Yes, I admit passenger jet drones were flown into the towers and ACARs data, which has never been refuted and which proves 9/11 was a false flag, that 9/11 AIRCRAFT, specifically, Flight 175 and UA93 WERE AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH. Every place also had either a ground or in flight place swap!

See here:

Part 1: https://archive.vn/7OiB8

Part 2: https://archive.vn/QjjS1

All these messages were confirmed as received and even the routing via PA stations is known....

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question - The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

        DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM

        .SFOLMUA 111259/JER
        CMD

        AN N612UA/GL MDT

       - QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX


       I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL

        IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM


        SFOLM JERRY TSEN

       ;09111259 108575 0543

__________________________________________--

So you admit the two 737s crashed into the twin towers, but maintain that the amount of damage they caused wasn't sufficient to destroy the buildings, and that orchestrators of the attacks knew this and planted explosives in the same floors that the planes hit, waited for a fire to rage for some 60 minutes, then successfully detonated the explosives, without the explosives failing to work or exploding in the fire?

Explosives in dust have been proven. They used PETN, detcord and nono-thermite to cut certain beams. It is likely in the areas where the passenger jet drones hit the facade, they reinforced the elevator shafts so the detcord would noy get dislodged. And we are of course, forgeting about teh demolition of building WTC7.

How is that more likely than the plane crashes simply damaged the building enough for it to collapse?

The liklihood is near 0%. Every sequence, including the streamlining of explosives down the core columns of the building (top-down demo) skipping every third flood ahead of collapse sequence proves demolition and not mere gravitational collapse.

We know they were capable of destroying insulation, we know they took out numerous structural supports, and we know the heat weakened the integrity of the steel sufficient for it to bend. We also know the weight of the building it was supporting, and simulations have shown the same type of collapse from the same type of damage.

The planes did not take out any of the core columns. The floors in these areas either were likely reinforced so as to not dislodge explosives.

We know the heat weakened the integrity of the steel sufficient for it to bend.

Nope, not at all. Even NISt had to backtrack and say the temperatures were not even hot enough to bend the steal columns, not even close.