what happened on 9/11/2001?

[Capstone]

...Soooo, it is your story that the WTC was hit by military jets? Is that what you are saying?

Just pointing out a body of eyewitness testimony that corroborates the documented airspeed of reported 9/11 aircraft just prior to impact. We know for a fact that no commercial jumbo jets could have withstood the physical strain of those speeds near sea level without breaking up, to say nothing of the maneuverability constraints on the pilots. Take the alleged Flight 175, for instance. In order for that large, gray, double-engine plane to have managed what was caught on tape at the speed that was documented by the NTSB, it must have either been built or later specially reinforced to handle speeds well in excess of the maximum operating velocities for any civilian jumbo jets on the market at that time.

To take a stab at the heart of your question though, yes, military resources, installations, and personnel (many perhaps unwittingly under the pretense of war games/drills) were almost certainly involved.

I believe that Flights 11 and 175 departed as reported for LAX, but in line with the radar data provided by Rades, they were later swapped-out for drones in mid-flight. What happened to the actual planes, their respective crews and passengers, is wide open to speculation, but I'm currently of the opinion that they were loaded forcefully or voluntarily (under false pretenses?) onto Flight 93 during an unscheduled stopover. The scripted cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative are just a little too hokie (if not downright impossible, given commercial cell phone technology circa 2001) to be taken at face value; and the unusually small passenger lists for the two coast-to-coast flights would have facilitated this scenario for doing away with the witnesses.

 

[SAYIT]

...Soooo, it is your story that the WTC was hit by military jets? Is that what you are saying?

To take a stab at the heart of your question though, yes, military resources, installations, and personnel (many perhaps unwittingly under the pretense of war games/drills) were almost certainly involved.

You have officially joined the foil-hatted loony bunch. Congrats.

 

[Capstone]

You have officially joined the foil-hatted loony bunch. Congrats.

Duly noted. Again.

 

[Capstone]

Some relevant historical factoids from an interesting article that was initially published in Quill magazine in February of 1998:

“History on remote control

Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s. In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them.

To this day, drone aircraft are remotely flown from Air Force and Naval bases all over the country to provide targets for both airborne and ground based weapons platforms.

The data links, which could be used for remotely controlling digital airborne flight control systems in commercial aircraft, are already in wide use. Known as ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) this system is widely used to report everything from position and fuel burn, weather and flight plan information to ground stations. ACARS also has the capability of sending data to the aircraft, as well.

Using this bi-directional data link would allow both uploading digital control inputs to control the aircraft as well as the potential to download and remotely monitor the digital aircraft displays. ...”

---------------------

It should come as no surprise that this technology had been so well developed by 2001, since the use of remotely flown aircraft/drones was seriously considered way back in the early 60's by the DoD and the JCS in one of a series of suggested false flag operations against Cuba (see: Operation Northwoods).

 

[daws101]

"What Happened on 9/11?"

FALSE FLAG OPERATION ......

next .......

fucking typical! no evidence to support that claim

Evidence as follows, the alleged use of commercial airliners as weapons given the crash sites as photographed and presented to the public as the alleged result of said attack being violations of the laws of physics if the official explanation is to be taken at face value. + the fact that there is NO accounting for the aircraft wreckage ( as has been done in the case of EVERY airliner crash since the founding of the NTSB ) The "black boxes" that is flight data recorders & cockpit voice recorders from "FLT11" & "FLT175" are totally absent, not even a fragment of a recorder to be found in any of the wreckage examined in the months post 9/11/2001.
The extreme selling job that has been done to convince people that its an entirely plausible event, that is "FLT77" crashing into the PENTAGON and 99.9% of said aircraft ending up inside the building.
Not to mention the fact that the BIG LIE has permeated the whole country to such an extent that we have "peer reviewed" papers by college professors, such that a High-school student could debunk the material in said papers, but it all goes out lending an appearance of authority to an otherwise totally unsupportable claim. for a multitude of reasons, the whole "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story is a non-starter!
in addition there are factions that argue "FLT175" must have been flown at 590 mph to strike the South Tower. You have GOT 2 B Kidding! >500 mph & <1,000 ft altitude, in a commercial airliner..... ya, right?!?!?!

The entire fairy tale about the 19 hijackers is a FARCE!

 

[daws101]

another epic fail.. planes like cars come in different configurations ..no nefarious intent in those pics

 

[daws101]

anybody notice the logo of the filmmakers on the top right in the opening?
it a twofer produced clip.
it has no credibility whatsoever !

Xendrius - YouTube

check out the channel it's a gut buster!

 

[SAYIT]

anybody notice the logo of the filmmakers on the top right in the opening?
it a twofer produced clip.
it has no credibility whatsoever !

Xendrius - YouTube

check out the channel it's a gut buster!

And at the end of the day the extent of the "Truther" cause is some half-truths, some meaningless YouTubes and a shipload of outright fabrications. Even if we ignore why they cling so desperately to their various silly CT scenarios, there is no way to get around the glaring lack of truth (or even a passing interest in it) in their "Truther" Movement.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

 

[whitehall]

When you create a conspiracy in your mind you have a duty to explore every aspect. We saw the planes hit the towers. The conspiracy theory assumes that there were (government?) agents who mined the Twin Towers with explosives after the first attack failed in 1992 and knew the terrorists well enough to coincide their crazy agenda with an intentional detonation? If you assume that there was some sort of government plot to blow up the symbol of democracy you have to assume that Bill Clinton was involved.

 

[deep_space]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK!

 

[daws101]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK!

only in your fevered brain....

 

[SAYIT]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner" all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams FALSE FLAG ATTACK!

only in your fevered brain....

Deep Space's claim that what we know about 9/11 is just "speculation" and therefore it was a "FALSE FLAG ATTACK" is precisely the irrational disconnect exhibited by so many "Truthers." He (or she) may be perfectly normal in all matters except 9/11 ... a subject about which his (or her) rationality and intelligence for some reason shut down.

 

[daws101]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner" all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams FALSE FLAG ATTACK!

only in your fevered brain....

Deep Space's claim that what we know about 9/11 is just "speculation" and therefore it was a "FALSE FLAG ATTACK" is precisely the irrational disconnect exhibited by so many "Truthers." He (or she) may be perfectly normal in all matters except 9/11 ... a subject about which his (or her) rationality and intelligence for some reason shut down.

true, the idea that big brother is not controlling everything is too scary for "them" to comprehend.

 

[whitehall]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

 

[Capstone]

anybody notice the logo of the filmmakers on the top right in the opening?
it a twofer produced clip.
it has no credibility whatsoever !

Xendrius - YouTube

check out the channel it's a gut buster!

And yet again, the preferred ad hominem response of OTC apologists heads its ugly rear.

It's not the credibility of Zendrius that's at issue here, Daws; it's the continuity of several independent eyewitness accounts that were captured and preserved for posterity by various local and national news reports on the day of the "attacks". The fact that these accounts happen to corroborate conclusions drawn from the documented airspeed of reported 9/11 aircraft is also fair game. Your incessant ad homs do nothing to address (much less refute or "debunk") either of those facts.

 

[Faun]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

 

[n0spam4me]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

thats quite the list you have there, and as we all know
100% of that would need to be done and done perfectly
in order to fake the "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story.

or?

 

[Faun]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

thats quite the list you have there, and as we all know
100% of that would need to be done and done perfectly
in order to fake the "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story.

or?

Or what? That's your claim, isn't it? That the hijackings were faked? Well all of the things I listed would have been necessary to pull that off.

Why do all that, which is near impossible to pull off without getting caught .... when they could have just blown up the buildings? Given the 1993 attack, it would have been beyond easy to convince America that it was a Muslim terrorist attack.

 

[Capstone]

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​

There's nothing herculean about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.

...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...

The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't overtly affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.

...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.

...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been.

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway?

...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...

Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).

...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...

Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.

...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, finding a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was found among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero!

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.

...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...

Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less herculean for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any standard "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).

...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...

Why would they had to have been faked?

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11!

...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...

Yeah, there's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.​

...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...

 

[Faun]

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​

There's nothing herculean about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.

...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...

The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't overtly affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.

...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.

...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been.

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway?

...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...

Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).

...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...

Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.

...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, finding a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was found among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero!

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.

...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...

Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less herculean for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any standard "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).

...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...

Why would they had to have been faked?

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11!

...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...

Yeah, there's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.​

...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...

You have no evidence of any of that; but most salient -- None of that was needed ... all they had to do is blow up the buildings. Occam's razor has never been more applicable.