CIA Pilot Swears Oath Planes Did Not Bring Towers Down On 9/11

Sharing is Caring!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFZGnjgIZTs

See also  UK Gov. Now Demand To Bring In The Army Due To Current Food Shortages!
See also  Free money for all? Mayors hope local tests bring big change
8,649 views

129 thoughts on “CIA Pilot Swears Oath Planes Did Not Bring Towers Down On 9/11

  1. “No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons:”
    There are several videotapes that refute this claim. There are eyewitness accounts that refute this claim.
    Jetliners did crash into the Twin Towers. It was not physically impossible for jetliners to have crashed into the Towers, as for one the buildings were constructed to withstand the effects of a jetliner crashing through the exterior wall, destroying a number of columns.
    As one can easily see in video of One World Trade, a huge hole was punched through the north wall. The jetliner caused that to happen, as that was the only possible reason for that huge hole to exist.

      • says the bought and paid for corporate trolly. when your career (pimping for the heartland institute) goes bust, your future is clearly in comedy.

          • There isn’t any credible evidence of that. The top 15 floors of One World Trade simply fell down upon the rest of the building. There were no explosions just before that happened.

          • Just do a search for Proof explosives 9/11 WTC.
            Youtube has plenty of eyewitness accounts of explosions and footage of squibs going off. A good one is: PROOF THAT 9/11 WAS A PLANNED DEMOLITION
            Go to: ae911truth.org

          • There is no credible evidence of explosives.
            Explosions are not the same as explosives, when explosives are not involved. In fires, things explode.
            Last night on the news there was video of a car fire. The front windshield exploded due to the heat. Explosion, but no explosives.
            I have seen probably all the videos and have never seen a video of squibs going off. I have seen claims that smoke escaping windows as WTC7 fell, was caused by squibs going off, but that was not caused by squibs. Stresses on the exterior wall caused windows to shatter, allowing smoke to stream out.

        • I was thinking about one guy in particular who was also used as a “witness” at the LAX shooting. It’s on youtube. He seemed very rehearsed and also explained the collapse as due to “intense” fires.

        • “Actual eye witnesses” usually die under suspicious circumstances.
          CNN even did a story on it called “KEY 9/11 WITNESSES TURNING UP DEAD, OTHERS SCARED TO TELL WHAT THEY SAW.”

          • Actual eyewitnesses have already told their story. The people who saw flight 93 crash into The Pentagon, said so on 9/11.

  2. “No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea
    level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes
    with velocity. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
    the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.”
    Assuming the 767 was actually flying at that speed, it proves that a 767 could attain that speed in the vicinity of 1,000 feet above sea level.

  3. “The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window
    cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box
    columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.”
    The recorded videos of the jetliners striking the Towers indicated that crumpling did not occur, as the nose of the jetliners punched the column sections, breaking their connections to each other. The interconnection joints would have been the weakest link in the columns. Film of the column sections being hoisted into pace during construction showed the top of a column to have a few holes in them in order to bolt sections together. Those bolts would not have held up under the stress of the jetliner striking the column section at some 500 miles per hour.

      • They were actual recorded videos, by several bystanders with their home video camera and taken from several different angles, from several different locations. Nothing fake about that.

          • I can read.
            “The recorded videos of the jetliners striking the Towers indicated that crumpling did not occur…”
            I wrote that. Twinkie said those videos were fake. I responded, “They were actual recorded videos, by several bystanders with their home
            video camera and taken from several different angles, from several
            different locations.”
            You said, “So why aren’t those videos out to the public?”
            I responded that they are.
            Who is it that can’t read?

  4. Id have more respect for the findings if we were talking about the Pentagon where not one shred of aircraft was found, and there is parking lot videos of an aircraft flying over the Pentagon at the alleged moment of impact. The Pentagon crash was not a crash, no plane hit the building and where is the other plane that went down in a field? All planes vanished into thin air? Anyway, about the towers, eye witnesses saw the planes hit so how could they not? Yet, again with no evidence afterwards, there is support for the crazy theory that what we saw was a projected hologram in which case Lear is right.

          • I was not there, but people were there and witnessed a jetliner crashing into The Pentagon.
            There were no crisis actors. What happened on 9/11 was real life.

          • How do we know that the official story is the truth? It has not been proven to me. Our government lies just about 100% of the time. Do you think that Oswald killed JFK, that Sirhan killed RFK, that Ray killed MLK, etc.? If you do, you cannot think.

          • Video shows two jetliners crashed into the WTC Towers. That is the official story, but i can see that for myself just by watching the videos.
            Oswald did kill JFK. The physical and circumstantial evidence pointed directly at him.
            He went to where his rifle was stored, the night before 11/22/63. He took a completely enclosed package to work the next day, which Betsey Randle said, almost touched the ground the way he was carrying it. The rifle was found on the 6th floor, where he was working. An eyewitness was a man shooting from the 6th floor corner window. Harold Norman, on the 5th floor, heard all the shots as having come from above his head.
            Rosey Greer took the gun away from Sirhan.
            I can think just fine.

          • Oswald killed Kennedy? What a closed mind; I’ve nothing else to say to you and it is obvious that you are not an independent thinker. Don’t recite the Kennedy propaganda to me. I’ve read at least 15 books on the subject. How many have your read? How much of the 911 truth information have you read? None, I ‘d wager.

    • But remember it was shown after the plane hit the pentagon–Rumsfeld with 50 CIA agents were seen picking up scrap plane parts. How convenient a huge industrial bin was at hand.
      Seems Boeing made a mistake in manufacturing them 3 planes-instead of using aluminum for the fuselages, it inadvertently used solid titanium

    • “Id have more respect for the findings if we were talking about the
      Pentagon where not one shred of aircraft was found, and there is parking
      lot videos of an aircraft flying over the Pentagon at the alleged
      moment of impact.”
      More than a shred of an aircraft was found. Pieces of the skin of an airliner with the American Airlines paint scheme was on the lawn outside. There are some photos of air plane debris inside The Pentagon. I haven’t seen any parking lot videos of a plane flying over The Pentagon at the time of impact.
      Witnesses saw a jetliner strike The Pentagon.

      • Back to you, so you are saying numerous pilots dont’ know shit? And YOU do???
        You just parrot the crap fed you by FOXCNNABCCBSNBC and the USA govt. I bet you also swallowed one of the first big lies . That they found a passport of one of the hijackers in PRISTINE condition. LOL. and of course there are 100’s or other anomalies that are never answered. I bet you don’t even know what they are. because to clowns like yourself. anyone who actually does some critical thinking is a ”conspiracy theorist”. Get me that burger I ordered, kid. ON the double.

        • “Back to you, so you are saying numerous pilots dont’ know shit? And YOU do???”
          Hi, again. Anyone can claim numerous pilots said X.
          I have read people claim that no fighter pilot could fly the planes that way. The planes were flown that way, so obviously it could be done, especially by a fighter pilot.
          “You just parrot the crap fed you by FOXCNNABCCBSNBC and the USA govt.”
          The problem with that blanket statement is that the government and the news media get that information from original sources.
          NBC said planes flew into the Twin Towers. I don’t need NBC to tell me that, as there are multiple videos which recorded the crashes.
          “I bet you also swallowed one of the first big lies . That they found
          a passport of one of the hijackers in PRISTINE condition.”
          I have never seen a picture of the passport. Who was claiming it was pristine? Considering you think it was planted, why would anyone plant something that people would find to be unbelievable? A fight attendant reported which seats the hijackers sat in. There was no need to plant a passport.
          “because to clowns like yourself. anyone who actually does some critical thinking is a ”conspiracy theorist”.” “Basic consensus is they were taken over remotely in flight.”
          That is not critical thinking. Flight 93 flew way off to the west before it turned back toward its intended destination, prior to crashing in Pennsylvania.

          • SMDH. It was shot down,, dipshit. So you are saying you believe the sources that feed FOXCNNABCCBSNBC. That shows how fucking ignorant you are. I have first hand experience in how the media lies. i.e. We flew the President of C.A. R. from Niger back to Bangui in March of 2003. 45 minutes from landing in Bangui , the tower called me and said they were being overrun by rebels and NOT TO LAND. So we diverted to Yoande ,Cameroon and when I got to the crew hotel , the Hilton, I turned on CNN international and they had the story on the rolling marquee. Totally fucked up and totally WRONG story what really happened. Here is the story. that was my plane. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2861129.stm

          • SMDH. It was shot down
            No jetliner was shot down on 9/11.
            There was a photo taken, which showed the mushroom plume of dark smoke rising above the crash site, just after the jetliner crashed.
            There was no smoke trail to the ground.
            “So you are saying you believe the sources that feed FOXCNNABCCBSNBC. That shows how fucking ignorant you are.”
            The photograph i am referring to is an actual source. The lack of a smoke trail to the ground indicated that flight 93 had not been shot down.

          • If you believe anything that the mainstream media and the US government says, you are a clueless, foolish IDIOT!!!! As a case in point, Whitey Bulger’s right hand man, Kevin Weeks, wrote a book about his time with Bulger and stated that he was involved in many incidents that were on the news in the Boston area and the media NEVER got anything 100% right! And yet you regurgitate what you’ve been told to believe. Right after 911, some of the engineers who designed the WTC stated that they designed the towers to take a direct hit from airliners but that was quickly taken off by the MSM. Why did the BBC announce that the towers fell before they did then quickly recant?

          • “If you believe anything that the mainstream media and the US government says, you are a clueless, foolish IDIOT!!!!”
            The passenger manifest spoke for itself. The videos spoke for themselves.
            The various eyewitnesses spoke for themselves. Why are you interjecting the MSM or the government?
            “Right after 911, some of the engineers who designed the WTC stated
            that they designed the towers to take a direct hit from airliners but
            that was quickly taken off by the MSM”.
            The MSM has remarked about the Towers being designed to withstand a crash from the largest airliner in service at the time the Towers were designed. Nothing was taken off. The Towers obviously withstood the crash. They simply did not withstand the fire which followed. Had there been no fire, the Towers would still be standing.
            “Why did the BBC announce that the towers fell before they did then quickly recant?”
            The BBC did not announce that the Towers fell before they did. WTC7 was later expected to fall and the BBC made a mistake in announcing that it had already fallen. Mistakes like that happen in live news broadcasts.

    • they planted ‘eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and WTC who both articulated similar phrasing and with similar accents, an amateur attempt to fool the people

  5. regarding John Lear –
    1 – there is no such thing as “former” CIA
    2 – he is a UFO wacko
    3 – even if we accepted his statements about the capabilities of a 767, it is still quite a stretch to say there were no planes. it would have been retrofitted planes.
    4 – cass sunstein! paging cass sunstein! white courtesy telephone please.

    • I suggest you go back and watch some videos of the supposed planes—entering in whole and out the other end—plane’s nose cone intact. Just like soft butter them WTC towers. listen dude—Planes were whisked away in another country and crew/passengers gassed and disposed in a rending plant/Question to wise one–why were all the airports tower videos destroyed and the managers not convicted and what was the reason to destroy? Make my day!

      • An aircraft is so fragile that anything stronger than air will impale it. Ever heard of bird-hits grounding planes? There’s a video (it used to be there 10 years back) on youtube which shows a crash test of a fighter plane on a concrete block. Watch the plane disappear into the block and shred it’s impressive appearance to oblivion. Only Engines remain in one piece but badly mangled.

    • The crisis of today is the joke of tomorrow.~ H. G. Wells
      Having once shot a steel car rim with a handgun, this is a clear example of how penetration is not possible. The bullet is 10x the density of water and travels at the speed of sound (just under 1200ft/sec, for STP@SL). But we are expected to believe an
      aluminum projectile that floats on water (Sully’s airliner in the
      Hudson river, indicating .2 mass density compared to water) and can only travel about 500ft/sec, is able to perpetuate over 126 feet
      through steel without stopping. This is absurd, as it would only
      takes a constant force of 50g to stop any projectile moving 500ft/sec, in 63 feet. Formula 1 cars have recorded survived impacts from 85-140+g, crumpling the car body less than 2ft, in 200mph crashes.
      As the kinematic equation shows, 1/2 Mass(Velocity squared), the velocity is exponential compared to mass, a linear function. From the standpoint of metallurgy, the shear modules of aluminum is 25 Gpa, where as basic steel is 70 Gpa. Even the construction technique of using sheet metal to fabricate planes, lends itself to the dissipation of energy through crumpling. Examples can be seen in uni-body construction of cars to meet impact safety requirements, a practice started before 1980.
      In conclusion, the carppetbagger’s hoax that commercial airliners hit the WTC, can easily be disproved by observation of physics and metallurgy. Even basic math shows the energy needed
      would be one thousand times greater than a commercial airliner could generate, that’s three orders of magnitude. NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!

      • Please try wording your argument as: Commercial aircraft could not have struck the WTC buildings because…with some relevant bullet points. What’s written above is a bunch of disjointed ramblings, far from any sort of argument or proof.

      • “In conclusion, the carppetbagger’s hoax that commercial airliners hit the WTC, can easily be disproved by observation of physics and
        metallurgy. Even basic math shows the energy needed would be one
        thousand times greater than a commercial airliner could generate, that’s
        three orders of magnitude. NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!”
        In conclusion, two commercial jetliners were observed crashing into the Twin Towers. Thus it was physically possible.

  6. The Empire State Building was also hit by an airliner and it didn’t fall into it’s own foot print! I wonder why?? That was real and uncontrolled.

  7. The Empire State Building was also hit by an airliner and it didn’t fall
    into it’s own foot print! I wonder why?? That was real, totally unexpected and
    uncontrolled.

    • B-25 Mitchell stricking the Empire State building July 28th, 1945. The
      facade of the ESB is granite, and masonry has negligible tensile
      strength(<1Ksi). Tensile strength is what keeps a material from
      being pulled apart (Kevlar vest) and structural steel can withstand
      over 88Ksi (THE strongest tensile strength building material used in
      quantity, even today). The aircraft punched a 18ft x 20ft hole in
      the facade, yet the wing span is over 67 feet. Many publication try
      to avoid discussing the air frame, as it fell to a lower roof terrace
      and the street level.
      To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking;
      to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict
      oneself from the realm of reality.~ Ayn Rand

    • All three WTC building fell inside and outside their footprint. The term is meaningless propaganda.
      The structural design of the WTC buildings that collapsed, were not the same as the Empire State building. Also, the WTC fires burned totally out of control, as opposed to the Empire State Building fire.
      By your own comment, i can see that you don’t really wonder why the WTC buildings fell and the Empire State Building did not.

      • Building 7 was not hit by anything, yet collapsed later in the afternoon after the BBC announced it had,……. and owner Larry Silverstein said “PULL IT’ to somebody or other….as he later said in an interview with PBS.
        See: wtc7.net

        • I suggest you seek out photos of WTC7. Debris from the collapsing WTC1 crashed into WTC7. 14 years after 9/11 no one should be ignorant of the debris that struck and damaged WTC7, resulting in fires on several floors. Having lost 343 firefighters by that point and having concern that WTC7 might collapse, NYFD chose not to attempt to put out the fires in WTC7.
          Pull it, referred to the firefighting operation by NYFD. After 14 years, you should understand that by now.

          • There is no way the NYFD could have set charges to “pull it” in so short a time….and they don’t do that anyway. Demolition is not in their job description and buildings built the way WTC7 don’t fall in less than 7 seconds without controlled demolition. No other buildings built with those same construction techniques have, after catching fire. They burn and leave the steel skeleton standing. See the Windsor Tower, Madrid fire.
            Let’s see those pictures you trolls always bring up, but never produce.

          • Judy, it took longer than 7 seconds for WTC7 to fall.
            The floors below the East Penthouse collapsed. The East Penthouse then collapsed as that part of the roof collapsed. Several seconds went by, then the rest of the Penthouse started to fall, as interior floors below it, followed by the roof started to cave in. A few video frames later the visible portion of the building began to descend.
            The manner of the collapse did not indicate controlled demolition, but a structural failure in the east wing, underneath the East Penthouse.
            “Let’s see those pictures you trolls always bring up, but never produce.”
            Ah, the name calling.
            https://wtc7fact.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/wtc7gashtopclosean1.png

          • Do i need to show you more pictures?
            After 14 years you should have seen them already.
            That gash runs several stories down and was there because something struck the building. Take note of some of the other damage, because debris struck WTC7 when WTC1 collapsed.

          • Not very convincing! Especially when the official FEMA report says “suggesting an implosion”. It’s all there both the statement and the before pictures, with the video of the collapse, on the Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth WTC7 page.

          • The photos clearly show that WTC7 was hit by something. Your comment was incorrect.
            An interior collapse would be an implosion.

          • Yes, an implosion brought about by pre-planted explosives.
            The building was not made of toothpicks.
            WTC7: Sound Evidence For Explosions youtube

          • WTC7 collapsed as a result of the out of control fire. There were no pre-planted explosives.
            The fire caused a collapse of floors below the East Penthouse, causing the east roof and Penthouse to cave in.
            Several seconds later, floors below the remaining Penthouse collapsed, causing it to begin to cave in. Just after the remaining Penthouse began to fall, the building began to descend.

          • The collapse took longer than 6.5 seconds.
            At 3 seconds the East Penthouse begins to collapse. At 14+ seconds the top of WTC7 disappears from view, but is still above ground level. That alone is a total of 11 seconds. Prior to the East Penthouse collapsing at 3 seconds, the floors beneath it were collapsing. At the start of the video a rumbling can be heard, at about 1.5 seconds, just before the East Penthouse falls in. That increases the time of the collapse to over 12 seconds. WTC7 is still falling after it passes out of sight.
            Add possibly another second.
            Nobody has to believe me, Judy. All they have to do is look at the video and see it for themselves.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo

          • “This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.”

          • The NIST Report was a whitewash. The former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, James Quintieri, Ph.D.,called for an independent investigation into the NIST Report itself.
            YOU ARE A DISINFORMATIONALIST….just who do you work for?

          • Judy, the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seconds.
            “Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds.”

          • Silverstein said that in reference to the towers several months before 911. Giuliani said on national tv later that they were told WTC7 was about to come down and they were told to leave. How would someone know that it was about to fall unless it was by controlled demolition?

          • “How would someone know that it was about to fall unless it was by controlled demolition?”
            I have read that the building was making odd sounds leading up to the collapse. The building would have been under stress just prior to the moment of catastrophic failure.

          • And the photos prove the fires were small. There is little damage to the outside of the building in the photos shown at ae911truth.org

          • The fire burned totally out of control for several hours. Small fires do not burn for several hours. WTC7 was still on fire when the building collapsed.

          • 9/11 FIREFIGHTER BLOWS WTC7 COVER-UP WIDE OPEN
            youtube.
            He was there, the fires were small. After the collapses there was molten metal, which is impossible from an ordinary office building fire.

          • Judy, the fire burned from after WTC1 debris collapsed into it, to after 5pm, when WTC7 collapsed. Small fires do not run for some 7 hours. The fire was still burning when WTC7 collapsed. Video cameras documented that.
            Haven’t seen anyone produce photos of pools of liquid molten metal, or of the pools after they would have cooled and solidified.

  8. Now, If I was afraid of the 911 truth movement, what I’d do is try to plant conflicting narratives all over. This comment thread is a good example, of a good result!
    If you can get even the “truthers” fighting amongst themselves, they’re not fighting YOU!

  9. As more and more people get to know the truth about 9/11, the efforts by conspirators and their sympathizers to discredit the truth movement has also intensified. The most effective tactic of the conspirators is to plant as many deceptively genuine-looking ‘experts’ as possible and muddy the clear waters. The ‘CIA’ pilot (Chaos International Airlines) is one such plant, and like all other planted experts who come up with the weirdest of theories, Mr CIA pilot has made his effort. What a bastard.

    • He evidently isn’t as “former” CIA as he would like people to think. Lots of things he claims are factually incorrect. I always expected the “kookifying” narratives to be a bit cleverer, but this guy is very obvious.

    • “As more and more people get to know the truth about 9/11, the efforts by conspirators and their sympathizers to discredit the truth movement has also intensified.”
      A real truth movement would admit that fire was the cause of the buildings collapsing. The truth movement discredits itself by pushing a grandiose controlled demolition conspiracy.

  10. landing gear components are the heaviest and strongest. They could NOT have been destroryed. Where are they? Frankly, there was NO Crime Scene Investigation and the debris was carted off s quickly as possiblle.

  11. I am retired flight engineer. (DC-8s) and was still flying at the time. Every pilot I have flown with or known says those were NOT Arabs flying those aircraft. Many don’t want to discuss it much for fear of losing their jobs. Basic consensus is they were taken over remotely in flight. The platform of B767/757 are very similar. all that is need is 3 black boxes in the avionics bay UNDER the flight deck. 19 Arab patsies who thought they were part of an exercise that day. Probably quite surprised that they were not in control of the aircraft. Typical CIA compartmentalized operation. ONly a few people had to know what was going to happen. so they can always claim Plausible Denial. The aircraft hits were just cover for the demolitions.

    • That is an interesting fiction.
      As a flight engineer you would have no idea of what a typical CIA operation is.
      There was no demolition. The Towers simply collapsed due to the effect of the out of control fires on the structural steel, considering the unique design of the buildings.
      If the planes would have been remotely taken over in flight, the airline pilots would have radioed flight controllers that they had lost control of their plane.

      • The fire couldn’t have gotten hot enough to melt the structural steel and no skyscraper has ever, anywhere in the world, fallen because of a fire and there have been fires in highrises.

        • It was irrelevant that the fire did not get hot enough to melt steel. Heat negatively affects steel, regardless, which was why fire retardant was sprayed on it.
          The Windsor Tower had a partial collapse of steel structure, so steel can collapse in a fire. You are also not taking into account the structural design of the WTC buildings, which was different than other steel buildings.

          • it was claimed by firemen and the clean up crew. There is also video of it running down the building before it fell..

          • they fell at free fall speed, no resistance , and building seven wasn’t even hit by a plane . There is no way fires brought any of these three buildings down, it’s simply not possible.

          • The Twin Towers did not collapse at free fall speed. Free falling column sections were dropping faster than the Towers were collapsing. There obviously was resistance.
            Fire was the cause of the collapse of the buildings. Seven was struck by debris from One, which started fires on multiple floors in Seven.

          • I think you work for the cover up . It has been proven many times they did . Good luck spreading your agenda

          • You have a vivid imagination.
            There are videos showing column sections falling toward the ground. The Towers were not collapsing as fast as the column sections were falling.
            One video of WTC2 collapsing showed a column section just before it hit the ground. Maybe a third of the building was still standing at the time. The column section hit the ground well before lobby ceiling crashed to the lobby floor.

          • The Twin Towers did not collapse at free fall speed. Free falling column
            sections were dropping faster than the Towers were collapsing. There
            obviously was resistance.
            You aren’t fooling anyone, Alex. All one has to do is look at the video. Anyone can see that column sections were dropping at free fall speed and the Towers were collapsing at a slower speed.

          • yes it was different, the steel frames were amongst the stongest ever built. How would u explain how the frame collasped below the alledged crash point ?

          • In WTC2, most of the columns were bowed in on the east wall at the 81st floor.
            Gravity and tons of mass with momentum. The floors below the structural failure point due to effect from the fire, didn’t stand a chance. It shouldn’t take you 14 years to figure that out.

      • What a buffon. The laws of physics trumps your absurd comments and the design of the buildings would have made them less likely to collapse. Anyway who the hell are you? What is your background? More like you are living in your mum’s basement.

        • The design of the buildings lent them more to collapse in their particular fire circumstances on 9/11.
          The laws of physics do not trump anything i said. Fire was the cause of collapse.

  12. During New Years celebration here in Amsterdam the projected holograms onto the buildings , they must be conspiracy theorists.

  13. Lear is full of shit. Its extremely easy to fly a large aircraft In fact the size doesn”t matter aat all. Ever hear of drones??

  14. When thinking about 911 , a person has to think first about MOTIVE. qui bono.. Who stand to gain?? Certainly you can’t believe that people did it because ”they hate us for our freedoms”. Seeing as it was supposedly 19 Saudis. why are some of them still alive? And Saudis are RICH and do what they want. .

  15. Solving the 9/11 puzzle would do nothing as White Americans are too IGNORANT, COWARDLY & EXCEPTIONAL to even consider the U.S. is so CORRUPT & RULE BY A WEALTHY WHITE CRIMINAL, INDICTABLE ELITE.

    • Quit being racist. I’ve read polls at various times that say that 40% +/- of Americans do not believe the official story and there are tons of 911 truthers out there.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.