Ok, seeing the debate is still raging on with regards to the planes, so here we go again…
I still stand with my first article, that the plane / no plane debate is a DISTRACTION to what happened to the 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on September 11, 2001.
My second plane article presented you with Mark Conlon’s (9/11 Plane research) extensive research into what happened to the REAL planes on 9/11.
The 9/11 Phantom Warfare article on my substack was the outline of Chris Hampton’s MUST watch documentary, “9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality”, that basically sets out most of Mark Conlons’ work on the 4 planes of 9/11 in a 3.5h documentary.
Sage Hana’s substack articles about 9/11 planes, also have been stirring emotions lately.
Why am I over the whole plane plane / no plane debate?
You can argue Newton's 3rd law, you can discuss points like air pressure, drag, aerodynamics, the facts that the planes were supposedly flying over their recommended speeds by 200mp/h, which means the planes would break up, and all this has been confirmed by Boeing when researchers gave them a call, but they will not confirm this publicly in relation to the events of September 11, 2001 - Here is why.
You can speak to pilots that also confirm no commercial jetliner can fly that low, at the calculated speeds, and the controllability would be nearly impossible and they all confirm the same NO commercial jetliners could perform the manoeuvres we saw.
Then the other nail in the coffin for the plane / no plane argument, is the cellphone calls, which could not have been made at 30 000 feet in 2001, and when last have you seen a plane crash site where the earth swallowed the whole plane?
So, don't waste your time on the planes, you need to focus on WHAT happened to those 8 buildings at WTC complex on September 11, and a few years thereafter.
Video's regarding the plane / no plane argument can be found on my plane video playlist.
A good friend of mine Mathiew, MES on YouTube, got into an e-mail exchange with one of his YT moderators with regards to the planes, even after MES had Mark Conlon on, so I thought it would be a good share for those “plane believers” to AGAIN try and work through their cognitive dissonance, so here follows his email;
Paul, I think instead of a debate, please provide any relevant evidence that you have of the alleged hijackings for all 4 flights on 9/11 and proof that actual planes crashed into their alleged locations.
In my opinion, the Shanksville and Pentagon "planes" are too laughable to even be worthy of debate. The Shanksville UA Flight 93 plane allegedly was going 563 mph and buried itself into a tiny hole. The Pentagon AA Flight 77 plane allegedly was going 530 mph at ground level and clipped 5 street lights before disappearing into the Pentagon wall.
Do you actually believe these involved large Boeing planes?
The alleged WTC 1 AA Flight 11 plane was going 440 mph at around 1000 ft altitude and went straight through steel columns, with a delayed explosion, and with the landing gear somehow puncturing through 208 feet of steel, concrete, aluminum, and office floors:
So, what did it have to go through?
The alleged WTC 2 UA Flight 175 was traveling 590 mph at about 1000 ft altitude, with many videos showing it glide literally through steel with no deceleration until a delayed explosion. This in my view is impossible and there is no comparable plane crash footage in history. The closest to it is a bunker busting missile, as an example.
The alleged landing gear, engine, and fuselage also somehow punctured 208 feet of the WTC. Do you actually believe this happened?
Here is a photo of a large section of the fuselage found on top of the WTC 5 (1 month later).
How can this large section of the fuselage or main body of the plane get past 208 ft of a very strong steel skyscraper without getting crushed longitudinally. This is impossible. Again, do you actually believe this happened?
Lastly, the WTC 2 UA Flight 175 was also banking left at 590 mph yet the wings or tail section didn't tear off nor the plane noticed any significant turbulence:
Now consider the following;
Compare that with the November 12, 2001 AA Flight 587 which was traveling at an altitude of about 2500 feet (more than 2 times higher than the WTC planes) and at about 250 knots (half the speed of the WTC plane) and the fin broke up due to the pilot turning too strongly, and the engines separated before the plane even impacted the ground.
Again, this all shows the alleged planes on 9/11 displayed impossible physics.
Even if there is a slim chance of each specific case being highly improbable, the combination of all of them occurring at the same time is also impossible.
I highly recommend reading Morgan Reynolds’ and John Lear's 2007 Request for Correction (RFC) to NIST and affidavit testifying to the impossible plane physics.
Cheers, Mathiew
This is a short clip from a presentation Morgan Reynolds gave in 2007;
9/11 An inquiry into the suspension of Newtonian physics.
Poem: Ghosts In The Flight - Don't believe your eyes
✈️✈️ 9/11 A Plane Story ✈️✈️ Movie link here
Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book full of evidence.
And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.
Free PDF downloads: 9/11 – Finding the Truth & 9/11 – Holding the Truth
I have thought for many years that it was never planes. As I understand the WTC towers were built to withstand aircraft impacts.
By now, many of us are aware of the potential psyops carried out by governments & their agents, this could be one of the biggest.
The only people “debating” this are nutcase conspiracy loons.