(News Article):GHOST PLANES: How Did All the Physical Evidence of Terrorist Planes On 9/11 Mysteriously Vanish? | Government and Political Conspiracies | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
(News Article):GHOST PLANES: How Did All the Physical Evidence of Terrorist Planes On 9/11 Mysteriously Vanish?
Related Tags
Avatar
Richard Daystrom PhD
Livermore, CA.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 597
Member Since:
December 19, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
January 7, 2020 - 6:04 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

GHOST PLANES: How Did All the Physical Evidence of Terrorist Planes On 9/11 Mysteriously Vanish?

 

Tuesday, January 07, 2020 by: Ethan Huff

Tags: 9/11DeceptionFalse explanationsGhost planesGovernment coverupsPhysical evidenceTerrorist planesVanished

(Natural News) It’s been almost 20 years since the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks took down the Twin Towers, Building Seven, portions of the Pentagon, and some dirt in an empty field in Pennsylvania. And there are still so many holes in the official story that it’s a true head-scratcher trying to make heads or tails of what actually happened that fateful day.

In his book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State, French author Laurent Guyenot unpacks many of the conflicting details between what the mainstream media told us took place and what the evidence actually shows. In one particular chapter of the book entitled, “Ghost planes,” Guyenot addresses the mystery of the four supposedly hijacked planes, none of which actually come with any actual proof that they even existed.

Writing on his blog, economist Paul Craig Roberts highlights how there’s not even a trace of evidence to show that any planes actually crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or that field in Pennsylvania, “although an unburnt passport was allegedly found in the ruins of two massive buildings.”

While we heard plenty from the families of the victims who perished inside the Twin Towers, there wasn’t even a peep from the families of the victims who were inside these alleged planes, the supposed wreckage of which basically vanished after the tragedies occurred.

Besides all of the questionable video footage that easily could have been doctored, there was no twisted metal, no dead bodies, no nothing to be found in any of the wreckage – at least none that was ever presented to the public that might have verified the legitimacy of the official story, assuming it’s in any way true.

According to Guyenot’s investigative reporting for the “Ghost planes” chapter of his book, “only five” of the alleged casualties of American Airlines flight 77 “have relatives who received the 9-11 Compensation Fund offered by the State.” Oddly enough, he adds, “no family of the victims of Flight UA93 requested compensation.”

Go ahead and look for yourself – you won’t find ANY legitimate evidence of crashed planes at the scenes of 9/11

This is a startling anomaly when you really stop to think about it because surely at least one of them would have asked for their piece of the compensation pie, right? But because none of them did, there remain more questions than answers as to whether or not these planes were even real to begin with.

The other problem that further compounds the mysterious lack of physical evidence surrounding these ghost planes is the fact that the government already had a narrative in place to explain away who committed this atrocity, even before the buildings had stopped smoldering, which is highly suspicious.

“No one expected President Kennedy’s assassination, or he wouldn’t have been riding in a convertible. Yet it was instantly known that Oswald was the assassin,” Guyenot writes in another chapter of his book entitled, “The Art of the Patsy.”

“The explanation for 9/11 was also instantaneous. It was CIA-asset Osama bin Laden, who was dying from renal failure and no longer useful to the CIA.”

In the “Ghost planes” chapter, Guyenot further details the circumstances surrounding each of the alleged plane crashes, and the total lack of evidence present at each of the alleged crash sites. In every location, reporters, photographers, and others are on record as stating that they witnessed no actual plane wreckage, suggesting that the official narrative is a total farce.

You can read this chapter in its entirety at PaulCraigRoberts.org – it begins part of the down the page after Roberts’ personal commentary.

You can also read more about government deception and narrative trickery at Deception.news.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

PaulCraigRoberts.org

W. O. Belfield, Jr.

Avatar
Guy
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 95
Member Since:
May 3, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
May 3, 2020 - 9:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

My understanding is that the two WTC towers were struck by military jets under remote control, and the two non-WTC "crashes" (at the Pentagon and Shanksville) were merely missiles, and all four planes had their trajectories faked by spyware that altered the radar blips. However, I could be convinced that even the WTC's crashed planes were either sophisticated holograms and/or large drones.

I have a PDF document about some of this, but I'm new to this forum and it looks like I can't attach a document from my own computer. If you're interested I'll try to find some place online where I can post it.

----------

P.S. (May 10, 2020): I uploaded 3 files about 9/11 to the following site:

http://ge.tt/9bXY3933

The file to which I was referring earlier, about the fate of the planes, is the file:

rebekah_roth.pdf

Avatar
Jorgen
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
May 9, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
May 29, 2020 - 11:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

If there were no planes, how come they found the airplanes "black boxes"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....y_theories

Cockpit recorders

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[172] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[173]

Two men, Michael Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, said in the book Behind-The-Scenes: Ground Zero that they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:[174]

At one point, I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.[175]

Avatar
Guy
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 95
Member Since:
May 3, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
May 29, 2020 - 11:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Jorgen said
If there were no planes, how come they found the airplanes "black boxes"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....y_theories

  

Easy: They either didn't, or else they removed those black boxes before they destroyed the planes and gassed the passengers. Wikipedia is just an outlet for the official explanations of things, which means it's virtually useless for solving mysteries in controversial or suspicious events. One of my first posts in this forum, in fact, was proof that the FBI and CIA edit Wikipedia pages--you can look that up yourself on the Internet. I admit do use Wikipedia a lot, but only for the same reason I might watch mainstream news: to have a brief, understandable overview of an event, along with the official claim(s). Only rarely will you get the truth from Wikipedia in a controversial topic.

Seriously, do you really think a huge passenger plane could crash into a field near Shanksville and leave nothing behind except some neatly scooped out, narrow furrows in the grassy ground? No titanium engine, no large metal parts, nothing. Official explanation: There was an old mine underneath, which made the ground soft! Then a year later supposedly they found an engine, all rusted, that was posed in a bulldozer shovel for the media photographers,and was probably planted during one night of excavation after they fenced off the area and after they found out that 60-80% of the public wasn't buying the official story. That Roth document covers that topic exactly. You really need to see that document--that's why I post such documents, so I don't have to keep explaining everything repeatedly in such a topic where much background is needed.

Avatar
Jorgen
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
May 9, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
May 30, 2020 - 1:13 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Guy said
Wikipedia is just an outlet for the official explanations of things, which means it's virtually useless for solving mysteries in controversial or suspicious events.

At least the benefit of wikipedia is that they often give plenty of references. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....y_theories

On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[172] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[173]

And that transcript can be found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder Database: https://www.tailstrike.com/

Read it here: https://www.tailstrike.com/110901.pdf

 

I think you are making a mistake if you discredit information just because it comes from wikipedia or any other source you don't trust. You have to go and check the sources before you can debunk it. 

Avatar
Guy
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 95
Member Since:
May 3, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
May 30, 2020 - 12:22 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Jorgen said
I think you are making a mistake if you discredit information just because it comes from wikipedia or any other source you don't trust. You have to go and check the sources before you can debunk it.   

You're wrong about me on both counts.

(1) I don't automatically discredit any source, not even Wikipedia. That's why I have such an open mind to everyone's claims. What I do is consciously assign a believability percentage to each source, whether the source is a given person I know, or a news source, so that I can stamp each claim in my memory with a credence value. There is a concept I use that I call "foi" = frequent or important. The things to which to pay the most attention are foi items--things that many people claim, even if hard to believe, and things that few people claim, but are very important. Basically the believability percentage is multiplied by the foi value to create a natural ranking of what I pay attention to, and believe.

(2) I have checked Wikipedia on 9/11, and I was impressed at the very extensive explanations and details that exist on 9/11. However, if the entire foundation is wrong, all those details are likely worthless. That's what I'm claiming: that the official 9/11 story is so erroneous that all or most of those details become irrelevant. If cell phone calls from a plane moving 500 mph are impossible, then transcripts of such supposed phone calls are irrelevant, and if no plane crashed into Shanksville or the Pentagon then details of those crashes are irrelevant, and if the flight paths were planted by simulation software during the military exercises simulation to replace the real flight paths, then there is no need to discuss the details about those flight paths. And so on.

There is another document at that collection whose link I posted, a document you might like better as an introduction to 9/11 mysteries. That's from a humorous 5-minute video that was on YouTube that Rebekah Roth mentioned, which treats 9/11 discrepancies rapidly and humorously instead of as serious allegations that the reader is being pressured to believe. It's called something like "9/11: A Conspiracy Theory." That uses a light touch approach that should leave you laughing instead of frowning.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 341
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 46
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10355
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
Hypertech
Betsy Kulas
Walter Cameron
Kmjezik
iso9001
nikkireed
Julie Miller
CCZozo
ItsJustMeHi
Anna
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9657
Posts: 125949

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25531
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault