9/11 was a Inside Job.💯 Why is there still some people that refuse to believe so?

How long can people cling to the government's version of the story before realising they all been lied too?

So many have been lied too and I will never let this go. People were murdered and it wasn’t some middle east leader that did it, this was all under the guise of the George Bush administration.

Our defense department arranges false flag operations all the time, and is how they start most wars.

George Bush jr. has authorized 9/11 to take place because the MK ultra experiment never manifested someone to take the bait.

For a long time they have been trying to indoctrinate people to take on this idea of flying a plane into the twin towers. They thought of this in the late 70s.

Throughout Movies, TV shows, Music, Billboard advertising, all had this MK Ultra op embedded in them trying to get people to take the bait and do the crime.

George Bush got sick and tired of waiting or maybe he was what they wanted to be the target to begin with.

He ordered it to go down and had a lot of new things added to all the special effects just to make sure it all looked right.

Holograms, project Bluebeam is what most witnessed.

Laser guided missile, with the Blue Beam hologram of a plane cloaking it.

---

---

Larry 'Liar' Silverstein - WTC 7 "We Had To Pull It" Pull it is a term they you with demolition.

Larry Silverstein is a real estate developer who signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center in July 2001, just six weeks before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

This lease made him the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex. After the attacks, Silverstein sought compensation from the insurers for the destruction of the twin towers.

The insurers initially argued that the destruction of the twin towers by two separate airplanes constituted a single event.

However, a jury ruled in favor of Silverstein, agreeing that the attacks were two separate occurrences, which meant that the insurers were obligated to pay up to $2.2 billion to him.

This verdict was later upheld in a court of appeals, and it was determined that Silverstein could collect double the insurance coverage for the World Trade.

---

Physically impossible for a Boeing 767✈️🏬 to go through a building like it was thin air.

The ✈️nose is plastic, and hollow yet in all videos of the second plane hitting you can see it pop out the other side of the building.🏬💥

These were the first buildings that were designed with load bearing steel walls on the inside and outside of the buildings. What the military calls a hard target🎯.

---

THE FIVE DANCING ISRAELIS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 🕍 [MOSSAD AGENTS BUSTED]

---

Fuk Osama Obama Bin Laden created by the CIA, Prince new about it before all. Prince Concert, 1998, Utrecht, Netherlands: 🎵Osama Bin Laden getting ready to bomb🎶America, you better watch out, 2001 hit me‼️👀🎵🙄🧐

Every bit of it was all a inside job and real people got murdered. Had nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with our own government.

Bill Cooper 1996 Osama Bin Laden will blow up the world Trade Center

Firefighters stating there were bombs seen.

Recovered wreckage from the World Trade Center Verified: The jet engine is not from a Boeing 767

Because the engine fell three blocks from Ground Zero, the FBI cannot allege it was vaporized. Where is it now? Similarly, the Pentagon JT8D engine discovered to be unrelated to Flight 77.

Engine location. Church and Murray Street.

While noting that an engine from the South Tower airplane had crashed into the street, Popular Mechanics failed to include an image of the engine, its street location, or its confirmed identification. Positive engine identification was accomplished in the article by simply distinguishing intact pieces from the damaged engine: The identified engine, a CFM56, is the main engine of the Boeing 737, not the Boeing 767 that is said to have collided with the South Tower.

A Boeing 767 airplane mechanic responded shortly after the article was released to confirm that the engine identification was correct and that it was not from a Boeing 767.

comparing to a cutoff to see the type of engine is a Boeing 737, not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.

A Boeing 767 airplane mechanic responded shortly after the article was released to confirm that the engine identification was correct and that it was not from a Boeing 767.


Quotes taken from his email:

I work for a large airline as an A&P mechanic. I do 767 overhauls. The engines don't belong on a 767. There are no 767s in use that employ CFM56s. Insufficient force to hoist a 1967.

Those New York street-based engineers did not take off on a 767.

Here is another clip I made about the weird CIA guy behind the Fox Freelance Reporter that just knows the whole story about why the buildings collapsed🙄

---

Donald Trump: Bombs Were Used in World Trade Center - Video Flashback

---

Cell Phone Calls and one Jumpseat Call

Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The Second Official Account

Introduction According to what served as the official account of cell phone usage from the 9/11 planes until July 2004 (when The 9/11 Commission Report was released), more than a dozen calls – from a combination of passengers and flight attendants – were made to people on the ground by means of cell phones.

The belief that such calls had been made was conveyed to the public by the mass media, with apparent support by the FBI and (later) The 9/11 Commission Report.

According to the first version of the official story (Point PC-3), there were reportedly cell phone calls from passengers and/or flight attendants from all four flights, although most of them were from UA 93.

The fact that the first version of the official story about cell phones had been replaced by a second version became obvious in the FBI’s testimony for the Moussaoui trial, which occurred in early 2006.

This second version is also implicit in The 9/11 Commission Report (which appeared in 2004), although this fact did not become obvious until after (a) the FBI presented its report to the Moussaoui trial and (b) a 9/11 staff report of 2004 became available. [1]

The Official Account: Second Version Most of the phone calls from the 9/11 planes were made from onboard (seatback) phones; only two of them were made by means of cell phones.

This was stated at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, reported journalist Greg Gordon, who was covering the trial for the McClatchy Newspapers.

[2] Summarizing this part of the FBI testimony, Gordon wrote: “In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.”

[3] Both of the reported cell phone calls were from UA 93, after it had descended (shortly before crashing) to the altitude of 5,000 feet.

[4] The two reported cell phone callers were flight attendant CeeCee Lyles and passenger Edward Felt (who were not mentioned in Point PC-3: “Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The First Official Account.”) The FBI’s reports about the calls from Lyles and Felt are profiled – like the FBI’s reports about all phone calls from the 9/11 planes, whether reportedly made from cell phones or onboard phones – in an interactive computer presentation on the US government website for the Moussaoui trial.

[5] Each report consists of a graphic that summarizes the information about the reported call. The graphic for flight attendant CeeCee Lyles indicates that she made two calls, one of which was a “cell phone call” to a residential number at 9:58:00 AM.

[6] The graphic for the call from Felt, which was also said to have occurred at 9:58:00 AM, says “call placed from bathroom,” from which readers can infer that it must have been made from a cell phone. There is an even more explicit – albeit less accessible – graphic, which says: “9:58 AM: Passenger Edward Felt, using his cell phone, (732) 241-XXXX, contacts John Shaw, a 911 Operator from Westmoreland County, PA.”

[7] Based on the belief that other phone calls from the 9/11 planes were made from cell phones, some people have argued that the reported calls from the 9/11 planes could not have been received, on the grounds that in 2001 cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners were impossible.

However, given the fact that the only reported cell phone calls were from UA 93 at 9:58:00 AM, after it had descended to 5,000 feet, there is no problem. The Best Evidence By stating this second version of the official account – that the only reported cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes were made from UA 93 at 9:58:00 AM, after it had evidently descended to 5,000 feet – the FBI seemingly avoided the problem created by the fact that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners could at best connect momentarily in 2001. But five problems remain. 1.

The Calls by Lyles and Felt As stated in Point PC-3: “Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The First Official Account,” A. K. Dewdney reported that he found the success rate of cell phone calls from twin-engine planes fell to zero at 7,000 feet. He also said that the cell phone failure would occur at lower altitudes in airliners, because they are much more insulated.

[8] How much lower? According to many anecdotal reports, Dewdney has said, “in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”

[9] The fact that UA 93 was at 5,000 feet does not necessarily show, therefore, that Felt and Lyles could have made successful cell phone calls at 9:58 AM. Indeed there is evidence that they did not make such calls: The UA 93 phone records for the precisely timed 9:58:00 AM calls by both Lyles and Felt show no cell phone number and no duration – information included on any cell phone bill

[10] – in spite of “an exhaustive study … of the cell phone records of each of the passengers who owned cell phones.”

[11] 2. The Falsity of the First Official Account By virtue of holding that all of the reported cell phone calls, except for those of Felt and Lyles, were made from onboard phones, the FBI’s 2006 report implied that one of the chief elements in the story about 9/11 told – or at least allowed – by authorities from the outset – that the presence of hijackers on the 9/11 flights were reported in cell phone calls by numerous passengers – was untrue.

The question becomes, then, whether the FBI’s second account is plausible. 3. A Priori Reason to Doubt the Second Account The 2006 FBI account entails that all of the reported calls that had been presented in the first official account as cell phone calls had actually been – except for those by Felt and Lyles – calls from onboard phones.

That is, the calls by seven passengers – UA 93 passengers Mark Bingham, Marion Britton, Tom Burnett and Jeremy Glick; UA 175 passengers Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeney; and AA 77 passenger Barbara Olson – had been misascribed. It might be possible that all of these reported calls had involved errors, perhaps due to mishearing, misspeaking, or poor memory (whether by the journalists who reported the calls or the people who received them).

The probability of this many errors, all in the same direction, would be extremely low. Two of the reported calls, moreover, could not be explained away as errors due to mishearing, misspeaking, or poor memory: the calls to Julie Sweeney and Deena Burnett.

(The problem of the reported calls from Barbara Olson is a special case, covered in Point PC-2.) 4.

The Call Received by Julie Sweeney As reported in Point PC-3: “Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The First Official Account,” Washington Post writer David Maraniss said in a discussion of UA 175: “Brian Sweeney called his wife Julie: ‘Hi, Jules,’ Brian Sweeney was saying into his cell phone. ‘It’s Brian. We’ve been hijacked, and it doesn’t look too good.’”

[12] However, Point PC-3 did not include information in the FBI’s interview with Julie Sweeney on October 2, 2001. Having been out when her husband had called, she “returned home to find that her husband had left a message, made from his cell phone aboard the plane, on their answering machine. The answering machine recorded that the message was left at approximately 8:58 AM.” At that time, UA 175 was reportedly at about 25,000 feet.

[13] Given the fact that the 27-second phone call was on Julie Sweeney’s answering machine, one could not argue that her report – that her husband had called from his cell phone – was based on faulty hearing or memory. How, then, could the FBI have later stated that Brian Sweeney left a voice mail message “using a GTE Airfone”?

[14] 5. The Calls Received by Deena Burnett Deena Burnett, a former Delta Airlines flight attendant, told FBI interviewers, shortly after the calls had come, that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, on UA 93.

[15] In the first years after 9/11 (from 2001 through 2006), these calls were described in books

[16] and newspaper articles

[17] as cell phone calls. These UA 93 calls were allegedly made from high altitudes (35,000 and 40,700 feet

[18]), so Tom Burnett could not have called his wife on a cell phone at that time. Even Deena Burnett herself, who had been a flight attendant, later wrote: “I didn’t understand how he [Tom] could be calling me on his cell phone from the air.”

[19] When the FBI report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners was issued in connection with the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, it indicated that Tom Burnett had made three calls, none of which was from a cell phone: All were said to have been made from onboard phones.

[20] The FBI report also specified the rows from which the calls were made.

[21] This FBI 2006 report, according to which Tom Burnett had called his wife from seat-back phones, removed the problem of how he could have been using a cell phone at flight UA 93’s high elevation. But it introduced a new problem: According to Deena Burnett’s FBI interview on September 11, she knew that her husband had used his cell phone: “Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, 925-980-3360. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.”

[22] This creates a seemingly insuperable problem: If Tom Burnett had really used onboard phones, his cell phone number could not have shown up even once. The FBI’s categorizing of the Burnett calls as onboard phone calls in spite of the FBI’s early interview with Deena Burnet to the contrary is contradicted by the FBI’s opposite treatment of the case involving UA 93 flight attendant CeeCee Lyles: Its summary of her husband’s testimony says: “At 9:58 AM, Lorne Lyles received a call at home from her celular [sic] telephone … Lyles commented that CeCe [sic] Lyles’ telephone number 941-823-2355 was the number on the caller ID.”

[23] This account was faithfully reflected in the FBI’s telephone report for the Moussaoui trial. But even though Deena Burnett provided the same evidence – that her spouse’s cell phone number had appeared on her phone’s Caller ID – the FBI’s report for the Moussaoui trial did not reflect her testimony. This difference in treatment may be explained by the fact that, whereas the reported Burnett call was from an elevation that was clearly too high to make cell phone calls, a cell phone call from 5,000 feet might seem plausible. The FBI claim that the Burnett calls were from onboard phones implied that (1) either Deena’s memory was faulty or (2) she was lying. However, (1a) Deena gave her FBI interviews within hours of receiving the calls

[24] and (2a) there would seem to be no plausible motive as to why she would have lied. The FBI has not explained the contradiction between her 2001 FBI interview and the FBI’s report that surfaced in 2006; it simply ignored this contradiction. Moreover, the call to Julie Sweeney, cited above, provides additional support for the truth of Deena Burnett’s account.

Conclusion Whereas the first official account of the allegedly hijacked planes rested heavily on reported cell phone accounts by passengers and flight attendants, the second official account – which was implicit in The 9/11 Commission Report and became explicit in the FBI’s report to the 2006 Moussaoui trial – claimed that all of the phone calls that had been reported in the press as cell phone calls, except the 9:58 AM calls by Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles, were actually made from onboard phones.

This second official account, if we ignore the problems in the Felt and Lyle accounts, removed the main problem of the first official account, which claimed that cell phone calls were made at high altitudes. But this solution created new problems. By denying the truth of much of the first account, which had been provided or at least allowed by the authorities, the second account raises a question about its own credibility: Why should the new account by the authorities be trusted?

The idea that all seven of the reported cell phone calls, aside from those by Felt and Lyles, were due to errors is implausible. Moreover, two of the reported cell phone calls cannot be explained away, because the 25,000′ altitude call to Julie Sweeney was recorded on her answering machine and the calls to Deena Burnett were shown by her Caller ID to have been received from her husband’s cell phone when his plane was above 35,000 feet. Therefore, the second official account is contradicted by inconvenient evidence: that two of the reported CELL phone calls were received when the plane was far too high to sustain such calls.

We will not ever forget and we will never let this go until we have real justice for it all.

The 9/11 Commission Report does mention engines in several instances, but it does not explicitly state that engines were found. Instead, it discusses various aspects of the aircraft involved in the attacks, including the impact of the planes on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

For example, the report mentions that the impact of American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center, "destroyed the structural integrity of a few floors, and the resulting fires severed more steel connections and beams."

It also states that the impact of United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the South Tower, "destroyed the integrity of several of the lower floors of the building." However, there is no specific mention of the discovery of engines or their components.

Similarly, the report discusses the impact of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, and notes that "the crash and subsequent fire caused structural damage to the outer ring of the building, primarily on the first and second floors." It does not provide information on the discovery of engines or their components in this instance either.

In conclusion, while the 9/11 Commission Report does mention the impact of the aircraft involved in the attacks, it does not explicitly state that engines were found.