used.

the paper falling was completely unaffected

In what way would you expect it to be?

Cars burnt out but paper laying next to them?

I thought we were talking about the paper that was falling out of the building.

I'm talking about both and sorry If I was unclear. If it was thermite and explosive charges the paper would've been burnt. If it was nuclear, there would be no paper. The third theory "energy" weapon would explain it. But that theory does not explain the other evidence.

I've read and watch plenty of Judy Woods and think she is on to something. As for John Hutchinson, dude is out of this world as most people know things. Sadly though, all of this will be labeled as fringe and in nutcase territory. Same treatment Tesla got. I find it quite laughable that people talk about secret space programs, yet shut down when exotic technologies may have been used on 9/11. Boggles my mind. But then again, people hate TPTB but for some reason trust NASA here. I digress...

Of what I've heard both Judy and Larry (pushing the hologram theory) has old connection with the CIA. Judy went to a CIA hot spot school and Larry flew for CIA. Could be pushing their agenda to split the community.

*Erin

Can you elaborate on the weather anomaly ? I've never heard anything about that so I'm curious.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

I think one really practical way to look at it is this way: In the 1960s, we invented the blackbird, a stealth bomber plane that can travel and supersonic speeds. Amazing technology for that time period. That was over 50 years ago. And the military has the largest budget the world has ever seen in its history. We can safely assume that there is a mass amount of super technology that has been invented that has not been made known to the public.

nothing will change that because that's what I saw

Yes, it's important to realize that everything that is shown on television depicts reality all the time.

You're not taking in everything you just saw. Even in 2001 a building that is 100s of feet behind the plane would not show up in front of the plane's wing. Same with the smoke formation.

Notice how there is no identifiable marking on the plane to show what airline it is. Notice that parts of the plane including the vertical stabilizer disappear then reappear. Notice how the plane does not slow down one bit while melting into the building.

On a basic level a hollow aluminum passenger jet cannot penetrate into a solid steel and concrete structure that is specifically designed to withstand such an impact. Planes suffer immense damage when striking birds in flight, and would be shredded horrifically by even just one of the twin towers' exterior steel support columns.

2 of the planes were not even in the air that day. It's good that you're realizing the country was rooked on that day but you have much research still ahead of you, beginning with Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion.

And it's spelled asinine.

There's not 1000s of 1000s of eyewitnesses; you can't even find 50 and most likely could not look yourself in the eye in a mirror and honestly say that they seem credible. Many of the ones you did find would be media employees or married to media employees.

You're right, I had no idea that video quality could affect the speed at which a plane effortlessly slides into a building without slowing down when it should have (and would have) been smashed like a bug on a windshield. It's a good thing video quality has improved in 15 years enough that at least now, while not perfect, our camcorders at least don't change immutable laws of physics.

It's not even physically possible for a plane to be flown at that speed. Again, the more you speak the more you reveal you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even think you're really an honest scholar who just had an honest epiphany about 9/11, I think you're just full of shit and trying to discredit real researchers. Don't know what makes it more obvious, the insipid name-calling or the Gish gallop of bogus assertions such as other planes going into buildings -- I notice you failed to provide even one example and are neglecting the fact that the twin towers were some of the most robust buildings in the world at the time and designed specifically to withstand a plane impact.

You probably don't know anything about the construction of the towers. You probably can't even name Newton's Laws let alone describe them with math. You probably don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Removed. Rule 4.

So a guy calls me a fucking tool and other names and I'm at fault when I say he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground? Hmm don't want to sound too abusive here but you really are not a good moderator.

If you would pay attention, I removed his post as well.

So you don't know the difference between actual abusive language and a minor insult, after I had already patiently put up with like 3 comments worth of personal attacks.

Maybe stop being such a sissy and censoring my valuable comments about 9/11.

Which is a direct insult.

Yeah if you're an overly sensitive nebbish on a power trip.

Not saying you are that, of course.

K. Bye now.

I would have to say the guy who called you that is right. Jesus... Take a breath guy.

Go fuck yourself, idiot.

Removed Rule 4.

Removed. Rule 4.

It's not a video artifact, it's just a perspective illusion. See my reply to the above post. You can even replicate this (on a smaller scale) if you own a camera with a telephoto lens.

This is a forced-perspective illusion. The building is in front of the plane. Because the lens is zoomed in, it flattens the picture's sense of depth and makes the plane look larger than it really is, which in turn makes it look like the plane should be in front of the building. They did this on purpose when filming the LOTR movies to make the actors look like hobbits.

Here's a video to help you understand what you're actually seeing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8

Even if you or that shitty YouTuber could prove the building was in front of where the plane should be, it literally would do nothing to convince anyone who has a handle on 9/11 that Boeings actually struck any building. You have all the work still ahead to prove how basic laws of motion were defied.

Anyone can imagine a jet striking a stationary steel support column right down the middle. The plane would be sheared in half like a chopped log.

Making silly pseudo-justifications for obvious video fakery does not convince anyone with a brain that the same plane could hit multiple of those same steel columns, this time not free standing but buttressed by the steel and reinforced-concrete trusses on every floor attached to the central steel support columns, and nearly penetrate all the way inside. It's actually a ridiculous concept that only decades of cinematic brainwashing and deterioration in the quality of science education could prepare a nation to believe.

Even if you or that shitty YouTuber could prove the building was in front of where the plane should be

Here.

it literally would do nothing to convince anyone who has a handle on 9/11 that Boeings actually struck any building.

"Proof will not convince me of anything." Wow.

You have all the work still ahead to prove how basic laws of motion were defied.

What is a "law of motion", and how was it defied?

Anyone can imagine a jet striking a stationary steel support column right down the middle. The plane would be sheared in half like a chopped log.

You are correct. This statement does not contradict any of the video evidence.

Making silly pseudo-justifications for obvious video fakery does not convince anyone with a brain that the same plane could hit multiple of those same steel columns, this time not free standing but buttressed by the steel and reinforced-concrete trusses on every floor attached to the central steel support columns, and nearly penetrate all the way inside.

You're right again. The plane would be obliterated. It would break apart into thousands of pieces of shrapnel. Those pieces of shrapnel, traveling at around 500 miles per hour, would then penetrate deep into the building.

It's actually a ridiculous concept that only decades of cinematic brainwashing and deterioration in the quality of science education could prepare a nation to believe.

What part is so ridiculous? The part where you said proof would not convince you of anything, or the part where your own interpretation of physics supported the official story?

I don't usually reply to those who choose the insanely annoying and unnecessary format of quoting and commenting on each line of the previous comment, and it's 1:50 AM here so this "conversation" is not happening now, but I do have to address just one of the things you said that stuck out which is the line about "Proof will not convince me of anything." No, that is not what I said or implied. If you prove that that one building would have been in the foreground, fine, I'm saying that doesn't prove anything about what happened on 9/11. It's one throwaway aspect of one video, that doesn't explain any of the other anomalies in that same video or other videos from 9/11 and certainly doesn't "prove" that any Boeings hit any buildings.

(By the way when you have a conversation you don't usually repeat word for word what the other person just said. I know what I just said. There's literally no reason to repeat it. In a dialogue, one person speaks and the other person responds. No one wants to scroll down a page for an extra two seconds because you're trying to "dissect!" every line of every comment.)

"Dissecting" comments is pretty common so bring coffee if you're looking to take up that cause.

What's with all the cussing? Shezz.

As another user has pointed out, this is an optical illusion in that the brown tower building (28 Washington Street) appears to be behind the WTC, but is actually several hundred yards closer to the camera. See this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3kpbk4/some_guy_has_pointed_out_something_really_strange/cuzekjc/

Yeah that user replied that to me and is full of shit because that statement even if true, is not provable, and literally does nothing to make me or any other "no-planer" believe that any Boeings struck any buildings that day. It completely ignores the other dozen or so major reasons people know the plane videos were all faked.

that statement even if true, is not provable

You can easily check the perspective issue in google earth - that's how I know the building is 28 Washington Street and that it is provably, visibly closer to the camera than the South Tower.

That's fair enough -- as I said, the explanation of perspective does not touch why the smoke does the same thing but is quickly "corrected," or why the vertical stabilizer glitches in and out of existence, why the jet has no strobe lights or airline insignia, or the many other inconsistencies in the other videos of this same scene, or why a jet would pierce the tower in the first place, which is physically impossible.

I agree. I don't know for sure what we're looking at in the video, but it's obviously not an actual Boeing 767.

I don't agree with all of their conclusions (mainly because I don't understand what they are), but I think the first 30 minutes or so of the September Clues movie should be more than enough to convince people that the news cast was just a coordinated fiction, and this is without even getting into the physics in question.

Anyone knows that a jet would be sliced in half like a carrot down the middle if it hit just one free-standing steel support column, so why do we have to think that the same jet would effortlessly melt through multiple of those massive columns with hundreds of thousands of tons of reinforced concrete and steel spandrels and trusses behind them? It really just makes no sense, at all. The videos are full of anomalies, not just this one. Literally the only thing people have to fall back on is "thousands of people saw it!" which is merely an empty assertion that they cannot begin to demonstrate even if they tried.

I get a bit upset when I hear about holograms and other nonsense. I believe certain folks from the near east were supplied the funds through western sources, and certain plans were knew of and were allowed to happen. I think the US knew full well that the buildings were going to be attacked, and let it happen.

The biggest obstacle to exposing what really happened that day are the nutty hologram/space ray/godzilla/whatever people. I have often wondered if Mossad has infiltrated the 9-11 truth community and planted these ideas in order to discredit it.

I have heard of that before, and I have heard some vague circumstantial evidence leaning one to think that way in certain circumstances. Still though we all know that the conspiracy community is prone to taking things too far. There is plenty of real underhanded wickedness going on without having to go into the Archons and lizard people (fascinating as it may be).

The Dutroux affair, Gladio, Iran-Contra and many other happenings and events are out there which prove there are shadow governments and collectives that manipulate politics and society.

What you're suggesting is that we believe the official story but we assume they knew in advance and allowed it to happen. So the shit pilots, the box cutters, the elusive man in cave, the jet-fueled demolition-Esque collapse etc... Sounds like your trying to pander to conspiracy theorists why still being able to push the official story.

No, I just think that burning jet fuel can weaken the structural integrity of steel. It was metal fatigue. Box cutters are more than enough match for people who are scared of getting slashed or killed, and all they needed to learn were the basics of the instrument panel and flight. They trained in single prop planes and flight sims. This is still more than possible. Never heard about the man in the cave, though.

There could be some truths to what you guys are talking about, but we need to go with the evidence available and not get too carried away.

Two ex-soldier pilots scared of boxcutters? Dear God how has America ever won a war before. Hotter fires have burnt in weaker towers for a lot longer and never harmed the steel beyond soot. You're literally parroting the official story word for word which makes me doubt you have even researched it. The guy in the cave was Osama btw, thought you would know that small detail at least.

There is no evidence available....The boxcutters, steel beams and passport were all provided by the same people who took all the actual evidence away.

Listen to what you're saying and hear how lost it sounds. First you say you believe the official story, given by the government, but you also believe the government knew about it and allowed it to happen. So you're saying the government helped blow up 3 towers, put a hole in the pentagon's accounting offices, fake Pennsylvania, killed loads of their own people......But we can still trust that the story they gave us is solid? Gtfo.

Exactly. It could've also been drone/unmanned aircrafts.

I get a bit upset when I hear about holograms and other nonsense.

Guess I'm not the only one.

You're not.

Lasers, mini-nukes, Dr. Judy Wood, etc.

Automatic eyeroll and stress level rise.

This is exactly how they want it. "Fight amongst yourselves, grasseaters! You'll never get to the bottom of it!"

So yea

Dr. Judy Wood doesn't belong on your list there. Her theory explains more than any other theory. If you know anything about Nicola Tesla and John Hutchinson, it starts to make a lot of sense

Pretty sure the theory of rigging the buildings with explosives makes more sense.

Ahh, but it doesn't. Explosives were definitely used as well, but mainly to create the airplane shaped holes in the buildings.

The reason we know that MORE than mere explosives were used is because the towers were turned to dust. When you watch the videos of the towers "collapsing", you can see that they were already dust before anything hit the ground. You can see steel girders being launched into the air only to turn into clouds before they come even close to hitting the ground. Mere explosives would not be powerful enough to turn the steel and concrete to dust.

That's the dumbest 9/11 theory of all.

Even if the planes crashed in the center of New York, it would have caused enough of an outcry to further neocon/neoliberal plans. It is not as dumb as you may think.

Sometimes I ask myself if 9/11 were even necessary. It's not like we vote on whether or not we go to war anyway.

But if you study further you will see that it was a long time coming, and there were no Arab hijackers.

Far more compelling is the (intact) passport supposedly retrieved among debris two blocks away from WTC. Conveniently enough, it was the hijacker passport which made it all across the initial conflagration and burning kerosene to softly land on the pavement ~250 meters away.

Suqami's passport was reportedly found by a passerby (identity unknown), reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street,[8] before the towers collapsed.[9] (This was mistakenly reported by many news outlets to be Mohamed Atta's passport.)[citation needed][10] A columnist for the British newspaper The Guardian expressed incredulity about the authenticity of this report,[11] questioning whether a paper passport could survive the inferno unsinged when the plane's black boxes were never found. Source

I just built my nuclear shelter entirely with passports as resilient as they seem.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 89256}

They didn't wait until the next day before loading the debris in large dump truck. Even though the investigation wasn't started yet, they rushed those trucks to the site in order to clean it in the shortest timeframe possible.

The explanation is that the 9/11 attacks were promptly changed from a federal crime of terrorism to an act of war by the AUMF in the following days. The later designation suppresses the need for a forensic investigation and, therefore, the need to preserve the site for further inquiry.

That's why a large amount of debris are missing from the aftermath of the collapse. Since the rubbles weren't meant for preservation, New York City sold 175,000 tons of World Trade Center steel scrap. Some went to cities in the United States; about 60,000 tons went to companies in China, India, and South Korea.

TPTB was quick to cover it's track.

This comment makes absolutely no sense.

You are not surprised the black boxes didn't survive the crash. Black boxes which are designed to remain intact and survive crashes.

But you haven't drawn any conclusions about a paper and laminate passport somehow surviving the inferno intact. Paper and laminate which burns and melts at the slightest bit of flame.

Are you in opposite-land or something?

Give him a break. Some people are just born stupid...

What my brain can't wrap around is where the debris from all of those structures went

down and slightly out? Building are quite hollow things, it's not like all the parts of the building in one place would be the size of the building at all.

They found one file cabinet. Out of like 60,000.

Who is "they", and how do you know that is even true?

Plus, I doubt they were concerned about filing cabinets at the time.

https://youtu.be/mh18dip7Z5M

But shouldn't they have found more than one? If there were thousands?

Wait, that's a filing cabinet? It looks burned and melted(in a way I've never seen steel deform), yet there is unburned filefolders?

Also it said it was the only one he found.

Ok, so educate yourself. How many were found?

I don't know, people were looking for people alive or bodies, they weren't concerned with easily crunched sheet metal filing cabinets, I'm sure those digging saw quite a few but they didn't care.

That's inaccurate. The scientists were looking for evidence. Pretending otherwise is being obtuse.

Pentagon. Flight 93. No debris. You see?

that's what I saw

Just to be clear, did you see it IRL or on TV?

Television. Everyone saw it on television. This thread is so retarded.

How do vehicles a block or two away get burnt or melt when an ambulance parked right in front of one of the towers before the collapse looks almost brand new after the collapse.

Could you source this? I've seen this discussed before and it was usually agreed upon that the intact emergency vehicles drove their post-collapse.

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor

If you haven't seen this yet, you owe it to yourself to watch it fully. It's very long, but it highlights all of the bullshit that went on that day in an easy to follow format. There is so much more wrong with the official version of events that day than the debris.

Bit long for right now, could you do a quick rundown for us? I've never heard of pearl harbor being false flag. Int r esting there would be something gained by warring on another front.

Its covers nearly every point of interest in the whole event. I'd recommend setting a Sunday afternoon aside to watch it in its entirety. Any kind of rundown wouldn't do the documentary justice and you need to see the presented evidence. I watched it with a flatmate who was open-minded but in no way a conspiracy theorist and it changed his world-view completely.

2 planes, 3 identical uniformed collapses

The collapses were NOT identical. How are you even saying this and receiving any upvotes. WTC7 is a classic controlled demolition -- it falls straight down. The towers are blown apart in every direction from the top down with massive pieces of steel and other heavy materials being tossed to the sides the entire time.

To be fair, has anyone ever seen a controlled demolition of a building that tall? Maybe after to get past a certain height, the job just starts to get messy?

As it turns out the tallest one listed on Wikipedia is not even half as tall as the twin towers were. However, there are some really good videos on Youtube of close-up shots during the destruction of the towers and it's simply not the same visual as what we see in other demolitions. A controlled demolition has a series of explosions, dismantling the support columns, and then gravity does the rest as the building collapses straight down. Whereas if you look at the sides of the trade centers, even from the second they start falling there are what look like mini explosions going on all the way down the entire time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc

Yea buildings this tall and in the middle of a city would be dismantled (taken apart piece by piece from the top down) as opposed to demolished in a controlled manner with explosives.

Dismantlement is very time consuming and expensive especially if there is hazardous material present.

Oh right I forgot the towers fell over sideways /s

What?

That's what anyone would have thought would have happened. If I weren't watching tv and you told me the buildings were attacked with planes and fell as a result (forgetting for a second that this isn't even nearly possible) I would picture the buildings toppling over in a huge mess. I think anyone would expect to see that rather than what we did see.

Do you know what /s means?

Yeah I noticed that but I still didn't know what you were trying to say, unfortunately.

Basically, all 3 towers fell in a similar way.

But that's incorrect; the towers' destruction is markedly different. Anyone can see the differences.

Alright I can see differences but what are you saying?

That they were probably destroyed with different techniques, that's all.

Jeez people are getting really mad at you lol, but yeah I can see that. The towers look like they exploded top to bottom as they were destroyed. If you look at when they fall, the top starts to lean over but it literally disintegrates mid fall.

This entire thread is a shill hotbed. Even OP is full of shit. He goes out of his way to say "planes hit the buildings. I saw it." This is just a fake post by someone pretending to have just now figured out that 9/11 was an inside job, just a clever way to make the explicit assertion that yes, planes did strike the buildings. When they did not.

Yeah good eye on that...perhaps something hit the buildings, but it sure as fuck was not your typical Boeing 747. Pisses me off when people claim air planes did it. I don't think they realize that a 747 can't fly at 500 mph at sea level which is the speed claimed they were at when going into the buildings, among many other issues with them.

Absolutely right, in fact I think the 9/11 Commission Report had them at even closer to 600 mph, like 590 or something like that. And these are hijackers who had never flown a passenger jet before.

Anyone can see that airliners suffer massive damage when they hit birds in flight. Anyone can imagine that if a Boeing hit just one stationary massive steel column, it would be sheared in half lengthwise like a steamed carrot. Therefore anyone should be able to realize that if the same plane hits the same massive steel column, but this time surrounded by other identical massive steel columns and reinforced by 100s of thousands of tons of steel and concrete behind it, it's not just going to slide right on in like a bullet into an apple. It would be smashed like a bug on a windshield -- sending passengers, seats, luggage, etc., down the side of the building.

Exactly, and if you look close the very tip of the wings pierce the building like a knife in hot butter. Not to mention all the videos of the plane show the plane being pretty dark, not shiny and glinting and bright like normal planes in the sky...

Oh absolutely, it's totally fake, you can't even tell what airline the planes are supposed to be and they don't have strobe lights, not to mention the vertical stabilizer disappears then reappears. Anyone could get video editing software and come up with the same footage shown to us as real life on 9/11.

Literally the only thing these people have to fall back on is the insipid assertion that "thousands of people saw it." When they can't even begin to prove this.

If you look through this thread you'll see people going out of their way just to shit on people who don't think planes hit the buildings. It's something that happens so often on this sub I wonder why it's so important that people don't figure this out.

Care to elaborate? All 3 seem to fall straight down into themselves.

WTC7 falls straight down in what looks indistinguishable from any other classic controlled demolition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Whereas the twin towers are blown apart in every direction from the top down while being turned to dust. You can see massive pieces of steel flying at 45 degree angles outward in every direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

So you're saying because the towers had debris and building 7 does not they're markedly different?

I didn't say anything about debris. WTC7 falls neatly straight down; the towers are blown apart from the top down. Is this really that complicated? I just showed you clear video of both.

Lets just agree to disagree. All 3 fell into themselves just in different ways. Its my belief they were all controlled demolitions.

And "massive pieces of steel flying at 45 degree angles outward in every direction" would be considered debris.

I also think they were all controlled demolitions, I'm just saying they're clearly and visibly different processes, that's all.

You're saying the processes were different, I'm saying the outcome was the same. Detail vs entirety. We're just looking at 2 different aspects of the same event.

Sure, and I don't claim to know how the towers were destroyed, just that I can see an obvious difference in how it happens.

Lol. Only 16years too late but I guess better than never.

There were no planes nor any holograms.

The planes you see on tv are editted in live on tv.

This is what I am leaning towards. You wouldn't need holograms, just perhaps some other random aircraft flying around to give eyewitnesses something to say they saw.

Does anyone else remember it being fact on 9/11/01 that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? I've always been perplexed by that being discussed as a conspiracy because I remember the discussions on the news and with my classmates and teachers that day (I was a junior in HS and we watched the news the whole day). It was "the building is damaged, they're going to bring it down so they can control how it falls." Am I misremembering? Because I could swear that's how it happened.

Does anyone else

Probably

You brain thinks it saw planes. Mine did too, at first. Why are there so many different video versions of plane impact, yet still none of them look right or match? Some of them are black oblong shadow things, not planes. There is footage, as well as plenty of photos of the 'people' waving too. Are they really people, though? I didn't know humans could withstand such heat or shape shift, and duplicate themselves like wow. 'rip wacky wailing inflatable tube people' Did anyone actually study the footage like only a handful of us have, or did they let their emotions take the wheel like they were manipulated to? Why does 'Edna Cintron' have a perfect doppelganger kneeled off to the side of her? Why does no one offer condolences for her twin? None of us can directly say what this is. You have to research yourself, because no one is going to believe you. In fact, I don't believe you. Plus, what's anyone going to do about it?

Nothing. You'll just keep arguing and believing one of the two choices you were fed, and they're both wrong. Nothing good will come of this, and you have mostly 'truthers' to blame. They spread false narratives of history/sci-fi channel level bs and echo each other, and then you have a widespread cancer that operates among the citizenry as a hive mind. I think most don't want to know what was 'opened' on that day, and why. I can understand, but you can't run from this forever. 9/11 was only one part of it.

You brain thinks it saw planes. Mine did too, at first. Why are there so many different video versions of plane impact, yet still none of them look right or match? Some of them are black oblong shadow things, not planes. There is footage, as well as plenty of photos of the 'people' waving too. Are they really people, though? I didn't know humans could withstand such heat or shape shift, and duplicate themselves like wow. 'rip wacky wailing inflatable tube people' Did anyone actually study the footage like only a handful of us have, or did they let their emotions take the wheel like they were manipulated to? Why does 'Edna Cintron' have a perfect doppelganger kneeled off to the side of her? Why does no one offer condolences for her twin? None of us can directly say what this is. You have to research yourself, because no one is going to believe you. In fact, I don't believe you. Plus, what's anyone going to do about it?

Nothing. You'll just keep arguing and believing one of the two choices you were fed, and they're both wrong. Nothing good will come of this, and you have mostly 'truthers' to blame. They spread false narratives of history/sci-fi channel level bs and echo each other, and then you have a widespread cancer that operates among the citizenry as a hive mind. I think most don't want to know what was 'opened' on that day, and why. I can understand, but you can't run from this forever. 9/11 was only one part of it.

There were no planes. What you saw was CGI and live video compositing. The planes were inserted into the news footage, and poorly. The most likely scenario to explain what happened that day was the use of directed energy weapons (technology that has been purposefully kept from public knowledge for decades). Look into Dr. Judy Wood's research

That's fair enough -- as I said, the explanation of perspective does not touch why the smoke does the same thing but is quickly "corrected," or why the vertical stabilizer glitches in and out of existence, why the jet has no strobe lights or airline insignia, or the many other inconsistencies in the other videos of this same scene, or why a jet would pierce the tower in the first place, which is physically impossible.

Ahh, but it doesn't. Explosives were definitely used as well, but mainly to create the airplane shaped holes in the buildings.

The reason we know that MORE than mere explosives were used is because the towers were turned to dust. When you watch the videos of the towers "collapsing", you can see that they were already dust before anything hit the ground. You can see steel girders being launched into the air only to turn into clouds before they come even close to hitting the ground. Mere explosives would not be powerful enough to turn the steel and concrete to dust.