Picture this ( if you will . . ) plane allegedly slams into a wall with the following characteristics -
Pitch = 3 deg, Yaw = 12.5 deg, Roll = 27 deg, and with that . . allegedly the plane makes contact with the wall, and without any change in attitude penetrates completely nose to tail and disappears inside the building. . . . the official reports on the subject may as well start off with "Once upon a time . . . . "
The timing of Peter Hanson's second phone call from UA175 is reminiscent of Todd Beamer's famous phone call from UA93, which is said to have greatly outlasted the plane's official crash time of 10:03 AM by at least 20 minutes (if I remember correctly). There's a reason why the corporate press doesn't emphasize on such anomalies when covering 9/11.
Beamer's call was still open for quite some time after the crash. Either way, an airphone is powered by the plane's electrical system, and would not work if the plane had crashed. And likewise if was a cell phone regards being damaged in the crash. Note: No intact "cell" phones were ever found, and presented as evidence.
BTW, sites like TruthFinder list at least some of the people reportedly on the hijacked United planes as still alive. If the planes did not crash with them, there may be some merit to such information:
Very interesting indeed. However, for me the language is a bit contradicting..like this sentence here:
"This supports the evidence that the cell phone calls could not have been made from the plane, and were indeed made from the plane while it was on the ground." Those calls "could not have been made from the plane, AND were indeed made from the plane..." Shouldn't that have been said as such: "...the cell phone calls could not have been made from the plane, BUT were indeed made from the plane..."?
Sorry I'm so "picky". Forgive me. I just hope the whole world will indeed get the truth about 9-11 and I appreciate everything that is exposed about the whole day.
"Thanks, I should make it clearer, meaning could not be made "in flight" from the plane, but only from the plane on the ground. I have updated with "in flight" now."
Thanks, I should make it clearer, meaning could not be made "in flight" from the plane, but only from the plane on the ground. I have updated with "in flight" now.
Picture this ( if you will . . ) plane allegedly slams into a wall with the following characteristics -
Pitch = 3 deg, Yaw = 12.5 deg, Roll = 27 deg, and with that . . allegedly the plane makes contact with the wall, and without any change in attitude penetrates completely nose to tail and disappears inside the building. . . . the official reports on the subject may as well start off with "Once upon a time . . . . "
The timing of Peter Hanson's second phone call from UA175 is reminiscent of Todd Beamer's famous phone call from UA93, which is said to have greatly outlasted the plane's official crash time of 10:03 AM by at least 20 minutes (if I remember correctly). There's a reason why the corporate press doesn't emphasize on such anomalies when covering 9/11.
Hi, yes that is correct.
Beamer's call was still open for quite some time after the crash. Either way, an airphone is powered by the plane's electrical system, and would not work if the plane had crashed. And likewise if was a cell phone regards being damaged in the crash. Note: No intact "cell" phones were ever found, and presented as evidence.
Great article, once again!!
Revisiting the various 9/11 Plane Narratives
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-911-cgi-plane-narrative
BTW, sites like TruthFinder list at least some of the people reportedly on the hijacked United planes as still alive. If the planes did not crash with them, there may be some merit to such information:
https://www.truthfinder.com/results/?firstName=Peter&lastName=Hanson&state=MA&gender=male&fromHome=true&middleInitial=Burton&age=56&previewSearchQuestion=true&qLocation=false&qRelatives=true&qAgeRange=
https://www.truthfinder.com/results/?firstName=Ceecee&lastName=Lyles&state=FL&gender=female&fromHome=true&qLocation=true&qRelatives=false&qAgeRange=boom
Very interesting indeed. However, for me the language is a bit contradicting..like this sentence here:
"This supports the evidence that the cell phone calls could not have been made from the plane, and were indeed made from the plane while it was on the ground." Those calls "could not have been made from the plane, AND were indeed made from the plane..." Shouldn't that have been said as such: "...the cell phone calls could not have been made from the plane, BUT were indeed made from the plane..."?
Picky
Picky
Picky
. . . . do you get the intent of the writing?
Sorry I'm so "picky". Forgive me. I just hope the whole world will indeed get the truth about 9-11 and I appreciate everything that is exposed about the whole day.
same here . . . .
Well look what the author wrote to me:
author
Mark Conlon
4 hrs ago
·edited 4 hrs ago
Author
"Thanks, I should make it clearer, meaning could not be made "in flight" from the plane, but only from the plane on the ground. I have updated with "in flight" now."
Thanks, I should make it clearer, meaning could not be made "in flight" from the plane, but only from the plane on the ground. I have updated with "in flight" now.
Thanks Mark.