I really think you should do some more research, as everything you have thus far shared with regards to the PentaCon and the alleged planes hitting the towers have EXTENSIVELY been researched and built upon the distractive CGI narrative over the years, since this distractive talking point has been injected into the 9/11 truther movement - You really need to watch....
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
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 should do some research ...I just cant address any of the points you do and explain why they're incorrect"
A WALL of disinformation and nonsense. Seems legit. lol - If you dont think most ppl can see through this bs you dont know your ass from a hole a ground.
When it comes to the PentaCon - You really do need to have a talk with Adam Eisenberg...
While serving in the Army as a member of Alpha Company, 3rd US Infantry, Adam Eisenberg spent approximately 240 hours on site, with at least a hundred of his fellow servicemen, at the Pentagon on 9/11. In short, he helped clean up the mess from the plane crash. Except that, well, there was no plane, he argues.
9/11 Revisionist and Mark Conlon have all the evidence you need to get this topic correct. It is quite irrefutable the amount of evidence they have gathered.
One of the easiest ways to debunk the idea that there were actual planes flown into the buildings is to estimate the speed at which the plane is flying and compare it with the maximum operating velocity (Vmo) of a Boeing 767 at sea level. It is simple physics
"it's simple physics, .. Im just so fucking stupid I cant figure it out."
gee, how do you explain those of us that saw the plane, if it was CGI ? Hundreds of thousands off people, genius. For fuck sake, with this nonsense lol, Literally no one with two brain cells to rub together believes this bs, or cant see this a mile away for what it is. Youre a disgrace./
In the second part of our riveting two-part series, Shane Skwarek and Tim Philipps continue their exploration of the events of September 11, 2001, this time focusing on United Airlines Flight 93. Joining them is researcher Mark Conlon, who delves into the complex and often controversial narrative surrounding this infamous flight.
In this episode, we examine the following key topics:
➡️ The timeline of Flight 93 and the events leading up to its tragic crash
➡️ Eyewitness accounts that raise questions about the official story
➡️ Theories surrounding the actual crash site and whether it landed elsewhere
➡️ The role of passengers in the fight against the hijackers and their ultimate fate
➡️ Anomalies in radar data and the implications of communication failures
➡️ The significance of seismic data and magnetic interference during the crash
As the conversation unfolds, Mark highlights the discrepancies and conflicting reports that continue to challenge our understanding of Flight 93. This episode aims to shed light on the complexities of that fateful flight and encourages viewers to critically assess the narratives presented to the public.
Join us for this thought-provoking discussion as we seek to uncover the untold stories and unanswered questions about United 93. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more enlightening discussions on conspiracies and the quest for truth!
The planes weren't CGI - That's the whole point - People did see something in the skies - Now if you want to find out more, start with these two articles, the podcast interview and thereafter the documentary - You're welcome....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
Well, let me explain so you can expand your mind from your false dichotomy of either the planes were cgi or were real.
Like I said before, One of the easiest ways to debunk the idea that there were actual planes flown into the buildings is to estimate the speed at which the plane is flying and compare it with the maximum operating velocity (Vmo) of a Boeing 767 at sea level. It is simple physics:
Also, the crash physics observed are impossible. The 'plane' 'melts' into the building. Any technically adept person would recognize this as impossible.
Also, if the planes had been real, then the emergency locator transmitters would have gone off. They are supposed to go off automatically if a plane crashes. They didn't go off. Therefore, no airline plane crashed on the site:
So this debunks the idea that what we see as 'planes' were actually planes that used to fly for the big airlines.
So what could it be then?
CGI on the videos?
I don't think so... If the planes were CGI many things would have to be true that I just think aren't. Mainly, that all of the video footage caught on that day would have had to be tampered with before it was put out to the public. I think this is very unlikely. Possible, I admit, but unlikely. But then let's say they were able to tamper absolutely all of the footage that was taken that day, including all of the photographs of the 'plane' going into the south tower, and then input a CGI planes into all of them. If that were the case, you would be able to see the plane fairly well (generally good quality) and consistently in all of the footage. Inputing an object into the videos isn't that hard and the quality should be fairly good so the planes would look pretty good.
But when we analyze the videos, we don't see a good job of 'CGI planes'. We see many inconsistencies in lighting, and sometimes wings disappear (why would a a fake cgi plane suddenly have its wings missing in some of the frames? This makes no sense whatsoever if the planes were CGI). You can see a great analysis of this in this link:
Also, if the planes were CGI, I would argue we would be able to spot inconsistencies between the official path and the path observed in the footage taken that day. Instead of observing inconsistencies, we get a good or perfect match between what is reported and what is seen in the videos, as seen here:
I think it makes sense to posit that the 'planes' were an 'optical illusion' if you want to call it that. I believe there was something flying there into the buildings. Possibly a bunker buster missile or something of the sort (you can see the 'planes' go deep into the buliding and then something explodes, which is exactly what a bunker buster missile does), and that this object, whatever it was, was cloaked optically with some type of 3d holographic technology that made it look like an airplane, something along the lines of what this guy shows in this video, but in 3D:
Albert's statement here is perhaps the most important insight of all into the minds of the perpetrators when they had their planning meeting:
Again writing of the Pentagon, Lucientes notes, “there was no way the attackers could have known ahead of time that, when the attack was over, they alone would be in control of all images and/or videos of the attack. The attack occurred in a highly exposed area during rush hour on a weekday morning. A single image would have revealed the lie. This is what happened in Manhattan when a documentary filmmaker working nearby heard a plane low overhead and swung his camera upward just in time to catch the North Tower impact.”
Some people have questioned the affiliations of the Naudet brothers, of course - but there's another answer to this, which is that the perpetrators really did need to make sure there was video footage captured of the first plane impact precisely in order to convince people that it really was a genuine plane hitting a building and 'therefore a terrorist attack' - obviously, if the general public (or the truth movement, for that matter) are unaware of the possibility of remote control, then they will readily believe it was a genuine terrorist attack carried out by genuine suicidal fanatics.
Add the remote control and you have the explanation for the patsies. Given Al-Qaeda was a CIA proxy (cf. Alec Station), it would've been easy for the CIA to recruit 19 of them to play the part of patsies, presumably telling them they are not really going to die etc., but then take remote control over the planes and crash them into buildings. This readily creates all the trail of 'genuine' evidence you need.
This puts Flight 93 into a whole new perspective - the official story being the passengers fought back. But what if the real story is that the 'hijackers' came out of the cockpit and informed the passengers that 'someone has taken remote control of the plane and we were told we were taking part in a simulation/training exercise, so you need to help us try and regain control over the plane' etc. etc.
This also, conveniently, disposes of the patsies very efficiently.
This overall explanation, I think, adequately explains what happened with all the planes. Part of me of course would like to think that at least a few of them landed at Stewart Airforce base and were replaced by remote controlled drones, but that might be construed as overly dramatic. Good for a movie, or a 24-style thing, but overgilding the lily a bit...
I would tend to agree with that actually. I think Dave McGowan speculated a little on it. If I remember correctly he wondered whether the original plan had been to go with the dramatic shooting it down version, but then they switched to the heroic passengers version. I think it would've been difficult to get a whole movie out of version 1 (interesting that Ron Howard also directed Apollo 13 - he's clearly a reliable stenographer).
Obviously, if we're talking remote control, the patsies wouldn't have been told that, of course.
Thatnks for writing this Francis. I have always priced myself on not setting my stall out on any particular matter. Unfortunately, with regard to no planes and DEW, I have been guilty of doing this very thing. This doesn't mean that I instantly agree with you, but I am now open to the fact that I simply have no one set theory for the incidents on that day. However, I do not trust Richard Gage or the AandE for 911 truth, but then I dont trust anyone on the face of it 😁. Now I'm off to read your DEW debunk. I asked if you were going to write one, and you have, so I will approach that a completely open mind, cheers 🍻
Hi Rob, thank you for your fair minded response which is all I could expect of any reader. We only have to follow the evidence where it leads and who to trust becomes clear.
I really think you should do some more research, as everything you have thus far shared with regards to the PentaCon and the alleged planes hitting the towers have EXTENSIVELY been researched and built upon the distractive CGI narrative over the years, since this distractive talking point has been injected into the 9/11 truther movement - You really need to watch....
9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
Also - You didn't bother looking at the research of 9/11 Planes Research, here on substack either, now did you?
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
Illusion of Reality and the 9/11 Planes
Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/illusion-of-reality-and-the-911-planes
Podcast with Jerm Warfare: https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/mark-conlon-on-there-being-no-planes-on-9-11
A Presentation Discussing the Official Evidence & Telemetry Data of Flights AA11, UA175, AA77 & UA93
An Independent Investigation
Presentation: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/a-presentation-discussing-the-official
The Naudet Disappearing and Reappearing Wing Study
An Independent Analysis of Video Evidence
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/the-naudet-disappearing-and-reappearing
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
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
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 should do some research ...I just cant address any of the points you do and explain why they're incorrect"
A WALL of disinformation and nonsense. Seems legit. lol - If you dont think most ppl can see through this bs you dont know your ass from a hole a ground.
LOL - Go read the articles - Look forward to reading your answers / debunks in the comment sections.
Good luck with that...
When it comes to the PentaCon - You really do need to have a talk with Adam Eisenberg...
While serving in the Army as a member of Alpha Company, 3rd US Infantry, Adam Eisenberg spent approximately 240 hours on site, with at least a hundred of his fellow servicemen, at the Pentagon on 9/11. In short, he helped clean up the mess from the plane crash. Except that, well, there was no plane, he argues.
Full podcast: https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/adam-eisenberg-no-plane-pentagon
The PentaCon on 9/11
When a missile AND a plane did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
Revisiting the various 9/11 Plane Narratives
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-911-cgi-plane-narrative
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
9/11 Revisionist and Mark Conlon have all the evidence you need to get this topic correct. It is quite irrefutable the amount of evidence they have gathered.
One of the easiest ways to debunk the idea that there were actual planes flown into the buildings is to estimate the speed at which the plane is flying and compare it with the maximum operating velocity (Vmo) of a Boeing 767 at sea level. It is simple physics
"it's simple physics, .. Im just so fucking stupid I cant figure it out."
gee, how do you explain those of us that saw the plane, if it was CGI ? Hundreds of thousands off people, genius. For fuck sake, with this nonsense lol, Literally no one with two brain cells to rub together believes this bs, or cant see this a mile away for what it is. Youre a disgrace./
Um - Maybe if you watch 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality, you'll find out....
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
Also, go read 9/11 Planes Research articles....
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
Illusion of Reality and the 9/11 Planes
Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/illusion-of-reality-and-the-911-planes
Podcast with Jerm Warfare: https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/mark-conlon-on-there-being-no-planes-on-9-11
In the second part of our riveting two-part series, Shane Skwarek and Tim Philipps continue their exploration of the events of September 11, 2001, this time focusing on United Airlines Flight 93. Joining them is researcher Mark Conlon, who delves into the complex and often controversial narrative surrounding this infamous flight.
In this episode, we examine the following key topics:
➡️ The timeline of Flight 93 and the events leading up to its tragic crash
➡️ Eyewitness accounts that raise questions about the official story
➡️ Theories surrounding the actual crash site and whether it landed elsewhere
➡️ The role of passengers in the fight against the hijackers and their ultimate fate
➡️ Anomalies in radar data and the implications of communication failures
➡️ The significance of seismic data and magnetic interference during the crash
As the conversation unfolds, Mark highlights the discrepancies and conflicting reports that continue to challenge our understanding of Flight 93. This episode aims to shed light on the complexities of that fateful flight and encourages viewers to critically assess the narratives presented to the public.
Join us for this thought-provoking discussion as we seek to uncover the untold stories and unanswered questions about United 93. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more enlightening discussions on conspiracies and the quest for truth!
Video link: https://youtu.be/15YONJk-v_Q
Simple question: "how do you explain those of us that saw the plane, if it was CGI ?"
Watch this loooooong thing and you'll see why. Oh well, that settles it then. This is how you sound.
The planes weren't CGI - That's the whole point - People did see something in the skies - Now if you want to find out more, start with these two articles, the podcast interview and thereafter the documentary - You're welcome....
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
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
Illusion of Reality and the 9/11 Planes
Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/illusion-of-reality-and-the-911-planes
Podcast with Jerm Warfare: https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/mark-conlon-on-there-being-no-planes-on-9-11
Watch: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
"Just waste your time here ..." lol
Sorry, Im not a dumb ass
Then this won't be news to you eh, Sherlock?
A Presentation Discussing the Official Evidence & Telemetry Data of Flights AA11, UA175, AA77 & UA93
An Independent Investigation
Presentation: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/a-presentation-discussing-the-official
Ummm, I don’t think the planes were cgi…
So why are you hiting like on those comments? Oh that's right, theyre your own comments. nvm, genius/
Well, let me explain so you can expand your mind from your false dichotomy of either the planes were cgi or were real.
Like I said before, One of the easiest ways to debunk the idea that there were actual planes flown into the buildings is to estimate the speed at which the plane is flying and compare it with the maximum operating velocity (Vmo) of a Boeing 767 at sea level. It is simple physics:
https://x.com/911Revisionist/status/1751886476277690576?mx=2
https://x.com/911Revisionist/status/1774901864485589471
Also, the crash physics observed are impossible. The 'plane' 'melts' into the building. Any technically adept person would recognize this as impossible.
Also, if the planes had been real, then the emergency locator transmitters would have gone off. They are supposed to go off automatically if a plane crashes. They didn't go off. Therefore, no airline plane crashed on the site:
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/paul-thumser-no-emergency-locator?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2336712&post_id=148306134&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=xafil&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
So this debunks the idea that what we see as 'planes' were actually planes that used to fly for the big airlines.
So what could it be then?
CGI on the videos?
I don't think so... If the planes were CGI many things would have to be true that I just think aren't. Mainly, that all of the video footage caught on that day would have had to be tampered with before it was put out to the public. I think this is very unlikely. Possible, I admit, but unlikely. But then let's say they were able to tamper absolutely all of the footage that was taken that day, including all of the photographs of the 'plane' going into the south tower, and then input a CGI planes into all of them. If that were the case, you would be able to see the plane fairly well (generally good quality) and consistently in all of the footage. Inputing an object into the videos isn't that hard and the quality should be fairly good so the planes would look pretty good.
But when we analyze the videos, we don't see a good job of 'CGI planes'. We see many inconsistencies in lighting, and sometimes wings disappear (why would a a fake cgi plane suddenly have its wings missing in some of the frames? This makes no sense whatsoever if the planes were CGI). You can see a great analysis of this in this link:
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/when-light-is-not-doing-what-it-is?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2336712&post_id=150404574&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=xafil&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Also, if the planes were CGI, I would argue we would be able to spot inconsistencies between the official path and the path observed in the footage taken that day. Instead of observing inconsistencies, we get a good or perfect match between what is reported and what is seen in the videos, as seen here:
https://x.com/911Revisionist/status/1753777116502507801
If we look at this analysis:
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/when-light-is-not-doing-what-it-is?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2336712&post_id=150404574&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=xafil&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I think it makes sense to posit that the 'planes' were an 'optical illusion' if you want to call it that. I believe there was something flying there into the buildings. Possibly a bunker buster missile or something of the sort (you can see the 'planes' go deep into the buliding and then something explodes, which is exactly what a bunker buster missile does), and that this object, whatever it was, was cloaked optically with some type of 3d holographic technology that made it look like an airplane, something along the lines of what this guy shows in this video, but in 3D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmKQsSDlaa4
"what could it be then?"
No need to speculate with nonsense. The facts are clear as day https://ajl.smugmug.com/911
Nah. You’re lost. As I clearly explained
Oh dear, Francis. I think you may have hit a nerve or two or thirty.
This always happens with this subject and other key topics. An inundation of baloney.
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
Albert's statement here is perhaps the most important insight of all into the minds of the perpetrators when they had their planning meeting:
Again writing of the Pentagon, Lucientes notes, “there was no way the attackers could have known ahead of time that, when the attack was over, they alone would be in control of all images and/or videos of the attack. The attack occurred in a highly exposed area during rush hour on a weekday morning. A single image would have revealed the lie. This is what happened in Manhattan when a documentary filmmaker working nearby heard a plane low overhead and swung his camera upward just in time to catch the North Tower impact.”
Some people have questioned the affiliations of the Naudet brothers, of course - but there's another answer to this, which is that the perpetrators really did need to make sure there was video footage captured of the first plane impact precisely in order to convince people that it really was a genuine plane hitting a building and 'therefore a terrorist attack' - obviously, if the general public (or the truth movement, for that matter) are unaware of the possibility of remote control, then they will readily believe it was a genuine terrorist attack carried out by genuine suicidal fanatics.
Add the remote control and you have the explanation for the patsies. Given Al-Qaeda was a CIA proxy (cf. Alec Station), it would've been easy for the CIA to recruit 19 of them to play the part of patsies, presumably telling them they are not really going to die etc., but then take remote control over the planes and crash them into buildings. This readily creates all the trail of 'genuine' evidence you need.
This puts Flight 93 into a whole new perspective - the official story being the passengers fought back. But what if the real story is that the 'hijackers' came out of the cockpit and informed the passengers that 'someone has taken remote control of the plane and we were told we were taking part in a simulation/training exercise, so you need to help us try and regain control over the plane' etc. etc.
This also, conveniently, disposes of the patsies very efficiently.
This overall explanation, I think, adequately explains what happened with all the planes. Part of me of course would like to think that at least a few of them landed at Stewart Airforce base and were replaced by remote controlled drones, but that might be construed as overly dramatic. Good for a movie, or a 24-style thing, but overgilding the lily a bit...
Flight 93 and the heroic passenger tale may also have been a planned part of the narrative.
I would tend to agree with that actually. I think Dave McGowan speculated a little on it. If I remember correctly he wondered whether the original plan had been to go with the dramatic shooting it down version, but then they switched to the heroic passengers version. I think it would've been difficult to get a whole movie out of version 1 (interesting that Ron Howard also directed Apollo 13 - he's clearly a reliable stenographer).
Obviously, if we're talking remote control, the patsies wouldn't have been told that, of course.
Thatnks for writing this Francis. I have always priced myself on not setting my stall out on any particular matter. Unfortunately, with regard to no planes and DEW, I have been guilty of doing this very thing. This doesn't mean that I instantly agree with you, but I am now open to the fact that I simply have no one set theory for the incidents on that day. However, I do not trust Richard Gage or the AandE for 911 truth, but then I dont trust anyone on the face of it 😁. Now I'm off to read your DEW debunk. I asked if you were going to write one, and you have, so I will approach that a completely open mind, cheers 🍻
Hi Rob, thank you for your fair minded response which is all I could expect of any reader. We only have to follow the evidence where it leads and who to trust becomes clear.