Why are you so sure that this woman really lost her husband on 9/11? (Or are you sure of that?)
It seems far more likely to me that she is just another crisis actress. Admittedly, a high-end one (as opposed to Harley guy, say) but a crisis actress nonetheless. That makes it easier for them to control the narrative.
Let me get this straight. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if this Kristen woman is a plant, as opposed to her really having lost her husband on 9/11 -- that this is only some "small point"?
"You want to discuss all of this on your podcast?"
No, I don't think so. I would like you to just answer the question. The question was as follows: " Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if this Kristen woman is a plant, as opposed to her really having lost her husband on 9/11 -- that this is only some 'small point'?"
Yes, I'm saying getting bogged down in such drivel does not change what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?
With regards to the technology used on 9/11, MOST are missing the bigger picture!
Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a "nuclear bomb" can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.
Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite's ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and "renewables".
Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.
Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.
And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.
You might think it's insane, and it is, but remember we're talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.
In the final analysis there is no "grand" deception" or cover up. There is only BLUFF!
Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
door no 2 – thermite,
door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
A black-ops cold DEW technology that can direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter. (Direct or control – where it goes and what it does)
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Dr David A. Hughes interview with 9/11 Revisionist
Narrative vs. evidence; Morgan Reynolds; Mark Conlon; Shanksville; the Pentagon; Curt Weldon; survivors on Stairwell B; Richard Gage; Camp 2 propaganda techniques; the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
Simon Hytten (Shack), September Clues, did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
The documentary is full of disinformation and the movie should be discarded as a propaganda piece.
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
"You really need to break free from the Simon Shack / September Clues bullshit...."
I never said anything about Simon Shack in the comment. I simply posed the question: "Why are you so sure that this woman really lost her husband on 9/11?"
"Prove to me her husband didn't die,"
WTF is this? Sophomoric debating trick #1178? Demand that somebody prove a negative?
Well, whatever. But, first of all, aren't you getting ahead of yourself? When was it ever demonstrated that her husband even existed! If he never existed, I guess, trivially speaking, he never died! But do note that I have not expressed any absolute certainy about this. In fact, to be clear, I don't recall coming across the name of Breitweiser before. I may have heard of this Kristen woman, as one of the "Jersey girls", but I honestly don't remember.
So this case was new to me so I did a bit of searching just to see what comes up. This woman's husband was (so they so) some guy by the name of Ronald Michael Breitweiser, who was Senior Vice President of Fiduciary Trust Company International. Here is his findagrave page: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5843354/ronald-michael-breitweiser The photo of the guy on that page quite literally seems to be the only one that exists! (Or at least that is publicly visible.) And it's rather blurry. Maybe you can find some other photos. In particular, I would be interested in seeing some photos of him with his wife Kristen. (Is it so unreasonable to think there should be at least some photos of the two of them together?)
So, you know, let's just try to have a reality check here. Can you find any photo of the couple together? (I can't, but okay, I haven't looked that hard.) Can you figure out where Ronald Breitweiser attended university? High school? What did he study? He supposedly had three siblings. Can you figure out what their names are? Again, I can't, but admittedly I haven't tried very hard.
Now, look, I was not born yesterday, so I anticipate that you're just going to turn around and demand that I prove something to you. But no dice. Your position is that you are so convinced that this is a real person who died on 9/11 and was married to this Kristen woman, so think you really should rise to the challenge of coming up with the strongest available evidence for that. Whatever you can find, I'd be interested. And I think other people probably would be too.
But if you're just going to proclaim belief with no real proof, well, you can anticipate that I'm going to tell you that this ain't a church, and it ain't a mosque and this ain't no Sunday school neither!
Look... this whole conversation began when I asked a very simple and obvious question, which is how you're so sure that this Kristen woman really lost her husband on 9/11. As far as I can tell, you never answered the question.
What I would like is for you to simply answer the question. To answer it honestly, in good faith, of course. If the answer to the question (as I suspect) is that you don't really know whether this woman lost her husband because you never did the most elementary fact-checking, then that's the answer, no?
I posed certain sensible (IMHO) ancillary questions to focus things a bit, like: can you find a photo of Mr. and Mrs. Breitweiser together? (One that is not a photoshop obviously! LOL!) I can't figure out where this Ronald Breitweiser went to school or any of it. Also, it says he was "Senior Vice President" of the company he worked for. He obviously did not start his career as a senior vice president. What positions did he hold before that? Is it possible to piece together the most basic facts about this guy's career or his life generally?
But anyway... we're not acquainted personally and, in any case, I feel it's improper to turn the conversation into being about the other person. In fact, that's really the essence of the ad hominem fallacy, right? So, I don't know you and it's improper to start talking to you about you, as opposed to the facts at hand. However, I will say this: certain people (and I think it does include you) need to get a grip on the difference between real facts and storytelling. Thus, it would be very good for you to look, as best you can, into this Ronald Breitweiser and see what real facts you can unearth.
Oh, and a final point: OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER THIS WOMAN'S ALLEGED HUSBAND IS A REAL PERSON OR NOT! DON'T BE BLOODY STUPID FOR F'S SAKE!
I'd rather focus on the bigger facts than getting bogged down in small minute details that does not change the fact of what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?
9/11 FACTS that hurt people's feelings
43 FACTS that cannot be explained due to jet fuel, bombs, thermite or nukes
"I'd rather focus on the bigger facts than getting bogged down in small minute details that does not change the fact of what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?"
Okay, fine. So, let me get this straight. When you refer to "small minute details", is the question of whether this Kristen woman really lost her husband on 9/11 one such "small minute detail"?
Harley Guy wasn't a "crisis actor". He was a freelance for Fox, and unknowing used by Fox, who fed him the narrative of how the towers were destroyed. How do we know this? Because he used the term "Ground Zero".
Walshs' account of the second 3D volumetric projection illusion plane is what he observed.
By the way, proven liar and deceiver Simon Hytten (Shack) declined to debate me again recently. He won't address my many articles showing his lies he had propagated. I wanted to show him to his face what a conartist he is, but was a no show.
Ask Shack how many eyewitnesses or videographers he has spoken to, or if he has reached out to Gwen Faulkner, who took photos of passengers at Dulles?
It sounds like you have been hoodwinked by Shack. Go and inform him I am waiting to debate him via Zoom video that can be recorded, so people can see the lies he has been propagating.
Omitting any mention of Judy Wood’s work immediately discredits any so-called “9/11 Truth” long form journalism as fraudulent or manipulated. That goes especially for Tucker Carlson, who advertises himself to be above such mainstream shenanigans.
There were no planes. It was some type of '3D volumetric imaging technology' or a '3D holographic projection' if you will. If you want to understand what I'm talking about and how we can determine there were no planes hitting the towers, read these articles:
There were planes, and passengers, but the 4 alleged planes on 9/11 did not crash at the alleged spots as the government would like people to believe...
NOT one ELT was registered for ALL FOUR alleged planes on 9/11.
The AFRCC (Air Force Rescue Coordination Center) informed the 9/11 Commission that NO ELTs were activated at all between 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., within a radius of 50 nautical miles (about 57.5 miles) of JFK International Airport on 9/11.
This is an absolute “OFFICIAL FACT”, that neither American 11 or United 175 crashed at the North and South Towers, the officially named targets.
No one can conclusively prove where the planes ended up, but they DID NOT hit the Towers.
What hit the Twin Towers?
People saw something in the sky, took pictures and video, there is NO denying that.
Anyone that pushes the CGI narrative or remote-controlled planes are disinformation agents or are seriously compromised or has done f-all research, aka reading.
Now, what did people see / hear / took pictures of and videoed in the sky over Manhattan on September 11, 2001?
First, we need to start with basic flight physics, aerodynamics, Newton’s 3rd law and basic impact dynamics.
1. Real world example that demolishes the narrative or should have people sit up and take note that something is wrong with the official narrative, is the crash of Flight 587 in NYC on November 12, 2001. The plane got its tail wing sheared off by the pilot and as soon as the plane exceeded 240 knots under 10 000 feet, and as it was falling out of the sky, the engines sheared off.
2. Researchers called Boeing to ask if a commercial jet could exceed 500 mph at 700 feet altitude and the reply was no.
3. This was also confirmed by aeronautical engineers and a multitude of commercial pilots.
4. If you bother reading @PlanesResearch work, you will also come to find the official NTSB data and ACARS PROVE beyond a shadow of a DOUBT that BOTH flight 11 and 175 were STILL AIRBORNE well AFTER they allegedly crashed.
5. NOT one ELT was registered for ALL FOUR alleged planes on 9/11. The AFRCC (Air Force Rescue Coordination Center) informed the 9/11 Commission that NO ELTs were activated at all between 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., within a radius of 50 nautical miles (about 57.5 miles) of JFK International Airport on 9/11.
This is an absolute “OFFICIAL FACT”, that neither American 11 or United 175 crashed at the North and South Towers, the officially named targets.
6. Then there is the optics – People refer to the black whale image from the east of flight 175, and if the optics aren’t doing what it’s supposed to do, then one needs to ask the question why.
7. Taking all this into account – The people saw, heard, took pictures of and videoed a real time illusion.
8. For those that know, the term “Project Blue Beam” comes to mind, or more descriptively 3D Volumetric Projection Technology.
9. On how the plane shaped holes were created, watch the documentary - 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality, linked below.
Now, go read Dr Morgan Reynolds 2007 Qui-Tam whistle-blower case against NIST, for fraudulent impact studies and the affidavit of John Lear…
John Lear - a Retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with 17 world records, including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966.
He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 and for 17 years of his career he worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.
He was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. He also had extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.
You wrote this: "*People* saw something in the sky, took pictures and video, there is NO denying that."
I would like you to specify which people you were referring to. I don't want to have to dig through various information you link and try to guess what you're talking about. If there is some huge number of "people", then just give me the names of the two or three that you find the most credible, the most convincing.
You seem to have a (quite bad) habit of engaging in "argument by inundation". You say "look at all this (sh*t) and there's your answer in there somewhere." You should really stop doing that kind of thing.
Look, surely anybody can see that you're just running a bluff. I asked you to provide the names of the "people" you're referring to. Provide the names. It's not up to me to go through whatever material you link and basically _guess_ which people you are referring to.
So the botom line is that you're running bluff. I'm calling the bluff and it's up to you to show your cards.
The Pentagon attack was fake. Once you watch this video you will realize 9/11 an inside job.
Behind the Smoke Curtain - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack by Barbara Honegger vengencefrom1979 23.4K subscribers 204,422 views Nov 20, 2014 Mirrored from / freeseattle
Barbara Honegger's presentation titled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" in Seattle's Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn't happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
9-11 has more unanswered questions than any other deep state operation - the lack of curiosity in the general public tells us where we are headed as a nation - you can convince most people of anything.
Why are you so sure that this woman really lost her husband on 9/11? (Or are you sure of that?)
It seems far more likely to me that she is just another crisis actress. Admittedly, a high-end one (as opposed to Harley guy, say) but a crisis actress nonetheless. That makes it easier for them to control the narrative.
No, this is a perfect example how people are conditioned to jump into arguing small points that makes no difference to what actually happened.
Let's say this woman's man did not exists, will the twins still be there?
Let me get this straight. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if this Kristen woman is a plant, as opposed to her really having lost her husband on 9/11 -- that this is only some "small point"?
You want to discuss all of this on your podcast?
"You want to discuss all of this on your podcast?"
No, I don't think so. I would like you to just answer the question. The question was as follows: " Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if this Kristen woman is a plant, as opposed to her really having lost her husband on 9/11 -- that this is only some 'small point'?"
Yes, I'm saying getting bogged down in such drivel does not change what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?
With regards to the technology used on 9/11, MOST are missing the bigger picture!
Just as the hazardous and wasteful technology behind a "nuclear bomb" can also be used to provide hazardous and wasteful nuclear power, the technology which caused the clean and effortless molecular dissociation of the twin towers could also be used to give the whole world effortless clean energy.
Exposing this clean free energy technology means and end to the ruling elite's ability to control and exploit the general population through scarce, expensive, dirty and inefficient resources such as oil, coal, nuclear and "renewables".
Any group with an interest in maintaining the current paradigm of artificial scarcity and crappy energy technologies, which keeps the general population enslaved, would have an interest in helping to maintain the 9/11 cover up, because exposing the crime also exposes the TECHNOLOGY to commit it.
Maybe the people who did 9/11 operate under a code of conduct where they have to show this technology to the people, so they have the opportunity to claim it.
And if the people are too stupid or apathetic to show any interest, they will then feel justified in keeping it for themselves and continuing to control and exploit the human herd, like the CATTLE they have shown themselves to be.
You might think it's insane, and it is, but remember we're talking about a group of people who are willing to turn skyscrapers to DUST, live on TV.
In the final analysis there is no "grand" deception" or cover up. There is only BLUFF!
Because everyone can see what happened to the buildings was clearly and PROVABLY NOT a structural failure (collapse) or a conventional controlled demolition by ANY thermal or kinetic mechanism!
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
door no 2 – thermite,
door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
A black-ops cold DEW technology that can direct energy to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter. (Direct or control – where it goes and what it does)
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Dr David A. Hughes interview with 9/11 Revisionist
Narrative vs. evidence; Morgan Reynolds; Mark Conlon; Shanksville; the Pentagon; Curt Weldon; survivors on Stairwell B; Richard Gage; Camp 2 propaganda techniques; the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/david-hughes-on-the-importance-of
You really need to break free from the Simon Shack / September Clues bullshit....
Prove to me her husband didn't die, just like the people in these pictures at Dulles international, that got on Flight 77...
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/a-study-of-american-77-data-and-passenger
Simon Hytten (Shack), September Clues, did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
The documentary is full of disinformation and the movie should be discarded as a propaganda piece.
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)
Exposing The Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-086
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-3ff
Exposing The False Claims By Simon Shack In His Addendum Film
An Independent Analysis
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/exposing-the-false-claims-by-simon
September Clues - Addendum - Deceptions - Part One
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions
September Clues - Addendum Deceptions - Part Two
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions-bcd
Simon Shack’s Amateur Effort of Video Fakery
Cutting Through the Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shacks-amateur-effort-of-video
Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video
Independent Analysis: Exposing Falsehoods of Simon Shack
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shack-misrepresents-plane-flight
Why Ace Baker's Video Fakery Compositing Theory Is Invalid
Independent Analysis of Ace Baker's Video Compositing Theory
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/why-ace-bakers-video-fakery-compositing
"You really need to break free from the Simon Shack / September Clues bullshit...."
I never said anything about Simon Shack in the comment. I simply posed the question: "Why are you so sure that this woman really lost her husband on 9/11?"
"Prove to me her husband didn't die,"
WTF is this? Sophomoric debating trick #1178? Demand that somebody prove a negative?
Well, whatever. But, first of all, aren't you getting ahead of yourself? When was it ever demonstrated that her husband even existed! If he never existed, I guess, trivially speaking, he never died! But do note that I have not expressed any absolute certainy about this. In fact, to be clear, I don't recall coming across the name of Breitweiser before. I may have heard of this Kristen woman, as one of the "Jersey girls", but I honestly don't remember.
So this case was new to me so I did a bit of searching just to see what comes up. This woman's husband was (so they so) some guy by the name of Ronald Michael Breitweiser, who was Senior Vice President of Fiduciary Trust Company International. Here is his findagrave page: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5843354/ronald-michael-breitweiser The photo of the guy on that page quite literally seems to be the only one that exists! (Or at least that is publicly visible.) And it's rather blurry. Maybe you can find some other photos. In particular, I would be interested in seeing some photos of him with his wife Kristen. (Is it so unreasonable to think there should be at least some photos of the two of them together?)
So, you know, let's just try to have a reality check here. Can you find any photo of the couple together? (I can't, but okay, I haven't looked that hard.) Can you figure out where Ronald Breitweiser attended university? High school? What did he study? He supposedly had three siblings. Can you figure out what their names are? Again, I can't, but admittedly I haven't tried very hard.
Now, look, I was not born yesterday, so I anticipate that you're just going to turn around and demand that I prove something to you. But no dice. Your position is that you are so convinced that this is a real person who died on 9/11 and was married to this Kristen woman, so think you really should rise to the challenge of coming up with the strongest available evidence for that. Whatever you can find, I'd be interested. And I think other people probably would be too.
But if you're just going to proclaim belief with no real proof, well, you can anticipate that I'm going to tell you that this ain't a church, and it ain't a mosque and this ain't no Sunday school neither!
Want to discuss all of this on your podcast?
"Want to discuss all of this on your podcast?"
On MY podcast???
Look... this whole conversation began when I asked a very simple and obvious question, which is how you're so sure that this Kristen woman really lost her husband on 9/11. As far as I can tell, you never answered the question.
What I would like is for you to simply answer the question. To answer it honestly, in good faith, of course. If the answer to the question (as I suspect) is that you don't really know whether this woman lost her husband because you never did the most elementary fact-checking, then that's the answer, no?
I posed certain sensible (IMHO) ancillary questions to focus things a bit, like: can you find a photo of Mr. and Mrs. Breitweiser together? (One that is not a photoshop obviously! LOL!) I can't figure out where this Ronald Breitweiser went to school or any of it. Also, it says he was "Senior Vice President" of the company he worked for. He obviously did not start his career as a senior vice president. What positions did he hold before that? Is it possible to piece together the most basic facts about this guy's career or his life generally?
But anyway... we're not acquainted personally and, in any case, I feel it's improper to turn the conversation into being about the other person. In fact, that's really the essence of the ad hominem fallacy, right? So, I don't know you and it's improper to start talking to you about you, as opposed to the facts at hand. However, I will say this: certain people (and I think it does include you) need to get a grip on the difference between real facts and storytelling. Thus, it would be very good for you to look, as best you can, into this Ronald Breitweiser and see what real facts you can unearth.
Oh, and a final point: OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER THIS WOMAN'S ALLEGED HUSBAND IS A REAL PERSON OR NOT! DON'T BE BLOODY STUPID FOR F'S SAKE!
I'd rather focus on the bigger facts than getting bogged down in small minute details that does not change the fact of what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?
9/11 FACTS that hurt people's feelings
43 FACTS that cannot be explained due to jet fuel, bombs, thermite or nukes
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-facts-that-hurt-peoples-feelings
"I'd rather focus on the bigger facts than getting bogged down in small minute details that does not change the fact of what happened on 9/11, can you dig it?"
Okay, fine. So, let me get this straight. When you refer to "small minute details", is the question of whether this Kristen woman really lost her husband on 9/11 one such "small minute detail"?
Harley Guy wasn't a "crisis actor". He was a freelance for Fox, and unknowing used by Fox, who fed him the narrative of how the towers were destroyed. How do we know this? Because he used the term "Ground Zero".
Walshs' account of the second 3D volumetric projection illusion plane is what he observed.
By the way, proven liar and deceiver Simon Hytten (Shack) declined to debate me again recently. He won't address my many articles showing his lies he had propagated. I wanted to show him to his face what a conartist he is, but was a no show.
Ask Shack how many eyewitnesses or videographers he has spoken to, or if he has reached out to Gwen Faulkner, who took photos of passengers at Dulles?
It sounds like you have been hoodwinked by Shack. Go and inform him I am waiting to debate him via Zoom video that can be recorded, so people can see the lies he has been propagating.
Good point.
Omitting any mention of Judy Wood’s work immediately discredits any so-called “9/11 Truth” long form journalism as fraudulent or manipulated. That goes especially for Tucker Carlson, who advertises himself to be above such mainstream shenanigans.
May be a dumb question, but I still don’t understand where the planes went ?? The planes that hit the towers specifically.
There were no planes. It was some type of '3D volumetric imaging technology' or a '3D holographic projection' if you will. If you want to understand what I'm talking about and how we can determine there were no planes hitting the towers, read these articles:
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/t/3d-volumetric-holograms
There were planes, and passengers, but the 4 alleged planes on 9/11 did not crash at the alleged spots as the government would like people to believe...
NOT one ELT was registered for ALL FOUR alleged planes on 9/11.
The AFRCC (Air Force Rescue Coordination Center) informed the 9/11 Commission that NO ELTs were activated at all between 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., within a radius of 50 nautical miles (about 57.5 miles) of JFK International Airport on 9/11.
This is an absolute “OFFICIAL FACT”, that neither American 11 or United 175 crashed at the North and South Towers, the officially named targets.
Source: https://ia800502.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/19/items/911datasets/NARA_911_Commission_Scanned_Jan_2012.zip&file=NARA_911_Commission_Scanned_Jan_2012%2FGSA%20B79%2003010609-12%20Fdr-%20Entire%20Contents-%20USAF%20Memo%20re%20Langley%20visit-%20OPLOTs-%20Payne%20Stewart%20log-%202002%20Hijack%20procedures%20148.pdf .
Elephant in the "Plane Hugging" 9/11 Truth Movement Living Room
A Difficult Fact: No Emergency Locator Transmissions on 9/11
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/elephant-in-the-plane-hugging-911
A Presentation Discussing the Official Evidence & Telemetry Data of Flights AA11, UA175, AA77 & UA93
An Independent Investigation
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/a-presentation-discussing-the-official
No one can conclusively prove where the planes ended up, but they DID NOT hit the Towers.
What hit the Twin Towers?
People saw something in the sky, took pictures and video, there is NO denying that.
Anyone that pushes the CGI narrative or remote-controlled planes are disinformation agents or are seriously compromised or has done f-all research, aka reading.
Now, what did people see / hear / took pictures of and videoed in the sky over Manhattan on September 11, 2001?
First, we need to start with basic flight physics, aerodynamics, Newton’s 3rd law and basic impact dynamics.
1. Real world example that demolishes the narrative or should have people sit up and take note that something is wrong with the official narrative, is the crash of Flight 587 in NYC on November 12, 2001. The plane got its tail wing sheared off by the pilot and as soon as the plane exceeded 240 knots under 10 000 feet, and as it was falling out of the sky, the engines sheared off.
2. Researchers called Boeing to ask if a commercial jet could exceed 500 mph at 700 feet altitude and the reply was no.
3. This was also confirmed by aeronautical engineers and a multitude of commercial pilots.
4. If you bother reading @PlanesResearch work, you will also come to find the official NTSB data and ACARS PROVE beyond a shadow of a DOUBT that BOTH flight 11 and 175 were STILL AIRBORNE well AFTER they allegedly crashed.
5. NOT one ELT was registered for ALL FOUR alleged planes on 9/11. The AFRCC (Air Force Rescue Coordination Center) informed the 9/11 Commission that NO ELTs were activated at all between 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., within a radius of 50 nautical miles (about 57.5 miles) of JFK International Airport on 9/11.
This is an absolute “OFFICIAL FACT”, that neither American 11 or United 175 crashed at the North and South Towers, the officially named targets.
Source: https://ia800502.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/19/items/911datasets/NARA_911_Commission_Scanned_Jan_2012.zip&file=NARA_911_Commission_Scanned_Jan_2012%2FGSA%20B79%2003010609-12%20Fdr-%20Entire%20Contents-%20USAF%20Memo%20re%20Langley%20visit-%20OPLOTs-%20Payne%20Stewart%20log-%202002%20Hijack%20procedures%20148.pdf .
6. Then there is the optics – People refer to the black whale image from the east of flight 175, and if the optics aren’t doing what it’s supposed to do, then one needs to ask the question why.
7. Taking all this into account – The people saw, heard, took pictures of and videoed a real time illusion.
8. For those that know, the term “Project Blue Beam” comes to mind, or more descriptively 3D Volumetric Projection Technology.
9. On how the plane shaped holes were created, watch the documentary - 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality, linked below.
Now, go read Dr Morgan Reynolds 2007 Qui-Tam whistle-blower case against NIST, for fraudulent impact studies and the affidavit of John Lear…
John Lear - a Retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with 17 world records, including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966.
He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 and for 17 years of his career he worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.
He was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. He also had extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.
In short - He knows WTF he's talking about.
2007 Court filings by Dr Morgan Reynolds against NIST: https://nomoregames.net/2011/06/12/request-for-correction-by-nist-for-its-invalid-wtc-jetliner-animations-and-analyses/
Full documentary here: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
The Suspension of Newtonian Physics on 9/11
A Plane conversation with Dr Morgan Reynolds & 9/11 Revisionist
Article & Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-suspension-of-newtonian-physics
"People saw something in the sky, took pictures and video, there is NO denying that."
Which "people" are you referring to? Can you name some of them?
Here you go, you're welcome.
Going in Search of Planes in NYC on 9/11
Revisiting 1st Responders’ Accounts
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/going-in-search-of-planes-in-nyc
You wrote this: "*People* saw something in the sky, took pictures and video, there is NO denying that."
I would like you to specify which people you were referring to. I don't want to have to dig through various information you link and try to guess what you're talking about. If there is some huge number of "people", then just give me the names of the two or three that you find the most credible, the most convincing.
You seem to have a (quite bad) habit of engaging in "argument by inundation". You say "look at all this (sh*t) and there's your answer in there somewhere." You should really stop doing that kind of thing.
You wanted names - Read the article, it's all there. You're welcome.
Look, surely anybody can see that you're just running a bluff. I asked you to provide the names of the "people" you're referring to. Provide the names. It's not up to me to go through whatever material you link and basically _guess_ which people you are referring to.
So the botom line is that you're running bluff. I'm calling the bluff and it's up to you to show your cards.
They were recycled into aluminum Budweiser beer cans:).
The Pentagon attack was fake. Once you watch this video you will realize 9/11 an inside job.
Behind the Smoke Curtain - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack by Barbara Honegger vengencefrom1979 23.4K subscribers 204,422 views Nov 20, 2014 Mirrored from / freeseattle
youtube.com/watch?v=sALa-E56Zms
Barbara Honegger's presentation titled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" in Seattle's Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn't happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Barbara Honegger is part of the problem and cannot be trusted.
She is part of the COINTELPRO operation.
I'll suggest this to you again. Listen to my conversation with Dr Morgan Reynolds and especially what he has to say about Barbara...
The Suspension of Newtonian Physics on 9/11
A Plane conversation with Dr Morgan Reynolds & 9/11 Revisionist
Article & Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-suspension-of-newtonian-physics-0c6
Dr Reynolds' 2007 whistle-blower case was for the fraudulent plane impact reports: https://nomoregames.net/2011/06/12/request-for-correction-by-nist-for-its-invalid-wtc-jetliner-animations-and-analyses/
Lol! Now I understand why you chose, 9/11 Revisionist
Here is some more reading for you to do...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Building 7?
Jews did 9/11 🇮🇱👿
Here, give these a quick read through…
Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.
Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-operation-reason-building-7-didnt
The Israeli Art Students, Gelatin & E-Team PSYOP
It's a wonderful distraction for the intellectually lazy.
Article and video: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-israeli-art-students-gelatin
9/11 FACTS that hurt people's feelings
43 FACTS that cannot be explained due to jet fuel, bombs, thermite or nukes
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-facts-that-hurt-peoples-feelings
Not Jews. Freemasons. Some Jews are freemasons. Some aren't.
9 divided by 11 = 0.818181818181818181 repeating endlessly.
Aces and eights - Dead Man's hand in poker
Occult significance? Freemasonic? It's a clue of some sort:).
9-11 has more unanswered questions than any other deep state operation - the lack of curiosity in the general public tells us where we are headed as a nation - you can convince most people of anything.