376

Review: Seven AE911Truth’s new documentary about Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s groundbreaking new study on WTC7

Kevin Ryan

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.

Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.  All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports.  It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area.  The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.

I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.

***
Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

5 33 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
376 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Günther Wassenaar
Günther Wassenaar
Jan 5, 2021 12:29 PM

Ist dieser Film auch in deutscher Sprache – oder zumindest mit deutschen Untertiteln vorhanden?

Wenn dem so sein sollte, wäre ich an einer Ausleihe sehr interessiert. Bite bennen Sie mir den dafür von Ihnen veranschlagten Preis

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 31, 2020 8:36 PM

Boondocks – Bush Iraq War and politics (All references and hidden meanings)

anthony m
anthony m
Dec 31, 2020 6:00 PM

WTC 6 (whale.to)
“Persons who planned and executed the events of 9/11 are still at large…”

I’ve read that 911Truth.. is not willing to investigate groups outside of the US Deep State for 911. I think everyone here knows exactly who is behind 911. How else could they get Congress to destroy and Balkanize the Mid-East to their benefit.

SamIAm
SamIAm
Jan 1, 2021 12:05 PM
Reply to  anthony m

they have Balkanized the US too

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 4:44 PM
Reply to  anthony m

Oded Yinon to PNAC to 7 countries in 5 years

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 31, 2020 3:27 PM

Re: Van Allen Belts.

Again those claiming that their prescence proves we never went to the moon have zero understanding of science. Yes there is particle radiation in them. No, that does not make it impossible to traverse. First off, the amount of time spent by a craft is not years and years. Two, the craft itself was shielded. Just as all the sattelites in orbit are shileded to protect thier contents from cosmic radiation. That is why the atomic clocks up there can geolocate your ignorant corpses, and relay your telecommunications world wide.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 1, 2021 5:21 AM

Yes, what I try to do is focus on evidence that can’t simply go to and fro. Too much radiation, no, it wasn’t too much / too much radiation, no, it wasn’t too much.

Lunar conditions are massively different from those on earth – dark sky in daylight, 1/6th gravity and virtually no atmosphere. If everything they show us corresponds to those conditions in every single instance then that’s sufficient evidence for me plus the absence of any evidence showing fakery or otherwise contradicting the “real” hypothesis. The brightness of the light off the surface of the moon with the dark sky I find extremely compelling. You simply could not have got that level of brightness artificially at that time and even now I’m not sure you can. When I watched First Man I anticipated the density of the light at the surface of the “moon” wouldn’t be as bright as is indicated in the footage of the moon landings and in my opinion it isn’t.

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Jan 1, 2021 10:35 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I remember reading the remarks of Wernher Von Braun pre- moon landing saga.

He stated that the engines alone would need to be bigger than the Empire State Building to have the power to propel the little tin triangle 250,000 miles. He mustn’t have read the script.

How they overcame this was later( post -moon landing) explained. He said they built 3 engines and, as each one used up it’s fuel it ‘detached’. OK i remember seeing images of the junk flying off. I remember thinking that being on the moon would be like being on the earth in terms of a view. That is, you’d be looking up at the earth as we look up to the moon. As the journey home was also 250,000 miles, i wonder how they’d make it without the three ‘super’ engines which they’d added to the rest of the American shit in our orbit.

I remember seeing the PR clips building up to the trip too. It was like a poor, low budget Bond movie. They struggled to make the equipment work from 50 yards.

I also remember George W Bush, great mind and statesmen, in one of his many rousing speeches, saying that by 2020 they’d put a man on the moon. Oops.

The space programme marked a turning point in America’s destiny. Every president from then on in would retire multi millionaires or better unless they were forced out by scandals. An immensely expensive programme funded by immensely gullible tax payers who were all in love with a Hollywood reality.

JFK had made a rousing speech that included a promise to reach the moon by the end of the decade. He made a similar speech about putting into place a civil rights bill that elevated the negro to the level of the white man who hunted him. Unfortunately, he also wanted an end to financing wars they didn’t need to be involved in, peace with Russia and no more tax breaks for the Texas Oil men( LBJ was only one of them).

So, after he was slaughtered, LBJ was able to take the throne. To this day many believe he was a prime mover in the assassination of JFK. He was haunted by accusations throughout his reign and after. But he remembered JFK- the man the people adored- and finished what he started with the civil rights bill. But the decade closed with the slaughter of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the other champion of civil rights and brother of JFK- RFK. So as 1969 arrived and LBJ knew it was time to clear his desk he ‘made good’ on JFK’s promise to hit the moon. Like the JFK murder, he had the means, motive and opportunity.

I’d like to see, using recent technology, a drone of sorts, if not, some other hi -tech 21st century instrument, circle the Sea Of Tranquility and show us what the three stooges left up there.Then give all Americans a tax rebate 😉

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 5:26 AM
Reply to  JuraCalling

He stated that the engines alone would need to be bigger than the Empire State Building to have the power to propel the little tin triangle 250,000 miles. He mustn’t have read the script.

From Debunking Dave McGowan’s Waggie the Moondoggie Part 1
https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/

McGowan quotes Werner von Braun, who wrote in 1953 that it would be impossible for a rocket to fly directly to the moon and back, since it would need to weigh 800,000 tons. McGowan points out that the rocket used during the Apollo missions weighed only 3,000 tons, asking how it was possible for it to reach the moon given what von Braun had said. McGowan seems unaware that von Braun was talking about a single monolithic rocket flying from Earth to the moon and back. Von Braun’s point was that this single-stage concept was impractical and that a lunar landing would involve multiple stages, an idea which he introduced in the paragraph following the one quoted by McGowan, where he suggests that a space station could be used as a staging point comment image). But McGowan must have stopped reading before he reached that part as he clearly believes von Braun’s quote about the impracticality of a single-stage rocket is somehow relevant to the Apollo missions, which used multi-stage rockets carrying detachable lunar modules.

In fact, when it suits him, McGowan evinces complete ignorance of the Saturn V’s modular design. In Part 13 of his essay he states:

“Back in the good ol’ Apollo days, if I recall correctly, we didn’t need to send so much as a single manned Saturn V into low-Earth orbit before allegedly sending one all the way to the Moon!”

Technically, the parts of the Saturn V which went to the moon were the Apollo lunar modules, which had flown crews in Earth orbit, having been launched on a Saturn IB rocket during Apollo 7. McGowan ignores the fact that the modules were independent of the launch vehicles which carried them and instead seems to imply that the entire Saturn V rocket went all the way to the moon.

I wonder how they’d make it without the three ‘super’ engines which they’d added to the rest of the American shit in our orbit.

The vast majority of the fuel was to get out of earth’s atmosphere, very little was needed for the return journey.

From https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48907836
Apollo 11’s flight path took the spacecraft into Earth orbit 11 minutes after launch.

Just over two hours later, during its second orbit, the rocket’s third stage fired again to boost Apollo towards the moon – the so-called Trans Lunar Insertion or TLI.

The TLI placed Apollo on a “free-return trajectory” – often illustrated as a figure of eight shape.

This course would have harnessed the power of the Moon’s gravity to propel the spacecraft back to Earth without the need for more rocket fuel.

However, when Apollo 11 neared its destination, astronauts performed a braking manoeuvre known as “lunar orbit insertion” to slow the spacecraft and cause it to go into orbit around the Moon.

From there, Armstrong and Aldrin descended to the surface.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Jan 1, 2021 8:48 AM

How was the Apollo craft shielded? Can you provide a description and a source please.

Aren’t most satellites in low earth orbit – below the Van Allen Belts?

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 11:33 AM

(I’m having serious difficulties posting a comment here, just so you know; if multiples appear later, please delete the extras! Thanks! SA)

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 11:41 AM

Kelly Smith is a NAZA engineer who appeared in a video produced by NAZA called “Orion: Trial by Fire” (2014); from NAZA’s own page:
 
“As the flight test of NAZA’s Orion spacecraft nears, the agency released Wednesday a video — called “Trial By Fire” — detailing the spacecraft’s test and the critical systems engineers will evaluate during the Dec. 4 flight.”
 
In that video, Smith says, at 3:37, referring to the issue of the van Allen belts and the shielding that would be required to protect astronauts passing through them: “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”
 
It’s my sense that’s there’s a struggle within NAZA, for the soul of NAZA: some would appear to want to leak a disclosure (of the Nixon-era Apollo Hoax), gently, by releasing info like this in a subtle way. Others.. the hardcore CIA-controlled Believers… don’t want to give an inch: they want the Apollo Hoax protected, in perpetuity. They (the latter) understand that if the Apollo Hoax collapses, all the others (incl. JFK, and 9/11) will go, too.
 
(Incidentally: please note that Kelly Smith didn’t add “again” to the end of that cited sentence.)
 
(video linked by NAZA’s page) Orion: Trial By Fire
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ

 
PS I keep reading comments indicating that people don’t understand what the Van Allen belts actually are (some people seem to think that the Earth is the source of the radiation trapped in the belts), so: only-partially-reliable (intermittently low-propaganda) Wiki tells us:
 
 
A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet’s magnetic field. Earth has two such belts and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The belts are named after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery.[1] Earth’s two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi)[2] above the surface, in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[3] By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 11:43 AM

(hmmmm: I was finally able to post the comment, after a dozen attempts, by removing the “N-word” (rhymes with Massa) and replacing it with “NAZA”. You guys need new “anti-spam” software, as the brand you currently use was obviously designed by the NSA: WTF?)

Nasa
Nasa
Jan 2, 2021 1:18 PM

Nasa nasa nasa nasa nasa

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 6:20 AM
Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Jan 2, 2021 10:41 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

There are a lot of people guessing. Surely there is an official statement about how the dangers of the VA belts were ascertained and then guarded against. Seems linking to that would be a sure fire way to settle this question.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 11:32 AM

Here’s an article in Popular Science, written by Amy Shira Teitel who has a YouTube channel, Vintage Space.
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts/

Jacob's ladder
Jacob's ladder
Jan 2, 2021 10:51 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I think that people miss an important side of the Moon landing controversy. Let’s say the US government spent billions and billions of dollars to land humans on the Moon – and succeeded. Imagine the consternation and sense of futility given that large numbers of younger people (and many older ones) simply don’t believe it really happened despite constant applications of the media “cattle prod” by NASA and PBS. Was it worth it?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 3, 2021 1:08 PM
Reply to  Jacob's ladder

What people desperately need to learn is how to think critically and push aside what they are inclined to believe, however, I don’t think it’s possible. How I feel I tend to be different from most other people including my identical twin is that I don’t have a particular inclination to believe anything. I’m happy to change beliefs when the evidence says I should and I simply don’t want this or that to be true or false. I don’t care. I find when arguing with people they’re always pulling this and that out of the ether, applying epithets and ad hominems and doing all sorts to defend their belief. It’s always about defending their belief, not their argument.

There is mountains of purported evidence for going to the moon. It is an utter absurdity to think that we cannot know if we went or not. The evidence – the mountains and mountains of it – clearly says we did and there is absolutely ZERO evidence to say we didn’t. It would simply be an impossibility for the situation to be with so much evidence supporting going to the moon with ZERO saying we didn’t that we didn’t go.

When you’re a lay person a sensible thing to do is to compare the arguments for and the arguments against. What you find with the moon landings is that there are many knowledgeable people who give compelling debunkings of those alleging we didn’t go. You don’t find knowledgeable people among the hoaxers, the knowledgeable people are always among those who say we went. I know there’s loads of scientists onboard with the pandemic but there’s still a small number who aren’t and when you look at the debunking of at least some of the scientists calling out this hoax you can see it’s rubbish.

The Challenger disaster was a big, fat fake and so very many other events are big, fat fakes but the moon landings happened and they were an astonishing achievement.

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Jan 4, 2021 4:07 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Everything is down to pixies. That’s all I’m saying on both matters.

Maggie
Maggie
Jan 2, 2021 1:12 PM

Satellites orbit INSIDE the LOW EARTH ORBIT ‘inside’ the Van Allen Belt….

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 11:56 AM

Who are these clowns on Off G🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 4:46 PM

Oh really?

We must SOLVED theses challenges before we SEND PEOPLE through this region of space”! 3:37

This video released by NASA about the upcoming Orion space exploration craft, shows a NASA scientist admitting that they still haven’t worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts.

Important to note:
The Apollo missions allegedly passed the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
Does technology go backwards? Why can’t they simply use technology that they have used 50 years ago!?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5dPsu66Kw

Dr Strangelove
Dr Strangelove
Dec 31, 2020 1:24 PM

OK, so there is one fact as yet unexplored. That is the steel itself was sub-standard, and also, badly fitted [fixings missing]. Do these issues explain the lengthy and problematic insurance settlement? The original constructors might have known they were taking chances, but they cant talk about that for obvious reasons of liability.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Jan 1, 2021 8:33 AM
Reply to  Dr Strangelove

You need to cite sources for these ‘facts’ before they can be regarded as such.

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Jan 4, 2021 4:09 PM
Reply to  Dr Strangelove

Didn’t bush flog off the steel to the Chinese as scrap. Never one to miss out on a few dollars our Dubya.

Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Dec 31, 2020 11:31 AM

Quote :”These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).”

or, since contradiction is by definition mutual..

These peer-reviewed conclusions are directly contradicted by the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
———————

Quote: “First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7.”

Obviously no one else can be objective, unlike AE911 truth, an organisation dedicated to not accepting any structural explanations for the collapse of WTC7…
———————

Quote: “As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.”

Amazingly the highly organised government plotters were banking on the fact that the worlds engineers and scientists who have a basic understanding of physics would also coincidentally suffer from cognitive dissonance….

——————–

Quote: “It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.”

Inexplicable if you think CNN and the BBC and all the other media outlets are infallible and can’t get incorrect reports and pass them on to their viewers. Or maybe when they think a report is correct, they shouldn’t pass it on to their viewers?

And a prediction is saying something is going to happen, in the future. Saying that something has already happened, in the past, is not a prediction.

———————–

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 1, 2021 3:49 AM
Reply to  Colin Doran

You’re right, Colin, in one respect, saying that something has already happened in the past when it hasn’t happened is not a prediction, however, it is a whopping anomaly, nevertheless when there shouldn’t have been any expectation that WTC-7 would collapse from a modest amount of fire (no signs of fire at all from the seven vantage points it’s filmed from as it collapses) considering that no high-rise steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire before … nor has since.

I think your assertion “contradiction is by definition mutual”, however, is a bit of a logical fallacy. It’s one thing to put forward an argument independent of the context of any other argument and another thing to actively put forward a critique of an argument along with a better one. Two very different things.

1. NIST put forward their argument for fire and eliminated the argument for controlled demolition with the very simple and disingenuous brushstroke of “no sounds loud enough for controlled demolition.” Nowhere is it documented that CDs make certain decibel levels of sounds and when the collapse included such obvious hallmarks of CD such as symmetry of collapse and actual freefall (admitted to eventually by NIST) then to dismiss controlled demolition with the “sounds not loud enough argument” is about as unscientific as you can get.

2. Various people put forward their argument for not fire/controlled demolition.

3. Popular Mechanics “debunked” the arguments put forward for controlled demolition.

4. David Ray Griffin published the book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

5. No response by Popular Mechanics to the debunking of their debunking.

Here’s a challenge for you Colin. Here are 10 points favouring controlled demolition over fire for the collapse of WTC-7. You shouldn’t have any trouble providing 10 points with favouring reversed now, should you?
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/collapse-of-wtc-7.html

The irony is, Colin, that WTC-7’s collapse was planned to be promulgated from the start. That’s why they filmed it from seven vantage points. Obviously, it’s very incriminating so we have to ask the question, “Why did they film it from seven vantage points? Why, even did they bring down WTC-7 on 9/11 at all when they brought down WTCs 3-6 discreetly after 9/11?”

There’s more to 9/11 truth than the obvious incriminator of controlled demolition but, unfortunately, that’s what everyone’s focusing on – now why would that be I wonder?

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Jan 1, 2021 8:52 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

There’s more to 9/11 truth than the obvious incriminator of controlled demolition but, unfortunately, that’s what everyone’s focusing on – now why would that be I wonder?

Because proving controlled demolition totally demolished the official narrative, and is the best way to wake people up.

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Jan 4, 2021 4:18 PM

It was a controlled nuclear demolition. Too many people in the yet-to-fall tower heard and felt the power of explosions from beneath the building ( basement). Those who suspect that demolition is out of the question need to explain the bangs and the shocks created there.

Real terrorism from an enemy looks nothing like the debris and aftermath of 9 /11. In the UK, we don’t have those ugly monstrosities called skyscrapers, but we do know a thing a two about war.

When you’re in a war, your country tends to get bombed frequently. Take WW2- every city in England was hammered by blitz after blitz. There was hardly any left after. We returned the favour to Germany and Germany’s friends. America hasn’t been in war. Only in attacks. Not a single firework has landed on their soil- not even in WW2.And that was before paperclip was even begun 😉

Look at what IRA terror looks like in England. Buildings only a few storeys high hit by a small amount of powerful bombs concealed within them. The carnage tells a story of it’s own. Now imagine if those buildings were about 50 times higher. Yet, 9 /11 sees these gigantic towers create a crime scene of yards only. Only demolition firms would high five that kind of limited damage.

MolecCodicies
MolecCodicies
Apr 15, 2021 6:26 AM
Reply to  JuraCalling

WTC nukes is obvious disinfo. The science points clearly to nano-thermite.

Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Jan 1, 2021 11:09 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

The fact that the collapse of WTC7 was reported in error by various media outlets is an indication first of all that everyone was expecting it to happen for hours. The FDNY examined the building. They put a transit on it. They saw that there was a bulge in the facade going up 3 floors and a hole going up almost half the height of the building and they judged that it was structurally unstable and likely to collapse. That was the judgement of the FDNY firechiefs on the scene.They are the people who make judgments about the state of buildings they are dealing with and they are the people whose decisions can literally mean life and death for the firefighters under their command.  Firefighters who were there thought the building didn’t look right and when they were told they were going to be sent in to fight the fires they were really concerned for their safety. A few minutes later they were relieved to be told the decision had been made to call off the firefighting effort and let the building burn.
The FDNY predicted it would eventually collapse. 
 The FDNY say they were sure WTC7 was going to collapse. They put a collapse cordon around it and moved everyone away from the building and stoped all rescue work about an hour before it eventually collapsed.

1: Do you think the FDNY are lying and that they didn’t think it was going to collapse? 
2: Do you think the FDNY did believe it was going to collapse?
3: Do you think that the FDNY dealing with a building should examine the building in front of them and make judgments about it’s safety?
4: Do you think having made those judgments they should act on them and make decisions that involve the lives of their firefighters, with already over 300 of them buried under the collapsed WTC towers ?
5: Given that the FDNY were expecting it to collapse, for hours, and had told everyone that that was what they were expecting , do you really find it hard to believe that there could be a premature report of the collapse? What I can’t understand is how anyone finds that hard to believe. It’s 19 years on and it is simply baffling to me. Do you think the media are infallible? That there can’t be mistaken reports and that they can’t pass on those mistaken reports? What is it you can’t understand about it? It can’t be that you think it was a big surprise that it collapsed because you actually quote the people who were expecting it to happen. It was a surprise to no one. It would therefore surprise no one when they heard that it had happened. 

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 12:23 AM
Reply to  Colin Doran

They saw that there was a bulge in the facade going up 3 floors and a hole going up almost half the height of the building and they judged that it was structurally unstable and likely to collapse.

Can you point to any visual evidence? If not, it’s meaningless.

1. Some FDNY personnel (David Restuccio for one), at least, knew it was going to collapse by controlled demolition while some may have thought fire was going to bring it down. I do not know who thought what but some would definitely have been in on the controlled demolitions while presumably some not.

2. As above.

3. In a genuine situation, yes.

4. The evidence doesn’t necessarily show that 300 firefighters were buried underneath the towers.

5. I don’t find it hard to believe that there was a premature report of its collapse. Not at all. It’s just that I don’t believe the reason is the same as yours. I believe the premature reporting is a deliberate anomaly and one of the clues they give us that 9/11 was a psychological operation (psyop).

Colin, we’re coming from very, very different perspectives and I have no desire to go round and round in circles in argument with you.

I have put my 10 points here favouring controlled demolition.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/collapse-of-wtc-7.html

Please read them and then come up with your 10 points favouring fire over controlled demolition.

If you’re not willing to do that, that’s fine, but if you don’t I’m not willing to engage in any further argument. I’ve done my work to prove my case, if you don’t wish to consult it that is your prerogative but I’ve done the round and round in circles thing too many times.

Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Jan 2, 2021 2:07 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I read that long article about Occams razor with all the 10 points , an article like literally hundreds I have read, as well as videos and blogs and lectures.
You think the evidence of FDNY firechiefs on the scene is valueless, you think that members of the FDNY are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder, that the planes were fake, that firechiefs should examine buildings but not on Sept. 11th 2001, that WTC7 was actually wired with explosives to bring it down, that the 110 storey WTC towers were wired with controlled demolition charges to bring them down, that the engineers in NIST all conspired to knowingly create a false report and implicate themselves in a coverup of mass murder and you think WTC7 was filmed to make the secret controlled demolition obvious.( There are actually 23 videos of the collapse of WTC7, thanks to the people in the media). I could go on..

On the other hand Occams razor says:

News reports can be wrong
Buildings are not indestructable.

Simple. That’s the meaning of Occams razor.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 10:38 PM
Reply to  Colin Doran

“You think the evidence of FDNY firechiefs on the scene is valueless …”

Not exactly. I think that 9/11 is such a vastly different kind of event from the one you think it is and I can’t really explain it here so we’ll just have to leave it.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 31, 2020 10:07 AM

The vaulting ambition of big tech is likely to trigger a new leap in authoritarianism as it embeds itself within a reinvigorated neoliberal administration headed for the White House.

Glenn Greenwald, Dec 28, 2020: The Threat of Authoritarianism In The U.S. Is Very Real — And Has Nothing To Do With Trump

In this trenchant analysis Greenwald shows how big tech has profited massively from Event Covid, while one in five small businesses has closed according to AP. Those who grab the spoils, he says, are not “the Randian victors of free market capitalism” but military and tech giants dependent on massive government contracts and subsidies which they extract through the arm-twisting of lobbyists and the bought and paid subservience of politicians.

This should anger capitalists more than socialists. After all this state corporatism benefits giants like Walmart, Amazon, Google and Facebook. These companies “overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party candidate about to assume the presidency. Predictably, they are being rewarded with numerous key positions in his transition team and the same will ultimately be true of the new administration,” writes Greenwald.

“The Biden/Harris administration clearly intends to do a great deal for Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley is well-positioned to do a great deal for them in return, starting with their immense power over the flow of information and debate.”

The dominant strain of U.S. neoliberalism is authoritarianism and it’s back in the driving seat. It poses as the champion of radical humanitarianism while turning millions of people into temporary workers, juggling multiple jobs. These progressive titans of big tech use artificial intelligence and algorithms to chip away at hourly wages. They earn billions from gig workers who have no union rights, no benefits, no stock options and no pension.

This dominant oligarchy synthesizes politics and profit. Those who oppose its pursuit of ever-greater wealth and control of the government system become its political enemies.  If you doubt that big tech has the political clout and the desire for vengeance, stop here and just read the quotes from Greenwald on this page.

Whatever your view of Donald Trump’s presidency, it has exposed the reality of the Deep State but also how it functions. It is clear that Trump was isolated by the bureaucracy, even within the White House itself. Outside, the Department of Justice and the FBI openly mocked and defied him.

Money, power and dreams of eternal life are all bound together in the transhumanist research sponsored by the big tech titans. With that much at stake they will brook no opposition. Fortunately for them, the corporations, bankers and lawyers long ago founded the intelligence agencies as the muscle to profit from control. The money of privately-controlled, tax-exempt foundations has bought influence and loyalty in academia, the media, big pharma, the judiciary and the two remaining arms of government bureaucracy. Big tech just takes it a step further. As Greenwald writes:

“They view those who oppose them and reject their pieties not as adversaries to be engaged but as enemies, domestic terrorists, bigots, extremists and violence-inciters to be fired, censored, and silenced.”

https://moneycircus.blogspot.com/2020/12/on-brink-of-new-authoritarianism-2021.html

tony0pmoc
tony0pmoc
Dec 31, 2020 2:16 AM

I don’t do Facebook, and I am merely setting up my wife’s mobile phone, and its taking awhile. I just want her to wake up with her new mobile, which just works, without the double image problems so she can do zoom calls whatever to her family and friends. I am not interested in her private conversations (I used to be a systems administrator -its like being a catholic priest – its a integrity thing which is hard to explain to anyone who gets the job)..I am reading messages of complete devastation of people she knows, who are closing down their businesses for the last time. I do know some of them well. I have met some of them. They are some of the hardest working people, you could ever meet. None of them were ever rich….and now they are not only losing their small businesses, they are losing their homes too. They haven’t done anything wrong. They have kept to the rules as best as they can and they are being destroyed too, by a virus, that is less harmful than the flu.

What can I do?

I am not even allowed to visit them.

I just want to sort out my wife’s new mobile phone, so that she can see her mum on zoom or whatever, before she dies.

They won’t allow any of her family to see her or touch her, except very occasionally in a “pod”

The world has gone completely mad, and I am trying not to cry.

There is no Resistance.

The Brainwashing is beyond the scale of 10

This is not right.

What are we going to do?

The UK Government are Killing Us.

They are not on our side.

Tony

Patrick DeSantos
Patrick DeSantos
Jan 1, 2021 11:27 AM
Reply to  tony0pmoc

Rest assured that you are not alone..
Please go to corbettreport. com and watch some of the documentaries complete with all references and sources. You will find hope and solutions.
PS : there’s a lot of stuff so concentrate on getting the info you, your family and friends need to find solutions.

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 12:08 PM
Reply to  tony0pmoc

Hang in there mate.

ZigZagWanderer
ZigZagWanderer
Dec 31, 2020 1:19 AM

It’s worth considering buying the dvd version of this important documentary from AE911Truth website ( available soon ).

A download will , in most circumstances, only be viewed by the downloader before it time expires etc.

Leaving a dvd with a friend or colleague is a much more effective way of introducing this material to those who are uneducated on the subject.

Education education education …. as someone once said !

mikael
mikael
Dec 31, 2020 12:38 AM

Yup, an equation witch isnt been solved, yet.
2 plains = 3 buildings

Its glearingly obvious if you look at this video cuts that its demolition charges that pops, if you cant see that, well, I dont bother to dive deeper into it, and by the way, diesel or petrol, never alone makes the temp go high enough to make steal witch is used in this building, go plasitc, this term is well known to anyone whom knows a little bit about metal, its usually over 1200 degs, and the melting point is around 1500 deg.
Its even reported on the BBC ( Bullshit Bollocks and Crap) over 20 min, before it actually happens, again, some people do denie facts even when its right there, how some even then can denie this, is beyond me, but its right there, then, we can debate whom, cui bono.

When I say, They lie about everything, all the time, I mean it, more or less everything.
This time I will not focus on what, but do notice this, there is always people in this comment field whom is here to distort, divert or acuse to such an extent that the entire debate derails into ad homeniems and inuendos and the comment field looses its fuction and gives you headace.
This article is, no offence OffG, an prime ex. on what triggers the Units and Brigades etc to people/morons whom denies the ugly truth even when they should know that the day, 9/11, I watched it unfold at my home, and I knew, the world would never be the same again, and what have happened since, huh, do you f…. think we are idiots, huh, I have enough ammo to ripp whatever you come out with, you know it and I know it, and I have much more, and this have nothing to do with moon landing etc, thats just childs play, the real deal is everything else, incl human history, control the past and you control the present, and if you do that, you control the future.

peace

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 12:12 PM
Reply to  mikael

Looks like the technology they use malfunctioned. See the plane pop out the other side-the news went blank. Possibly some new tech hologram- the plane is so dark in the morning sun. Take a look at morning flights from other airports with the sun in the same position- just search around on images – Hong Kong airport for eg.

Then they had to fake 93 crash – first news responders can’t see a plane, a hole maybe –

Your right- all lies- some Middle Eastern chap said the truth will set you free.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Dec 31, 2020 12:14 AM

History repeats… Building 7 was not the only building with extensive “unexplained” damage. Independent views of the collapsed basements of buildings 4 and 6 have been methodically scrubbed over the years. Why?

WTC 6 (whale.to)

Persons who planned and executed the events of 9/11 are still at large…

ZigZagWanderer
ZigZagWanderer
Dec 31, 2020 1:24 AM

Terrific link Paul.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 30, 2020 11:26 PM

Remember Sandy Hook, “The Boston Bombing,” the Tucson thing (featuring the miraculously-recovering… from a direct shot to the head with an assault rifleCongresswoman Gabby Giffords… and introducing twin fucking astronauts!), “Cassidy Stay,” “Elliot Rodger,” Bataclan, The Aurora Joker Movie Theater massacre… et al…? Remember how amateurish/ shoddy/ implausible they all were? Remember the “Isis Beheadings” we were warned not to watch (because they didn’t even show beheadings?). The BHO administration’s hoax team really sucked.

A high point for me (after the uniformly-gleeful “parents” of the supposedly gun-downed Sandy Hook school kids) was the interview with a “survivor” of the “Aurora shooting”… the day after the shooting. He/she (tellingly, I can’t recall the gender) was supposedly shot in the arm… with (again) an assault rifle. Very chatty on camera (could have been gushing about a celebrity sighting for all the angst they expressed)… gesticulating wildly with the “wounded” arm!

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 31, 2020 1:31 AM

Yes, they never try to hide their fakery, they rub it in our faces.

In the excellent video to Tom Petty’s Free Fallin’ by Architects & Engineers we see the perfect implosion filmed from seven vantage points. We really must wonder why they film such an incriminating implosion from seven vantage points. Who would such a thing? Presumably, those who weren’t in the know wouldn’t have had their cameras trained on the building so who among those in the know would film the extremely incriminating collapse? It really does seem to be a case of rubbing it in our faces, no? But why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5b719rVpds

We must also wonder about this giveaway exchange at the end of Free Fallin’ between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant that we see at the end of video. Why would they give away their knowledge of such an incriminating collapse?

“Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

“Yes, sir.”

“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:12 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

“Yes, they never try to hide their fakery, they rub it in our faces.”

Petra: you believe in the Apollo Hoax, though, right…?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 1, 2021 5:11 AM

WTC-7

Seven from seven, Steven. Seven from seven!

For an hypothesis to be correct it must be able to account for every single piece of evidence.

How do you explain the perfect implosion of WTC-7 being filmed from seven vantage points (only one piece of the footage in the Free Fallin’ video has a media logo on it) and how do you explain media and response personnel scripted to indicate they knew the building came down by controlled demolition? Obviously, Brian Williams is no controlled demolition expert. He wouldn’t use the industry term “went in” off his own bat.

How do you explain seven from seven?

How do you explain Brian Williams’ use of “went in” and his asking “knew it was comin’ all day”?

How do you explain why they even imploded WTC-7 on 9/11? Why wouldn’t they have simply brought it down discreetly after 9/11 as they brought down WTCs 3-6?

Why make the incriminating so very, very obvious?

The moon landings
I try as much as possible, Steven, to be a judger of evidence rather than a believer. When I first woke up to 9/11 I thought I’d tackle the moon landings next – they did, after all, seem a very unlikely happening all those years ago. I got going with Dave McGowan’s Wagging the Moondoggie – what a great title! – and found it pretty compelling but I thought I should take a look at the evidence myself and when I got to the hours and hours of audio I thought, “Nuh, they couldn’t have faked this audio. No way. It just goes on and on and is totally boring unless you’re actually in there doing it. You couldn’t get test pilots to do that and it simply wouldn’t be possible.” When I mention this to moon hoaxers (including my sister who very passionately doesn’t believe in them) they all say, “Sure they could fake it.” The thing is I’d never argue from my belief that they couldn’t fake it, I’d argue it using Occam’s Razor:

1. Hours and hours of audio were produced. (Why would they produce so much if they were faking it when they didn’t need to?).

2. No one has detected any fakery as far as I’m aware.

Of course, if there were other evidence that showed fakery then I’d accept that the audio was faked. Of course! However, I haven’t found any. Everything I’ve seen seems kosher. Everything seems to fit perfectly with the conditions on the moon: black sky during daytime, virtually no atmosphere and low gravity. Just like the audio I don’t see how you could fake the very bright reflection off the moon’s surface caused by the sun with the black sky. Don’t see how you could do it and when I saw First Man I anticipated that the density of the light reflected off the surface wouldn’t be quite as great as we see in the moon footage and to me the density seemed lacking. I also find that the debunking of the hoaxers is perfectly sensible and hoaxers have nothing to respond with.

In psyops the fakery is sloppy. If they’ve faked the moon landings they certainly weren’t sloppy about it. Here’s a video of Neil Armstrong comparing footage of the lunar module landing alongside the Google Earth camera following the same landing trajectory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqe7-rFRrkc. If they faked that, hats off!

Here’s my 10 points favouring “real” over “faked”. I’d be curious to get yours with favouring reversed.
http://occamsrazormoonlandings.weebly.com/

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 9:36 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

“when I got to the hours and hours of audio I thought, “Nuh, they couldn’t have faked this audio. No way. It just goes on and on and is totally boring unless you’re actually in there doing it. You couldn’t get test pilots to do that and it simply wouldn’t be possible.”

So you think that a Top Secret, infinitely-funded, Government Psyop to “beat the Russkies” for supreme prestige at the height of the Cold War isn’t plausible if parts of the fakery would be “boring” to do? In other words, you rule out the notion of “fakery” there merely because you yourself would find faking that kind of thing “boring”?

Good call, “Petra”. Iron clad case you’ve made there. Slam-dunk.

“Everything seems to fit perfectly with the conditions on the moon: black sky during daytime, virtually no atmosphere and low gravity. Just like the audio I don’t see how you could fake the very bright reflection off the moon’s surface caused by the sun with the black sky”

Uh huh. Ever hear of a “sound stage,” “Petra”? Ever hear of a “movie set”? Ever hear of “exposure settings”? You’re either a shill or your IQ is about 89, “Petra,” sorry. If this were the first time we’s interacted on this issue I wouldn’t be so blunt, but you’ve been typing impeccably stupid things, to me, on this topic since 2017.

“The thing is I’d never argue from my belief that they couldn’t fake it, I’d argue it using Occam’s Razor”

What you (and everyone who misuses Bill of Ockham’s “lex parsimoniae”) fail to get is that the principle falls apart in the face of an actual hoax, because the complexity of a hoax-effort is up to the hoaxers’ discretion. Human agency asserts itself to violate any such notion that the “simplest explanation is usually the best,” ie, how would you apply that to the Watergate case, or the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” (wholly faked to justify the subsequent war) or any complex DEA-engineered sting operation against a “drug-lord”? The very title of your blog betrays your basic misunderstanding of the territory. (And, again, you’re the “researcher” who believes the actually-fairly-sloppy Apollo Hoax was “real” but that the Grenfell Tower fire deaths were fake! Oh dear. “Petra,” please… you can’t be that stupid. Please confess you’re a Shill! laugh)

“If they’ve faked the moon landings they certainly weren’t sloppy about it. Here’s a video of Neil Armstrong comparing footage of the lunar module landing alongside the Google Earth camera following the same landing trajectory.”

Petra… um… are you serious? You call yourself a “researcher” but you can’t imagine how the imagery of “Google Moon Maps” could be used to support a Hoaxed “Lunar” event? Even within the framing of that Google Moon Map imagery as “real,” the “descent footage” had to be animated (ie manipulated). What does it prove? It proves that they took the time to animate a patch of “Google Moon Map” which we will have to take their word for being real. You don’t think the original NASA hoaxers could fake a “landing spot” based on telescopic images of the Moon? It wouldn’t have to be precise, just approximate… just like the “Google Moon Maps” image. And you don’t think “Google” is part of our actual Government? You think they have no dogs in this fight? No incentive to fool the credulous masses, some of whom think of themselves as “researchers”?

Before you do any more “research,” “Petra,” get your Thinking tools in place. Or, alternately, deposit your Shill Fee.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 1:15 AM

I don’t call myself a researcher, Steven, I call myself an analyst.

Your argument seems to be of the “could be faked” variety much favoured by my sister. “Could be faked” is meaningless as an argument unless you have at least one instance of clear evidence of fakery.

because the complexity of a hoax-effort is up to the hoaxers’ discretion

I’ve never encountered a psyop where the hoax-effort wasn’t sloppy – and I’ve looked at dozens – so the moon landings would be a massive exception in this case. In any case, I don’t buy it. If there’s no actual evidence of fakery in such a monumental undertaking as six moon landings I say there is none – you can go with the “could be faked on a sound stage” argument and we can’t apply Occam’s Razor, that is your prerogative.

Do you have a single piece of clear evidence of actual fakery?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 3:48 AM

It’s just occurred to me that the “could be faked” line is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. If there is no evidence of fakery or any reason to question the purported evidence’s authenticity then there is simply no reason to question the evidence. None at all. To argue that the evidence “could be faked” is as valid as saying “all men are potential rapists because they have a penis”.

I remember having an argument many years ago with a colleague on that subject who seemed to be a radical lesbian feminist but ended up partnering very happily as far as I can tell with a man and having two children with him. It’s interesting remembering that because I don’t recall before swallowing the red pill in 2014 ever engaging in arguments to do with logic but that was one I did have. My argument was that saying “all men are potential rapists” is no different from saying “all mothers are potential killers of their children” to which my colleague said I was being ridiculous. But I wasn’t, was I? Some mothers do kill their children (just as some fathers do too obviously) just as some men rape women (and arguably a very small number of women rape men) but the fact of their physical capacity to do so doesn’t mean we should say “they’re all potential whatevers”. I’d argue the physical capacity simply doesn’t make a person a potential whatever.

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 12:25 PM

From the chap who made New Pearl Harbour. Find the Italian fashion photographer section. The worlds best at light and shadows. All say the photos are impossible… but none have the courage to say they didn’t go🤣🤣 cognitive dissonance.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KpuKu3F0BvY

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 9:55 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

“I’d be curious to get yours with favouring reversed.”

You mean you’d love to waste more of my time, because that’s a standard Shill thing to do. I’ve made my Apollo Hoax case many times on the OffGuardian and other places. Use those “researcher” skills to read them, “Petra”. Meanwhile, we’ll have to wait for my detailed rebuttal, of this latest bizarre pro-Apollo comment of yours, to get bailed out of moderation jail.

(It’s funny how you usually appear when this site is displaying unusually high Shill Activity, isn’t it, “Petra”? Are you and “Nome DePlume” and its other avatars sharing a desk?)

Happy Groggy 2021

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Jan 1, 2021 12:02 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Other comments are in moderation (maybe this will go there, too) but:

I thought I should take a look at the evidence myself and when I got to the hours and hours of audio I thought, “Nuh, they couldn’t have faked this audio. No way. It just goes on and on and is totally boring

Making Hollywood films was/is a boring process, especially before CGI, when they had to rely on Practical Effects. You suit up your Military Contractors, put them on the air conditioned sound stage, give them a vague script, tell them the “goals” of that day’s shoot and then you roll film/ record audio for hours and hours. Yep, it was hard work. But imagine the camaraderie and the Patriotic kicks and the Dupers’ Delight of those super-insider, CIA-type jocks, doing their bit to slam-dunk it right in the Russkies’ collective red face!

Too boring for you? You wouldn’t make a very good Military Contractor, doing Top Secret stuff for the CIA/ US GOV, now, would you, “Petra”? Unless it was easy stuff like spreading disinfo on your own time.

Right?

AngryAngry
AngryAngry
Jan 3, 2021 12:18 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Micheal Hoffman- revelation of the method

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Dec 31, 2020 2:16 AM

Hello Steven Augustine: Wow! A person with a functional memory! How refreshing!

There were a number of documentaries regarding the Sandy Hoax fiasco, but they’ve all been scrubbed by the usual suspects… Documentaries exposing the false flag Boston Marathon operation have also been scrubbed. Nice “freedom” of the press, as long as you’re willing to lie for a living…

Below is an interesting talk by the Aurora theater shooter before he made himself so famous… Listen closely to his explanations of video game technology. Mr Holmes worked with a very high tech company for a short while before his alleged incident…

A science presentation by James Holmes in 2006


Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 31, 2020 4:36 AM

Because of all the scrubbing I try as much as possible to use the media sources themselves. It hurts because some of the videos were absolutely brilliant and had footage that wasn’t included in the media stories – either pushed out by controlled opposition or taken by genuine bystanders in some cases I guess. Some videos that were on YouTube you can find on 153news.net and probably other places though I don’t think I’ve ever found ex-YT videos on any other site except 153news.net.

I’ve done a 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise on Sandy Hook favouring fake over real using mainly media sources and issued a challenge to those who believe the official story to produce an equivalent with favouring reversed. Unsurprisingly, no one case respond to the challenge.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/sandy-hook-massacre.html

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Dec 31, 2020 2:57 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Hello Petra Liverani: I checked out the linked web site. The Sandy Hoax critique’s are mainly focused on the media spin surrounding the event, and are quite valid in and of themselves…
However, no mention is made of the fact that the Sandy Hook elementary school had been closed for over two years before the incident. A rather large herring… I used to have about a dozen links to excellent exposes of the event. Now all dead ended. The Alex Jones lawsuit is completely unrelated to the disappearance of these documentaries.

I also spent time reviewing the critique of the alleged Manchester Bombing. Same “crisis actor” staging and modus operandi as other CIA/Mossad psyops.

“Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction!!!!!” “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction!!!!!” “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction!!!!!” “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction!!!!!”

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 1, 2021 12:26 AM

It’s my website, Paul. Yes no mention is made of the school closure and many other things. The purpose of my Occam’s Razor exercise was to present 10 points that favoured the “staged” hypothesis and challenge those who believe the “real” hypothesis to produce 10 points with favouring reversed. The idea was that when people are confronted with their inability to come up with even a single point that favours “real” they would be forced to recognise that the event was staged. Dead wrong! It doesn’t work that way but nevertheless I still think it’s a good exercise. People don’t change their beliefs like that … if they ever do.

It’s a mistake to think you need masses and masses of evidence to prove something. Where it is a case of consideration of two hypotheses only, all you need is adequate evidence to make your case convincing while ensuring the absence of any evidence supporting the opposing hypothesis and in psyops there is never any evidence supporting the opposing hypothesis because although they could certainly make their psyop much more realistic and at least make it seem as if there’s evidence supporting it, they don’t – they make the fakery obvious so that anyone who believes the official story, no matter how passionately, will find that, after the magic propaganda dust has been blown away, they have no piece of evidence to brandish that favours it over “staged”.

Obviously, if you’re not simply working with two hypotheses, say, in the case of a murder where there are a number of possible suspects and where the culprit may not even be an identified suspect the situation is very different.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Jan 1, 2021 3:33 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Hello Petra Liverani: Your web site is impressive… However, your speculations and negations of fact are so over the top, you should be completely embarrassed to post them…

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 12:49 AM

Thanks for the part-compliment, Paul. For the part-critique what you need are examples, obviously. I strive to always make my claims scrupulously based on evidence, logic and reason so I’m anxious to know where you feel I speculate and negate fact. The idea is appalling to me. Pls let me know.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:14 AM

“Documentaries exposing the false flag Boston Marathon operation have also been scrubbed.”

I think Dave McGowan’s site still has his detailed dissection of the absurdities in that case; it’s the best expose of the event, in all of my reading.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:43 AM
Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Jan 2, 2021 2:31 AM

Here’s a debunking of Part 1 of Dave McGowan’s Wagging the Moondoggie.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/

In relation to the possibility of faking it on a sound stage, in response to a comment on their debunking the debunker quotes a comment they wrote on a YouTube video:

OK, how about this footage: https://youtu.be/GakAd6epHko?t=20219. At the time I’ve linked, we see an astronaut about ten metres to the right of the camera. The camera pans 180° and zooms in on another astronaut about sixty metres away to the left. So the area must be at least 70m wide. The camera follows the astronaut on the left. Within a minute or two he heads off to a distance of about 60m behind the camera. Then at this point https://youtu.be/GakAd6epHko?t=20840 we pick up one of the astronauts 60m in front of the camera. So the area is at least 120m long. 70×120 = 8,400 sq metres. That’s bigger than a soccer pitch. But there’s no variation in light intensity or shadow length/direction over that whole area. So not filmed in a studio with artificial lights.

I don’t see how the footage linked in the comment could have been studio-shot. The astronauts are clearly moving around a very large area with consistent lighting over the whole area.

My bold.

It’s very much the intensity of light and lack of variation in light intensity that I find compelling myself.

As I indicated on my last comment, what you need is evidence of fakery not the assertion of the possibility of it. Assertion of possibility of it is meaningless without evidence of it when you’re talking such a complex endeavour as six moon landings. When you have at least one piece of evidence of fakery then yes you can talk about things being fakeable but not before.

Nome DePlume
Nome DePlume
Dec 31, 2020 7:00 AM

ZERO doubt that 9/11 was an “inside job.” But Gabby Giffords was shot by a PISTOL, not an “assault rifle,” as you falsely claim (after which, I quit reading). We need to keep THE FACTS straight, so that there is ONE TRUTH. Sloppy mistakes ANYWHERE open you up to criticism, along with the LEGITIMATE 9/11 Truth Movement. Do better, please. Thank you.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:39 AM
Reply to  Nome DePlume

But Gabby Giffords was shot by a PISTOL, not an “assault rifle,” as you falsely claim (after which, I quit reading).

A) Learn to distinguish between an article and a comment, you anal-compulsive harpy, and B) the error in no way affects the fundamental gist of my comment; there are also snowflakey pedants who would “quit reading” your comment owing to the random outbreaks of ALLCAPS it presents. The “criticism” my error has “opened me up to,” in this case, was trivial and easily rebutted.

Next?

PS Re: “One Truth” : “Sloppy mistakes ANYWHERE open you up to criticism, along with the LEGITIMATE 9/11 Truth Movement”

Before you advocate for a righteously standardized Unified Field Theory of 9/11, you may want to consider the fact that the ultra-compelling case for MIHOP is almost entirely circumstantial, and the gaps in Absolute Knowledge this generates are large enough for people to drive a “Death Ray from Space” truck through, not to mention “mini nukes,” UFOs and all the other theories we are invited to choose from (including “Able Danger’s” vintage theory of a Cabal of Fascist Lesbians pulling the strings). Be my guest in vetting them all and choosing which improbable notions to discard definitively, using Logic or Evidence alone. Ie: welcome to the Real World.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 11:05 AM
Reply to  Nome DePlume

“But Gabby Giffords was shot by a PISTOL, not an “assault rifle,” as you falsely claim”

Giffords wasn’t shot by anything.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 11:08 AM

Ach, I forgot to mention the “Malala” head-shot miracle!

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 31, 2020 3:22 PM

A 9mm pistol is not an high powered rifle. Learn some balistics before you spout off inanity. This again is proof that an understanding of science is slim to none for many here.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 3:35 PM

“A 9mm pistol is not an high powered rifle. Learn some balistics (sic) before you spout off inanity.”

The difference between an imaginary 9mm pistol and an imaginary high powered rifle is nil, Shill: learn the difference between Reality and Propaganda. Further, the difference between a misremembered fantasy-detail of a psyop and the reported fantasy-detail of a psyop has nothing to do with science. Learn about the concept called “science,” Shill. Science is a method and the shifting canon of the knowledge the method has generated… not a convenient Get Out of Rational Debate Card for Shills. Tell your sector chief to reassign you to a CNN comment thread instead, Shill. I think you’ll do better there.

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:13 PM

Get ready for the alien invasion, because it’s coming; they fell for the moon landings, they fell for the War on drugs, they fell for the War on terror, they fell for the Global warming scam, they fell for the Brexit scam, they fell for the Covid scam, YOU won’t believe whats next!……. But the will people believe every word….

‘’US Space Force members will be called ‘guardians’’


‘’US Navy confirms UFO videos are the real deal’’


Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 30, 2020 10:40 PM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

“YOU won’t believe whats next”

Yeah, I catch bits here and there of so-called “disclosure”. Stupid Alien narratives from “retired Israeli generals” and all that nonsense. The thing is: hologram tech is ALMOST there, isn’t it? In ten years, maybe, they won’t need screens at all…

I never before realized that ALL of this bullshit (I mean ALL of it) is part of one “Great Work”… I used to believe they were competing conspiracies. Then I stumbled across Alison McDowell’s work and she pulled most of it together for me.

The New Version of Capitalism will see TFIC (The Fuckers in Charge) as the sole participants with any agency… while we (Duh Masses; the Serfs) will generate the currency. We will be a massive DATA FARM for a kind of Predictive Behavioral Hedge Fund economy … very much like The Matrix, but for some reason the Matrix-makers had the human “batteries” generating literal electricity (ridiculously) in that metaphor: I guess they didn’t want the metaphor to come too close. Future legislation will be handled by Algorithms entirely.

TFIC want to reduce our numbers, exert total chip-interface control (even on a biological level; how many generations before Human Life is patented by some Ultra Corporation?) and get the remaining (surviving) 500 Million (some say) of us believing in a New Agey Religion that will come with real special effects (unlike the original big three desert Religions, which relied entirely on the power of suggestion). After all I’ve read, over the years, I get the feeling that the Capitol City of Earth is meant to be Jerusalem. (Old Oligarchs like warm climates).

9/11 was the first trigger, Covid the second. Others are bound to come…

Watch Alison McDowell walk us through some of the mechanism (she sticks with the data-mining stuff and the predatory philanthropy spreading this cancer around the planet; she doesn’t bite off the more far out material) )all five videos are very worth watching):

Part 1: The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Global Technocratic Takeover w/ Alison McDowell (I’m posting the title because the videos aren’t stable here)

Researcher
Researcher
Dec 30, 2020 11:19 PM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

Guardians of the Galaxy. Talk about pre-programming. There’s a neat little plan NASA has to attack us on earth and pretend it’s aliens:

Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/vozduh/nasa-future-warfare

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:12 PM

I want to make an uncomfortable observation, but I suspect it is true. It seems like there are two totally different versions of reality running in parallel.

The Covid cult and the anti-Covid cult (that’s us). We are both being nurtured on the teat of the deep state, and both exist along side each other, ….I ask to what end?
Perhaps as the noose of Covid measures tightens around the necks of the population, is the anti-Covid cult, which is being increasingly & intentionally captured by the far-right, intended to be ‘our masters’ safety-valve or alternative route to total domination.

If they can’t hold down humanity with the ‘Covid measures’ then they will over-throw the system completely, and hold us down with a new CIA backed fascist establishment, in a managed, anti-Covid, anti-establishment, anti-democratic revolution? ………….I think both cults are serving a purpose and nobody is currently on our side.

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 12:26 PM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

I’ve thought the same

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 12:39 PM
Reply to  Judith

This brilliant scholar of our predicament explains the apparent paradox:

Part 3: The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Global Technocratic Takeover w/ Alison McDowell

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 1:43 PM

Thank you, Steven, I’ve watched them all already.

Brilliant analysis. Scary. But eye-opening.

She really states the obvious and connects everything.

I wish I had a 5 min synopsis of what she’s illustrating for people who can’t understand my not following the narrative.

People just don’t get it when I say that I just see a bigger picture at hand.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 3:58 PM
Reply to  Judith

Just tell them: “Data is the new Oil” and that the collection, instrumentalization and absolute control of the data that we, as people, generate, is far more important than our rights (and dignity) as a data-generating commodity. Or needs and wants are not factored into the algorithms that will increasing govern our lives in a new form of Capitalism we’re being tricked into accepting. “The Great Reset” is not a theory or a weird meme, it’s a massive change being actively promoted by the most powerful unelected officials (billionaires like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab) on Earth. Send them a link to the WEF’s “In 2020, you’ll own nothing and be happy” video and if that grabs their horrified attention, send them to Alison’s website. Is that 5 minutes’ worth? (laugh)

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 4:12 PM
Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 5:35 PM

I’ll start memorizing that right now.

As for the wef video (they don’t deserve uppercase), you know I haven’t even watched it. I can’t bring myself. Honestly. It takes all my reserve to go out in the world and look at all the bank robbers (masked people). A girl can only take so much.

But thanks.

William L. Larson
William L. Larson
Dec 30, 2020 8:58 PM

Totally agree with ‘wardropper,’ that music now media’s most useful method for distracting viewers as to what is actually being said, such as that used by the History Channel today, and others of their ilk. Presume this method right out of CYA’s handbook for new recruits, on how to manipulate the media for their purposes. Remedy for this best left to taxpayers figuring this out, and to take appropriate action as seems fitting. Voting for change on this issue, however, NOT the answer, as our past presidential election demonstrates.

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 8:18 PM

I just wish they had the sense to realize that loud ‘background’ music is a serious distraction from the whole point of the video.
It should not be hard to concentrate on the facts concerning an important issue like this, and I would normally expect the ‘authorities’ to use such tactics if they wanted people not to listen to the spoken dialogue…
The internet is full of such destructive muzak.

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 7:39 PM

911 is when hoax’s psy op where good

Today hoax’s p[sy op they use a PayPal Nigerian scam and fat fuk recorded and call it live to tell you there is a million people dying and not to go to work and wear a mask dont talk to your family and your in a bubble and be home by 10 or else.

I remember the days when a psyop was a psyop

I going to write a official complaint as the standards have really dropped.

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 10:23 PM
Reply to  Asylum

Bin Laden LOL in 2020 bin laden daughter got interviewed by special branch five eyes operative truth worthy semi disinformwhore journalist paul jopseh watson
she siad Bin Laden daughter she would vote maga trump

this is how it become and [people actually buy this crap

Arby
Arby
Dec 30, 2020 6:50 PM

What should we expect? Governments were captured by powerful special interests long ago. They are now police State governments. They are enforcers for transnational capitalism. They are criminal (capitalist, not communist) organizations. NIST, and you name it, can’t be trusted.

pminalga
pminalga
Dec 30, 2020 10:00 PM
Reply to  Arby

They are capitalist communist bolshevik ju’s Masons doing all this sht for Years

davey wavey
davey wavey
Dec 30, 2020 10:11 PM
Reply to  pminalga

You forgot Democrats!

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 6:13 PM

The short path from Social Justice Warrior to eugenicist.

We have been told for years not to “fat shame” or to call people to account for their lifestyles. Who are we to judge?

I agree. I value all lives and would intervene to try to help anyone, regardless of whether their life choices had let to their current predicament.

But contrast with the reality of the Woke SJW view. You can see that despite the rainbow patch on their sleeve, their view of human worth is utilitarian and thinks of the person only in the general context, not as an individual.

Unless you can show that a vulnerable group benefits from a particular person’s survival, then a blanket approach is applied to the quality of that life (whether that is an ethnic vulnerability such as sickle cell or simply age).

“This article argues that an appropriate approach may be to lift the general lockdown but implement selective isolation of the elderly. While this discriminates against the elderly, there is a morally relevant difference—the elderly are far more likely to require hospitalisation and die than the rest of the population. If the aim is to ensure the health system is not overwhelmed and to reduce the death rate, preventing the elderly from contracting the virus may be an effective means of achieving this.

This utilitarian concern must be balanced against other considerations, such as equality and justice, and the benefits gained from discriminating in these ways must be proportionately greater than the negative consequences of doing so. Such selective discrimination will be most justified when the liberty restriction to a group promotes the well-being of that group (apart from its wider social benefits).”

Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong — Journal of Medical Ethics

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:19 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

The short path from Social Justice Warrior to eugenicist

You fascist hatred of the left is psychopathic, it certainly isn’t logical. If you listen to crazy, you end thinking crazy.

THX-1154
THX-1154
Dec 31, 2020 12:29 AM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

newsflash, for those who haven’t been paying attention for the last ten or fifteen years: Identity politics is not left-wing.

rather than judging people by the content of their character, and not the colour of their skin, it absolutely judges people by the colour of their skin, or some other irrelevant accident of their birth, and not the content of their character. the only thing that differentiates it from traditional fascism is that the the traditional value judgements are inverted. the effect is exactly the same, namely getting ordinary people to fight each other, while the billionaires laugh all the way to the bank.

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 5:43 PM
Reply to  THX-1154

I agree, T. I would have been considered “left winger” I guess. But I cannot STAND the identity politics, and all the rest of the politically correct dressed up as inclusive bollocks of the past few years.

It’s divisive plain and simple.

It seems to me that the Civil Right’s Movement of the 60’s had more to do with
dignity than anger.

And, yes, the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank

THX-1154
THX-1154
Dec 31, 2020 12:43 AM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

perhaps somebody could explain why posts such as the one that was just disappeared, are considered sufficiently objectionable so as to trigger the “spam check”. it is more than apparent that this “spam filter” has a large bias in favour of bourgeois liberal discourse, and a corresponding bias against actual political dissidence.

now that bourgeois liberalism has incorporated all the postmodern ideological fads such as identity politics, transgenderism, anti-conspiracism, and anti-anti-semitism, actual political dissidence, especially authentic left-wing dissidence, is all the more easily labelled as “far-right”, and vanished down the memory hole. and now that the operation of the memory hole is almost fully automated, maintaining narrative control has never been easier.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 12:36 PM
Reply to  THX-1154

“it is more than apparent that this “spam filter” has a large bias in favour of bourgeois liberal discourse”

So many of my comments go into moderation for hours (and hours) that I can’t keep track of them. I’ve been commenting on this site, with the same avatar, since its very beginning: you’d think long-term commenters could be exempted from the system (until they start dropping porn links hereabouts). Likewise the video-posting roulette: is there no fix for that?

THX-1154
THX-1154
Dec 31, 2020 1:42 PM

the video substitution thing is just a bug; you can work around it by disabling automatic embeds:

https://youtu.be/rStJ5BgadPs

the “spam check” thing has an overtly political function, as can be demonstrated by posting the same comment, with and without mention of “Scientologists” (you know what I mean).

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 7:35 PM
Reply to  THX-1154

“with and without mention of “Scientologists” (you know what I mean)”

I never mention “Scientologists” (or Scientologists). Still, my comments are often in moderation. But, to go deeper here…

It seems to me that if “Scientology” were the core of the problem, we wouldn’t even know what a “Scientologist” is. While there are definitely “Scientologists” in the mix when it comes to TFIC (The Fuckers in Charge), and while the visibility of “Scientologists” has ramped up, somewhat, after WW2, I think the problem is much deeper. If anything, the high visibility of “Scientologists” indicates to me that that’s exactly what a shadowy cabal of non-“Scientologists” wants us to see, and think about, and target. Yes, we can’t criticize Israel… but isn’t that because Israel is the key to the “Grand Game,” of TFIC, that pre-dates T. E. Lawrence? The whole Arab vs “Scientologist” conflict is a conflict fabricated for the sake of “The Grand Game,” not vice versa.

We got two World Wars because TFIC wanted to redraw the maps (and cull the herd, of course) and we got The Holocaust because TFIC really (really) wanted an excuse to create/impose Israel (which is also why the Dulles Bros, representing TFIC, helped put AH where he was).Central European Anti-Semitism was real (it certainly didn’t need faking; Cf Martin Luther on a good day) so… yeah. I don’t think the whole scheme was orchestrated by “Scientologists” and sometimes it’s hard to put cause and effect in proper sequence. If Arnd Krupp (1587), founder of the Krupp Industrialist Dynasty that was a de facto co-ruler of the Third Reich, was a “Scientologist,” I may reconsider my theory. Ditto Herr Siemens, et al.

Whereas the Irish, Germans, Swedes and Italians who emigrated to the US, in the latter part of the 19th, and the early part of the 20th, centuries were economic migrants who arrived with very little capital (imported to counter-balance recently-freed Blacks), the early-midcentury wave of “Scientologists” were political refugees who sometimes arrived with quite a bit of money, especially if they got out of Europe early (unlike the Russians of the post-Bolshevik diaspora, who had most of their assets seized before they could leave, like Nabokov). And, obviously, the Blacks who beat all of the waves of post-English migration, to North America, arrived in the US with lots less than nothing. The dynamic of those major socioeconomic differences will ramify over time, right? Especially if you toss in the impact of the burgeoning technology, and technology-based entertainment that the Ruling Class WASPS considered beneath them for so long.It would be absurd to claim that “Scientologists” aren’t disproportionately represented in Hollywood… but Blacks are disproportionately prominent in Basketball, too: is either case a conspiracy or a structural result of historic twists? Conspiracies came thick and fast later, of course…

I think there are very old lines of Ruling Families and I can see how various “Scientologists” have proved useful to these families, and/or even challenged them, here and there. But it’s my suspicion that we have never seen a portrait of any member of the most powerful families in the world, nor read a creditable theory about them, and that the most plentiful (and “satisfying”) theories we are allowed to play with are the least dangerous and rarely completely true.

My 2 cents! I could be very wrong, of course, but I’d need compelling circumstantial evidence to believe that the Standard Theory of “Scientology,” as found on YouTube or certain parts of 4Chan, has enough explanatory power to settle all the Big Questions.

.

PS Full disclosure: a girlfriend of mine (in 1976) was a “Scientologist”. But another girlfriend (1992-1995, 1998-2000) was Iranian!

THX-1154
THX-1154
Dec 31, 2020 12:49 AM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

haha, now if you complain about being censored by the “spam checker”, you’ll be censored by the spam checker. it’s easy to control the narrative, when you control the narrative. maybe somebody should write a book about that; they could call it “Catch-1984”, or something like that.

THX-1154
THX-1154
Dec 31, 2020 12:53 AM
Reply to  Paddy Jones.

a sincere request to whatever entity is responsible for the bourgeois-liberal-fascist “spam checker” in operation here:

please go fuck yourself sideways. thank you.

iaas
iaas
Dec 30, 2020 6:03 PM

As HoneyPotter has already said go to: drjudywood.com
and checktheevidence.com ie. Andrew Johnson’s great work.
Those who reject her and her research have either:
a) not investigated, for themselves, what she has to say or looked at the evidence she presents or
b) adopted their opinion of her and the evidence she presents from someone/somewhere else or
c) are intentionally attempting to keep people away from looking at the evidence she presents.
The 911 government approved narrative is pure deception as we all know.
AE911 is a sideshow as we all ought to know by now.

Steve C
Steve C
Dec 30, 2020 8:18 PM
Reply to  iaas

Even if Dr Judy wood is factually correct, it’s a BIG ASK to expect people to understand AND believe in John Hutchisons Effect, let alone believe that it was used to destroy the towers. Normal people need and deserve a more acceptable account of what happened on that day. Once we finally get a majority that see the impossibility of the official government conspiracy theory and DEMAND an accounting THEN we can try and discern what really happened….

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 5:50 PM
Reply to  Steve C

Joseph Farrell (gizadeathstar website) has a pretty good take on this, I think. I can’t quote him, but I watched an interview he did around the last 9/11 anniversary.

He thinks it could be a combination of things. Maybe a combo of Judy Woods theory of directed energy AND explosives with nanothermite/mate. I don’t dismiss any of it.

At this point a bit useless to argue about unless you are a researcher determined to find out exactly what it was, or a lawyer that is bringing charges.

Whatever it was I don’t believe for a minute it was 19 Saudi’s who couldn’t wait to go to heaven.

Ort
Ort
Dec 31, 2020 8:00 PM
Reply to  Judith

FWIW, I don’t insist on a given theory, but I also think that the “combination” possibility has merit. The 9/11 research community– itself a contentious conglomeration of factions, with the usual cross-complaints of bad faith, “controlled opposition”, etc.– has a tendency to induce sharply polarized perspectives. 

So the “controlled demolition” faction and the “directed energy weapons” factions seem locked into a binary “either-or” mentality; each faction insists that their preferred explanations are the only credible ones based on authoritative research (“the science”!), and excoriates dissenters as obviously mad or bad.

Dr. Judy Wood is despised, discredited, and slandered as that “space weapons” nut. It’s been a while, but I once binged on Wood’s videos. I don’t remember her ever explicitly asserting that “space weapons” were deployed. In fact, my own frustration and dissatisfaction with Dr. Wood’s perspective is that she sets arbitrary boundaries to areas of inquiry.

For instance, she disingenuously deflects valid questions about exactly what, if anything, struck the towers before the “dustification” and collapse occurred. IIRC, she dubiously insists that even asking the question puts the cart before the horse– that investigators must first address and work out the mechanism of the destructive collapse that occurred in plain sight before moving to the question of what, if anything, impacted the towers.

To me, that’s another false either-or!

And far from specifying space-based weapons, in the videos I watched (some including Q&A sessions), Dr. Wood was annoyingly coy when asked about what specific directed-energy weapons might’ve been deployed, when and where they might’ve been located, etc. So I think it’s a fair criticism to say that there’s too much of a gap between her citing some rogue genius scientist illustrating directed-energy principles in his garage and the massive destruction to the WTC and environs.

Back to the “combination” possibility: Now it can be told! I have an original observation (as far as I know) that I’ve never seen addressed elsewhere– not that I’m familiar with “all” of the 9/11 research. It’s relevant to the combination hypothesis.

In sophisticated, complex black/wet/false flag operations, timing is critical. So in the past, the “combination” theory would be rebutted by the assertion that no planners would attempt to use multiple approaches because the split-second timing would be logistically impossible. It would be too risky to attempt to deploy such parallel or complementary means to achieve the desired goal of the operation.

But there’s a fundamental feature of computer networks that’s so pervasive it’s easily forgotten or ignored: computer networks are bound by a common time-signal. So, for instance, when my punctual relative in Europe and I (in the US) have a video chat scheduled, my computer “rings” at the appointed time on the dot. Likewise, thanks to this handy time signal, it’s possible to synchronize any and all computer-driven, network-connected technology without human error or even human reaction times gumming up the split-second timetable.

This feature is conducive to using multiple computer-connected technology in ways that would’ve been impractical and risky prior to the ubiquitous Internet.
_____________________________________________

BTW, when I started to reply I only planned to write, “I call the official-narrative hijackers ‘The Nineteen Lone Nuts’.” 😉

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 9:01 PM
Reply to  Ort

The nineteen lone nuts! Love it! Going to reply to your welcome and as always interesting post later when I’m on the laptop.

Judith
Judith
Dec 31, 2020 9:01 PM
Reply to  Ort

Forgot to press the bell. See reply to your lone nuts comment.

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 30, 2020 4:43 PM

is everything a hoax? We must be living in pods hooked to the matrix. 911 is one thing. Armchair theorists with access to a video editor are another. Why do you believe everything that meets with your echo chamber on spew-boob?

Like it or not, we went to the moon. The seeding of doubt is another psy-op in the very same fashion as the flat earth. Everyone should take a long look at how easily people have been swayed to dis-believe. It serves a purpose.

A micro example would be to look at the whole, not just cherry picked and doctored images in a low res video online. Ask yourself and answer one simple question. How much minutia does it take to sell an idea? Do you really need to spend 5 years and millions of dollars testing the limits of the skin of a spacecraft in order to film it on a set?

Yet, that is exactly what my 77 year old father did at the Space Research Corporation on the Vermont Quebec border from 1964 to 1969. Much money was spent on the gas gun lab to approximate mercury through apollo craft having a piece of space dust collide with the skin of the capsules. They answered just how big a piece, traveling at what velocity would puncture a hole big enough to compromise the craft and kill all on board. It was felt to be a statistically low enough possibility that they should risk lives to attain a moon landing.

Do you really think the CIA goes to those lengths to sell an idea? Not only did they spend years testing, but they had my father spend months on the math coming up with a measure of probability as to fatal nature of space dust. Why would that be needed if it was just a set and some film? Governments waste money, but not to that extent.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 4:46 PM

Living in a hoax is a reasonable working hypothesis.

We live in a kaleidoscope of illusions. It became clear to me over the past 30 years that much of society is corrupt: the charities and NGOs, the religious institutions, education etc…

Many organizations and professions perpetrate and profit from the exact opposite of their proclaimed reason for existence. Instead of saving the children they sex-traffic them. That is established. It is not a “film”. Go and read if you don’t know.

Then 20 years ago I worked out that companies don’t exist for the purpose they claim (nor is that their primary source of income); politicians are paid to spin fantasy; journalists to repeat it; and that the political-economic-social system is largely a charade.

Though many people denied it, wages had been falling in real terms since the 1990s. Banks filled the gap with credit. Thus banks, not governments, created money — the opposite of what you are taught in university (you are no longer taught much in schools at all). How could that be? Read up on the Federal Reserve-central banking system. It “accounts” for its survival.

Read up on Modern Monetary Theory. Lunacy on steroids.

Governments have a built-in self interest in the myth of power. If that requires faking a space trip, that is a small thing.

Your mistake is seeing a fake space trip as a big deal. In the order of things it is just one of many mirrors in a gargantuan hall.

Is that a bad thing? A corrupt, illusory society? Clearly it works in the short term and while it survives, those who benefit defend it.

I could not explain this through the news media so I abandoned my profession and tried fiction: but truth was so much stranger that I could not make fiction work. I admit: even with decades of personal research I failed to discover the depth of kakistocracy until it was revealed to us this year.

Thiekbalj
Thiekbalj
Dec 30, 2020 5:30 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

100% agree. Epstein led many of us and it is probably one of the (Several) likely catalysts when tracing back when contact tracing the origin of the intelligence behind these operations. Like many of us 2010-2019 I felt the entrenched patterns of kakistocracy were in the midst of collapse; I’m an organic farmer and landscaper I focused on trying to create w others regenerative alternatives. I never spent time with the Bank of International Settlements, the work of Dave Mcgowan, the Franklin Files, etc until this. Maybe their arrogance, wanting to be savior and executioner simultaneously. Idk.

I still think they will fail but it will be a long road.

Antoniji
Antoniji
Dec 30, 2020 6:33 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

Wages (in US and UK) have been falling in real terms since the mid 1970’s not 1990’s….

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 31, 2020 12:22 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

“fake space trip.”

Oh the irony. You believe in the science that lends creedence to buildings needing more to be brought down than jet fuel. Yet, you do not believe in the science that took us to the moon and back. You can’t pick and choose and have integrity.

Fact Checker
Fact Checker
Dec 31, 2020 2:31 AM

“…took us to the moon…”

“US.”

Your triumphalist, “participatory” pride clouds your objectivity.

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 31, 2020 3:19 PM
Reply to  Fact Checker

Wow! Pronouns are now an indication of objectivity. If you have not already, please make sure your flat earth society card is up to date.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 12:30 PM

“Yet, you do not believe in the science that took us to the moon and back.”

That wasn’t “science,” that was imagery. The (crude) Technology of the era argues against the plausibility of the imagery. Most of the pro-Apollo-Hoax commenters invoking “science,” as the authority to appeal to, couldn’t pass a high school science quiz*.

*high school science in pre-inflation, 1970s, terms

the sidehillgouger
the sidehillgouger
Dec 31, 2020 3:17 PM

Newtonian physics took us to the moon and back. If you can not grok that, it is you that would fail high school science.

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 8:21 PM

“Newtonian physics took us to the moon and back”

Ha ha! Not without the adequate technology, chum… not any more than it took us to Saturn and back. Star Trek wasn’t real, either. I like the “Stranger in a Strange Land” reference, though. As a scientifically-literate nerd in High School, I knew my canonical texts.

norman
norman
Dec 30, 2020 6:05 PM

gran daddy is 77 you say?
7 and 7
not 13 or 33
but 77 you say not 66

the dome
the earth
gravity
ether
electric universe

damn them van allen belts
they say elon sent a sports car electric vehicle up dere
floatin around somewheres

shame kubricks dead snuffed out
shame nikola tesla views cannot be heard
77 aye

a number like 7 and 7 and the 9 and 11
all masonicull to me

Ken
Ken
Dec 30, 2020 8:31 PM

The Apollo Program is the adult version of Santa Claus. Look at the shadows in this photo. They could not be the result of a single light source, the sun, 93 million miles away.
comment image

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 8:09 PM

“Do you really think the CIA goes to those lengths to sell an idea? Not only did they spend years testing, but they had my father spend months on the math coming up with a measure of probability as to fatal nature of space dust. Why would that be needed if it was just a set and some film?”

A) Compartmentalization (ie, people working in various departments under the people orchestrating the project would have no idea the true nature of the project) B) Verisimilitude (ie, if you’re going to get away with a hoax of this nature, you have to dot every “i” and cross every “t”). On top of that: the Saturn V really needed to put those “astronauts” (intelligence assets?) … or something… in orbit. The launch (verifiable) was real; the Lunar landing (unverifiable) was hoaxed.

Your argument is naive as it is commonplace.

“Do you really think the CIA goes to those lengths to sell an idea?”

That is what they get paid (with a big black budget), among other things, to do, after all. The myth of America’s godlike technological superiority has given “Uncle Sam” phony credibility, and spurious moral authority, ever since. Well worth the investment, eh?

tony0pmoc
tony0pmoc
Dec 30, 2020 4:40 PM

It’s too late now. Whilst 18 months after the event, I personally told everyone I knew, and in many cases showed them them evidence, and they all except one French friend who happened to be a Building architect, said blimey you may be right – let me see that again – Everyone else dissed me, slagged me off, got very angry with me, or consoled me as if I was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

Well most on here, who try and tell the truth about COVID, will know how I felt, after 9/11.

The only thing I felt ashamed re 9/11, is that it took me 18 months to be 100% certain that the Ofiicial Story was impossible, though I smelt a very big rat on Day 1.

That is the power of mass brainwashing.

There must be a way to reverse the process, but now, nearly everyone is wearing a mask, and that is a very powerful signal, that you are full lifetime member of The COVID Religion, and you will wear that mask, and take the injections until you go directly to purgatory and then hell.

May God save your Soul, but in this case, I don’t think there is much hope. You are signed up with Gog & Magog

https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/via/13456-istockgetty-images-plusliuzishan.webp

comment image

Tony

Edwige
Edwige
Dec 30, 2020 3:37 PM

Epstein’s last cellmate “dies” (and supposedly of Covid although they’ve retreated from that after the family didn’t agree):

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeffrey-epsteins-last-cell-mate-dies-from-coronavirus-reports-say

There’s so much weird about this Nashville bombing and the nurse who supposedly fainted after being vaccinated that both reek of being operations. The latter seems designed to get “truthers” (or planted assets posing as truthers) to say she’s dead so they can wheel her out and present the idea as an example of one of those crazy conspiracy theories.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 5:14 PM
Reply to  Edwige

Thoughts on Downtown Nashville as the clock ticks towards a second/new administration, For What It’s Worth.

https://moneycircus.blogspot.com/2020/12/time-terror-and-plain-bad-narratives.html

tony0pmoc
tony0pmoc
Dec 30, 2020 5:35 PM
Reply to  Edwige

Edwidge,
“reports say” or “reportedly was” almost always means that someone in The CIA, or one of The Main News Agencies eg: Associated Press, Agence France-Presse (AFP), Press Association, Reuters, et, etc, almost all of which will have been infiltrated and controlled by The CIA or othe Intelligence Agency equivalent..
Is Making it Up, and some wannabe journo has copied and pasted it, cos he wants a paid job. He probably know its not true too.

In my view, such journos, would be better off getting a decent camera, and learning how to use it. They get up everyone’s noses too, but at least they get out of bed, into the fresh air. Some of them are really good, and don’t photoshop the results (much).

Most of them know each other, and will go to the pub together (if its got a fast wifi) to upload their shoots. It’s a very tough job. but some people not only have the eye, they weigh up the scene, to get the best possible shot, without annoying the other photographers too much. There will always be a pecking order, and I know they compare results.

It keeps them fit. Very few photographers have died in the line of duty, even if they had the courage to go to a warzone with a big Press Badge, though some have.

The best thing about a News Photographer, IMHO is that he is just using a Camera, and not a gun, and he or she has quite obviously put themselves in a place of danger, with very little if any protection.

Tony

steadydirt
steadydirt
Dec 30, 2020 6:36 PM
Reply to  Edwige

no bomb hole in the road?
if you look at any car bomb detonation anywhere else in the world the blast goes up, down and sideways.

Glimber rend
Glimber rend
Dec 30, 2020 2:51 PM

I would advise anyone to listen to Alex Jones because he tells you exactly what is going to happen next, he should know, because he is part of the organization coordinating all this stuff in the CIA.

Don’t believe his reasoning or those he blames, who are always CIA targets, like the left, Gates and Soros, and don’t believe what he describes as the deep states motives, which are always bizarre and ridiculous, to cover up for their real Corporate and economic goals. Covid is a US economic heist, working for US corporate giants, more than a tyranny.

Jones, like David Icke is telling you what is being arranged by the US deep state, and you will get a pretty good idea what is happening, his gift is the truth, wrapped in layers of lies. Just learn to read the truth contained in the propaganda.

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 4:56 PM
Reply to  Glimber rend

3 names you use in 7 posts to tell the truth LOL SallyBowles Window and Glimber rend
fuck of back to Disnforwhore HQ

Seansaighdeor
Seansaighdeor
Dec 30, 2020 5:55 PM
Reply to  Asylum

All just Jack and Jim.

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:06 PM
Reply to  Seansaighdeor

Jack and jill, went up the hill and exposed a couple of GCHQ trolls……

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:06 PM
Reply to  Asylum

Why don’t you judge the strength of the comment, rather than attack the person? Oh because it is all true and you can’t say anything.

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:08 PM
Reply to  Asylum

Why does that trouble you?……tell me.

Glimber rend
Glimber rend
Dec 30, 2020 2:36 PM

Don’t assume because you are exposing one of their frauds, that you are not acting as a useful idiot still working towards the goals of the deep state, they have even captured their own opposition.

I can see now how the exposing of 9/11 as an ‘inside job’ and many of the other scams by the CIA will help in the creation of chaos and a revolutionary c0up against the USA’s flailing democracy, what little remains of it.

After-all, Alex jones, as an operative of the CIA, has spend years exposing the crimes of the CIA in great detail, with the Intent of discrediting, not the CIA, but the ‘liberal left’, whatever that is, and our democratic institutions, whilst building up a far-right militant base, to again oppose democracy, the left and civil rights movements.

Aaron
Aaron
Dec 30, 2020 6:25 PM
Reply to  Glimber rend

The USA is simply not democracy. Our nation’s founders understood and despised that concept. You will not see that vile word in any of our nation’s founding documents, the lineage of documents that lead to our constitution, or any of our 50 State constitutions.
It is simply nothing more than mob rule. A monarchy would be less fickle and likely more stable.
We are a constitutional republic. Understanding the difference is crucial.

Sally Sow
Sally Sow
Dec 30, 2020 8:59 PM
Reply to  Aaron

Go and look up the word democracy.

Paddy Jones.
Paddy Jones.
Dec 30, 2020 9:04 PM
Reply to  Aaron

That is your issue with that comment:? really, Go and look up the word democracy.

Glimber rend
Glimber rend
Dec 30, 2020 2:35 PM

The world changed in 2001, it was a US military coup. The political change was far more massive than just the wars In the middle east, the whole western world under the US sphere of influence was enslaved in fear, and the countries started to systematically move to the neoliberal far-right systems.

All the evils of our day stated on that date and we know absolutely nothing about the internal coup that must have taken hold of the US democracy.

Nixon Scraypes
Nixon Scraypes
Dec 30, 2020 5:28 PM
Reply to  Glimber rend

Dear me, you’ll be telling us that Daddy Bush is right wing next

steadydirt
steadydirt
Dec 30, 2020 6:37 PM
Reply to  Glimber rend

happened when they burned kennedy

Voz a0db
Voz a0db
Dec 30, 2020 2:30 PM

If the herd of modern moron slaves do this day STILL BELIEVE in the official LIE about the NCD of 3 steel frame buildings, clearly they also believe in the OPERATION COVIDIUS lies!

Go Go cattle…

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 7:47 PM
Reply to  Voz a0db

Don’t you worry it from the same people who brought you drain the swamp
how may fell for that? still falling for that
exactly

Voz 0db
Voz 0db
Dec 31, 2020 1:20 PM
Reply to  Asylum

The day a Billionaire starts to “drain the swamp” is the day he/she gets culled!

norman
norman
Dec 30, 2020 2:27 PM

christopher bollyn is all i need is all i need is all i need is all i need.
he got to the heart of the matter
heart of the matter
heart of the matter
jane stanley bbc has a nose for conspiracy
she was 29 mins early with the collapse news

christopher bollyn cleared the air
cleared the pea soup
laid it out for consume

everything else is smog pollution

crank
crank
Dec 30, 2020 4:05 PM
Reply to  norman

Bollyn changed my view of everything.
Then Piper too.

Voz a0db
Voz a0db
Dec 30, 2020 2:25 PM

Still banned?!

Voz a0db
Voz a0db
Dec 30, 2020 2:27 PM
Reply to  Voz a0db

The next EVENT is already set in motion (and now they just need to update the script for the NEW TOOLS they deployed this wonderful year of 2020)… Seven and Seventeen!

comment image

And again a FAKE NEW “PNEUMONIA”!

Steve C
Steve C
Dec 31, 2020 11:24 AM
Reply to  Voz a0db

Time traveller give you that paper, did he?

Voz 0db
Voz 0db
Dec 31, 2020 1:24 PM
Reply to  Steve C

No… The same dudes that Planned OPERATION COVIDIUS have already this one (written in Oct 2017) in the desk for adjustments, since TODAY after the SUCCESS of still running OPERATION COVIDIUS they have a whole new set of TOOLS they couldn’t even imagine they could use back in 2017!

And these are from THE JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 8:30 PM
Reply to  Steve C

(They found an old roll of Kodachrome in the back of a drawer and thought they’d try it)

SallyBowles
SallyBowles
Dec 30, 2020 2:19 PM

Don’t assume just because you are exposing one of their frauds, that you are not a useful idiot still working towards the goals of the deep state, they have even captured their own opposition.

I can see now h0w the exposing of 9/11 as an ‘inside j0b’ and many of the other scams by the CIA will help in the creation of chaos and a revolutionary c0up against the USA’s flailing democracies, what little remains of it.

After-all Alex jones, as an operative of the CIA, has spend years exposing the crime of the CIA in great detail, with the Intent of discrediting, not the CIA, but the ‘liberal left’, whatever that is, and our democratic institutions.

Window
Window
Dec 30, 2020 2:14 PM

I can see now how the exposing of 9/11 as an ‘inside job’ and many of the other scams by the CIA will help in the creation of chaos and a revolutionary coup against the USA’s flailing democracies, what little remains of it.

After-all Alex jones, as an operative of the CIA, has spend years exposing the crime of the CIA in great detail, with the Intent of discrediting, not the CIA, but the ‘liberal left’, whatever that is, and our democratic institutions.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 2:09 PM

911 Pentagon Attack: Behind the Smoke Curtain — by Barbara Honegger

An excellent companion to Ryan Dawson’s 911 and War by Deception, cited by Mucho and Geoff earlier in the thread.

Neither Honegger nor Dawson dwells on the technicalities of the WTC demolitions. Instead they let the government convict itself by its own words, focusing on the inconsistencies in the official narrative.

Watt
Watt
Dec 31, 2020 4:11 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

Excellent presentation.

Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Jan 29, 2021 9:13 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

How was that daft woman ever employed in any kind of responsible job.

HoneyPotter
HoneyPotter
Dec 30, 2020 1:29 PM

spam check this

~Dr judy wood dot com

The buildings were not destroyed using any conventional means- they were turned to dust and this indicates some kind of energy weapon.

HoneyPotter
HoneyPotter
Dec 30, 2020 1:32 PM
Reply to  HoneyPotter

The fact that the masses have yet to figure this out does not bode well for the possibility of figuring out any of the other scams played on them. I’m sure they all know what a “virus” is, and understand how it causes disease!

dr death
dr death
Dec 30, 2020 9:43 PM
Reply to  HoneyPotter

another deranged distraction pedaled by puppets of the plutocrats…

thermite and explosives are quite sufficient and provable ,we don’t need alien space weapons and other such bunkum..
perhaps you are the gullible one here, lots of people have figured ‘it’ out, they just haven’t figured out what to do about ‘it’.

2fat2surf
2fat2surf
Dec 31, 2020 12:49 AM
Reply to  dr death

You are absolutely correct. Woods is another BS artist distracting the sheeple.

tony0pmoc
tony0pmoc
Dec 30, 2020 6:11 PM
Reply to  HoneyPotter

Dr. Judy Wood, and no one else, has managed to explain how such a Direct Energy Weapon could work. She is a total disinfo merchant. I will give you a simple example..How many buildings, or even entire cities have been destroyed, by shining laser beams at them, even from outer space, except in Star Wars movies? You need to have the explosive force very close to (preferably inside) the point of destruction or demolition.

Shining a light on it ain’t going to work. Sure lasers are used, and have been for years, for the targetting. Then the soldier presses the button, to physically deliver the explosive force, which might be a very powerful bomb, or a stream of bullets if its just one person you are trying to kill. Large buildings made of steel are somewhat harder to destroy. It’s even harder to melt cast iron.

The physics is not that hard to work out. Most schoolboys knew at the age of 7 in the 1950’s.

Tony

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 30, 2020 8:43 PM
Reply to  tony0pmoc

“Dr. Judy Wood, and no one else, has managed to explain how such a Direct Energy Weapon could work. She is a total disinfo merchant. I will give you a simple example..How many buildings, or even entire cities have been destroyed, by shining laser beams at them, even from outer space, except in Star Wars movies?”

Indeed, anyone who swallows Judy “Paid to Say Nonsense” Wood‘s crap doesn’t have much of an education. Even lasers disperse with distance (and dispersal means diffusion (of energy). “From space” usually means c. 200-400 miles up (I think the ISS was that distance, which is considered low Earth orbit), so, no laser or particle-beam on Earth could muster enough energy to vaporize a skyscraper “from space” or even a mile away… if the fuckers had THAT kind of tech, they wouldn’t need to fool us! They could just vaporize half the Great Wall in China and all nations on Earth would fall on their knees in obedient terror! There are lasers now powerful enough to disable incoming missiles at relatively close range but vaporizing an office building from 200-400 miles away? Maybe 100 years from now… ?

Nah: the only rational explanation is: controlled demolition using explosive charges… you know, like the late Danny Jowenko (suspiciously-dead Dutch demolition expert who Wikipedia prefers not to hot-link) said…

I guess it’s time to feed another video into the OffG Video Roulette machine… (it SHOULD be a vid called “Danny Jowenko Reaction”)

tony0pmoc
tony0pmoc
Dec 31, 2020 12:08 AM

Steven Augustine,

I am not particularly into destroying things either, and Thank God, I was never in a warzone, but would have been if I had been born a little bit earlier.

Both My Mum and Dad, and my older brothers and sisters were.

The Nazi’s, were Dropping Bombs on where My Family Lived in England

My Dad Got The Spitfires Back into The Air, and Fixed up The Spitfires and Hurricanes as best as he could, to shoot The Nazi Bombers Down…

They wouldn’t let him Fly…”He is more use of The Ground.”

So I was born, a few years later..but the Spirit still lived in me..when I saw this kid the same age as me fly a Polish Pirat – over Great Hucklow Ridge in Derbyshire where I was invited by people I worked with at ICL to Fly Model Gliders – I missed them, and went straight to the Real Derby & Lancashire Gliding Club ….and saw him land..

I thought I want to do that.

I didn’t want to kill anyone. I just wanted to pull more g.

https://glidingclub.org.uk/

Thanks for you reply.

It made me laugh..you stayed awake at the physics class school too.

I guess you are an American, but it doesn’t matter..

If you are fit, under 16 stone, don’t do any drugs, maybe a pint or two when you land…you should try gliding. You don’t have to join the club…you can just try it ..its hard to explain the thrill, but its different to riding a motorcycle,,you are in the air- like a bird, and the instructor will let you have a go at the controls and once you are in the air, you have no engine.

You fly like a Bird, when you go solo.

This guy taught me to fly..he says yes – you are ready now to go solo. He took me to the limit…and we still got back really low.

comment image

Tony

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:49 AM
Reply to  tony0pmoc

“I guess you are an American, but it doesn’t matter.”

(Post-American; Expat for 30 years)


“If you are fit, under 16 stone, don’t do any drugs, maybe a pint or two when you land…you should try gliding.”

(Oh fuck no, Tony! (utterly rational) Fear of heights, innit? Laugh)

Steven Augustine
Steven Augustine
Dec 31, 2020 10:50 AM

(erratum: 400km, not miles)

Steve C
Steve C
Dec 31, 2020 11:57 AM
Reply to  tony0pmoc

Although I do agree with you about the disinfo part, the new emerging physics to which most people even the hierophants (who after all stop learning & teaching new things pretty quickly after they get their degree/tenure, if they don’t want to end up like Eric Laithwaite) are unaware of, does allow many previously unexplainable and swept under the carpet phenomena to be explainable. If anyone is interested the field is called “nucleonics” and when we get mastery of it, it will make the advances that electronics made possible look like small potatoes. The tools that are used to directly manipulate the nuclear components to obtain the novel effects appear to be a combination of large voltage gradients and time variant em/fields, which neatly explains (To my way of thinking, I may well be wrong in this particular part, because I am theorising rather than recounting facts) why operating an illegal radio transmitter was such a BIG DEAL to the criminal justice system back when all radios used high voltage components and that enforcement notable reduced when all radio gear became transistorised and lost the high voltage component. Be warned, if you do start to look into nucleonics, the field is full of lies and disinformation and the few verifiable snippets of truth I have personally managed to wrangle from the mess, and verify by doing the practical experimention required to have taken a great deal of effort and following or ignoring “red herrings” to obtain. If people had generally kept and adhered to the concept of honesty more than they do we’d all have had our “flying cars” in the eighties/90’s. If you do the work and make any discoveries keep ’em to yourself, until you have a complete unassailable clot of undeniable truth to present to the world, because you WILL attract an unexpected level of opposition, and distraction when you try to publish. Many people have done good and real work and soon after publishing “the good stuff” inexplicably change direction or even like some notable players have done, discredit their own work! (And avoid wikipedia, they are unbelievably fast to remove some types of new information no matter how many people have tried to put it up). Good luck! New physics is an interesting hobby, until you try to take it outside of your home, or talk about it, or worst of all try and make money off it, then it becomes a pain in the proverbial at best, and fatal in some well documented cases, if you push it too far.

Antoniji
Antoniji
Dec 30, 2020 6:39 PM
Reply to  HoneyPotter

Yeah it’s called thermite….

Researcher
Researcher
Dec 30, 2020 7:07 PM
Reply to  Antoniji

Nanothermite within a foam explosive compound developed at Los ALAMOS National Labs for the DoE.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Dec 30, 2020 1:19 PM

As usual, cognitive dissonance is apparent in some of the comments below. Television and video “programming” obviously blurs critical distinctions between reality and virtual reality … .. .

Finding aerial shots or video footage of World Trade Center buildings 4 and 6 has become nearly impossible. There were once several critiques of buildings four and six’s “neglected” footage, but now next to impossible to find them. See this: >

What Caused the WTC 6 Crater?
by Christopher Bollyn
July 10, 2002
What Caused the WTC 6 Crater (whale.to)

Or: Making Israel Nervous: Exposing the REAL Perps Behind 9/11
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

“What about the mysterious 9/11 explosion at WTC 6 that sent building fragments over 500 feet into the air?”

Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at 6 World Trade Center. This unexplained blast at the Customs House has never been investigated or reported in the mainstream media.

What about WTC 4, that had billions of dollars of gold and silver bullion stored in the basement? See anything about buildings 4 and 6 on the NEWS? Nope.

Please review the complete page for more insight: http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2016/09/making-israel-nervous-exposing-real.html

Arby
Arby
Dec 30, 2020 7:03 PM

That’s a colorful website. I like the main cause espoused. I haven’t read anything yet. These days, I look for covid entries. When I see none, I’m suspicious. If you are silent on covid, then there’s a problem in my opinion.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 31, 2020 4:46 AM

Whoever was involved in 9/11 – and my own country of Australia certainly was – hardly a coincidence that Little Johnny had been granted front row seats in Washington to the greatest terror event the world has ever known by the Big Boys – it was all under the auspices of the US government. No doubt Israel played a big part but the massive focus on it is just distraction propaganda. The mountains and mountains of distraction propaganda pushed out is phenomenal. No one believes Mossad agents were caught on camera dancing in Brooklyn and had their white van stopped in a road block found to contain traces of explosive dust do they? No one believes that – I certainly did but I now realise how mind-controlled I was to believe such nonsense.

Story in mainstream media about Israeli spies – doesn’t really tally with Muslim terrorists does it? But the news doesn’t have to make sense at all.
https://perma.cc/RU6N-97G6

der einzige
der einzige
Dec 30, 2020 12:09 PM

Mossange: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

SEVEN

Andrew Byrt
Andrew Byrt
Dec 30, 2020 9:29 AM

Controlled demolition? How about controlled opposition. No reference to Dr Judy you know who which speaks volumes .Andrew Johnson`s Check the Evidence website reveals these gatekeepers for who they really are, notably producer Richard Gage.
By focussing on this line of enquiry we remain as mice in a maze. Real progress requires the ability to see the Wood for the trees……

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 10:02 AM
Reply to  Andrew Byrt

Talking about gatekeepers

You got some fucking dumb people on line maybe even brain damaged rather than brain washed and thats your internet hosts so called truthers (you notice a few people on this forum post there videos)

In 2020 Giuliani was repackaged as a man of truth and the alt right failed conspiracy theorists turned neo cons shills discussed him with honor 

isnt he Giuliani President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer ?

Drain the swamp by employing them.

Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson
Dec 30, 2020 10:33 AM
Reply to  Andrew Byrt

The only person who seems to be using a real name! Fits with what I wrote about in my 2 free 9/11 books:

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb
http://tinyurl.com/911htb

Thanks for mentioning me!

Andrew Byrt
Andrew Byrt
Dec 30, 2020 5:16 PM
Reply to  Andrew Johnson

Thanks Andrew .Fame at last! I`d have expected better than a 50/50 approval on here but hey. Keep up the good fight!

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 11:05 AM
Reply to  Andrew Byrt

Ultimately, real progress requires more than whether we see the wood or the trees.
Real progress requires a legal system which is not so corrupt that a video like this can be totally ignored by ‘the authorities’.

But it will be ignored.

Andrew Byrt
Andrew Byrt
Dec 30, 2020 11:23 AM
Reply to  wardropper

Im merely protecting my scintilla of hope but yes youre right unfortunately.

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 1:14 PM
Reply to  Andrew Byrt

I know. These are rough times for people of conscience.

steadydirt
steadydirt
Dec 30, 2020 7:01 PM
Reply to  wardropper

how could anyone imagine the legal ‘system’ alone would escape corrupt influence?

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Dec 30, 2020 1:24 PM
Reply to  Andrew Byrt

Judy Wood? Oh please.

HoneyPotter
HoneyPotter
Dec 30, 2020 1:30 PM

Go to reddit, they like that kind of arguing there, oh please.

Andrew Byrt
Andrew Byrt
Dec 30, 2020 1:44 PM

Elucidate away, Im all ears. Im Andrew Marr!

skizexq
skizexq
Dec 30, 2020 9:14 AM

Remember the BBC reporter saying that Bldg7 had just collapsed –yet the camera showed it was still standing in the background behind her…

janmarsh
janmarsh
Dec 30, 2020 12:27 PM
Reply to  skizexq

Reuters first announced the collapse …. BBC and other news outlets then ran with it.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 2:43 PM
Reply to  janmarsh

Like lemmings. A highly-paid reporter could not even look out of the window.

And if she didn’t know the layout of the richest city on Earth, and of Wall St and WTC where most reporters hung out, what was she doing reporting there?

Reuters, my old employer, is a Rothschild-connected front for corporate interests. I personally ran a campaign to restore Reuter’s own name: Israel Beer Josephat, an oil magnate who worked with Rothschild in Persia/Russia…

Why should he be discriminated against today? Give him back his name. Yet on Wikipedia, you won’t even read of his oil interests.

Just this cryptic line:

In 1872, Nasir al-Din Shah, the Shah of Iran, signed an agreement with Reuter, a concession selling him all railroads, canals, most of the mines, all the government’s forests, and all future industries of Iran. George Curzon called it “The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of”.

Strange, that.

Such a deal sounds strangely like an indebted and desperate government offering up all its assets in return for a loan of ready cash. Reuter/Josephat was not rich enough to lend such a sum.

Clearly he was fronting for somebody who could.

Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Dec 31, 2020 11:40 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

A question for you. In the BBC report did you know which building was WTC7, before someone put A BIG ARROW on the screen?

johny conspiranoid
johny conspiranoid
Dec 30, 2020 8:26 AM

That WT7 was brought down with a contrilled demolition using explosives on all the support members only tells you that it was done by somebody who knew how to do that. This cuts the list of suspects down to only a few million. Terrorists from Saudi Arabia could do that, and its not uncommon for terrorists to set up a secondary attack about 20 minutes after the first. The government might just be covering up their own incompitence in not detecting the secondary attack.

Reset the Diaboligarchy
Reset the Diaboligarchy
Dec 30, 2020 9:10 AM

Good try, son. Now go and ask your superior to enroll you in some spelling lessons!

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 6:02 PM

School report – Third Year 2020:

“Must try harder. Has worked well in class, but has astonishing lapses…”

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 8:21 PM
Reply to  wardropper

I was referring to Joaney, by the way, not you, Reset !

Jan J
Jan J
Dec 30, 2020 11:08 AM

You’re hysterically funny. Maybe it was the Bin Laden construction group that did it? 🤣

steadydirt
steadydirt
Dec 30, 2020 7:02 PM
Reply to  Jan J

usama bin covid

wardropper
wardropper
Dec 30, 2020 11:11 AM

Oh, right.
Just think, years and years of real, focused scientific investigation, all come to nothing because Dyslexic Joaney here had an idea last night just before he crashed into bed…

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Dec 30, 2020 6:53 PM

Yes I can see where you’re going with that. I suppose 100 beturbaned Bin Laden lookalikes in bomb vests could easily dupe the security on the door with their ID passes. It’s not like they’d stand out among the thousands of suited and booted staff of the world’s busiest western financial centre.

Ernest Judd
Ernest Judd
Dec 30, 2020 7:49 PM

A paragraph with a directed non sequitur. Since when did a building demolition equate an IED event? Or a U$A missile attack?

dr death
dr death
Dec 30, 2020 9:53 PM

the seventy sevens are struggling….

what educational horrors formed this mind.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 7:51 AM

“When you are outnumbered and outgunned, it’s true that you might lose but if you give up you are guaranteed to lose. So keep on fighting.”

Spiro Skouras’ interview with James Perloff, author and journalist, was deleted by YT in less than a day. Spiro was then banned for life from Twatter.

Perloff’s book, COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled, was taken down by Amazon.

Jeff “Bezos” owns Amazon and the Washington Post and is one of the biggest providers of cloud services to internet hosters and providers. “Bezos” (real name Jorgensen-Gise, with family links to DARPA) is profiting mightily from Event Covid. The conflict of interest is measured in $ tens of billions.

Watch here: Spiro Skouras with James Perloff, December 26, 2020

Fred Harris
Fred Harris
Dec 30, 2020 2:11 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

I agree when “they” start the bullying tactics like deplatforming and banning and trying all means to silence you.
As many say your over the target when all the flack is heading towards you.

The first respose is conspiracy theorist.

There is such huge backlash on anyone that does not agree with the “Elite” and their Agenda 2030.

skizexq
skizexq
Dec 30, 2020 7:28 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

James Perloff’s COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled can be purchased at Texe Marr’s Power of Prophecy website for 16.00.
it is below an interview with Dr. Carrie Madej:here https://www.texemarrs.com/

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 5:52 AM

Talking of new productions, The Guard has its 6uild 6ack 6etter version of Triumph of The Will.

With sterility and population reduction in the air, it’s inevitably a limp vision of the future, powerless and entirely lacking in will, vision or drive. It borrows heavily from the BBC Media Action’s EastEnders-type cultural programming of claustrophobia, fear, loathing and self hate.

We Begin Again: a musical for 2020 – is a short musical film [and not propaganda at all] a unifying song for the country to take stock of the extraordinary year gone by and reset for the year ahead.”

Written by the Olivier award winner James Graham and produced by the Guardian in partnership with the National Theatre.

“A multi-generational cast reflects on their lives and the impact 2020 has had on them, while a supporting company of 100 community members from the National Theatre’s Public Acts programme in Doncaster and London sings a hopeful chorus encouraging everyone to ‘begin again’. Filmed on location and remotely, this online musical is a clear product of these unique times”

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Dec 30, 2020 6:27 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

Some people will say, it’s just a song.

No! There are many artists’ voices rising up from the commons but this is not it. This is a production by an institution of the state, promoted by a rag that has revealed itself to be a one-way street for the intolerant voice of the state.

In Truro, Cornwall, a young woman, a dancer, volunteered to speak at a rally in defence of the arts and their positive effect on mental health. No sooner had she begun to speak than the 19-year-old was bundled into the back of a police van, then held for 24 hours in a cell with a CCTV camera pointing at the toilet.

She stands accused under the Serious Crime Act 2007. So she did not simply breach Covid regulations. She faces serious charges — but why?

Police allege she was an organizer of the Cornwall Freedom Rally, held in mid-November.

This is the State of which The Guard is a mouthpiece.

Hector
Hector
Dec 30, 2020 12:21 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

It was the coverage of this young woman’s arrest (on UK Column) that was the final nail in the coffin for me in terms of knowing the reality of the evil, totalitarian nature of the British state.

I hope in time she can get suitable compensation for her awful treatment.

HoneyPotter
HoneyPotter
Dec 30, 2020 1:41 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

It’s tragic/comic to hear the protester with hte camera trying the old “you’re human beings too”…

“human”: one of the most meaningless of our time.

dr death
dr death
Dec 30, 2020 10:09 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

the news anchor…..a one eyed protoplasmic vaganus in a rainbow coloured bucket bubbling bbc news at 666 through it’s beak on your 90 inch flacid panel.

true equality.

HoneyPotter
HoneyPotter
Dec 31, 2020 8:55 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

I am outraged that the cast is “multi-generational” but not “diverse”.
I think a letter of complaint is in order.

Voxy Pop
Voxy Pop
Dec 30, 2020 4:46 AM

https://worldchangebrief.webnode.com

Jan6 DC Election Showdown.Pence’s Powerplay/
Greenwald: Classic Fascism Looms Under Biden-Corps & State Merge/
ATT Now NSA/
IRS Targets Remaining Small Businesses/
BLM Donors Cry Missing $/
1.5B Masks Will Pollute Oceans/
2nd Passports Skyrocket

Serf
Serf
Dec 30, 2020 2:30 AM

Today, in the news, Washington is selling 3000 bombs worth $290 million to the Saudi regime.

Where are the sanctions against the US, and the UK, for State Sponsorship of Terrorism by continuing to sell arms to Saudi Arabia?

Voxy Pop
Voxy Pop
Dec 30, 2020 4:47 AM
Reply to  Serf

everyone is gearing up for war

Galahad
Galahad
Dec 30, 2020 5:10 AM
Reply to  Serf

More to the point, how many billions is the US giving to Israel?

Serf
Serf
Dec 30, 2020 9:17 AM
Reply to  Galahad

Right, in the latest spending bill which has just passed the US congress:

“$3.3 billion .. shall be available for grants only for Israel,” and must be disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act”

Very. Generous. Overt. State. Sponsored. Terrorism!

Asylum
Asylum
Dec 30, 2020 9:53 AM
Reply to  Serf

it more than that and then works it out per person living there and your see it works out quite a lot per head ..

How much did USA taxpayers get during the last 8 months.?

ttshasta
ttshasta
Dec 30, 2020 2:39 PM
Reply to  Serf

Only $3.3B, they must be very angry!
Only 3.3 to buy weapons from the companies that fund and kickback to their congressional shareholders who passed the bill.
A pittance.

DM:
DM:
Dec 30, 2020 6:33 PM
Reply to  Serf

This money is paid up-front. In former times, the interest on this was then used as kick-back to US politicians. What happens these days? Is there still a way to get interest paid on 3.3B?

Davem
Davem
Dec 30, 2020 2:13 AM

Covered in a YouTube 4hour movie of Russian scientist explaining about using nuclear explosions to bring the towers down.

Serf
Serf
Dec 30, 2020 3:24 AM
Reply to  Davem

You see, the Russians did it!!!

mgeo
mgeo
Dec 30, 2020 12:35 PM
Reply to  Davem

Radioactive isotopes were found onsite. As of 2011, 345 NYC fire-fighters who worked at the WTC disaster site had died of cancer, and thousands of others were sick or dying. NYC government settled lawsuits for medical care or compensation by ~10,000 people, of whom over 600 had cancer. But the “truther” caravan goes on about controlled demolition, nano-thermite, energy weapons, etc.

Howard
Howard
Dec 30, 2020 1:21 PM
Reply to  mgeo

Perhaps there were enough cancer causing elements in the Towers – as there are in all buildings – to account for thousands of deaths. I’m quite sure if your neighbor’s dog house got pulverized, at least one cancer death in your neighborhood would occur as a result.

Maybe it was a nuke; maybe the “truthers” are allowed to continue “truthing” because they offer a plausible alternative which the state finds acceptable – and a hundred other “maybes.” Or maybe September Clues has it right that it was all a digital psyop.

For now, though, the important thing is to completely discredit the “official” narrative – which will then open the door to further speculation. And controlled demolition provides the best chance to accomplish this.

steadydirt
steadydirt
Dec 30, 2020 7:08 PM
Reply to  Howard

i believe i read the buildings were earlier condemned as they contained asbestos. [=cancer to inhale]
the double insurance paid double.
two birds one stone.
highly convenient and very profitable

Antoniji
Antoniji
Dec 30, 2020 6:47 PM
Reply to  mgeo

What isotopes? Do you have any further info? (genuinely interested not being cynical)

skizexq
skizexq
Dec 30, 2020 7:42 PM
Reply to  Antoniji

See Dr. Judy Wood’s website and book ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11’
Directed Energy is also suspect in addition to mini nukes in the basements, the odd flash burns on dozens of cars nearby (some where the front burned but the back didn’t) makes one wonder how that could occur, as well as surgical holes in building 6.
https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/toasted-cars/

Voz a0db
Voz a0db
Dec 30, 2020 2:33 PM
Reply to  Davem

That is a technique almost as old as the nukes themselves. Both Russia and the USofT used nukes for many applications!

A GOOD NUKE (and doesn’t even need to be very powerful) can even create a TSUNAMI!

Japan knows this like no other nation on the Planet!

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Dec 30, 2020 1:42 AM

I don’t believe- nor ever have- that any professors, scientists or endless other experts were, or are needed to determine whether the official Fairy Tale of New York( the fate of Building 7) is even close to believable.

I examined it with a glass of orange within my grasp and a good , clear hi def monitor.

I approached with the idea that by process of elimination we would eventually arrive at the truth. So the first lie to be eliminated was placed into the dock for cross examination.

My Hypothesis :

Building 7 did not fall due to a fire.

Method :

I counted the floors and examined the building’s material construction. Then I looked at it fall.

 The collapse happened several hours after the fall of the Twin Towers. In all, 47 storeys dropped to the ground in around 5 seconds. No bricks, concrete or glass was observed to blow outward, as would be the case if there was one or more explosions within the building, a scenario that would indicate the possibility of an attack carried out by a terrorist entity.

Conclusions :

That the building collapsed into it’s own footprint within seconds, and without any outside foreign body making contact with it, or any evidence of explosions within, suggests that it could only have been brought down by a carefully rigged, well executed, controlled demolition.

Further studies in this area would benefit from closer observation of the obvious. For instance, if you want to determine if a fire is occurring in a large building you are looking at, Keep it simple.

Question : Are there flames on more than one floor ?

If the answer is no, it can safely be assumed that there is no fire.

Thom1111
Thom1111
Dec 30, 2020 6:02 AM
Reply to  JuraCalling

“We pulled it” – Silverstein

JuraCalling
JuraCalling
Dec 30, 2020 2:27 PM
Reply to  Thom1111

exactly