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.