What 9/11 evidence unsealed in court reveals years after the attacks

[hadit]

Here's some 20+ year old news you don't want to read: regarding the North Tower, the first one struck, about a dozen witnesses called NYPD to report that an airplane had just struck the North Tower. About half of them told the police it was a smaller aircraft, perhaps a commuter or corporate jet.

That just means that they only had a scant second or so to see the plane impact and got a distorted idea of what it really was.

Regarding the second strike, the one at the South Tower, that one was recorded by many cameras as of course crowds had gathered. Those videos showed that the airplane had some unusual fairings at the wing-fuselage point, which means it was not a stock 767. That means it was not UA175 even though it had a United paint job.

The conclusion for the critical thinker is that neither AA11 nor UA175 struck the towers that day.

What are they now?

Regarding the Pentagon, the first reporter on the scene stated clearly he could see no aircraft debris there, and that was before the front wall collapsed. Experiments with flight simulators showed that the "official maneuver" was impossible in a transport category aircraft.

I hope you're not confused by the aeronautical terms I've used here.

Post the experiments for analysis. We need to know what simulators were used and who used them.

 

[PeterPilot]

That just means that they only had a scant second or so to see the plane impact and got a distorted idea of what it really was.

What are they now?

Post the experiments for analysis. We need to know what simulators were used and who used them.

Educate yourself sir. If you were a curious person you would already have done so, assuming you were alive in 2001. If you were not an adult in that year, then I understand.

 

[hadit]

Educate yourself sir. If you were a curious person you would already have done so, assuming you were alive in 2001. If you were not an adult in that year, then I understand.

Nope, you made the assertion, you back it up. Let us see your sources, if you're so confident in them.

I will tell you right now, I've seen this dodge many times when someone states something and is challenged on it. It doesn't work.

 

[PeterPilot]

Nope, you made the assertion, you back it up. Let us see your sources, if you're so confident in them.

I will tell you right now, I've seen this dodge many times when someone states something and is challenged on it. It doesn't work.

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

 

[hadit]

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

All I want is your sources. If you're so confident that they are correct, you should be willing to post them for analysis. The fact that you are not willing to post them tells me that you know they are not very credible.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

I see you're still trying to push this crap.

 

[PeterPilot]

I see you're still trying to push this crap.

I see you are deeply in denial of reality, that you're very gullible and abysmally ignorant of facts. 15 years ago that would have put you in the majority, but today many people now realize they've been deceived.

 

[PeterPilot]

All I want is your sources. If you're so confident that they are correct, you should be willing to post them for analysis. The fact that you are not willing to post them tells me that you know they are not very credible.

Fair enough. Read books by Christopher Bollyn. He has a website. Read books by David Ray Griffin. Read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. Check out the website of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Then get back to me.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I see you are deeply in denial of reality, that you're very gullible and abysmally ignorant of facts. 15 years ago that would have put you in the majority, but today many people now realize they've been deceived.

So all the eyewitnesses that saw a plane slam into the Pentagon, are all lying.

 

[hadit]

Fair enough. Read books by Christopher Bollyn. He has a website. Read books by David Ray Griffin. Read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. Check out the website of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Then get back to me.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. When you have a handful of voices countering a narrative, you have to look at their credentials to see several things. Are they credible? Do they have expertise in the fields they're talking about? Do they have a motive to say something other than the truth?

Christopher Bollyn - writer and investigative journalist. Okay, fine so far. He, however, wants to blame 911 on Israel, which does not make sense as it was Muslims who pulled off the attack. I don't give him a whole lot of credibility because of that. It's far too convenient to blame the all-mighty Jews for everything.

David Ray Griffin - He is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He might write a compelling story, but he's not an expert in the field.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - Yes, there are some architects and engineers who think the buildings were demolished, but there are many, many more who do not, and these guys have two very important questions I have yet to see a semi-credible answer for, namely, HOW? How were the buildings wired for demolition, given how incredibly complex such an undertaking is (especially for buildings the size of the WTC), how incredibly invasive to the inhabitants of the buildings it would be for them to be tearing up walls, floors and ceilings to get to the critical points and plant the explosives, then leave them sit connected to their wires for however long until they were detonated, all without anyone seeing or hearing ANYTHING at all? Remember that the WTC buildings started collapsing from the point of impact, which means that they would have had to wire the charges specifically to that point and made sure the initial explosions took place right there to avoid someone saying, "Hey, how come the airplane hit way up there and the collapse started way down here?"

Also, no one found any evidence of explosives in the debris pile, which was under scrutiny by hundreds physically onsite, and millions via TV cameras, and no one said, "Hey, what's this blasting cap doing here?" Remember that a single tiny fragment of paper was enough to identify the cause of the Lockerbie plane destruction, so don't tell me every single piece of evidence was so completely destroyed that no one could find anything.