Another Catastrophic Plane Crash Proves 9/11 Plane Fakery

by
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.

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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:

  3. 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.

      http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/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???

          ROTFLMAO

        • 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

      • DEAR PHYLLIS AAND DOCTOR REYNOLDS ; PEOPLE SHOULD READ PAGES 5-6 -8-13-14 AND ESPECIALLY PAGE 31 , OF THE 911 REPORT ;
        ALL THESE PAGES AND OTHERS , SHOW THE FABRICATION BY ZELIKOW IN HIS MOVIE , HOW PLANES FLY , AND REMAIN INVISIBLE .
        PAGE 31 SAYS , VERY CLEARLY , FLIGHT 93 , CRASHED NEAR CAMP DAVID , A TOPIC WHICH WAS LEFT OUT IN THE 911 COMMISSION OF OMISSIONS.
        JUST ONE OF HUNDREDS ,THAT I HAVE LISTED .
        TAKE THAT ZELIKOW .
        I SENT A MEMO TO CAMBRIDGE POLICE , MASSACHUSETTS , BECAUSE THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH HARVARD YARD . ALONG WITH A PICTURE OF “IT ” TO THEM FOR IDENTIFICATION . NO RESPONSE YET , EXCEPT THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED IT .

        HARVARD U, STANFORD , MIT , JOHN HOPKINS U., PLANNED 911 , AND FAA EXECUTED THAT PLAN , WITH THE HELP OF METRON AVIATION IN 1999 , 2000.

        • Phyllis says:

          Joseph:
          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.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s