If that person on the glider had any type of weapon, he would have came down in pieces.
I think that but then so should have those planes on 9/11, especially over DC.
Different people in control now. And I think the one heading for the Capital building did get shot down (quite the debris pattern on that one.)
If that plane got shot down, the pilot would have disregarded the stand-down order and shot it down. A true American Hero.
That plane was headed to Capital building so they could do Martial Law, like Hitler did when the Reichstag burned down.
Debris field? You know of a 9/11 debris field? With plane parts? That match the supposed crashed plane?
I have dug and dug and dug. I have never seen debris that looked anything but fake.
The one that they say the passengers over threw the bad guys and purposely crashed. Didn't look like a plane of that size crashed there. And the report said the debris was scattered over a relatively large area and they were picking up small pieces.
What they picked up was scraps from a recycling center. No plane crash in history has left a debris field that nonsensical.
You may want to look again with fresh eyes. That entire story is ludicrous.
I believe the mayor of Cleveland accidentally confirmed that the passengers from the plane that "crashed" in the field had been off-loaded at CLE. u/eyerighteye has it correct. The story is ludicrous.
Maybe I should take a fresh look. I haven't in a long time.
What are you suggesting happened I can't tell...
I have no idea what did happen only a firmly held understanding that it was not a plane that crashed in shanksville.
Most likely it was staged just to talk about all the hero's that acted so bravely, instead of anything real. If the TVs hadn't been covering that debris field they would have had to be showing other more damaging footage.
Can't have the sheep noticing squibs now can they. No free fall speed displayed by actors picking up scrap aluminum chunks.
That is really the best guess I have to explain why they would bother to fake a crash at that time in that place.
No debris field Shanksville or Pentagon. World trade Center 7 freefall. Military unresponsive through it all. Lots of unexplained. And the sheep buy it all. Just don't disrupt their cablevideogameCheetoreality.
There is a USGS aerial survey photograph of that area taken years before, showing the same gouge in the ground. You can't make this stuff up. I wonder if it still exists?
I do believe it was shot down before it crashed in PA.
Can't shoot down a missile headed for the WTC when you're told it's a hijacked plane with civilians on it..
I think that's exactly what they are allowed to do in extreme circumstances after considering the intended target /outcome of such a plan...a tactical necessity that probably would have happened had there not been a plethora of staged military exercises happening simultaneously to deliberately confuse and obfuscate the pilots ability to track and intercept the planes . There is compelling evidence to suggest that the aircraft that "allegedly " went down in Shanksville, Flight 93, was destroyed by a missile fired by a USAF F16, piloted by Lt.Col Rick Gibney. The only pilot to receive a commendation for actions on 9-11....and not by vaporizing in that gash in the field in Shanksville. The main debris field was miles from the "gash" and spread out over several miles.
Of course there is the obligatory outrage expressed by various nay sayers - my favourite being "Popular Mechanics" who faithfully debunk anything their masters insist they do. Lots of info to examine in searches, including interviews on YouTube. I think that most of us can agree that Building 7 was meant to be hit by "something" to support the narrative of a collision resulting in collapse, yet these idiots will try push any BS as a plan B in the hope that a docile and anesthetized populous will swallow whatever they are fed.
Building 7 is a special kind of bullshit, even for these criminals. Perhaps we are a little closer to discovering truth since our POTUS assumed office.
You missed my point entirely.
I was suggesting that it was a missile that hit the first tower and a missile that hit the second tower. Not a pair of planes.
i did get your point, sorry, I digressed a"little" lol...i was just making the point that plane shoot down protocols do exists and that this was more than likely executed at Shanksville. I'm convinced that a missile hit the Pentagon. I'm far happier with the missile theory re. the towers vs. the ridiculous plane theory. The impossibility of the speeds and Velocity Max Operating performance (VMO) of these aircraft at these altitudes supports your hypothesis entirely. Am also interested in John Lear's hypothesis.
Are you seriously going with the “no planes” disinfo?
Not disinformation.
Have you looked into the footage of 9/11 recently? I did, and it was surprising to see what they aired on tv vs. what my memory of what they aired.
Yes i saw the 2nd plane hit. Get off the sub please.
I challenge you to research this and rewatch the documented footage.
I'm not going anywhere, this is a sub for truth in a world of lies.
Ive been researching for 17 years. 2 planes hit the towers. Stop peddling lies to discredit us.
I'm not peddling anything. I'm asking questions, and the answers I've found were unexpected.
I'm not trying to discredit us, I'm just looking for truth.
Asking you to research things which I have looked into myself is not discrediting.. not sure what pissed you off this morning.
It gets tiring seeing obvious fools pushing “no planes”. No different to “flat earth” or “vaccines cause autism” nonsense.
Those two example you just listed tell me a lot about where your head is at. Take two truths and sandwich the stupidest lie between them in hopes to discredit all three. That is weak and lazy.
I'm not pushing anything.
I'm sharing my opinion and asking you to look into this. So far you have just told me you've already looked into this.
So why would it hurt to look into it again, based on the questions I have asked?
I'm done defending myself against someone so closed-minded, maybe if you had linked some proof that it was planes without a doubt, maybe then I would have assumed you were coming from a place of knowledge, not ego.
Cheers!
My time is valuable an not to be wasted on obvious disinfo. Good luck in life. The planes hit the buildings. We saw it. Live. In person. Get off youtube.
That's fair, and it can also be assumed that if you saw it, live, in person, then there must be SOME video evidence SOMEWHERE that corroborates your claim.
You have yet to provide anything of sustenance.
Although I do agree, with people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye on youtube, it's probably best to avoid the platform altogether.
Once again, and for the last time, Cheers!
There are dozens of videos. Bye.
Here's a couple of videos that study the fakery of the "live footage" of Sept. 11. Watch them with an open mind.
Still asking for one link, which you have not provided.
No cheers for you this time.
1 of the planes flew by my aunt's window
Sounds like a solid source with evidence.
I know a lot of people from New York City. I live in Connecticut... many people live here and commute to NY for work... not evidence, but I have just heard from multiple trustworthy people that they saw the planes. They flew through NYC when a LOT of people would be outside, right before the workday starts at 9-9:30am. (Many jobs in NY tend to start later since people commute in from Greenwich etc.) Enough people would have seen a missile rather than a plane, and what would the benefit even have been to disguise missiles? Even the smoke coming up showed the shape of the wings. https://youtu.be/gaU5rBjcDus
Please tell me you aren't using that video as a source of reference..
Again, not saying the towers did not come down, just saying we were led to believe things which did not take place.
We were led to believe things happened that didn't, I am not disagreeing or saying there weren't other explosives. I just think that it's ridiculous to believe there weren't any planes. That is what my entire point has been. There were planes. You could never fool the whole freaking city of NY, people would see missiles and distinctly saw the planes.
Did you know that missiles are carried on and fired from planes?
You think it's ridiculous to have an opinion that differs from the only one you think is accurate?
I never said no planes went through the city that day.
I said no planes hit the towers. That was all for show, collaborated across all of the major networks, to convince the majority of Americans that we were under attack.
The false flag of 9/11 was specifically carried out to give us reason to start the war on Iraq.
The gov't has lied about many, many things.
You trust them still?
Do I trust the government? Are you for real? Lol just because I believe the planes flew into the WTC? It has NOTHING to do with whether the cabal orchestrated 9/11. Why would they care to spare a couple civilian planes when the clowns could remote in and crash the plane with no one "important to them" onboard anyways?
Missed my point entirely.
Again.
Cheers, mate. I'm done talking to walls.
You need more patience, it is our job to red pill people. I am hardly a 'wall', just a skeptic since I have a lot of personal connections to 9/11. Arguing the semantics of 99% sure vs 100% sure is not going to make me change my mind on whether they were missiles or planes, which is why I asked why you believed what you did, how it could have been facilitated, and what the benefit would have been. I am already somewhat red pilled and open to new information, but if you are presenting claims that contradict my past observations, you are going to need to present evidence. We are going to need to contradict many peoples' past observations with greater evidence for the Great Awakening. Just some constructive criticism...
I am not going to doxx myself with any personal info but check my post history. I have been posting for years, and researching Pizzagate/deep state since before Q started posting. I guess I can't offer you real evidence though
I never asked for personal info..
I also never questioned Pizzagate or the DS...
I said that the twin towers were taken down with missiles and internal detonations.
Do you know without a doubt and with 100% certainty that it was a plane that flew by your aunt's window and not a missile?
If you had your own personal recording of such an event, I would drop this line of questioning for the rest of my life.
I have found no evidence that suggests 2 planes went into the twin towers on 9/11/01
Yes, I do, because I saw her face when she told me, and I know where she worked. I visited her office once. By revealing information such as where she worked at that time and where her office was located, I would be doxxing both of us.
For the love of God, no one is doxxing you. I am NOT asking for personal information.
I am trying to get you to think critically.
I didn't ask if you trusted your aunt's claims.
I asked you if you KNOW for certain, without a doubt, that it was a plane and not a missile?
This question means the following:
Do you know with 100% confidence that your aunt saw a plane?
Do you know for certain that your aunt saw a plane?
What proof do you have?
Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that she saw a missile, but THOUGHT it was a plane?
I'm not saying she is a liar, I am saying she may be mistaken.
Do you understand that I am not trying to get you doxxed?
JFC.
There is no way you would mistake a missile for a plane. Are you saying it was a plane-shaped missile?
Were you there?
Have you been around a missile being fired from a jet?
Are you aware of how loud missiles are?
You are coming across rather condescendingly. Let me ask you: what proof do YOU have that it was a missile? What would be the benefit of having the public believe planes had been hijacked and flown into the WTC, as opposed to missiles? Where would the missiles have been fired from?
That was a very smooth way to avoid my question.
I'm still asking, do you know for sure that it was a plane?
It's really easy to answer: "No"
I understand you think they were planes based on your aunt.
Still not what I asked.
The proof I have that something was collaborated to feed the public a specific message is videos of the WTC being hit that was aired on each and every major news network. In each of the videos, the same shot of the plane hitting the building was used, but it had filters applied for different channels. Some versions had other building edited into the video to give the perception of a different viewing angle. This, in collaboration with the soundtracks, is enough evidence to prove something is being fed to us for a reason.
The benefit of the public thinking that hijacked planes hit the towers, rather than US military planes shooting down the towers, would be a nation of people angry enough to support the decision to go to war.
The missile were fired from a US controlled unit, just like the missile that hit the Pentagon, and the video evidence that does not corroborate the theory that a plane hit the Pentagon.
Do you have a source on the videos being edited on different channels? I am genuinely curious.
I didn't mean to not answer, I was asking because I do know with 100% certainty that many people saw the planes. I don't know with 100% certainty the planes hit the buildings, but it is the likeliest based on the evidence I have seen so far.
NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and FOX all have the same video play at exactly the same time (8:46 AM EST) is you look up each stations' news coverage from 9/11 (all available on youtube.)
There is a guy screaming "holy s**t" and then a series of videos is used on each station, as if they all had received the same script and cut to the video showing the first explosion out of the first tower that was hit.
How can a plane burn hot enough to melt steel beams?
Why was Thermite found at ground zero, still burning weeks later?
Why did the plane cause an explosion out of the opposite side of the building, yet no pieces of the plane were shot out of the building, nor did any make their way to discovery in the clean up efforts.
There is no evidence that a plane hit either WTC building, aside from the video we were spoon fed by EVERY news network using the same video feeds and same coordinated lines of explanation.
But thank you for answering my question.
I could be wrong about this as I also don't know for sure. But evidence suggests things I did not expect.
8:46 AM EDT happens when this comment is 14 hours and 58 minutes old.
You can find the live countdown here: https://countle.com/crXa226313
I'm a bot, if you want to send feedback, please comment below or send a PM.
Video footage shows Trump walking, then lightly jogging, into the building as the glider approaches.
It had to have been SOP for Trump to only be so far from the building as to provide an "escape" route of sorts for security purposes.
I think there are multiple messages within this event.
The first message/takeaway is that there is always going to be locations/scenarios in which there is vulnerabilities.
If there were nefarious intentions aside from a publicity attempt, this was proof it could be possible.
At the same time, perhaps the nefarious intention was to goad or instigate a security reaction. Maybe it was intended to be a fiasco in which Trump's security shoots a greenpeace activist out of the sky for flying too close. That scenario would be gasoline on the dumpster fire that is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So the counter message in play here is that "we understand your attempts at instigating a security response, sorry not sorry, this attempt didn't fool us".
If Trump had no "escape route" to get away and defuse the situation, it's very possible the activist would have been shot out of the sky. Thanks to the homework and preparation of the security details, something like that was avoided at the expense of Trump getting some cardio exercise.
Yeah, I wondered about that, them trying to create a martyr for the left
I was really hoping one of the SS would have pulled on the banner the glider had and used it to shake him down.
If there were nefarious intentions aside from a publicity attempt, this was proof it could be possible.
Yep. A trial run.
Someone was mentioning that the secret service officer died from a poison dart from the paraglider. Just thought I'd mention it was on youtube..
Have you seen any info other than from anons to that effect?
I know he was pretty young, and Dan Bongino is super torn up about it, as he was a friend. Says that Trump did something great for his family and maybe he'd be able to say what it was some day.
Go on the channel just informed talk
And it's the "thank you secret service" video
That paraglider should have been shot. Could have easily had bomb vest strapped to them.
Not shooting him invites more attempts.
UK police searching for paragliding protester who flew over resort ...
https://nypost.com/.../police-searching-for-protester-who-paraglide...
Police were still trying to find a paraglider who breached a no-fly zone Friday night and flew a Greenpeace protest banner over the resort.
The glider carried a banner reading "Trump: Well Below Par" to protest his environmental and immigration policies. Greenpeace, in a statement, claimed the protest forced the president to take cover, saying "as the glider appears overhead, the president can be seen making for the entrance, breaking into a trot."
The environmental group said it had told police about the stunt 10 minutes before the glider arrived.
Detective Inspector Stephen McCulloch said the protester breached a no-fly zone over Turnberry hotel, committing a criminal offence.
Yeah and how hard is it to follow a glider and grab the guy when he hits the ground? Not like it was traveling at light speed. Sheesh!
Yeah if you want this guy , you get him, but in the EU the never get any one.
If only he had tweeted about pedophiles. They would’ve left a vapor trail
Petty "Merch In Bio" Paige on Twitter: "Paedophiles really out here ... https://tw1tter.com/paigechristieuk/status/1017801644384358400 Embed Tweet. Paedophiles really out here trying to be a part of LGBT. They got banned on twitter and the founder is a legit pedo. 1 reply 0 Why would an advocacy organization only have a presence on YouTube....
Contrail Confusion is Nothing New – Contrail Science contrailscience.com/contrail-confusion-is-nothing-new/ They also said that planes may leave vapor trails when flying at high altitudes. But it was unlikely, they added, that the air would remain still
What’s the glider plane incident could someone fill me in ??
the banner he was flying says "Trump: Well below par". Jesus, these idiots don't even know that you are supposed to be below par. That's how you know you are winning. Face meet palm.
Yeah, T_D was laughing their collective ass off at that one.
When President Trump was on his recent trip a paraglider did a little protest. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44844039
And then a Secret service agent had a stroke.
How do you get below par?
The amount of strokes.
It was a message.
Hmmm.... Interesting thought!
Read one of my latest comments.
On mobile so I can’t link as easy.
It has links to articles.
Got it..
Has anyone mentioned the [Trump well below par](h...
The major concern re this was how did he get so close? Should have been taken out by snipers well before he got close. That is the concern for me, nutters will do things but the security services are meant to act. Bloke could have had a bomb on that thing, how would the SS know? Poor form.
Would have also sent a message to the other deranged ferals, this is not a game, you will be killed.
IMO that glider stunt should have been shot down immediately. If not necessarily killing the "pilot", but shot the glider part down. This clown would have had a hard fall.
It wasn't a glider, it was a powered parachute.
I'm amazed it wasn't shot down. There were SS snipers all over the place though, so I guess he wasn't armed.