Another Catastrophic Plane Crash Proves 9/11 Plane Fakery

Morgan Reynolds

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the Bush-Cheney government and the mainstream media claimed that 19 Muslim hijackers seized control of four Boeing airliners and crashed them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a rural site near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.  The spin put on these virtually impossible events (by professional liars in government and media) quickly led to the U.S. government’s “War on Terror” and included invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, “regime change” in Libya, and U.S. troop deployments to dozens of small countries to aid in “counter-terrorism” efforts.  The mass murder sponsored by the U.S. in these many countries, mostly Muslim, has hardly won “hearts and minds” in our favor, much less for allies participating in our assaults.

Of the hundreds of facts proving the 9/11 narrative a fraud, the hijacked airliners story is of central importance.  Without Muslim hijackers, the whole rationale for warfare on the Muslim world collapses.  Yet the “9/11 airliners” left the four cleanest crash sites in aviation history.   To claim that large, hijacked airliners crashed at the four designated 9/11 sites is beyond ridiculous.

The recent crash of a KC 130 tanker/transport in Mississippi shows once again what a  plane crash looks like.  Every real crash of a large plane is an unholy, major mess with easily identifiable plane parts, bodies and luggage everywhere.

KC-130 tanker/transport crashes in Leflore County, Mississippi on July 10, 2017, killing 16 US servicemen.  

None of that was in evidence on 9/11 because the airliner crashes were not real.  It was a magic light show at the WTC and a fly-over at the Pentagon.  Nor has the government ever tried to prove the alleged crashes were real.  For example, it is standard procedure for aircraft crash investigators to quickly study parts for their unique serial numbers to identify what aircraft crashed.  Not a single part with its serial number from an alleged 9/11 Boeing has been brought forward.

The truth about Shanksville:  Hole in the ground kills no one

A KC130 has a length of 98′, wingspan of 133′, and weight of 76,000 lbs.  A Boeing 767-200, the type of airliners alleged to have neatly disappeared into the twin towers, has a length of 159′, wingspan of 156′, and a weight of 177,000 lbs., so a 767 is much larger than a KC 130 and its crash debris could hardly be tiny compared to that of a KC 130.  How can defenders of 9/11 orthodoxy (= Big Lie) explain away this evidence which proves, absolutely, no 9/11 plane crashed?  I guess “Arab hijacker physics” was at work on the morning of 9/11.

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Another Catastrophic Plane Crash Proves 9/11 Plane Fakery

  1. To the gentleman ANONYMOUS fool above, you are hoping to deceive people when a picture clearly identifies that there was NOT 60 to 70 feet of rubble for both buildings. since I am not able to post pictures here, I do provide a link where everyone can review many pictures and many links that clearly define what happened on 911.
    You will see a picture after the event that shows there was barely a single story, a 10 to 15 foot high pile of rubble. You also see a video of building seven collapse from a building above, showing the immediate result of being no more than a story high. It should be clear to anyone reading this that someone who criticizes Judy Woods’ research knows nothing about what she has said (or ignores it). There will always be critics who easily persuade weak willed followers who never research any issue to determine truth. They usually have lower IQs and think that someone who ridicules others and is cock sure of themselves must be right. 🤨

  2. Jill Perrin says:

    Also where are the bodies ?? From shanksville??? A passport and red bandana can survive but no plane no bodies. Building 7. I guess u heard silverstein say PULL IT???

    • pomeroo says:

      Are you aiming to be the last liar to give up on “pull it”? Nobody who works in demolition recognizes the phrase as industry jargon. It is, of course, firefighter jargon and it refers to removing a continent of men from a dangerous environment.

      Your lack of intellectual curiosity renders you incapable of reading the comments of Shanksville coroner Wallace Miller. He explained how the bodies were identified.

  3. Jill Perrin says:

    In 1999 the 3D holographic plane was available as a strategic defence mechanism. This is what u saw. John lear the cia pilot describes it and tells in detail how those flights were impossible. As for 95% of shanksville debris being found no it was not at alll. Please link me to anywhere that proof exists of any debris. The only debris was small bits that fit into your hand and a 5 window stretch. Any fool knows the ground does not eat a plane just like buildings dont.

  4. Frank says:

    I owe Morgan an apology. My previous message: ” Frank says:
    September 23, 2017 at 3:51 pm; Why leave a reply? If it doesn’t fit with Mr. Morgan’s beliefs there’s a good chance the reply won’t make to the public forum. Disappointing since I was under the impression he sought truth.” was premature. I located my commentary on the presented C-130 crash’s relationship to 911 elsewhere on his site; it was published in full.


  5. Frank says:

    Why leave a reply? If it doesn’t fit with Mr. Morgan’s beliefs there’s a good chance the reply won’t make to the public forum. Disappointing since I was under the impression he sought truth.

    • pomeroo says:

      You are mistaken, Frank. Morgan Reynolds is a fraud who deals exclusively in pseudoscience and outright lies.

      • Jill Perrin says:

        Doctor judy woods evidence however is hardly lies. Open ur mind

        • Anonymous says:

          Judy Wood is insane, a severely brain-damaged woman who fabricated a mad fantasy from her inability to understand what happens to a 1,300-ft. tall structure when it collapses. When the structure is 95% air by volume, it compresses into a rubble hill 65-70 feet high, EXACTLY the height of the rubble hills left by the twin towers.

          If you want to pretend that most of the structures were magically transformed into dust by imaginary beam weapons, then the presence of ALL the structural steel on the ground is an insurmountable problem.

          All the lunatic lies in the world can’t move you past that boulder in the road.

        • indio007 says:

          Ad hominems aren’t proof.
          Anyhow ,95% air and 60-70 ft is a number you pulled straight out your a$$.

          Show the math.

          If you did any research you would know that a custom “just in time” delivery system was invented to construct the world trade center There was so much material that they had no way to stage it.

        • Anonymous says:

          A total idiot pretends that the indisputable FACTS that the towers were 1,300 feet tall and consisted of 95% air by volume are fabricated by me. His stupidity prevents him from simply looking up the information he doesn’t have.

        • Jill Perrin says:

          There was by NIST estimations over 500,000 tons of material per tower. Thats over a million tons of material. Where is it??? New york fire chiefs video calling out bravo 7 tells u exactly there were only a few fires in building 7 and they were burning out and moving. But fires all over the building as u suggest ok let me ask you. Does the smoke from these fires wait in a queue so that it only exits one wall of building 7 uniformly from top to bottom not even escaping through open windows????

  6. roadofcobras says:

    The amazingly crash-proof Fl.175 “live” on Fox TV:

    Those amazing, rubber, revolving Twin Towers, “live” on ABC:

    The amazing, very oversized, very moving Verrazzano Bridge, “live” on various TV channels:

  7. Anonymous says:

    Pomeroo Got it. No 6″ slabs of concrete. You might want to watch a video of the construction of the towers but you’ll need to remember to cover your eyes at the part where the gentlemen are tying the (probably 5/8″ with 8″ centers) rebar and pouring and finishing the concrete floors. Or you could salivate over numbers scribbled on paper by doing the calcs for a bird being struck by and damaging an airliner.

    • pomeroo says:

      There were no 6″ slabs of the concrete. The specs for the towers are readily available. Dishonesty and ignorance are poor substitutes for fair-mindedness and knowledge.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok Ok, lighten up, I got it already, there were no 6″ slabs of concrete, that must have been cotton candy then that my lying eyes saw being poured and finished around masses of rebar. Thanks for setting me straight on that, pomeroo. Amazing, cotton candy, what will they think of next?

    • pomeroo says:

      Sorry, liar, the specs for the towers are readily available. Your six-inch concrete slabs did not exist.

      The MIT paper that you are too stupid to read destroys no-planer fantasies.

      Click to access Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

      Why do you suppose the fraud Morgan Reynolds flees from any confrontation with engineers and physicists. The cowardly charlatan was invited by me to run his horse shit by a high school physics teacher. He tucked his tail between his legs and headed for the hills.

      • Anonymous says:

        Todays scientist substituted mathematics for experiments and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation with reality. Nikola Tesla.

        Keep up the paper scribbling, pomeroo, the rest of us prefer to live in the real world. A light weight aluminum aircraft vs a 500,000 ton massive structure loses on the sidewalk every time. 🙂

        • pomeroo says:

          Your stupidity prevents you from reading the MIT paper. As your intellectual and moral superiors understand, a 130-ton plane moving 500 mph generates VASTLY more KE than is necessary to slice through thin perimeter columns and glass windows.

          There is absolutely no controversy over this fact in the scientific and engineering communities.

          The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds does not dare to present his silly crapola to a high school physics teacher.

          You pathological hatred of America and rockheaded inability to learn are poor substitutes for intelligence, knowledge, and integrity.

      • indio007 says:

        What journal is that published in? Was it peer-reviewed?
        None and Nope are the answers.

        You obviously are not aware of Newton’s Laws of Motion and the conservation of energy.
        Move along kid.

        • pomeroo says:

          The specs for the twin towers can be found in many sources. As twoof liars cannot read the FEMA Report or any of the 10,000 pages of analysis published by NIST, you are at a disadvantage. The MIT paper on the crash physics that you cannot read either provides much information.

          A twoof liar invoking Newton’s laws???


        • indio007 says:

          You never answered.
          What journal , what peer-review?
          We know the answer don’t we?
          None and none

          I am well aware of the construction of the WTC.Composite deck floors. Steel pan, shear studs welded to the beams every 16 inches, tied into steel mesh. with 4500 KSI compressive strength concrete pour.
          90000 KSI shear strength perimeter box columns at the alleged location of the crash. Other than the engine turbine shaft what what part of the airliner had 90000 KSI shear strength? You are aware that there is no physical difference in force of collusion between an airline traveling 450 MPH crashing into a stationary building and and a building traveling 550 MPH and a stationary plane right?

          So what your telling be is if sent the 200K ton WTC into a stationary plane the plane would cut right into it?

          That’s Fantasy land.

          How explaining bout the explosion though? Jet A doesn’t explode at sea level. Before you say it was a conflagration not an explosion, I should make you aware that the flame speed of Jet A is max .6 meters per second. So you would need to explain how the Jet A in the wings traveling north at 450 MPH ignited and changed direction shooting out 220 ft/second in the opposite way. Inertia might be a problem eh?

          I should also add the max PSI of a Jet A explosion is 60 KSI.

          You want data to back up the Jet A facts?
          I have 30 years worth.

        • pomeroo says:

          You continue to post nonsense while deluding yourself into imagining that you are making a point.

          The NIST reports were farmed out to hundreds of engineers, physicists, metallurgists, materials scientists, fire scientists, industrial chemists, and computer programmers for vetting. The process constituted the strictest form of peer review imaginable. Apparently you question the specs. You should contact Mike Newman at NIST.

          The specs are the same in the FEMA Report, which you haven’t read, and the MIT paper on the crash physics, which you haven’t read.

          No, the plane does not hit the entire building. The plane hits SPECIFIC perimeter columns and windows.

      • Anonymous says:

        The final paragragh page #32 details the error they made. Everyone knows a solid mass of steel reacts differently than a hollow tube. Enjoy your delusion sir.

  8. Joe says:

    I have copies of the very first photos taken on the Pentagon crash site, and there are NO plane parts or any debris other than what was already there, from the construction. Six reinforced concrete walls had a 9′ or so circle punched thru, at the BASE of the walls, barely above the firefighter’s heads. Any 757 skimming the lawn would have had the engines about 36″ under the lawn. Rummy’s
    ‘folding umbrella’ was meant for the mind-controlled public. Didn’t happen, beyond insane to imagine it did.. -joe

  9. Alf Beharie says:

    The witnesses were just government shills, who were paid to tell the press they saw planes hitting the buildings…The fact is, there were no planes. The footage supposedly showing planes hitting the building/s has been proved to be pre-edited CGI footage made by government experts and conveniently handed to the press to corroborate the “official story”. The buildings were brought down with the use of strategically placed demolition charges and the use of Thermite. Witnesses have mentioned the presence of lots of unidentified contractors, carrying large containers, who were seen coming and going in the weeks leading up to the planned detonation…They were obviously placing the charges against the key critical structural pillars in the building, perhaps disguised as something as innocuous as large flower pots, containing a potted plant. This is both fashionable and a welcome reminder of greenery in tall office buildings, so the contractors activity would have been ignored by the workers around them.

    • pomeroo says:

      NOT a single video compositing expert swallows your uninformed lies. There are many proofs available showing why the actual planes could not have been CGIs, but you lack the objectivity and intellectual curiosity to examine them.

      No demolition charges were placed anywhere in the WTC complex. Your magic soundless explosives do not exist. Real explosives leave behind physical evidence–detonator cord, blasting caps, chemical signatures on the steel–that were not found. No demolition professionals take conspiracist crapola seriously.

      No “witnesses” reported invisible ninjas carrying the tons of explosives that would have been required. No one saw anyone breaking down walls to prep steel members. You know nothing.

      Your lies are based on an irrational hatred of America. They are a very poor substitute for intelligence and knowledge.

      • Jill Perrin says:

        90 foot entrance hole ??? It was 20 feet before the facade fell making it 52 feet. The boeing has a wing span of 125ft. A d directed free energy weapons do not leave any evidence on site . I guess one day u will wake up

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh really. What happened to WTC 7 that wasn’t hit with so much as a brick. Why did many scientists speak out about explosive materials found. I watched it happen live. A woman 30. I knew instantly those were controlled demolitions. The witnesses that originally spoke to reporters were never talked to again. It’s always the same. Like the shooting in Vegas. Kennedy. No I’m not something conspiracy theorist nut job. 9-11 opened my eyes. My brother was standing on the road in traffic on his bike. Had just left the Pentagon when it was hit. No plane hit it either.

        • pomeroo says:

          Until you learn that WTC 7 was hit with many tons of flaming debris from WTC 1, ripping a twenty-story gash in the south side of the building, you are wasting everyone’s time by making up bullshit.

  10. Anonymous says:

    pomeroo, you sir are a disgrace, lovely how you describe the 1/4″ steel and (extremely narrow) glass windows however failing miserably to draw attention to the overall construction of the building, namely the one acre 6″ thick slabs of concrete floors. I live on an acre of land and I work in concrete, and I can tell you sir that an aluminum plane hitting multiple concrete floors of one acre on edge lands on the sidewalk.

  11. pomeroo says:

    The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds has seen his pernicious lies refuted many times. He understands that absolutely no one saw a commercial airliner fly over the Pentagon while scores of witnesses are on record describing the crash of AA77 into the building. He has responded to photos of aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn featuring serial numbers by running away in disgrace.

    The crash of UA 93 into the ground near Shanksville occurred at a very high speed and a very steep angle, unlike the recent crash of the tanker. Reynolds knows that the 1,500 people who worked the crash site for two weeks–NONE of whom he would ever dare to contact–recovered 95% of the plane, which is stored at Iron Mountain.

    Reynolds understands that the planes that hit the twin towers generated vastly more kinetic energy than was necessary to penetrate quarter-inch steel and glass windows. His total ignorance of physics prevents him from reading the paper explaining the crash physics authored by a team of MIT engineers. When asked to run his nonsense by a high school physics teacher, the arrogant ignoramus refuses.

    The agenda-driven frauds who pretend that the liberal mainstream media were in cahoots with George Bush, a man they despised, will never address the glaring holes in their fantasies. The tens of thousands of people who watched UA 175 hit the south tower can never be tricked by evil liars.

    • Phyllis says:

      Who were those “tens of thousands of people” who watch UA 175 hit the S. tower? No such thing happened. The only people that “saw” a plane were the people watching the television. What those few people saw and heard on the ground was a flash and an explosion, not an enormous plane crashing into the tower. Only after the television showed the north tower being hit with the film from the Naudet film was that “hit” televised and you see NO PLANE.
      Bush was a controlled sucker for the Jewish agenda in the fraud of 9/11 to start the Eretz Israel plan in full force. The MSM are all Jewish owned in case you missed that fact. Judaism is Communism and they are crawling all over the White House and all of D.C.

      • pomeroo says:

        The tens of thousands of people who watched UA 175 hit the south tower saw the event from their cars as they crossed East River bridges; from their office and apartment windows all over Manhattan (as did several of my friends, none of whom were interviewed by anyone); from their rooftops in Brooklyn Heights; and from surrounding streets.

        The liberal mainstream media hated Bush and worked tirelessly to undermine his presidency.

        Nobody saw your “flash,” but thousands saw a commercial airliner slice through a building façade.

        Your irrational hatred of Jews cripples your brain. You cannot think.

        If your imaginary super-villains wanted to stage a plane attack without actual planes (now, there’s a helluva plan!), they probably would not have announced that a plane hit the NORTH tower, by focusing every pair of eyes on the WTC complex. For unfathomable reasons, the comic book bad guys created an immense audience for an event that wasn’t going to happen. Since my analysis is based on logic, you won’t get it.



        • Phyllis says:

          So, I should read the report by the very not be be trusted Zelikow, yet the 9/11 report left out the crash of Flight 93 near Camp David? The 9/11 report is a fabrication by that Jewish horde in the Bush Administration.
          How about I read those pages of the “report” if you read the book: “The Transparent Cabal” by Stephen Sniegoski.

        • dmdeedee says:

          OMG Joseph, After having read most of those pages of the 9/11 report you mentioned, I must say that the report is written like a bad Jewish script on a very bad movie! I was never going to read that report knowing full well it was going to be 100% deception artists at work in writing the excuses of what was done and what was unknown regarding 9/11. The writers of that piece of fiction certainly tried to cover all the bases of the moronic actions by what should have been professional agents actions in an emergency situation. The report reads like an Abbot and Costello episode or Ralph Cramden actions minus the laughs.

    • Jill Perrin says:

      You say directed free energy weapons are a fairy tale. Funny that since lockhead admit developing them for over 40 years. And we know that secret weaponry will be at play for many years before the public ever know about them

      • pomeroo says:

        The insane claim that most of the structural steel was magically transformed into dust by imaginary beam weapons is refuted by the PRESENCE ON THE GROUND OF ALL THE STRUCTURAL STEEL.

Leave a Reply to Alf Beharie Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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