the largest false flag that we know of is explored here providing a train of thinking sure to excite the brains of all but the true believers;

Biggest smoking gun of 9/11 is the plane that supposedly crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania. I'm saying supposedly because the first responder and the town mayor itself said there was no plane. The mayor kept repeating the same phrase. No plane. They were called to a plane crash and he was surprised there wasn't a plane anywhere.

Here is the mayor's interview around the time of the incident.

The actual, official explanation is that there wasn't any debris or bodies or luggage or anything showing because the ground was apparently so soft it swallowed the plane completely. Yeah, Boeing-757 coming towards ground full speed and the soil is so soft it swallows the whole plane in it's entirety.

If you look at the actual impact crater, it's hard to believe it's the only remaining marks of a plane crash. Here is one photo. That hole is where the 757 disappeared. Here is another view, and here is a closeup. Where the fuck is the plane? That is absolutely ridiculous.

This is one of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11. There is a ton of them, but this is definitely the biggest. You can't explain away the lack of plane. Everyone and their grandma can see there is no plane anywhere and even children wouldn't believe the explanation that an entire 757 was swallowed on impact in to the ground. People should demand proper answers about it.

How many freak, laws of physics defying coincidences can fit in a single event? 9/11 is full of them.

Barely trained, or as their flight teacher said "couldn't even fly a cessna", devout muslims who did drugs and visited hookers, crashed the biggest commercial airplane in to the most secure buildings, in the most secure airspaces, in the country with the largest air force, in a impossible flight trajectory for even the most experienced pilots, making a hole couple of meters in diameter in the wall of the Pentagon, in a part that happened to be empty due to construction work. Here is a picture before the roof collapsed, after a 757 has hit it. Still we don't have any pictures of the plane approaching the Pentagon, let alone crashing in it, even though every inch is under video surveillance. All this in the same type of plane that took down steel towers designed to survive a airplane directly crashing in it, and now it barely made a dent in the wall of Pentagon.

Then we have the towers that fell after weakening of some columns near the impact zone that somehow lead to the entire building collapsing entirely down on itself, symmetrically, into its own footprint. That's not plausible. When the collapses start they happen very fast and they complete within 10-12 seconds. If you look at the symmetry, the buildings came almost entirely straight down. Asymmetric damage doesn't lead to symmetric collapse. It is very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically. Collapsing symmetrically represents order. A very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason. It will naturally gravitate towards chaos. It is very difficult to get a building to collapse symmetrically. Professional demolition teams take months in preparing the structures for the placement of explosive charges. Months.

Just look at the rubble that is left. It is not big pieces of steel or big chunks of cement. It's fine particles. The concrete got pulverized. According to first responders "It was a 110 story office building and you couldn't find a desk, or a chair, or a telephone or a computer. The buildings collapsed to dust." You can look at the videos of the towers coming down, and the explosive nature of the collapses. You can see essentially a wave of explosive demolition travelling down the building as it collapses. Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side hundreds of feet due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a force there, pushing it to the side violently. Otherwise it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of the window. It just falls straight down. Then again by another freak accident, the terrorist passport is found in the rubble completely unharmed. The official narrative is insulting the intelligence of everyone it's being told to.

Then building 7 that happened to hold several intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies and NYC emergency operations center, and happened to collapse in its own footprint in complete symmetry from office fires. And there was an obvious foreknowledge on the part of some people that seemed to know that this building was going to come down. Rescue workers started pushing people back from the scene, saying that it's about to blow up. All these stories are not compatible with each other. You cannot have a heavily built, steel-framed high rise collapse due to modest office fires. It would be extremely unusual for that to happen. So unusual that you could not possibly predict when or if it was going to come down. Especially to collapse in complete symmetry in to its own footprint in free fall speed. And especially from a fire that was only in handful of floors and was only burning for few hours. Even in some cases they reported the collapse before it actually did. NIST themselves said that "understanding what happened to Building 7 would be difficult. That it did not fit any text book example you could readily point to". And it eventually took them 3 years to get the travesty of a report done.

As it happens, it was just another freak accident, extremely unlikely, bordering on the impossible.

Shyam Sunder, the manager of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) High Performance Materials and Systems Program at NIST said this: "But truthfully, I don't really know", when asked about why Building 7 came down, and continued, "we're having trouble getting a handle on why it had collapsed".

NIST is a extremely competent organisation. So to have NIST be baffled by the collapse of a building that had only modest fires, and exhibits every characteristic of controlled demolition, if they say they we're coming up empty-handed, or that they simply couldn't figure it out. That's not believable. Even by their own words, the collapse of Building 7 due to fires was an "extraordinary event". They stated they had discovered a completely new phenomenon called thermal expansion, that can cause the collapse of a structure. First time in known history, on all the days possible, it was on this day that this new phenomenon decided to reveal itself. For the first time ever, it was concluded that a fire can induce a progressive collapse.

NIST put forward a model for the collapse of Building 7 that was grabbing at straws. It sounds like a Rube Goldberg machine. Overly complicated. One column slides off of its seat, on a few particular floors, and within a matter of moments there is some chain reaction like a set of dominos that brings the building entirely down. It is possible though, that you could have a local failure as a result of connection failing. But the likelihood of that failure dragging the entire building in the fashion that all the columns would fail at the same time, is an impossibility. The NIST model of the collapse, doesn't match what we see in reality. The animation for the NIST model of the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 has the sides sort of kinking in, and the top of it kind of bending funny. That is not what the video of the collapse of Building 7 shows. It came almost straight down.

One of the things also is that in NIST's investigation and reports there is this fixation on collapse initiation. As if all that was required to was to investigate up until the point that the collapses initiate. See quote from the NIST report: "The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable".

That is stopping the investigation just when it's getting interesting, But NIST makes a one or two sentence summary along the lines of: "And then the buildings collapsed completely." NIST investigator John Gross said: We were charged with finding out the cause of the collapse. I think we scientifically demonstrated what was required to initiate the collapse." To investigate only up to collapse initiation is only doing part of the story.

Why did NIST issue a report that seems to do everything it can to avoid investigating the most likely cause, in this case being controlled demolition. Why do they have to come up with some fantastical new phenomenons to try an explain the obvious. Why would they avoid that. The possibility of a controlled demolition was dismissed in one or two sentences in the report. It was the first time in known history that a building over 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires.

You can only guess, but people can be coerced, or perhaps pressured in different ways, wherever that coercion or pressure might have come from. NIST is extremely meticulous about their research, and by necessity they need to be. It's a really good position and they have a lot to loose. It's not hard to start pressuring people and make offers they simply can't refuse. Something of that type must have taken place.

This isn't a case of some subtle differences, or subtle discrepancies, or differences of scientific opinion that needed further investigation. This is glaring, clear-cut, an unscientific study by NIST's part...........https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/bhuz3x/the_biggest_smoking_gun_of_911_and_nist/