I’ve been waiting for you to do a full 9/11 analysis.
I guess I’m one of those who always knew the official narrative was off but didn’t spend any time researching it. Therefore, I suppose I was easily susceptible to ‘conspiracy’ theories. The ‘no planes’ theory is a case in point. I didn’t know any better and thought it a possibility.
I worked for an airline from 1999-2002. We used to have security briefings about Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden before it happened plus there was Concorde not long before. Sitting in a crew room watching it unfold on TV before boarding a plane was a weird experience. The passengers were silent for the entire flight. Fear and shock are huge drivers in manipulating behaviour.
I wish there was a way of scanning the internet to locate where the source of the misinformation (clipped footage, memes etc) first came from. You have to hand it to them, it’s been a very successful operation.
Thank you for being open to this information. I remember those times too. Not long afterwards I was on a beach in New Zealand and a small aircraft buzzed low and noisily overhead. There was a palpable sense of uncertainty. People didn't really expect anything to happen but they couldn't be sure. The following year a young guy on acne medications apparently flew a light aircraft into the Bank of America in Tampa, mimicking the 9/11 attacks and citing US/ Israel foreign policy as his reasons.
Yes, it would be interesting to know from where some of the material originates but we do know the names of those who purport to advocate the truth but propagate the nonsense.
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.
Have you ever had a conversation 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.
Adam Eisenberg at the PentaCON - 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.
I remember hearing about it on a construction site just outise Cork, Ireland. We had lunch in a pub staring at the TV screens.
A friend sent me a Zeitgeist CD in 2007 and I had to sit down when the possibility of explosions was suggested. But I always thought, where there is smoke there is usually fire.
This is an interesting take. I believe your analysis is authentic.
The remote control of the planes is perhaps the most important clue to understand how they did 9-11, in the simplest way to make it seem as much like a genuine terrorist attack as they could, knowing there would be so many witnesses. (It can also explain Flight 93 as it happens).
This is one of the most important psychological facts a lot of people forget. There would have been a planning meeting at which they go through all the things that could go wrong, in order to try and eliminate the bad luck/random factor. Once that's done, they can whittle down the options until they have one which has the least chance of them being exposed.
Similar thinking applies to the NYC part of the operation. There would have been thousands of ordinary New Yorkers who were not 'in on it', many of them armed with mobile phones with cameras, not to mention people with amateur video cameras, all capturing this major event (plus the voyeurism element), so the idea that the planners could get away with 'no planes' is psychologically absurd.
The planners would've decided on the most efficient, simple way to carry out the whole thing. Embellishments and misdirections come after that, but are only done if not jeopardising the main event.
Same applies to any other false flag we care to name.
The misdirection was very likley to have been factored in prior to the event, in the unlikely plane trajectories, and the low level of impact at the Pentagon. They left trails for people to follow and issues for people to dispute.
I would also agree with that. They would've had more than one planning meeting I'm sure! And it would be strange indeed if they didn't factor in misdirections, since they'd know there'd be conspiracy theories.
There's a very interesting speculative thesis there I think. Perhaps even a dark screenplay about a bunch of monsters planning all this. But done in a very deadpan, clinical way to emphasise their malevolence.
My main focus of interest, after all this time, has become the psychology of these evil creatures. It's important for people to understand them psychologically. All the manufactured arguments about 'how' an event happened (like with the DEWs and no-planes and so on) is a distraction from the essential psychological understanding.
I believe it was a missile disguised as a small jet aircraft that struck the Pentagon. Have you seen Massimo Mazzucco's 9/11 documentary? I think it's the most comprehensive and accurate debunking of all aspects of the official narratives on 9/11. The Pentagon strike is detailed in the 2nd video and I recommend starting the series with "The Hijackers" section of Part 1...
What about the impossible speeds and maneuvers according to the official flight data? And what happened to the massive tail section? Here are photos of the recent Korean Boeing 737 crash...
The plane speeds are considered in part 2 and the effects of fire and impact are considered above in.part 1. Please also see linked examples of other plane crashes in which planes are wholly destroyed.
I've done tons of research over the years, unraveling the Waco Massacre, the Tiananmen Square 'massacre', Jonestown, and others along with countless fake deaths in the music business with reappearance of the deceased in new forms ("Zombies," I call them). But through it all, other than an errant trip down the Judy Wood detour, I've avoided 9/11. It is too big, too intricate, and was covered in impressive depth by Clues Forum and others. Two items you address: The people in the windows, and the jumpers. 1: The windows were very large construction elements, not removable. 2) No one could have appeared in them after removal, which was not possible.
The people in the windows, as I understand now based on the work of others, are Israeli art students brought in in April of 2001 on a project on an unleased and unfinished floor. They were indeed photographed then and used later by means of CGI. The falling bodies, each in a state of calm repose, were also CGI. The splats ... all it takes is a witness or two and a photo made to look like a splatted body. Since witnesses were not around (the entire area had been evacuated that morning), it is safe to say that work was, like so much else (eye witnesses of planes and screams added to CGI planes crashing into the building) prepared in advance and rolled out on that day.
I love your work, and don't care when people don't see eye-to-eye.
I should have asked in advance what evidence you would accept. I usually find when people have decided that there are no planes or no victims, no amount or type of evidence changes their mind. They conjure up alternatives without evidence. From what you've written I don't think you have even examined the information you requested from me.
You seem a tad thin-skinned. I once believed as you do, in open windows and flying bodies and witnesses all about and planes that can travel 500 mph near sea level. I also believed in the Home Run system, which created a redundancy, as in why use hijackers when you can simply take over remote control of an aircraft. But I never ever doubted Newton's 3rd. Put it this way: No matter how fast a tennis ball (or baseball) is moving, even if fired from a cannon, it will not penetrate a brick wall. Further, it makes no difference if a flying aircraft hits a building or a flying building hits an aircraft. The result is the same. Kinetic energy is simply motion created by movement, exactly what Newton explained in his 3rd. So don't assume I am unfamiliar with the evidence you bring. I'm simply past it, long past it.
I might share one thing with you when I have a few minutes ... if I am still allowed to post. It is a photo of Mohammad Atta before the PhotoShop spooks got hold of it, widened his face, made his eyes look sinister. What you'll see is a nice looking young man, probably still walking among us.
Not thin skinned. Perhaps a little tired that we are still having these discussions after 24 years and that people still assert things without evidence and now invent their own science. Your notion of kinetic energy is flat out wrong. I provide examples in my article on the WTC planes.
Oh, I agree in total, let's not have this discussion. It is tiresome, to say the least, like JFK ... was it the Mafia, CIA, J Edgar, Wall Street, DEWs, a shooter under a manhole cover ... all clues provided by Intel, each meant to misdirect. I have said, and some people get enraged, that governments do not lie. They misdirect. It is so much more effective.
I’ve been waiting for you to do a full 9/11 analysis.
I guess I’m one of those who always knew the official narrative was off but didn’t spend any time researching it. Therefore, I suppose I was easily susceptible to ‘conspiracy’ theories. The ‘no planes’ theory is a case in point. I didn’t know any better and thought it a possibility.
I worked for an airline from 1999-2002. We used to have security briefings about Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden before it happened plus there was Concorde not long before. Sitting in a crew room watching it unfold on TV before boarding a plane was a weird experience. The passengers were silent for the entire flight. Fear and shock are huge drivers in manipulating behaviour.
I wish there was a way of scanning the internet to locate where the source of the misinformation (clipped footage, memes etc) first came from. You have to hand it to them, it’s been a very successful operation.
Thank you for being open to this information. I remember those times too. Not long afterwards I was on a beach in New Zealand and a small aircraft buzzed low and noisily overhead. There was a palpable sense of uncertainty. People didn't really expect anything to happen but they couldn't be sure. The following year a young guy on acne medications apparently flew a light aircraft into the Bank of America in Tampa, mimicking the 9/11 attacks and citing US/ Israel foreign policy as his reasons.
Yes, it would be interesting to know from where some of the material originates but we do know the names of those who purport to advocate the truth but propagate the nonsense.
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
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
Have you ever had a conversation 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
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
See 'CIT's no Planes BS debunked in three minutes' on the upper left:
https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/Pentagon
How would it have benefited the attackers to use something other than the already hijacked plane?
Two articles, two podcasts and a documentary to get your question answered - You're welcome....
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
Adam Eisenberg at the PentaCON - 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
Top 5 Facts of Sept 11, 2001 😎
1. Towers turned mostly to dust in mid-air using advanced cold-DEW technology.
2. Destruction at WTC resembles the Hutchison Effect.
3. Steven E. Jones covered up cold fusion in the 1990s and then 9/11 DEW in the 2000s.
4. NIST hired companies that specializes in psyops, DEW, and advanced optical 3D illusion technology, to investigate 9/11.
5. The "planes" involved 3D illusion technology.
Watch: 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality
Rumble Link: https://rumble.com/v42pr22-911-alchemy-facing-reality.html
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/CrzNeZUp0tU
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
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
Had to read it twice to follow you.
I remember hearing about it on a construction site just outise Cork, Ireland. We had lunch in a pub staring at the TV screens.
A friend sent me a Zeitgeist CD in 2007 and I had to sit down when the possibility of explosions was suggested. But I always thought, where there is smoke there is usually fire.
This is an interesting take. I believe your analysis is authentic.
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
The remote control of the planes is perhaps the most important clue to understand how they did 9-11, in the simplest way to make it seem as much like a genuine terrorist attack as they could, knowing there would be so many witnesses. (It can also explain Flight 93 as it happens).
This is one of the most important psychological facts a lot of people forget. There would have been a planning meeting at which they go through all the things that could go wrong, in order to try and eliminate the bad luck/random factor. Once that's done, they can whittle down the options until they have one which has the least chance of them being exposed.
Similar thinking applies to the NYC part of the operation. There would have been thousands of ordinary New Yorkers who were not 'in on it', many of them armed with mobile phones with cameras, not to mention people with amateur video cameras, all capturing this major event (plus the voyeurism element), so the idea that the planners could get away with 'no planes' is psychologically absurd.
The planners would've decided on the most efficient, simple way to carry out the whole thing. Embellishments and misdirections come after that, but are only done if not jeopardising the main event.
Same applies to any other false flag we care to name.
The misdirection was very likley to have been factored in prior to the event, in the unlikely plane trajectories, and the low level of impact at the Pentagon. They left trails for people to follow and issues for people to dispute.
I would also agree with that. They would've had more than one planning meeting I'm sure! And it would be strange indeed if they didn't factor in misdirections, since they'd know there'd be conspiracy theories.
There's a very interesting speculative thesis there I think. Perhaps even a dark screenplay about a bunch of monsters planning all this. But done in a very deadpan, clinical way to emphasise their malevolence.
My main focus of interest, after all this time, has become the psychology of these evil creatures. It's important for people to understand them psychologically. All the manufactured arguments about 'how' an event happened (like with the DEWs and no-planes and so on) is a distraction from the essential psychological understanding.
In 2001 virtually no mobile phones had cameras. It was around 2004 when they started to be become widespread.
I believe it was a missile disguised as a small jet aircraft that struck the Pentagon. Have you seen Massimo Mazzucco's 9/11 documentary? I think it's the most comprehensive and accurate debunking of all aspects of the official narratives on 9/11. The Pentagon strike is detailed in the 2nd video and I recommend starting the series with "The Hijackers" section of Part 1...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk&t=3433s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8
Yes Mike, I have seen A New Pearl Harbor many times. It is a shame that Mazzucco gets that wrong for the reasons I explain above.
What about the impossible speeds and maneuvers according to the official flight data? And what happened to the massive tail section? Here are photos of the recent Korean Boeing 737 crash...
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=9205f4e59ab682eb&sxsrf=ADLYWIKxB5Wsa_jUeObPjum4Z-NDLZdnGA:1735960989753&q=Jeju+Korean+plane+crash&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JzWreY9LW7LdGrLDAFqYDH2Z7s7jqgHIAW8PVnwe_sR_e-RCOLF8PNV6cgrvTe9W1QlY3sOMCnrD6DpPmucUF3Q4DWCnbUQ16OCFEw0bA3f-zorCYPCwItkuWVcknbOv4-nN1bzai1VYTk7zJThGO9aVJKR1TUIesAdeoQ7gAi3QfFsX3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3iI3RjtuKAxWX48kDHXn8B08QtKgLegQIGRAB&biw=1280&bih=678&dpr=2
The plane speeds are considered in part 2 and the effects of fire and impact are considered above in.part 1. Please also see linked examples of other plane crashes in which planes are wholly destroyed.
I've done tons of research over the years, unraveling the Waco Massacre, the Tiananmen Square 'massacre', Jonestown, and others along with countless fake deaths in the music business with reappearance of the deceased in new forms ("Zombies," I call them). But through it all, other than an errant trip down the Judy Wood detour, I've avoided 9/11. It is too big, too intricate, and was covered in impressive depth by Clues Forum and others. Two items you address: The people in the windows, and the jumpers. 1: The windows were very large construction elements, not removable. 2) No one could have appeared in them after removal, which was not possible.
The people in the windows, as I understand now based on the work of others, are Israeli art students brought in in April of 2001 on a project on an unleased and unfinished floor. They were indeed photographed then and used later by means of CGI. The falling bodies, each in a state of calm repose, were also CGI. The splats ... all it takes is a witness or two and a photo made to look like a splatted body. Since witnesses were not around (the entire area had been evacuated that morning), it is safe to say that work was, like so much else (eye witnesses of planes and screams added to CGI planes crashing into the building) prepared in advance and rolled out on that day.
I love your work, and don't care when people don't see eye-to-eye.
I should have asked in advance what evidence you would accept. I usually find when people have decided that there are no planes or no victims, no amount or type of evidence changes their mind. They conjure up alternatives without evidence. From what you've written I don't think you have even examined the information you requested from me.
You seem a tad thin-skinned. I once believed as you do, in open windows and flying bodies and witnesses all about and planes that can travel 500 mph near sea level. I also believed in the Home Run system, which created a redundancy, as in why use hijackers when you can simply take over remote control of an aircraft. But I never ever doubted Newton's 3rd. Put it this way: No matter how fast a tennis ball (or baseball) is moving, even if fired from a cannon, it will not penetrate a brick wall. Further, it makes no difference if a flying aircraft hits a building or a flying building hits an aircraft. The result is the same. Kinetic energy is simply motion created by movement, exactly what Newton explained in his 3rd. So don't assume I am unfamiliar with the evidence you bring. I'm simply past it, long past it.
I might share one thing with you when I have a few minutes ... if I am still allowed to post. It is a photo of Mohammad Atta before the PhotoShop spooks got hold of it, widened his face, made his eyes look sinister. What you'll see is a nice looking young man, probably still walking among us.
Not thin skinned. Perhaps a little tired that we are still having these discussions after 24 years and that people still assert things without evidence and now invent their own science. Your notion of kinetic energy is flat out wrong. I provide examples in my article on the WTC planes.
Oh, I agree in total, let's not have this discussion. It is tiresome, to say the least, like JFK ... was it the Mafia, CIA, J Edgar, Wall Street, DEWs, a shooter under a manhole cover ... all clues provided by Intel, each meant to misdirect. I have said, and some people get enraged, that governments do not lie. They misdirect. It is so much more effective.