Great article! You really know how to lay-out all the info concerning the issues surrounding the alleged plane crashes. Also, many thanks for your efforts with getting the truth out about how the all 7 WTC buildings were destroyed.
Some rabbit holes are just too deep and dark for Corbett to go down, maybe... Julian Assange didn't want to shine a light into this burrow either. Or, the CIA has had a private word with these guys... which is my take:).
Have you ever thought about, maybe, exerting some effort and do a little research on your own? I already know the answer. People of your ilk want to be spoon fed and then vomit it out to people who are kind enough to care...
Of course. I’ve watched and listened to many hours of 9/11 related material and I don’t know how much time I’ve spent reading...lots. And COVID. And 1/6. And election fraud. And everything else in addition to the million other things I’m doing.
So yes, I have looked. Why in the hell do you think I’m subscribed to this stack? I’ve never, not once seen a convincing answer for this. Lots of people like you are quick to be a dick but won’t bother to point someone in the right direction.
“A little” research won’t cover this topic, Einstein. You don’t know the first thing about me yet you make all of these assumptions. We’re sort of on the same team, so stop acting like a faggot. Please and thank you and please come again, k thanks.
If you can comprehend this guy's content, Jason Breshears, your questions WILL be answered. Cognitive Dissonance will fight you hard. Start with his earliest videos on You Tube, not his newest or you WILL be lost. ARCHAIX.COM, you are welcome...
Bro - really. One can debate, but starting to use obscenities when interacting with people in the comment sections of my stack, be more civil. I don't like playing the grammar police here, so tone it down with the personal insults.
I appreciate you following what I am sharing here, but most of the info is already contained in Dr Wood's book, as well as Andrew Johnson's two free e-books and the documentaries I reference.
Once you worked through the references in my various articles, everyone will be able to take ownership of the truth of what happened on 9/11 as well as the government and 9/11 truth movement's cover up.
Those people also supposedly made cell phone calls from 20,000 feet. In 2001 with the old brick phones. That doesn't even work with today's technology ( connection to ground based cell towers)
There were (reportedly) four planes, two hitting the twin towers (allegedly), one hitting the Pentagon, and one that crashed in Shanksville, PA. Many hours after the planes hit the towers, building 7 collapsed "from fires." And the rest of the buildings there sustained some impressive damage as well. I give highest probability to explosives initially, followed by DEW's (directed energy weapons).
no airplane hit the Pentagon! It was most probably a missle. Get BRabara Honegger DVD on that part, she used to work for CIA... I went through this surprise in 2014, 10 YEARS AGO!
I agree. The "(reportedly)" covered all the "planes." There were no planes that day that were not landed elsewhere and used to claim "hits."
And I knew 9/11 was not what They said it was on 9/12. I have poured My time in researching heavily, 1,000 or more hours spent. And the "missile" seemed most likely at the pentagon to explain what We saw.
With all due respect - I too have spent thousands of hours on 9/11 and currently hours still daily educating people on the lies of the 9/11 truther movement.
If you've read my PentaCon article, you will see that it was most provably NOT a missile either, as the fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field points to DEW for every event on 9/11 - It is discussed in depth in the documentary, 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality. https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
I have also had face time with Adam Eisenberg, an ex-infantry man that was tasked with cleanup at the PentaCon on 9/11 and the injuries he saw to the dead was in line with DEW that was used in Libya and Irak in 2003.
The strange fires breaking out at the PentaCon later the evening, is in line with DEW, also discussed in my PentaCon article, as well as ongoing fuming and metal transmutation long after the event.
I am not saying that no DEW was used. Just that the footage showing something at high speed coming in at the appropriate angle suggests a missile initially, and likely DEW were used subsequently.
But the important facts are not what They used, but who They were that instigated that mess and why.
That "something" coming in at high speed, we already know the footage released was doctored, so we cannot trust it either...
There are 84 videos that are still under lock and key, so until they are released, we can only speculate. The after effects are well documented and explained in the documentary 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality.
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
I’ve not studied this like you, Mark and many others. I have watched several presentations by Richard Gage who I know isn’t popular around here.
That airplanes didn’t hit the towers is still hard for me to really fully grasp. It’s very obvious that an airplane didn’t crash into the Pentagon and Shanksville was always sketchy too. But there are just too many impossibilities for airplanes to have hit those buildings.
When you finally realize that 9/11 was nothing like we were told you really cross a threshold where you won’t believe anything, even if you see it.
THANK YOU for every picture and video!! It is priceless! One should never forget this and get to the bottom of it. This is first time where these cgi images of the colliding airplanes are SO MUCH TELLING. The worst is the lost lives of all these people, to arrange it in such an infinitely cruel way is simply unthinkable. So one needs to separate real from an 'image', in these special objects 'aircrafts-looking' with special coatings capable of changing color but also generating an image of melting into a real object, the towers... Don't know why, but an association comes in my mind, maybe just saw too much about it, the Philadelphia experiment, which needed huge EMF fields, but that was cloaking only. Judy mentions different one WInter-haven... DEfnitely there are two different parts, imaginary and physical destruction using huge source of energy pulverizing a concrete and melting steel.
In this essay there are a few paragraphs on Nikola Tesla and his idea of a " death ray " weapon. And then, the important bit - in 2018 Anil K. Maini, former Director of Laser Weapons Research at the Indian MoD, refers in a book he wrote about a " Particle Beam Weapon " being a form of DEW that uses subatomic particles accelerated to near the speed of light by electrical and magnetic fields and directed at a target to cause severe disruption to its atomic structure...
Hmmmmm... This PBW is referred to in a present tense - as if it does actually exist:).
@9/11 revisionist. You should try and get on the Doc Malik podcast. He is open minded, waking up through the medical events of 2020, and seems genuine. He also understands 911 to be a false flag, but is going down the Richard Gage path : (
PS: Just fixed some of the broken links in the article that went to my deleted Odysee account and added a short little extra nugget to demolish the thermite disinformation.
Hi John - Doc Malik has reached out to me for an interview and I've replied.
I have also suggested he speak to Andrew Johnson, who is the one reason, as for Dr Wood, why I am writing my articles. Hopefully he will speak to Andrew, but i more than willing to chat with him, if Andrew's schedule does not allow it for September 11, 2001. Once again -
Thank you for bringing my sharing of Dr Wood's work to the attention of Doc Malik.
I'm about half way through your compilation of second plane hit video clips, and I have two questions for you.
First, you mentioned/showed a video you stated was the Naudet Brothers one. Except the original Naudet footage is of the first plane hitting the NT, not the second hitting the ST. ??? So is this just a mislabel/honest mistake or is this a faked video?
Second, this is a technical question. You have cited this volumetric hologram stuff. Ok, fine, but my question concerns the audio. How did the perpetrators produce the fake audio? (it must have been fake, after all). There are of course multiple amateur videos from a massive variety of filming positions - leaving aside the technical difficulties in producing a visual hologram consistent from multiple angles, how did the perps create the realistic audio (again from multiple viewing positions), which observably also exhibits the Doppler effect you would expect from a rapidly moving object?
I'm not necessarily doubting your theory here, by the way - I'm genuinely curious as to how you would answer these two questions - the second one most importantly. Have you (or anyone, for that matter) addressed this audio issue? I've only perused about three of your articles so far so forgive me if you have already addressed this, and just provide the link.
For what it's worth, by the way, whilst I may have lingering doubts about your DEW theory I am completely with you on the free energy suppression, and I've written about it myself. Likewise this certainly doesn't mean I dispute the existence of DEWs. Of course they exist.
Scrap my first question about the Naudets, by the way - I've now seen the whole thing and I got confused because just before that particular clip of the 2nd impact you showed the type of camera they used, not that that was their footage (which you show later - with audio, interestingly).
There is, however, still the issue of manufactured fake footage masquerading as being shot by an amateur on 9-11. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these clips are indeed fake ones. Not that that necessarily invalidates the no planes theory, but it's certainly an interesting side issue. This might be the case with those 'orbs', although I admit I haven't looked into that at all.
I did have a few more counter-argument thoughts though. The plane turning black - this to me is simply entering the shadow caused by all that black smoke coming from the other tower. Why, it strikes me, would they program the hologram to make the plane turn black?
Then about the 'electromagnetic interference' - why would that happen if we're simply talking visual projection technology? They wouldn't have commenced the DEW thing by then, after all, if it only takes around 15 minutes.
Also, this was 23 years ago. Since then, such holographic projection technology would've been developed commercially and used in the movies. Unless every CGI technician in the movie business and every producer and director and so on has been warned in no uncertain terms against developing or using this kind of tech - which is absurd because they'd ask why, get suspicious, and then start talking about it. There is a limit to the number of people you can get to keep their mouths shut, which IMO is determined by a multiple of Dunbar's number.
So I have strong doubts about that as it stands at the moment.
I did mention in my first comment I'd only read 3 so far (I sort of started at the beginning as you suggested), as I only discovered your site today. I'm the kind of person who reads intently and gets provoked into thoughts, which I will often then turn into a comment. Kind of like a work in progress, perhaps.
I also did ask you to forgive me if you've already covered a particular question, and to just let me have the appropriate link - so thanks for the one you just provided.
Unfortunately I live in France and they've cancelled Rumble here (the excuse they used was the old chestnut of 'Russian disinformation').
With regards to 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality, I also gave you a YT link...
Now, not to come off as rude, but are you an aeronautical engineer, pilot or structural engineer? Have you ever had a conversation with a commercial pilot? I have, pertaining to all 4 alleged planes on 9/11...
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
For what it's worth I don't for a moment believe a plane hit the pentagon. Likewise Flight 93.
Not to come off as rude, but it's a logical fallacy to think that the only people who can understand the science of certain subjects are the specialist scientists involved in those subjects (you gave the examples of aeronautical engineer, pilot or structural engineer). My brain/intellectual capacity/intelligence level is far more than adequate to learn about and understand a new scientific topic. In fact I do it all the time. I don't mean to come across as too arrogant here but I am a genius.
With regards to your pilot interview, if these kinds of planes would 'break up' if flown at that speed at that altitude then by definition no living pilot would've done it. Including the one you spoke to. Likewise, if the simulator has been programmed with mistaken laws of physics which don't take into account the charge field then the simulator will not work and likewise the 'instruction manual' with its warnings will also be in error.
But again, I would be very surprised if, if there were indeed planes which hit the two towers, they really were commercial airliners. If real flying objects were used in the operation then they would've been remote controlled drones or cruise missiles made up to look like commercial airliners, which obviously bypasses any observations/considerations about the behaviour of commercial airliners at that speed and altitude (cruise missiles don't break up at that altitude, after all). Might also address some of the other seeming anomalies, like 'melting into the building' or 'not exploding on impact' etc.
Please note even this doesn't negate your no-planes hypothesis. I am simply putting forward some suggestions which, ironically, are counter arguments to the commercial airliners theory. I am also exposing the fact that in order to promote the no planes/hologram theory, you don't need to debunk the commercial airliners theory. If anything, arguing specifically against the existence of 'planes' is a distraction. It's irrelevant, quite frankly. If the 3d-Volumetric etc. is plausible then there you go.
And I was hoping you'd appreciate a good, polite, interesting discussion, which doesn't degenerate into ill feeling. I believe that's what you said in your very first article?
Debunking commercial airliners is truly and adequately done by 9/11 Planes Research who has been studying them for over 14 years and had a good hand to play in the creation of the documentary 9/11 Alchemy…
Once you’ve watched the documentary, and read these books, you will be up to speed.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
With regards to the 'planes would start breaking up at that velocity at that low altitude' argument. I don't buy that for a minute and I think the argument in that third video about the 12 November crash is misleading to put it kindly. That plane was not travelling very fast and did not break up because of being at a low altitude. There is no comparison between that and 9-11.
Second, if you are familiar with the work of Miles Mathis and his charge field theory (which I wholeheartedly agree with), then you'll know that this theory explains why planes stay in the air. They get pushed up by the charge field emanating from the planet (in all directions). So what lifts a plane off the ground is simply reaching a sufficient velocity to be impacted by a sufficient number of charge particles (photons). This is why, for example, Maglev trains start levitating once they reach a certain velocity (around 300mph I think). And probably why the powers-that-shouldn't-be don't fulfil Maglev's potential and make these trains go as fast as they could because this would prove the charge field theory, and thus the cat would be out of the bag with regards to free energy suppression and Tesla etc.
So with regards to the planes on 9-11, ironically the reason why they don't break up is precisely because they ARE going at such high velocity! It simply wouldn't matter at that speed if the tail fin broke off, or the engines, because the charge field would still be levitating it. Equally ironically, the reason why the 12 November crash happened was because the plane WASN'T going fast enough to pick up enough charge to keep it in the air.
Another irony with regards to Mathis is that he does indeed go with a lot of the fake events narrative - I suspect he was given the proverbial offer you can't refuse. But it's actually his scientific work which is the important stuff, not the conspiracy theories. I don't think he believes there were planes either for what it's worth, although he does go for the controlled demolition option.
Great article! You really know how to lay-out all the info concerning the issues surrounding the alleged plane crashes. Also, many thanks for your efforts with getting the truth out about how the all 7 WTC buildings were destroyed.
My history.
I was working on another traumatic conspiracy
2. Covid hit. I saw Corbett vid on 911. Oh, he's got it
3. Saw Dr. Judy Wood and friends. Whoa. And Corbett rebuffed her?
Dr. Wood impressive!
Corbett has never investigated what she presents - I want to know why not?
Some rabbit holes are just too deep and dark for Corbett to go down, maybe... Julian Assange didn't want to shine a light into this burrow either. Or, the CIA has had a private word with these guys... which is my take:).
If the planes were not real, what happened to all the people that supposedly died when the planes hit the towers?
Really? You need to catch up, Fast...
Not everyone is totally up to speed smart ass. Instead of being a prick maybe post a helpful link or something. Ffs.
use nicer language please, this is not some bar in downtown SF....
Again, no link or even a TLDR. Thanks for nothing princess. My pleasure, thank you. Better?
Have you ever thought about, maybe, exerting some effort and do a little research on your own? I already know the answer. People of your ilk want to be spoon fed and then vomit it out to people who are kind enough to care...
Of course. I’ve watched and listened to many hours of 9/11 related material and I don’t know how much time I’ve spent reading...lots. And COVID. And 1/6. And election fraud. And everything else in addition to the million other things I’m doing.
So yes, I have looked. Why in the hell do you think I’m subscribed to this stack? I’ve never, not once seen a convincing answer for this. Lots of people like you are quick to be a dick but won’t bother to point someone in the right direction.
“A little” research won’t cover this topic, Einstein. You don’t know the first thing about me yet you make all of these assumptions. We’re sort of on the same team, so stop acting like a faggot. Please and thank you and please come again, k thanks.
If you can comprehend this guy's content, Jason Breshears, your questions WILL be answered. Cognitive Dissonance will fight you hard. Start with his earliest videos on You Tube, not his newest or you WILL be lost. ARCHAIX.COM, you are welcome...
I do not see any 9/11 related content on his site?
Thanks man. Is Beeshears anything like William Cooper?
Bro - really. One can debate, but starting to use obscenities when interacting with people in the comment sections of my stack, be more civil. I don't like playing the grammar police here, so tone it down with the personal insults.
I appreciate you following what I am sharing here, but most of the info is already contained in Dr Wood's book, as well as Andrew Johnson's two free e-books and the documentaries I reference.
Once you worked through the references in my various articles, everyone will be able to take ownership of the truth of what happened on 9/11 as well as the government and 9/11 truth movement's cover up.
Thanks, and noted. I appreciate the links and I’ll try to fit Dr. Woods book in somewhere.
Bob Greenyer MFMP on remote view & YouTube
Bob Greenyer 9/11 - NO thermite, no little neutron bomb or jet fuel required.
Link: https://rumble.com/v53eodh-bob-greenyer-911-no-thermite-no-little-neutron-bomb-or-jet-fuel-required..html
Those people also supposedly made cell phone calls from 20,000 feet. In 2001 with the old brick phones. That doesn't even work with today's technology ( connection to ground based cell towers)
Indeed as investigated here: https://rumble.com/v4u48fc-911-planes-passengers-and-phone-calls.html
Here - let's help you with your "where are the passengers" hurdle.
Give this a watch: https://rumble.com/v4u48fc-911-planes-passengers-and-phone-calls.html
And I didn't know there were more than those 2 bldgs
But I was already on huge conspiracy, so I didn't look at it.
These conspiracies, big ones, are by same group
There were (reportedly) four planes, two hitting the twin towers (allegedly), one hitting the Pentagon, and one that crashed in Shanksville, PA. Many hours after the planes hit the towers, building 7 collapsed "from fires." And the rest of the buildings there sustained some impressive damage as well. I give highest probability to explosives initially, followed by DEW's (directed energy weapons).
no airplane hit the Pentagon! It was most probably a missle. Get BRabara Honegger DVD on that part, she used to work for CIA... I went through this surprise in 2014, 10 YEARS AGO!
The PentaCon on 9/11
When even a missile did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
I agree. The "(reportedly)" covered all the "planes." There were no planes that day that were not landed elsewhere and used to claim "hits."
And I knew 9/11 was not what They said it was on 9/12. I have poured My time in researching heavily, 1,000 or more hours spent. And the "missile" seemed most likely at the pentagon to explain what We saw.
With all due respect - I too have spent thousands of hours on 9/11 and currently hours still daily educating people on the lies of the 9/11 truther movement.
If you've read my PentaCon article, you will see that it was most provably NOT a missile either, as the fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field points to DEW for every event on 9/11 - It is discussed in depth in the documentary, 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality. https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
I have also had face time with Adam Eisenberg, an ex-infantry man that was tasked with cleanup at the PentaCon on 9/11 and the injuries he saw to the dead was in line with DEW that was used in Libya and Irak in 2003.
The strange fires breaking out at the PentaCon later the evening, is in line with DEW, also discussed in my PentaCon article, as well as ongoing fuming and metal transmutation long after the event.
A missile does not do that.
I am not saying that no DEW was used. Just that the footage showing something at high speed coming in at the appropriate angle suggests a missile initially, and likely DEW were used subsequently.
But the important facts are not what They used, but who They were that instigated that mess and why.
That "something" coming in at high speed, we already know the footage released was doctored, so we cannot trust it either...
There are 84 videos that are still under lock and key, so until they are released, we can only speculate. The after effects are well documented and explained in the documentary 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality.
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
I give highest probability to DEW's.
Great example with flight 587
Thanx
I’ve not studied this like you, Mark and many others. I have watched several presentations by Richard Gage who I know isn’t popular around here.
That airplanes didn’t hit the towers is still hard for me to really fully grasp. It’s very obvious that an airplane didn’t crash into the Pentagon and Shanksville was always sketchy too. But there are just too many impossibilities for airplanes to have hit those buildings.
When you finally realize that 9/11 was nothing like we were told you really cross a threshold where you won’t believe anything, even if you see it.
Richard Gage should be hung!
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
Thermite Revisited & Demolished in 2024
Aerospace Engineer discusses the truth about thermite and September 11, 2001
Presentation: https://911revision.substack.com/p/thermite-revisited-and-demolished
THANK YOU for every picture and video!! It is priceless! One should never forget this and get to the bottom of it. This is first time where these cgi images of the colliding airplanes are SO MUCH TELLING. The worst is the lost lives of all these people, to arrange it in such an infinitely cruel way is simply unthinkable. So one needs to separate real from an 'image', in these special objects 'aircrafts-looking' with special coatings capable of changing color but also generating an image of melting into a real object, the towers... Don't know why, but an association comes in my mind, maybe just saw too much about it, the Philadelphia experiment, which needed huge EMF fields, but that was cloaking only. Judy mentions different one WInter-haven... DEfnitely there are two different parts, imaginary and physical destruction using huge source of energy pulverizing a concrete and melting steel.
I would like to hear you explain this on my favorite podcast…. Tin Foil Hat w/ Sam Tripoli…. I think it would be a banger!!!
Person to speak to is Mark Conlon, with regards to the "planes"
His latest interview: https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/mark-conlon-on-there-being-no-planes-on-9-11
On the destruction of the WTC - Andrew Johnson: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/contact/
If they aren't available, which I doubt, then I'll be willing to have a chat - norman@ic911a.org
Check out the jet fuel hoax https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hoiwJA6pDMQ
I finally found what I was looking for and screenshotted the other day:-
https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-occult-deception
In this essay there are a few paragraphs on Nikola Tesla and his idea of a " death ray " weapon. And then, the important bit - in 2018 Anil K. Maini, former Director of Laser Weapons Research at the Indian MoD, refers in a book he wrote about a " Particle Beam Weapon " being a form of DEW that uses subatomic particles accelerated to near the speed of light by electrical and magnetic fields and directed at a target to cause severe disruption to its atomic structure...
Hmmmmm... This PBW is referred to in a present tense - as if it does actually exist:).
You might also find this an interesting read…
Scalar Wars: The Brave New World of Scalar Electromagnetics by Bill Morgan
Bill Morgan has compiled most of Lt. Col Tom E. Bearden's scalar wave work http://prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm
I
@9/11 revisionist. You should try and get on the Doc Malik podcast. He is open minded, waking up through the medical events of 2020, and seems genuine. He also understands 911 to be a false flag, but is going down the Richard Gage path : (
https://docmalik.substack.com/p/manufacturing-consent-problem-reaction
Only paid subscribers can comment, but I sent him a message on his website.
Thank you for the heads up. You should write him as well.
Link: https://docmalik.com/contact/
I was going to write a comment on his latest post linking to this article:
https://911revision.substack.com/p/expanded-the-controlled-demolition
Great idea - Let’s se if he responds.
PS: Just fixed some of the broken links in the article that went to my deleted Odysee account and added a short little extra nugget to demolish the thermite disinformation.
Hi John - Doc Malik has reached out to me for an interview and I've replied.
I have also suggested he speak to Andrew Johnson, who is the one reason, as for Dr Wood, why I am writing my articles. Hopefully he will speak to Andrew, but i more than willing to chat with him, if Andrew's schedule does not allow it for September 11, 2001. Once again -
Thank you for bringing my sharing of Dr Wood's work to the attention of Doc Malik.
Awesome! Glad to hear
Hi John
Doc Malik and Andrew Johnson is busy sorting out a date for the podcast.
Thank you once again.
I'm about half way through your compilation of second plane hit video clips, and I have two questions for you.
First, you mentioned/showed a video you stated was the Naudet Brothers one. Except the original Naudet footage is of the first plane hitting the NT, not the second hitting the ST. ??? So is this just a mislabel/honest mistake or is this a faked video?
Second, this is a technical question. You have cited this volumetric hologram stuff. Ok, fine, but my question concerns the audio. How did the perpetrators produce the fake audio? (it must have been fake, after all). There are of course multiple amateur videos from a massive variety of filming positions - leaving aside the technical difficulties in producing a visual hologram consistent from multiple angles, how did the perps create the realistic audio (again from multiple viewing positions), which observably also exhibits the Doppler effect you would expect from a rapidly moving object?
I'm not necessarily doubting your theory here, by the way - I'm genuinely curious as to how you would answer these two questions - the second one most importantly. Have you (or anyone, for that matter) addressed this audio issue? I've only perused about three of your articles so far so forgive me if you have already addressed this, and just provide the link.
For what it's worth, by the way, whilst I may have lingering doubts about your DEW theory I am completely with you on the free energy suppression, and I've written about it myself. Likewise this certainly doesn't mean I dispute the existence of DEWs. Of course they exist.
Scrap my first question about the Naudets, by the way - I've now seen the whole thing and I got confused because just before that particular clip of the 2nd impact you showed the type of camera they used, not that that was their footage (which you show later - with audio, interestingly).
There is, however, still the issue of manufactured fake footage masquerading as being shot by an amateur on 9-11. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these clips are indeed fake ones. Not that that necessarily invalidates the no planes theory, but it's certainly an interesting side issue. This might be the case with those 'orbs', although I admit I haven't looked into that at all.
I did have a few more counter-argument thoughts though. The plane turning black - this to me is simply entering the shadow caused by all that black smoke coming from the other tower. Why, it strikes me, would they program the hologram to make the plane turn black?
Then about the 'electromagnetic interference' - why would that happen if we're simply talking visual projection technology? They wouldn't have commenced the DEW thing by then, after all, if it only takes around 15 minutes.
Also, this was 23 years ago. Since then, such holographic projection technology would've been developed commercially and used in the movies. Unless every CGI technician in the movie business and every producer and director and so on has been warned in no uncertain terms against developing or using this kind of tech - which is absurd because they'd ask why, get suspicious, and then start talking about it. There is a limit to the number of people you can get to keep their mouths shut, which IMO is determined by a multiple of Dunbar's number.
So I have strong doubts about that as it stands at the moment.
How many of my articles have you actually read?
Then you need to read this article and go watch the full documentary…
9/11 Planes: 3D VIPT vs Video Fakery and CGI
Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-3d-volumetric-image-projection
Watch: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
I did mention in my first comment I'd only read 3 so far (I sort of started at the beginning as you suggested), as I only discovered your site today. I'm the kind of person who reads intently and gets provoked into thoughts, which I will often then turn into a comment. Kind of like a work in progress, perhaps.
I also did ask you to forgive me if you've already covered a particular question, and to just let me have the appropriate link - so thanks for the one you just provided.
Unfortunately I live in France and they've cancelled Rumble here (the excuse they used was the old chestnut of 'Russian disinformation').
With regards to 9/11 Alchemy: Facing Reality, I also gave you a YT link...
Now, not to come off as rude, but are you an aeronautical engineer, pilot or structural engineer? Have you ever had a conversation with a commercial pilot? I have, pertaining to all 4 alleged planes on 9/11...
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
4. The link below – American Airlines flight 587 from 12 November 2001 – Is the assumptions in this video correct or false? - https://rumble.com/v4h4c7h-november-12-2001-the-crash-of-aa-flight-587-in-nyc.html
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
- And that is going to warp your brain 😂😂🙈
Pilot:
- This is just the tip of the iceberg 😊
For what it's worth I don't for a moment believe a plane hit the pentagon. Likewise Flight 93.
Not to come off as rude, but it's a logical fallacy to think that the only people who can understand the science of certain subjects are the specialist scientists involved in those subjects (you gave the examples of aeronautical engineer, pilot or structural engineer). My brain/intellectual capacity/intelligence level is far more than adequate to learn about and understand a new scientific topic. In fact I do it all the time. I don't mean to come across as too arrogant here but I am a genius.
With regards to your pilot interview, if these kinds of planes would 'break up' if flown at that speed at that altitude then by definition no living pilot would've done it. Including the one you spoke to. Likewise, if the simulator has been programmed with mistaken laws of physics which don't take into account the charge field then the simulator will not work and likewise the 'instruction manual' with its warnings will also be in error.
But again, I would be very surprised if, if there were indeed planes which hit the two towers, they really were commercial airliners. If real flying objects were used in the operation then they would've been remote controlled drones or cruise missiles made up to look like commercial airliners, which obviously bypasses any observations/considerations about the behaviour of commercial airliners at that speed and altitude (cruise missiles don't break up at that altitude, after all). Might also address some of the other seeming anomalies, like 'melting into the building' or 'not exploding on impact' etc.
Please note even this doesn't negate your no-planes hypothesis. I am simply putting forward some suggestions which, ironically, are counter arguments to the commercial airliners theory. I am also exposing the fact that in order to promote the no planes/hologram theory, you don't need to debunk the commercial airliners theory. If anything, arguing specifically against the existence of 'planes' is a distraction. It's irrelevant, quite frankly. If the 3d-Volumetric etc. is plausible then there you go.
And I was hoping you'd appreciate a good, polite, interesting discussion, which doesn't degenerate into ill feeling. I believe that's what you said in your very first article?
Debunking commercial airliners is truly and adequately done by 9/11 Planes Research who has been studying them for over 14 years and had a good hand to play in the creation of the documentary 9/11 Alchemy…
Once you’ve watched the documentary, and read these books, you will be up to speed.
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
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Andrew Johnson's two FREE E-Books on 9/11:
1. 9/11 Finding the Truth - http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
2. 9/11 Holding the Truth - http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/911%20Holding%20The%20Truth%20-Andrew%20Johnson%20-%202017.pdf
With regards to your YT link - yes, of course I can access YT - but at least give me enough time to watch it, eh!
No sweat - Looking forward to your feedback...
Thank you for reading this dumb African's brain fart articles, lol
With regards to the 'planes would start breaking up at that velocity at that low altitude' argument. I don't buy that for a minute and I think the argument in that third video about the 12 November crash is misleading to put it kindly. That plane was not travelling very fast and did not break up because of being at a low altitude. There is no comparison between that and 9-11.
Second, if you are familiar with the work of Miles Mathis and his charge field theory (which I wholeheartedly agree with), then you'll know that this theory explains why planes stay in the air. They get pushed up by the charge field emanating from the planet (in all directions). So what lifts a plane off the ground is simply reaching a sufficient velocity to be impacted by a sufficient number of charge particles (photons). This is why, for example, Maglev trains start levitating once they reach a certain velocity (around 300mph I think). And probably why the powers-that-shouldn't-be don't fulfil Maglev's potential and make these trains go as fast as they could because this would prove the charge field theory, and thus the cat would be out of the bag with regards to free energy suppression and Tesla etc.
So with regards to the planes on 9-11, ironically the reason why they don't break up is precisely because they ARE going at such high velocity! It simply wouldn't matter at that speed if the tail fin broke off, or the engines, because the charge field would still be levitating it. Equally ironically, the reason why the 12 November crash happened was because the plane WASN'T going fast enough to pick up enough charge to keep it in the air.
Another irony with regards to Mathis is that he does indeed go with a lot of the fake events narrative - I suspect he was given the proverbial offer you can't refuse. But it's actually his scientific work which is the important stuff, not the conspiracy theories. I don't think he believes there were planes either for what it's worth, although he does go for the controlled demolition option.
You really need to go study this substack.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/