Strong Evidence Of Fake Planes And A Media Hoax On 9/11

[kenmurray]

Judy Wood's site: http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/key.html

[Deborah]

You may wish to note the historical knowledge of the outspoken Russian nuclear professional Dimitri Khalezov http://www.dkhalezov.com Deborah[/quote]Deborah,That's some good information you just posted. I'm still looking at it.The "nano-thermite" idea is something I'm having a problem with. I think the "nano-thermite" is a false lead. Some 9/11 truthers even talk about the supposed "nano-thermite" being painted on. It doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that very non conventional explosives were used and perhaps in addition to the standard explosives used in controlled demolitions.Anywa, that's some good stuff you posted.[/quote]Terrific. I look forward to hearing your insights, especially about the possible 1960's New York City construction permit having an 'underground thermonuclear demolition plan' in place as a condition of the construction permit. Ciao,Deborah

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Deborah wrote:You may wish to note the historical knowledge of the outspoken Russian nuclear professional Dimitri Khalezov http://www.dkhalezov.com DeborahPasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Deborah,That's some good information you just posted. I'm still looking at it.The "nano-thermite" idea is something I'm having a problem with. I think the "nano-thermite" is a false lead. Some 9/11 truthers even talk about the supposed "nano-thermite" being painted on. It doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that very non conventional explosives were used and perhaps in addition to the standard explosives used in controlled demolitions.Anywa, that's some good stuff you posted.Deborah wrote:Terrific. I look forward to hearing your insights, especially about the possible 1960's New York City construction permit having an 'underground thermonuclear demolition plan' in place as a condition of the construction permit. Ciao,DeborahSince you presented the information, how about you share your insight and how it pertains to the fake plane and/or 9/11 issue.Can you speed up the sharing of the information by telling about this information? How exactly the buildings were demolished is not my forte. I know those buildings were demolished intentionally for sure. How else do skyscrapers like that come down at free-fall speed, right? I also suspect very unconventional explosives, such as the nuclear type because of the extreme pulverizing or pulverization that occurred, but that is not my expertise. The WHO-DID-IT and the fake planes/media hoax on 9/11, are issues that I'm much more familiar with. Anyway, don't keep readers hanging and waiting for me. LOL Share your knowledge and insight too.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

More from the documentary September Clueshttp://youtu.be/lEM9quwi6yM

[Deborah]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Deborah wrote:You may wish to note the historical knowledge of the outspoken Russian nuclear professional Dimitri Khalezov http://www.dkhalezov.com DeborahPasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Deborah,That's some good information you just posted. I'm still looking at it.The "nano-thermite" idea is something I'm having a problem with. I think the "nano-thermite" is a false lead. Some 9/11 truthers even talk about the supposed "nano-thermite" being painted on. It doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that very non conventional explosives were used and perhaps in addition to the standard explosives used in controlled demolitions.Anywa, that's some good stuff you posted.Deborah wrote:Terrific. I look forward to hearing your insights, especially about the possible 1960's New York City construction permit having an 'underground thermonuclear demolition plan' in place as a condition of the construction permit. Ciao,DeborahSince you presented the information, how about you share your insight and how it pertains to the fake plane and/or 9/11 issue.Can you speed up the sharing of the information by telling about this information? How exactly the buildings were demolished is not my forte. I know those buildings were demolished intentionally for sure. How else do skyscrapers like that come down at free-fall speed, right? I also suspect very unconventional explosives, such as the nuclear type because of the extreme pulverizing or pulverization that occurred, but that is not my expertise. The WHO-DID-IT and the fake planes/media hoax on 9/11, are issues that I'm much more familiar with. Anyway, don't keep readers hanging and waiting for me. LOL Share your knowledge and insight too.Dear PasqualeI do not have any personal knowledge of thermonuclear or any other kind of explosives and am not an expert in anything. I can listen, learn and think. My insight, such as it is in my strategic thinking, is just one person's view. It is Dimitri Khalezov who is the thermonuclear expert and Russian nuclear intelligence officer who is well versed on how the Twin Towers came down. We don't need to be experts in his field to find his knowledge and information compelling. I would like to know if what he presents makes sense to you and to anyone else on the Forum.There have been attempts to silence him, to extradite him from Thailand, yet he soldiers on publicly to bring what I believe is a U.S. government 'false flag' operation to light so that the American people and the nations of the world can know and decide to do something about it. Based on what Khalezov presents, it follows that the U.S. Bush government was the orchestrator of the drama on 9/11. Khalezov does not speculate about collusion by foreign governments. He does say any 'thermonuclear explosion' anywhere in the world would have been noticed by all other nuclear nations. It follows that all other nuclear nations are as equally willing to be silenced as the U.S.'s own citizens en masse. He does not speculate about 'phamtom' airplanes or how digital mastery of that show was prevailed upon the viewing public. I personally, upon comprehension of the 'thermonuclear demolition plan' which Khalezov explains, do not believe any airplane hit the Towers or the Pentagon. The question begging in my mind is what happened to all of the people who were on the airplanes who were used as the decoys? Where are they? New identities? Collateral damage and murdered? In a secret prison somewhere? Scary stuff.It is my view we are better enabled to comprehend what really happened on 9/11 once we consider the key evidence of Dimitri Khalezov's information on the 'thermonuclear demolition plan' for the Twin Towers when they were built and how it was used to bring them down and further his evidence of how the explosions in the top floors were orchestrated. The original building plans including the 'construction of the underground thermonuclear demolition plan' have to be somewhere in a government archive. The above ground building plans are in the New York City archives. The underground 'demolition plans', I have not found yet. If the U.S. government is hiding a 'thermonuclear demolition plan' in the Twin Towers as part of the 1960's construction of the Towers, it begs the question of why would they? To my mind, if 9/11 was a U.S. sponsored 'false flag' thermonuclear explosion perpetuated on its own soil on it own people it is a crime against humanity. Collusion of other nations could very well be and the information you present about Isreali involvement is compelling. I believe if there was foreign involvement in 9/11 it was at the behest of the U.S. Bush government and not perpetuated upon the U.S. by a foregin nation or by a group of terrorists. Find the 'thermonuclear demolition plans' for the Twin Towers. Find the vanished people from those decoy airplanes. Find the digital masterminds of the fake planes. Tall order. Someone, somewhere will talk, eventually, just as Khalezov is doing. http://www.dkhalezov.com

[Alex Hidell]

Sorry Boys and Girls there is NO evidence of fake planes hitting WTC.I watched it in real time when it happened and have watched it over and over again to refersh my memory.You're going to have to look real hard under your bed or in your scary, spooky basement to find another boogie-man to be afraid of.No fake planes, no media hoax on 911 WTC.What happened is exactly what everyone reported happened, at the time.Two passenger jets were flown into the WTC's.I cannot say, for sure, who was piloting those jets but I can tell you this- They were real jets doing real damage.There were no fake planes, no media hoax."Move on, nothing to see here" Frank Drebbin- "Naked Gun"

[kenmurray]

Well, some of us beg to differ Mr. HIdell.

[Alex Hidell]

Bunch of nonesense.

[Mark68]

NEVER before in history have (2) ultra-tall buildings been purposely IMPLODED as perfectly as those two buildings were AND passed off as a terrorist attack. I love how the previously planted incenderies took alot longer than calculated which made the whole "jet fuel melted steel" bullshit look really amatuerish.I"m still amazed they're down to killing american citizens to prolong they're fading control. Jeez I'm gonna hate to see they're next act of desperation.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Alex Hidell wrote:Sorry Boys and Girls there is NO evidence of fake planes hitting WTC.I watched it in real time when it happened and have watched it over and over again to refersh my memory.You're going to have to look real hard under your bed or in your scary, spooky basement to find another boogie-man to be afraid of.No fake planes, no media hoax on 911 WTC.What happened is exactly what everyone reported happened, at the time.Two passenger jets were flown into the WTC's.I cannot say, for sure, who was piloting those jets but I can tell you this- They were real jets doing real damage.There were no fake planes, no media hoax."Move on, nothing to see here" Frank Drebbin- "Naked Gun"What amazes me about what "Alex Hidell" wrote above is that he doesn't address any of the issues I presented here. Let's take a look at his remarkably dull analysis of this. For the rest of you, take a good look at what he wrote.First, Alex Hidell asserts that there is no evidence of fake planes hitting the WTC. I never said that fake planes hit. I said that the planes that were shown on TV and in amateur video appear to have been faked and that there is a lot of evidence to support that idea. Videos and even audio from the videos contract each other. I don't know what hit those buildings. There are not only major differences in the angles of approach as represented by different videos, but even some of the audio appears to have been tampered with as well. Anyway, Alex Hidell first asserts that there is no evidence. Then he says that he watched it in "real time." What "real time" is for him doesn't address the issues I presented at all. Lots of people watch football games on TV in supposed "real time," and it's amazing how the networks can use computer technology to put those nice lines and arrows on the field during the game in supposed "real time." So, his assertion that he watched 9/11 happen in "real time" doesn't address any of the issues presented here. Amazingly dull, don't you think? "Alex Hidell" won't discuss any of it. Did you notice? For example, what about the differences in trajectory regarding how different cameras and TV networks showed the second plane hitting the south tower? He doesn't address any of it. He merely asserts it. I'm not impressed.Then Alex Hidell says, "What happened is exactly what everyone reported happened, at the time.Two passenger jets were flown into the WTC's.I cannot say, for sure, who was piloting those jets but I can tell you this- They were real jets doing real damage.There were no fake planes, no media hoax." You see, there's no analysis at all. It's all assertions on his part. LOL I don't even think a grade school kid would be impressed with his reasoning, but he does it anyway. Then at the end, Alex Hidell quotes a character from the movie "Naked Gun." It's cute, but it's lacking in actual analysis. Where's the beef, Alex? So, Alex Hidell, it seems that you should try harder if you're going to actually contribute positively to this forum. At least give some analysis. To the rest of you, for example, in one of the videos (see pictures below) the camera is lower and so is the plane compared to the other video and picture. If the two videos, and pictures, supposedly depict the same plane, the video that was taken by the camera that is lower to the ground should show the supposed plane as being higher, and yet the plane is actually lower. Why won't "Alex Hidell" talk about that? LOL It looks like he can't.