Not even a mention of 9/11 !

lolobugg

Drowned Out said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U


Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit

looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job....
typical of the government.
almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.

PJ_Soul

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

It's an interesting topic, that's for sure. I dunno what really happened, but the theories are intriguing. They are also confusing. It is very difficult to believe that the US government would have done that, and it's not like I trust it. If it wasn't a plane, then where did whatever it was come from?? If it wasn't a plane, I can't believe that the government would have fired a missile at it, or flown in a drone, or whatever people think. Too many holes in that conspiracy theory IMHO. Maybe it wasn't a plane - I don't know. But if it wasn't, I would be more likely to believe that the US covered up something that wasn't their doing at all, perhaps in the interests of public perception or something. Will we ever know? Probably not our lifetimes.
I personally don't believe that the US had anything to do with the WTC either. I think they were just incompetent. They could have stopped it if they'd given it any thought, but didn't get that far because they were being arrogant fools. Just a guess.

Drowned Out

.

lolobugg said:

Drowned Out said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U


Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit

looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job....
typical of the government.
almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.

ya....the one in which he supposedly admitted involvement, after denying any repeatedly. The fbi never did charge him with 9/11....because they had no evidence. His 'wanted poster' mentioned only the embassy bombings.

lolobugg

Drowned Out said:

.

lolobugg said:

Drowned Out said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U


Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit

looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job....
typical of the government.
almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.

ya....the one in which he supposedly admitted involvement, after denying any repeatedly. The fbi never did charge him with 9/11....because they had no evidence. His 'wanted poster' mentioned only the embassy bombings.

That is the one.. I remember watching that and thinking... man, is this the best they could do?
not even believable. I remember how quick that video disappeared after people started questioning it.

HughFreakingDillon

I didn't watch the video, or don't remember it, but what makes it fake?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Who Princess

If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.

rr165892

Drowned Out said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U


Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit

I'm going to watch this on Vudu or Netflix.Im not hangin on the IPad for 2+ hrs.Looks entertaining.

Last-12-Exit

I watched the first 50 minutes of the video you posted drowned. There are 3 things that stick out to me. 1) the video spends about 10-15 minutes about the planes being tracked. I don't know why this is relevant. I haven't read or heard that the planes were ever lost. I've always been of the understanding that air traffic controllers knew where the planes were, just that they didn't know the altitudes. So I don't know why they are focusing on this. 2) they spend a lot of time asking why people were in the chain of command were gone on September 11. Have you ever worked for a large corporation or company? People take vacation or days off. The fact that people weren't available doesn't surprise me. All but one had people filling in. It isn't a big stretch. And the training excersices going on Sept 11 is a coincidence. It's great for conspiracy theorists to say that training was set up to divert military responses, but once again, it's not hard to believe that it was simply a coincidence. And 3) why is the video putting so much stock in the testimony of minetta? It really sounds like this guy just didn't have his shit straight before he went to testify. His recollection of times and what was said were just wrong. My guess is that is the reason his testimony wasn't in the final report.

All of this together makes fir a great conspiracy, but in the long run amounts to nothing more than a sstretch of coincidences that occur every day in life that happened on the worst possible day. I'll finish watching the video when I have more time.

Drowned Out

Who Princess said:

If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.

1:37:40 to about 1:55:00 in the vid. They don’t offer much of an explanation of what happened to the passengers, they kinda let the viewer decide that for themselves. They do mention CIA plans (Operation Northwoods) to ‘swap out’ passenger planes with drones in order to frame a hijacking.
(this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story.
The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever 

Drowned Out

damnit, wish I'd seen this link in the movie earlier....there is a full index for the movie. Wouldve saved me a lot of time in this thread:


INTRODUCTION

0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl
Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory"
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS

0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

PART 4 - THE PENTAGON

0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version
(wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field

0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete

0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

PART 7 - BUILDING 7

1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall

EPILOGUE

1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word

lolobugg

I was watching the "real time" sync on MSNBC last Friday. I just happened to catch the part where an NBC reported was saying that several firemen heard explosions when they entered the building. Now this was near the ground floor level, a lot of this stuff has been whitewashed after the fact. I was even shocked when I heard the reporter mention this. Gives some thought to the idea of controlled explosions. Many witnesses from the building mentioned hearing them as well when they went back to retrieve belongings from their offices. Just something to think about.

Drowned Out

HughFreakingDillon said:

I didn't watch the video, or don't remember it, but what makes it fake?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Mannerisms, wearing jewellery, facial structure etc etc....don't have time to google for a semi-legit source for ya, but I'll leave you with this:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape2.html
(haven't even read the article, just stole the gif)

Drowned Out

lolobugg said:

I was watching the "real time" sync on MSNBC last Friday. I just happened to catch the part where an NBC reported was saying that several firemen heard explosions when they entered the building. Now this was near the ground floor level, a lot of this stuff has been whitewashed after the fact. I was even shocked when I heard the reporter mention this. Gives some thought to the idea of controlled explosions. Many witnesses from the building mentioned hearing them as well when they went back to retrieve belongings from their offices. Just something to think about.

some firefighters said they heard explosions in the tower that had not been hit yet!

Drowned Out

Drowned Out said:

damnit, wish I'd seen this link in the movie earlier....there is a full index for the movie. Wouldve saved me a lot of time in this thread:


INTRODUCTION

0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl
Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory"
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS

0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

PART 4 - THE PENTAGON

0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version
(wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field

0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete

0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

PART 7 - BUILDING 7

1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall

EPILOGUE

1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word

wanted this on the current page in case anyone missed it. Out for the afternoon!

Just noticed this is indexed based on the three DVD version, not the full 5 hour youtube version....you can watch it in three parts starting with this link if you want the timeline to work properly:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Who Princess

Well, I'll make one nitpicky point. The plane that hit the Pentagon was American, not United.

I believe that 2 passengers made calls. One of them, who called her husband twice and was disconnected twice (not a perfect connection), was an analyst for CNN. In between her calls telling him they'd been hijacked, he was calling the airline and anybody else he could get hold of to report the hijacking. While she wasn't what I'd call a celebrity, seems like it would be hard to explain the total disappearance of a network personality.

I'm a fairly skeptical person and I think a lot was left out or obfuscated for the 9/11 Commission report. I think there's a lot we don't know. But I have a real tough time believing that a planeload of people, including families with children, would be murdered to fit the government's agenda. And no, I'm not a sheeple.

HughFreakingDillon

Drowned Out said:

Who Princess said:

If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.

1:37:40 to about 1:55:00 in the vid. They don’t offer much of an explanation of what happened to the passengers, they kinda let the viewer decide that for themselves. They do mention CIA plans (Operation Northwoods) to ‘swap out’ passenger planes with drones in order to frame a hijacking.
(this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story.
The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever 

I find it interesting that you (I think it was you, if not, my apologies) that claimed the bin Laden video was an "obvious fake" but then take this flight attendant recording at face value, that it wasn't doctored, or even real at all to begin with. how difficult would it have been to make a fake audio recording? if all of what you have posted could be true, why is the flight attendant recording so teflon?

Drowned Out

argh. last time I check for real this time

Who Princess said:

Well, I'll make one nitpicky point. The plane that hit the Pentagon was American, not United.

I believe that 2 passengers made calls. One of them, who called her husband twice and was disconnected twice (not a perfect connection), was an analyst for CNN. In between her calls telling him they'd been hijacked, he was calling the airline and anybody else he could get hold of to report the hijacking. While she wasn't what I'd call a celebrity, seems like it would be hard to explain the total disappearance of a network personality.

I'm a fairly skeptical person and I think a lot was left out or obfuscated for the 9/11 Commission report. I think there's a lot we don't know. But I have a real tough time believing that a planeload of people, including families with children, would be murdered to fit the government's agenda. And no, I'm not a sheeple.

I hate the expression sheeple (and any other Alex JonesTM expression), and would never use it. UA93 was the one that crashed in Shanksville; separate point...I was addressing 'what happened to the passengers' in general.
Watch that part of the documentary and tell me what you think! Don't think they talk about the CNN person, but I don't think the 'who' in this scenario really matters much.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Drowned Out said:

Who Princess said:

If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.

1:37:40 to about 1:55:00 in the vid. They don’t offer much of an explanation of what happened to the passengers, they kinda let the viewer decide that for themselves. They do mention CIA plans (Operation Northwoods) to ‘swap out’ passenger planes with drones in order to frame a hijacking.
(this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story.
The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever 

I find it interesting that you (I think it was you, if not, my apologies) that claimed the bin Laden video was an "obvious fake" but then take this flight attendant recording at face value, that it wasn't doctored, or even real at all to begin with. how difficult would it have been to make a fake audio recording? if all of what you have posted could be true, why is the flight attendant recording so teflon?

I do think the bin laden tape is a fake (and I think the whole zero dark thirty story, along with OBL's burial at sea is bullshit too btw....the guy was reported dead before 9/11)...
Why would anyone have doctored the flight attendant recording? Unless it was an indy journalist who wanted to make it a conspiracy and be called crazy all the time....not sure who that would benefit. Still, I'm not saying it's teflon. I wouldn't say that about anything related to this. But faking the 'it's a frame' thing just doesn't make sense to me. It might if it was edited OUT of the recording, but not to put it in. It doesn't prove anything, I just thought it was chilling to hear...I'd never heard of that until I watched this doc.

HughFreakingDillon

I also felt the burial at sea totally suspect. why not show the world what was done in the name of "justice" if it had actually happened that way? I'm not saying holding the guy's head up in front of a salivating crowd in the middle of NY, but still. SOMETHING.

I had not heard he was reported dead before 9/11. I'll have to watch that doc you posted. sounds interesting.

and as far as motive for doctoring the recording.....who knows. people who are anti-government do all kinds of crazy things to try to bring light to truths; a means to an end. I just think there can be motive on both sides of the discussion, political or otherwise.

Last-12-Exit

Drowned Out said:

lolobugg said:

I was watching the "real time" sync on MSNBC last Friday. I just happened to catch the part where an NBC reported was saying that several firemen heard explosions when they entered the building. Now this was near the ground floor level, a lot of this stuff has been whitewashed after the fact. I was even shocked when I heard the reporter mention this. Gives some thought to the idea of controlled explosions. Many witnesses from the building mentioned hearing them as well when they went back to retrieve belongings from their offices. Just something to think about.

some firefighters said they heard explosions in the tower that had not been hit yet!

I have not heard any credible evidence that supports this claim. With all of the confusion, it's not hard to think that something was an exploding especially after the second plane hit and when the south tower fell.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that there were explosions in the buildings after the planes hit them. When the plane hit the north tower, fire shot down the elevator shafts and exploded on 3 different floors. Who knows what was on fire and what was burning.

PJ_Soul

Drowned Out said:

Who Princess said:

If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.

1:37:40 to about 1:55:00 in the vid. They don’t offer much of an explanation of what happened to the passengers, they kinda let the viewer decide that for themselves. They do mention CIA plans (Operation Northwoods) to ‘swap out’ passenger planes with drones in order to frame a hijacking.
(this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story.
The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever 

The thing my mind keeps landing on, especially here, where there is a suggestion of surviving passengers, is the thing that others have brought up... How could that many people be kept quiet? I don't think it's possible. And then it gets really weird when thinking about it being a "frame", because as far as I know, those passengers are still missing. So what? The US government hid the plane and executed the people? That is just getting way too far-fetched for me.