A LOT of people have woken up to the truth that the Towers were mostly turned to dust before hitting the ground on September 11, 2001.
They have also realised that they should count past three and that the 9/11 orphans, WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 as well as the anomaly with the Bankers Trust building, blows the distraction narratives of jet fuel, explosives, thermite or nukes out of the water...
So, now what?
What to do with this information that has rocked your world?
Love it when people are open-minded enough to challenge themselves when faced with new worldview changing information. I've subbed to your Odysee channel and will keep an eye out for your uploads / shares.
Please also visit my Odysee channel, as I've set it up as a learning hub, under various playlists there is a massive amount of videos (over 400) discussing the various talking points around the 9/11 event as well as the exposing of the so called "truther" talking heads, along with the architects for an engineered truth.
Great to hear what your journey has been like - I myself do have a nice "argument" with my father who's a recently retired GP of 50 years on all the various germ / terrain theory arguments, lol...
I've also made a highlights reel of all my interactions with these so called "truthers" over the last 12 months, which shows you how they cannot answer easy questions: The Greatest Hits on “9/11 truther talking heads” being Demolished. - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/The-greatest-hits-Sept-11-2023:f
And the last video explains how Dr Wood's work has been censored by the truth movement and any mention of her on Wikipedia is impossible, as she is blacklisted on the platform...
If you haven't yet, do see if you can get a hold of her book, as there are massive amounts of additional evidence discussed that does not make it into videos...
This is a YT channel run by an ex-Gage employee that left once he saw that the architects for an engineered truth is diverting away from Dr Wood's work...
The book is a lot better than a pdf and Dr Wood sells the book at cost and also subsidises the postage - so, she's not making money off the sales. She wants the truth to be known...
This is Richard Gage, formerly with AE911Truth and also involved with the "International Center for 9/11 Justice" - Having a discussion on Sept 5, 2023;
Richard as well as his lawyer DENIES in this zoom meeting that they know about a Federal Qui-Tam (whistleblower) case, filed (2007) in which the 23 NIST subcontractors were accused of science fraud.
BUT, as you will see in these 3 clips, in June 2023 & in 2011 he was asked about the Federal Qui-Tam (whistleblower) case, filed (2007) and he CONFIRMS knowing about it.
The question asked:
Thank you for being able to ask a COVID & 9/11 related question
This is for Richard especially, but Mike’s feedback, as a lawyer, would be appreciated…
With regards to court cases against NIST, I have done some reading and I have found that there were several cases filed against NIST and especially the 23 subcontractors who NIST tasked with drawing up reports that made up the 10 000-page NIST report over the last couple of years.
Here we have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.
Their language was “up to the initiation of collapse.” That is science fraud. Any lawyer worth his salt should know that.
To get to my question:
2 Cases were filed by TWO professors in 2007 against these 23 subcontractors for SCIENCE FRAUD and ONE of these cases was filed as high up as the US Supreme court in 2009.
So, my question is, why have you been keeping MUM about these cases and the EVIDENCE presented, for the last 14 years and why is Richard Gage, AE911Truth AND the International Center for 911 Justice not talking about these cases, seeing it demolishes your THEORIES on explosives and Thermite?
Lastly. Richard, why are you trying so hard to keep yourself and the rest of your soldiers relevant in the so called “truther” movement, seeing you’ve been showed to be a disinformation agent like Fauci and the NIH?
You seem to be the COVID virus of the 9/11 truth.
Andrew lays out beautifully in his two books, how the various levels of the controlled opposition has been set up to fool people.
I was heading North on Gen. Jim Moore Road going to work at Fritzsche Airfield that morning when the second aircraft struck . . . My first thought was . . . 'here we go, it's going to be another Vietnam' . . . then, I found myself in Afghanistan with all the British opium poppies. Yes, I said British opium poppies . . . The Opium Wars . . .
Three ingredients for warfare are required: 1. personnel, 2. explosives, and 3. opium.
Sodom Hussein Obama's mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski was the monster in the Carter administration who armed and financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets . . . after the Mujahedeen were armed with sophisticated weapons, the Soviets left, the result was the USA got 911.
Fuck you and die, you stupid cunt, that is all there was to it, 9-11 was blowback from our own CIA operations . . .
Hi Petra, was it the work of the Clues Forum that helped you understand the hoax with no real victims?
Personally, this has been my case since 2018, but some people have told me that they understood from the very first days.
Incidentally, I'm French and our former Prime Minister "Manuel Valls" replied in 2008 to a question about 9/11: "ah they're the same ones who deny the Shoah, who deny 9/11". The two young people who asked the question were incensed by this reply: "No, we just doubt the official account".
No one was denying the reality of the victims, even less so in 2008 in France. So Manuel Valls knew...
But having said that, on the subject of the Shoah, I've already heard more than once: "ah this person denies the concentration camps".
But no serious revisionist has ever disputed the reality of the German camps.
Yes it was Simon Shack and I think Fakeologist who I thought were one and the same person.
However, it still took me two years to come round to total staged death and injury because some of the propaganda targeted to the truthers, eg, Bob McIlvaine, April Gallop and the video by Jeremy Rys saying that people were targeted in the towers kept me persuaded of some deaths at least. Of course, we cannot be sure no one died or was injured but there's certainly no clear evidence of it. Perhaps it's there but I didn't see it, however, I think Simon should have made more of injury being faked too not just deaths. Sometimes I wonder about him I have to say. I somehow feel he should have made the case clearer ... but then I think I've made the case as clear as anything but still there's huge resistance.
And yes I'm not persuaded that the concentration camps weren't real although obviously a lot of lies have been told relating to WWII notably Pearl Harbour and the fake nuclear bombing of Japan although not totally fake of course - firebombed rather than nuclear-bombed.
I assume you're familiar with the 9/11 work of French comedian, Jean-Louis Bigard. Love this video!
When I stumbled across CluesForum in April 2018, it didn't take me more than a month to be certain of their conclusions about 9/11. But those were days when I spent several hours in a row studying the various details.
I was certain that the official story had been false since late 2013/2014 and I was aware of the fake shootings from the same period. At the same time, I suspected that the attacks in France were staged, but I still had this doubt (and thanks to CF, I was finally able to dispel my doubts). Nobody or almost nobody talks about it in France in this way (and even still today) hence the motivation to create a blog on it at the end of July 2018.
I had already spent years thinking about the "no death" aspect, only to be quickly convinced when I finally discovered CF.
It's true that now that I'm reading your articles on the alleged casualties of 9/11, I don't remember having read certain specific details about the CF but to be verified. That said, when you look at the big picture, it's still really impressive, and Simon couldn't have done it alone without the help of other members.
Speaking of Pearl Habor and WW2, have you read the Lestrade articles published on Mathis' site?
Yes, I saw JM Bigard's video series on 9/11 at the time. Good work. Unsurprisingly he got in trouble for his shows. He didn't press the issue publicly. More recently, following the coronacircus, he denounced the measures and videographers have since been regularly amused by excerpts in which he says : "COMPLOTIST! HUH! CONSPIRACY THEORY, BURNED AT THE STAKE".
I haven't read the Lestrade articles but just took a look - OMG he suggests the Japanese attack on Darwin attack in 1942 was also faked (I'm Australian and I think that's the only attack we've ever (supposedly) experienced). It never ends. He's also known as Unpopular Opinion so I'm guessing his videos I have on the fakery of atomic bombs on my page are from him too. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
Just after I posted the link to you of Bigard I looked him up and watched the original interview used in the Khaled Freak video you posted. When Deborah says to him, "Vous avez une rage incroyable," I'm like, "Yep, why shouldn't he? That's the way I feel, too." What about Francois Cluzet ranting about him - can't understand it very well but what I can work out is that he's a complete idiot.
Lestrade, I mostly read the first 7 parts in their entirety, then the following ones sporadically while waiting for the big, well-known battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The part on the arrangements between Japan and the West from the time Emperor Meji came to power is probably the most important to read in advance.
I'm a bit angry about Pearl Harbor, because I should have thought of it as a total fraud with no victims. Especially since September 11 was referred to as "the new Pearl Harbor".
But I hadn't given it a second thought, sticking to the classic alternative story of "we knew in advance, we let it happen".
François Cluzet is one of those people who, during the coronacircus, left no doubt that they were collaborators of the media system. You should have seen him during the election of President Macron's second term.
Here, he's in full accusatory inversion, at the end of the video, he says: "yes, the conspiracists are collabos, they put us in a constant mood of doubt, look at the anti-vaccinationists, they're almost putting on shows with anti-Semites, they're calling into question the New York attacks, it's not possible, after all, there were 3,000 dead anyway (he says like Manuels Valls in 2008 and with a big perverse smile), there's a kind of colloboration of a country at peace, we start to doubt".
The commenters on the video aren't buying him that's for sure! One said they'd never go see him in a film again. He's been in some good films though. I wanted to see Le Dernier pour la route but didn't get round to it. I'd still see it though even if he's an idiot.
Do they show French films in Australia? With subtitles?
If not, you mentioned "Ole Dammegard" in your articles. I have the impression that he sells the attacks as real, but from what I understand the interest of his work lies in the fact that he demonstrates that he can predict future attacks by taking information from the previous one.
But how does this work? Could I have a brief summary? I can't find a clear presentation on his site, and there are only videos. As I don't speak perfect English, it's quite complicated for me.
There are so many things wrong above I almost don't know where to start... but let's start with what you claim is a "large anomaly" - "A very large anomaly that applies to the testimonies as a whole is that no reference is made in any of the 118 oral histories to the alleged deaths of the firefighters’ 343 fellow firefighters."
The first responders were asked to talk about WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. You need to realize, on that day, during those first few hours, no one knew who was dead or alive unless they saw the person dead or alive themselves. People could have been trapped somewhere in that 16-acres of debris, and the day ended with EVERYONE hoping that lots of them were. On the day of 9/11, no one knew WHO lived and who died. They're only testifying to what they personally saw on that day.
Also, I'd bet my next paycheck that you're only looking at the 118 "explosion testimonies" pdf that MacQueen (sp?) was able to scrape together... you do realize that his pdf only contains the little part of the full testimony that had any references to explosions... and that if you want to read the full testimonies (which mention dead colleagues PLENTY), you have to go to the New York Times website...?
...and then you say it's suspicious that they're transcripts of audio and not the audio. How about you file a FOIA (same way we got the transcripts) and demand the audio? Transcripts only at this time is proof of absolutely nothing.
WRONG: The front of tower 1 was on West Street and there was indeed a curved driveway under a canopy over it. This can be seen in every single picture of the bottom of the north tower's west side.
Oh and this: "That all the people coming down were very calm and would yell that burn victims were coming down seems to lack credibility.". Most of the people in the towers were calm and not panicking because they had them do fire drills all the time, and if they knew anything about what was going on outside, they thought a small Cessna had hit the north tower. Calm people evacuating a building they thought had only a minor problem, way up, is more than perfectly reasonable and YES - the evacuating people were helping burned and injured people down while firemen were on the way up. Another perfectly reasonable point that you've "detected" is "off"...
You make so many assumptions about things you cannot know - like the best route for a fire truck to have taken from midtown down to the towers... how on EARTH to you think you can look at Googlemaps and decide which streets the fire truck should have taken? Have you ever driven the route in a firetruck in an emergency? How can you even begin to think you know better than the guys on the ground, who travel the area and know all the school zones, traffic patterns, and routes to avoid? You also do this with the CRFD abbreviation. You look it up, it brings you to Cedar Rapids Fire Dept. and you assume that this is something suspicious? As if you know what abbreviations the fire department, or maybe just his particular house, use for some term?
As for the victims - there are plenty of pictures and video of injured people receiving medical care, and burned people, and all manner of blood and injuries. I imagine you looked into this about as deeply as you did the canopy on the entrance of WTC 1.
Last thing - the entire front of the World Financial Center across the street was very reflective, and it's absolutely plausible for someone on the ground floor of the towers to look at them and see the fireball at the top of tower 2 reflected... mirrors do work that way.
There's more, but I've wasted way too much time already.
OK "detective"... I'll let you get back to your "work" now...
1. No reference to deaths of firefighter colleagues
You say: "... could have been trapped somewhere", however, we have no clear evidence of this. "COULD this or that" is pure speculation and is utterly lame without support and you have none. So what can be said about no reference to colleagues' deaths is that the absence is completely consistent with fakery. Obviously, if they referred to deaths convincingly then the claim "there is no reference to firefighter colleagues' deaths" could not be made. It is significant that the claim can be made without any evidence to say, "Hey, no we have a convincing testimony here of the deaths of firefighters."
2. Testimonies in general: If you have any convincing evidence in any testimony anywhere, please provide it. You need to recognise that in the first instance the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE INITIAL CLAIMANT, not on the person saying the claim doesn't stand up. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE PROOF OF THE CLAIM.
This link takes you to ALL firefighters, EMS and audio dispatch tapes. If you find anything particularly convincing let me know.
3. FOIA for audio. There again BURDEN OF PROOF. If there were audio that sounded convincing that would act as evidence supporting the claim, wouldn't it? However, there isn't any and we have to wonder why not. Transcripts are based on recordings no? So why aren't there any. I don't need to have the audio to make my claim, all I need to say is the AUDIO IS LACKING and that supports the claim of fakery because we'd expect it. If you want to support the clear evidence of death and injury then it's YOU who needs the audio, not me. Why don't you do the FOIA?
4. Routes: I make no assumptions. It is easy to look at googlemaps and work out better routes than others when the difference is incredibly obvious such as travelling over to the west side to travel to the southern tip from a fire station on the upper east side. Of course, there may be reasons to take a longer route, however, in that situation if you're going to bother explaining the route you took, you'd explain why you took the longer route.
5. North Tower, canopy and cul-de-sac.
The FRONT entrance was on the plaza - no canopy and no cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac is not a curved driveway it is "a street or passage closed at one end" and there was no cul-de-sac anywhere. I will reword my answer to account for the canopy on West St.
6. Photos of injured people
Sure there are PURPORTED images but all of them fit "drill" injured, none of them show the serious injuries and maiming we'd expect from the destructions of 110-storey buildings.
7. CRFD - " ... chest pains and difficulty breathing. Being an engine company, we went in there to see if there was any CRFD work we could do on the members."
If anyone can tell me what CRFD means in relation to the context go ahead. Until then my assumption stands. I've been in discussion with an FDNY person who picked up a few things that I thought were anomalies that I've since removed. He didn't mention that one though. This is our discussion if you're interested. I've also just added an analysis of his friend's testimony to my post.
What you need to understand is BURDEN OF PROOF. The burden of proof is on those who wish to defend the narrative of 3,000 dead, 6,000 injured and the various survivor stories. All I have to do is say I don't see clear evidence of the claims - in fact, I see undermining of them ... and I've done that. I've done my job ... now you do yours. It's a mistake to think that the narrative has some kind of default status. The narrative has no more status than its refutation when immediately problems can be seen in it.
Just to add: there are about 200 hours of audio recordings for the Apollo 11 mission which I believe are authentic from listening to a few minutes here and there. People who don't believe the moon landings challenge me asking if I've listened to all of them. No of course I haven't! But I don't need to. They're there for anyone to find anything wrong with them - in this case the BURDEN OF PROOF is on them. In the case of the firefighter transcripts I've found problems that completely undermine their authenticity - it's up to anyone else now to find anything that proves their authenticity anywhere.
There is something you want to see, and you're twisting yourself into a knot to see it. I wish you were right and no one died on 9/11 but you are so far off the mark in impossible la la land that you may never land.
I suspect you're new to all this, and very young? You do seem sincere, and that's a great start. Anyway, good luck in your further learning :)
No I'm not young and I've been studying 9/11 since 2014. It took four years of dedicated study to wake up to the fakery of death and injury so I've been where you are ... and for 13 years before that I didn't question it being a terrorist attack although I instinctively knew manipulation was involved and I deliberately paid little attention to it.
What I learnt from 9/11 is:
IN PSYOPS THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT FOR REAL AND FAKE THE REST ... which only makes the most perfect sense, doesn't it? They much prefer to dupe us into believing things rather than doing them for real. If they do them for real where's the psyoppery? There isn't any. They want to control our minds more than anything so if they do something for real, they lose the mind control element.
This was a huge learning and when I realised that 9/11 was fake I went on to look at Pearl Harbour, the 1980 Bologna Station bombing and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks and realised that they were all completely faked not "false flags" as such. Much later I also realised that JFK was another faked "false flag".
It's not just about recognising the fakery of 9/11, it's understanding how in their big psyops they target both the believers and the disbelievers: there's one stream for the 90% believers and another (generally broken into conflicting substreams) for the 10%.
Another thing I realised is that the perps are scrupulous in NEVER putting forward any fakery that's actually convincing. They always undermine their narrative, they always let you know Revelation of the Method style.
So if you've got anything that favours real over fake for death and injury please let m know. I guarantee you won't find it ... because I've argued my case endlessly for getting on six years now and no one has provided it.
Yes, but you do get that death and injury were staged on 9/11, right? And that that is its best kept secret ... although, of course, Revelation-of-the-Method style they TELL us it was staged and the nonsensicalities in the firefighter testimonies is just one of the many ways they tell us.
The thing is they have EVERYONE under mind control - believers and disbelievers alike. Those who recognise the lie of 9/11 are generally reluctant to accept that death and injury were staged ... just as the propagandists knew would happen.
9/11 was two stories: one for the anticipated believers and one for the anticipated disbelievers.
So she's just spinning nonsense about cars and bombs ... for people like you (and me until I woke up to the secondary story fabricated just for us). Oh my goodness.
Have you read my articles or are you just putting your comments? Please don't do that. I mean I do it myself ... but that's because I know the article has got it wrong so I don't bother reading it all.
Did you read the oral histories from the firefighters? They make no sense and they do not make a single mention of the 343 firefighters who allegedly died on 9/11 - not a single one, nor are there any recordings - transcripts but no recordings - why not? So you see how they TELL us they didn't kill people on the day ... and that is of course what we might expect because they had to involve an awful lot of people and killing and injuring for real wasn't really going to work.
If you cannot get that death and injury were staged and that propaganda was created just for the anticipated disbelievers to encourage them to maintain belief in this lie then you are lacking a fundamental comprehension of the event.
Each fireman had a small electronic device that was set to countdown and activate an alarm, if not reset by the fireman. The fact that only a relatively small group of firemen were ever found in the wreckage should be of great interest to anyone who has begun to realize that the destructive forces that were responsible for the disappearance of over 80% of the mass of the two towers. Along with this disappearance went a few hundred bodies of the rescue teams that were inside the towers and on the streets. Interestingly, although the firemen that were engaged in operations along the streets at the time of the destruction intervals, were either fully disintegrated, or partially shredded and mostly disintegrated, their electronic devices were excluded from the material-specific calibration of the disintegrated forces. Video: https://youtu.be/W-uKAjuJE_Q
You have also not listened to the 9/11 surfer's testimony, or read his book of the people he lost in stairway B of the north tower and how he survived his fall from the 22nd floor landing in the north Tower: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Pasq-LONG:9
You've obviously also not followed my substack series on the anomalies of the Sept 11, 2001 events.
Judy Wood is a controlled opposition agent and I certainly wouldn't waste a second reading her nonsense.
Go to the horses' mouths or at least the alleged horses' mouths. We have the alleged transcriptions from the firefighters themselves and they (or rather the intelligence agents writing the nonsense) give us "oral" histories that make no sense ... and Cynthia McFadden outside both the Bellevue Hospital and the trauma centre set up in West Manhattan tells us LOUD AND CLEAR - no injured, no dead, OK? They TELL us and tell us and tell us and tell us and you're telling me to read Judy Wood?
The images of the injured are clearly fake and the miracle survivor stories have zero credibility. I could go on and on and on and on ... but would it get through?
All the evidence clearly shows that death and injury were staged and they used a False Dilemma propaganda strategy. It looks like the propagandists have you hook, line and sinker. That's unfortunate.
Much of a detective you are if you don't want to look at all the evidence, so you'd rather just outsource your thinking to some "truther" talking heads that are bamboozling you? Why are you so scared of what this book contains?
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives, door no 2 – thermite, door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to. https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
9/11 The Plane / No Plane debate settled.
Most probably the best distraction of WHAT happened on September 11, 2001
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-the-plane-no-plane-argument
A LOT of people have woken up to the truth that the Towers were mostly turned to dust before hitting the ground on September 11, 2001.
They have also realised that they should count past three and that the 9/11 orphans, WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 as well as the anomaly with the Bankers Trust building, blows the distraction narratives of jet fuel, explosives, thermite or nukes out of the water...
So, now what?
What to do with this information that has rocked your world?
Read: https://911revision.substack.com/p/ive-woken-up-to-dustification-on
400+ video's organised under various playlists covering all the talking points regarding 9/11
Link: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7
It's set up as a learning hub for someone like you...
Highly recommended watching;
1. 2012 Presentation: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/911---Dr.-Judy-Wood-Evidence-of-Breakthrough-Energy-on-911-B---full-2h-seminar:4
2. 9/11 Observable Evidence series: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/9-11-Deprogramming-series:6
3. 9/11 Alchemy Series: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/9-11-Alchemy-Series:d
4. 9/11 & Muddling up the search for truth: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/9-11-Gatekeepers:a
You're welcome...
Thanx - You're a breath of fresh air, lol.
Love it when people are open-minded enough to challenge themselves when faced with new worldview changing information. I've subbed to your Odysee channel and will keep an eye out for your uploads / shares.
Please also visit my Odysee channel, as I've set it up as a learning hub, under various playlists there is a massive amount of videos (over 400) discussing the various talking points around the 9/11 event as well as the exposing of the so called "truther" talking heads, along with the architects for an engineered truth.
Odysee channel: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7
You'll find links to my other socials here: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7?view=about
Great to hear what your journey has been like - I myself do have a nice "argument" with my father who's a recently retired GP of 50 years on all the various germ / terrain theory arguments, lol...
You should find this entertaining: Getting a physics instructor, David Chandler very uncomfortable during an interview with Richard Gage - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/David-Chandler-very-uncomfortable:5
I've also made a highlights reel of all my interactions with these so called "truthers" over the last 12 months, which shows you how they cannot answer easy questions: The Greatest Hits on “9/11 truther talking heads” being Demolished. - https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/The-greatest-hits-Sept-11-2023:f
And the last video explains how Dr Wood's work has been censored by the truth movement and any mention of her on Wikipedia is impossible, as she is blacklisted on the platform...
Link: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/6.-QuiTam-and-Censorship:f
If you haven't yet, do see if you can get a hold of her book, as there are massive amounts of additional evidence discussed that does not make it into videos...
This is a YT channel run by an ex-Gage employee that left once he saw that the architects for an engineered truth is diverting away from Dr Wood's work...
Link: https://www.youtube.com/@realityAXIS
LOL - We'll get along well, pity I'm in Africa.
The book is a lot better than a pdf and Dr Wood sells the book at cost and also subsidises the postage - so, she's not making money off the sales. She wants the truth to be known...
As for Gage - This will make you chuckle when you see his face droop as the question was read out to him: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/4.-LIAR-Gage-in-2023-vs-2011---2nd-Edit:b
What does it take for you to distrust someone?
Thought experiment:
This is Richard Gage, formerly with AE911Truth and also involved with the "International Center for 9/11 Justice" - Having a discussion on Sept 5, 2023;
Richard as well as his lawyer DENIES in this zoom meeting that they know about a Federal Qui-Tam (whistleblower) case, filed (2007) in which the 23 NIST subcontractors were accused of science fraud.
BUT, as you will see in these 3 clips, in June 2023 & in 2011 he was asked about the Federal Qui-Tam (whistleblower) case, filed (2007) and he CONFIRMS knowing about it.
The question asked:
Thank you for being able to ask a COVID & 9/11 related question
This is for Richard especially, but Mike’s feedback, as a lawyer, would be appreciated…
With regards to court cases against NIST, I have done some reading and I have found that there were several cases filed against NIST and especially the 23 subcontractors who NIST tasked with drawing up reports that made up the 10 000-page NIST report over the last couple of years.
Here we have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.
Their language was “up to the initiation of collapse.” That is science fraud. Any lawyer worth his salt should know that.
To get to my question:
2 Cases were filed by TWO professors in 2007 against these 23 subcontractors for SCIENCE FRAUD and ONE of these cases was filed as high up as the US Supreme court in 2009.
So, my question is, why have you been keeping MUM about these cases and the EVIDENCE presented, for the last 14 years and why is Richard Gage, AE911Truth AND the International Center for 911 Justice not talking about these cases, seeing it demolishes your THEORIES on explosives and Thermite?
Lastly. Richard, why are you trying so hard to keep yourself and the rest of your soldiers relevant in the so called “truther” movement, seeing you’ve been showed to be a disinformation agent like Fauci and the NIH?
You seem to be the COVID virus of the 9/11 truth.
Andrew lays out beautifully in his two books, how the various levels of the controlled opposition has been set up to fool people.
I was heading North on Gen. Jim Moore Road going to work at Fritzsche Airfield that morning when the second aircraft struck . . . My first thought was . . . 'here we go, it's going to be another Vietnam' . . . then, I found myself in Afghanistan with all the British opium poppies. Yes, I said British opium poppies . . . The Opium Wars . . .
Three ingredients for warfare are required: 1. personnel, 2. explosives, and 3. opium.
Sodom Hussein Obama's mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski was the monster in the Carter administration who armed and financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets . . . after the Mujahedeen were armed with sophisticated weapons, the Soviets left, the result was the USA got 911.
Fuck you and die, you stupid cunt, that is all there was to it, 9-11 was blowback from our own CIA operations . . .
British opium poppies?! I'm sure that's true... but how did you know?
Where did your Odysee channel go? I cannot find it?
Hi Petra, was it the work of the Clues Forum that helped you understand the hoax with no real victims?
Personally, this has been my case since 2018, but some people have told me that they understood from the very first days.
Incidentally, I'm French and our former Prime Minister "Manuel Valls" replied in 2008 to a question about 9/11: "ah they're the same ones who deny the Shoah, who deny 9/11". The two young people who asked the question were incensed by this reply: "No, we just doubt the official account".
No one was denying the reality of the victims, even less so in 2008 in France. So Manuel Valls knew...
But having said that, on the subject of the Shoah, I've already heard more than once: "ah this person denies the concentration camps".
But no serious revisionist has ever disputed the reality of the German camps.
Yes it was Simon Shack and I think Fakeologist who I thought were one and the same person.
However, it still took me two years to come round to total staged death and injury because some of the propaganda targeted to the truthers, eg, Bob McIlvaine, April Gallop and the video by Jeremy Rys saying that people were targeted in the towers kept me persuaded of some deaths at least. Of course, we cannot be sure no one died or was injured but there's certainly no clear evidence of it. Perhaps it's there but I didn't see it, however, I think Simon should have made more of injury being faked too not just deaths. Sometimes I wonder about him I have to say. I somehow feel he should have made the case clearer ... but then I think I've made the case as clear as anything but still there's huge resistance.
And yes I'm not persuaded that the concentration camps weren't real although obviously a lot of lies have been told relating to WWII notably Pearl Harbour and the fake nuclear bombing of Japan although not totally fake of course - firebombed rather than nuclear-bombed.
I assume you're familiar with the 9/11 work of French comedian, Jean-Louis Bigard. Love this video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzAzYR-6NiI
When I stumbled across CluesForum in April 2018, it didn't take me more than a month to be certain of their conclusions about 9/11. But those were days when I spent several hours in a row studying the various details.
I was certain that the official story had been false since late 2013/2014 and I was aware of the fake shootings from the same period. At the same time, I suspected that the attacks in France were staged, but I still had this doubt (and thanks to CF, I was finally able to dispel my doubts). Nobody or almost nobody talks about it in France in this way (and even still today) hence the motivation to create a blog on it at the end of July 2018.
I had already spent years thinking about the "no death" aspect, only to be quickly convinced when I finally discovered CF.
It's true that now that I'm reading your articles on the alleged casualties of 9/11, I don't remember having read certain specific details about the CF but to be verified. That said, when you look at the big picture, it's still really impressive, and Simon couldn't have done it alone without the help of other members.
Speaking of Pearl Habor and WW2, have you read the Lestrade articles published on Mathis' site?
Yes, I saw JM Bigard's video series on 9/11 at the time. Good work. Unsurprisingly he got in trouble for his shows. He didn't press the issue publicly. More recently, following the coronacircus, he denounced the measures and videographers have since been regularly amused by excerpts in which he says : "COMPLOTIST! HUH! CONSPIRACY THEORY, BURNED AT THE STAKE".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uxm4Wx9aSo
(You'd think it was a French Alex Jones here, but it's not)
I haven't read the Lestrade articles but just took a look - OMG he suggests the Japanese attack on Darwin attack in 1942 was also faked (I'm Australian and I think that's the only attack we've ever (supposedly) experienced). It never ends. He's also known as Unpopular Opinion so I'm guessing his videos I have on the fakery of atomic bombs on my page are from him too. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
Just after I posted the link to you of Bigard I looked him up and watched the original interview used in the Khaled Freak video you posted. When Deborah says to him, "Vous avez une rage incroyable," I'm like, "Yep, why shouldn't he? That's the way I feel, too." What about Francois Cluzet ranting about him - can't understand it very well but what I can work out is that he's a complete idiot.
Lestrade, I mostly read the first 7 parts in their entirety, then the following ones sporadically while waiting for the big, well-known battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The part on the arrangements between Japan and the West from the time Emperor Meji came to power is probably the most important to read in advance.
I'm a bit angry about Pearl Harbor, because I should have thought of it as a total fraud with no victims. Especially since September 11 was referred to as "the new Pearl Harbor".
But I hadn't given it a second thought, sticking to the classic alternative story of "we knew in advance, we let it happen".
François Cluzet is one of those people who, during the coronacircus, left no doubt that they were collaborators of the media system. You should have seen him during the election of President Macron's second term.
Here, he's in full accusatory inversion, at the end of the video, he says: "yes, the conspiracists are collabos, they put us in a constant mood of doubt, look at the anti-vaccinationists, they're almost putting on shows with anti-Semites, they're calling into question the New York attacks, it's not possible, after all, there were 3,000 dead anyway (he says like Manuels Valls in 2008 and with a big perverse smile), there's a kind of colloboration of a country at peace, we start to doubt".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4zMb7f3jH8
I will get onto Lestrade.
The commenters on the video aren't buying him that's for sure! One said they'd never go see him in a film again. He's been in some good films though. I wanted to see Le Dernier pour la route but didn't get round to it. I'd still see it though even if he's an idiot.
Do they show French films in Australia? With subtitles?
If not, you mentioned "Ole Dammegard" in your articles. I have the impression that he sells the attacks as real, but from what I understand the interest of his work lies in the fact that he demonstrates that he can predict future attacks by taking information from the previous one.
But how does this work? Could I have a brief summary? I can't find a clear presentation on his site, and there are only videos. As I don't speak perfect English, it's quite complicated for me.
There are so many things wrong above I almost don't know where to start... but let's start with what you claim is a "large anomaly" - "A very large anomaly that applies to the testimonies as a whole is that no reference is made in any of the 118 oral histories to the alleged deaths of the firefighters’ 343 fellow firefighters."
The first responders were asked to talk about WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11. You need to realize, on that day, during those first few hours, no one knew who was dead or alive unless they saw the person dead or alive themselves. People could have been trapped somewhere in that 16-acres of debris, and the day ended with EVERYONE hoping that lots of them were. On the day of 9/11, no one knew WHO lived and who died. They're only testifying to what they personally saw on that day.
Also, I'd bet my next paycheck that you're only looking at the 118 "explosion testimonies" pdf that MacQueen (sp?) was able to scrape together... you do realize that his pdf only contains the little part of the full testimony that had any references to explosions... and that if you want to read the full testimonies (which mention dead colleagues PLENTY), you have to go to the New York Times website...?
...and then you say it's suspicious that they're transcripts of audio and not the audio. How about you file a FOIA (same way we got the transcripts) and demand the audio? Transcripts only at this time is proof of absolutely nothing.
WRONG: The front of tower 1 was on West Street and there was indeed a curved driveway under a canopy over it. This can be seen in every single picture of the bottom of the north tower's west side.
Oh and this: "That all the people coming down were very calm and would yell that burn victims were coming down seems to lack credibility.". Most of the people in the towers were calm and not panicking because they had them do fire drills all the time, and if they knew anything about what was going on outside, they thought a small Cessna had hit the north tower. Calm people evacuating a building they thought had only a minor problem, way up, is more than perfectly reasonable and YES - the evacuating people were helping burned and injured people down while firemen were on the way up. Another perfectly reasonable point that you've "detected" is "off"...
You make so many assumptions about things you cannot know - like the best route for a fire truck to have taken from midtown down to the towers... how on EARTH to you think you can look at Googlemaps and decide which streets the fire truck should have taken? Have you ever driven the route in a firetruck in an emergency? How can you even begin to think you know better than the guys on the ground, who travel the area and know all the school zones, traffic patterns, and routes to avoid? You also do this with the CRFD abbreviation. You look it up, it brings you to Cedar Rapids Fire Dept. and you assume that this is something suspicious? As if you know what abbreviations the fire department, or maybe just his particular house, use for some term?
As for the victims - there are plenty of pictures and video of injured people receiving medical care, and burned people, and all manner of blood and injuries. I imagine you looked into this about as deeply as you did the canopy on the entrance of WTC 1.
Last thing - the entire front of the World Financial Center across the street was very reflective, and it's absolutely plausible for someone on the ground floor of the towers to look at them and see the fireball at the top of tower 2 reflected... mirrors do work that way.
There's more, but I've wasted way too much time already.
OK "detective"... I'll let you get back to your "work" now...
In response to your response:
1. No reference to deaths of firefighter colleagues
You say: "... could have been trapped somewhere", however, we have no clear evidence of this. "COULD this or that" is pure speculation and is utterly lame without support and you have none. So what can be said about no reference to colleagues' deaths is that the absence is completely consistent with fakery. Obviously, if they referred to deaths convincingly then the claim "there is no reference to firefighter colleagues' deaths" could not be made. It is significant that the claim can be made without any evidence to say, "Hey, no we have a convincing testimony here of the deaths of firefighters."
2. Testimonies in general: If you have any convincing evidence in any testimony anywhere, please provide it. You need to recognise that in the first instance the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE INITIAL CLAIMANT, not on the person saying the claim doesn't stand up. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE PROOF OF THE CLAIM.
This link takes you to ALL firefighters, EMS and audio dispatch tapes. If you find anything particularly convincing let me know.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_02.html
3. FOIA for audio. There again BURDEN OF PROOF. If there were audio that sounded convincing that would act as evidence supporting the claim, wouldn't it? However, there isn't any and we have to wonder why not. Transcripts are based on recordings no? So why aren't there any. I don't need to have the audio to make my claim, all I need to say is the AUDIO IS LACKING and that supports the claim of fakery because we'd expect it. If you want to support the clear evidence of death and injury then it's YOU who needs the audio, not me. Why don't you do the FOIA?
4. Routes: I make no assumptions. It is easy to look at googlemaps and work out better routes than others when the difference is incredibly obvious such as travelling over to the west side to travel to the southern tip from a fire station on the upper east side. Of course, there may be reasons to take a longer route, however, in that situation if you're going to bother explaining the route you took, you'd explain why you took the longer route.
5. North Tower, canopy and cul-de-sac.
The FRONT entrance was on the plaza - no canopy and no cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac is not a curved driveway it is "a street or passage closed at one end" and there was no cul-de-sac anywhere. I will reword my answer to account for the canopy on West St.
6. Photos of injured people
Sure there are PURPORTED images but all of them fit "drill" injured, none of them show the serious injuries and maiming we'd expect from the destructions of 110-storey buildings.
7. CRFD - " ... chest pains and difficulty breathing. Being an engine company, we went in there to see if there was any CRFD work we could do on the members."
If anyone can tell me what CRFD means in relation to the context go ahead. Until then my assumption stands. I've been in discussion with an FDNY person who picked up a few things that I thought were anomalies that I've since removed. He didn't mention that one though. This is our discussion if you're interested. I've also just added an analysis of his friend's testimony to my post.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/psyops-nobody-dies-nobody-gets-hurt/comment/52784488
What you need to understand is BURDEN OF PROOF. The burden of proof is on those who wish to defend the narrative of 3,000 dead, 6,000 injured and the various survivor stories. All I have to do is say I don't see clear evidence of the claims - in fact, I see undermining of them ... and I've done that. I've done my job ... now you do yours. It's a mistake to think that the narrative has some kind of default status. The narrative has no more status than its refutation when immediately problems can be seen in it.
Just to add: there are about 200 hours of audio recordings for the Apollo 11 mission which I believe are authentic from listening to a few minutes here and there. People who don't believe the moon landings challenge me asking if I've listened to all of them. No of course I haven't! But I don't need to. They're there for anyone to find anything wrong with them - in this case the BURDEN OF PROOF is on them. In the case of the firefighter transcripts I've found problems that completely undermine their authenticity - it's up to anyone else now to find anything that proves their authenticity anywhere.
There is something you want to see, and you're twisting yourself into a knot to see it. I wish you were right and no one died on 9/11 but you are so far off the mark in impossible la la land that you may never land.
I suspect you're new to all this, and very young? You do seem sincere, and that's a great start. Anyway, good luck in your further learning :)
No I'm not young and I've been studying 9/11 since 2014. It took four years of dedicated study to wake up to the fakery of death and injury so I've been where you are ... and for 13 years before that I didn't question it being a terrorist attack although I instinctively knew manipulation was involved and I deliberately paid little attention to it.
What I learnt from 9/11 is:
IN PSYOPS THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT FOR REAL AND FAKE THE REST ... which only makes the most perfect sense, doesn't it? They much prefer to dupe us into believing things rather than doing them for real. If they do them for real where's the psyoppery? There isn't any. They want to control our minds more than anything so if they do something for real, they lose the mind control element.
This was a huge learning and when I realised that 9/11 was fake I went on to look at Pearl Harbour, the 1980 Bologna Station bombing and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks and realised that they were all completely faked not "false flags" as such. Much later I also realised that JFK was another faked "false flag".
It's not just about recognising the fakery of 9/11, it's understanding how in their big psyops they target both the believers and the disbelievers: there's one stream for the 90% believers and another (generally broken into conflicting substreams) for the 10%.
Another thing I realised is that the perps are scrupulous in NEVER putting forward any fakery that's actually convincing. They always undermine their narrative, they always let you know Revelation of the Method style.
So if you've got anything that favours real over fake for death and injury please let m know. I guarantee you won't find it ... because I've argued my case endlessly for getting on six years now and no one has provided it.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
✈️✈️ 9/11 A Plane Story ✈️✈️
Movie: https://youtu.be/Mwu1hbaZ2_s
You live in a time where your perception is being managed. Just like with Covid from 2020 to 2023, people outsourced their thinking way too easily.
9/11 was an attack on human consciousness.
Put on your big boy pants and read this very scary book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Yes, but you do get that death and injury were staged on 9/11, right? And that that is its best kept secret ... although, of course, Revelation-of-the-Method style they TELL us it was staged and the nonsensicalities in the firefighter testimonies is just one of the many ways they tell us.
The thing is they have EVERYONE under mind control - believers and disbelievers alike. Those who recognise the lie of 9/11 are generally reluctant to accept that death and injury were staged ... just as the propagandists knew would happen.
And what this EMT saw was a figment of her imagination: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/emt-9-11-whistle-blower:4
Was every BOOM a bomb on 9/11?
Not everything that goes boom is a bomb.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
✈️✈️ 9/11 A Plane Story ✈️✈️
Movie: https://youtu.be/Mwu1hbaZ2_s
You live in a time where your perception is being managed. Just like with Covid from 2020 to 2023, people outsourced their thinking way too easily.
9/11 was an attack on human consciousness.
Put on your big boy pants and read this very scary book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Totally a figment of her imagination, of course!
9/11 was two stories: one for the anticipated believers and one for the anticipated disbelievers.
So she's just spinning nonsense about cars and bombs ... for people like you (and me until I woke up to the secondary story fabricated just for us). Oh my goodness.
Have you read my articles or are you just putting your comments? Please don't do that. I mean I do it myself ... but that's because I know the article has got it wrong so I don't bother reading it all.
Did you read the oral histories from the firefighters? They make no sense and they do not make a single mention of the 343 firefighters who allegedly died on 9/11 - not a single one, nor are there any recordings - transcripts but no recordings - why not? So you see how they TELL us they didn't kill people on the day ... and that is of course what we might expect because they had to involve an awful lot of people and killing and injuring for real wasn't really going to work.
If you cannot get that death and injury were staged and that propaganda was created just for the anticipated disbelievers to encourage them to maintain belief in this lie then you are lacking a fundamental comprehension of the event.
And you're just proving you've not read this book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
Each fireman had a small electronic device that was set to countdown and activate an alarm, if not reset by the fireman. The fact that only a relatively small group of firemen were ever found in the wreckage should be of great interest to anyone who has begun to realize that the destructive forces that were responsible for the disappearance of over 80% of the mass of the two towers. Along with this disappearance went a few hundred bodies of the rescue teams that were inside the towers and on the streets. Interestingly, although the firemen that were engaged in operations along the streets at the time of the destruction intervals, were either fully disintegrated, or partially shredded and mostly disintegrated, their electronic devices were excluded from the material-specific calibration of the disintegrated forces. Video: https://youtu.be/W-uKAjuJE_Q
You have also not listened to the 9/11 surfer's testimony, or read his book of the people he lost in stairway B of the north tower and how he survived his fall from the 22nd floor landing in the north Tower: https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/Pasq-LONG:9
You've obviously also not followed my substack series on the anomalies of the Sept 11, 2001 events.
We've been through this before...
Judy Wood is a controlled opposition agent and I certainly wouldn't waste a second reading her nonsense.
Go to the horses' mouths or at least the alleged horses' mouths. We have the alleged transcriptions from the firefighters themselves and they (or rather the intelligence agents writing the nonsense) give us "oral" histories that make no sense ... and Cynthia McFadden outside both the Bellevue Hospital and the trauma centre set up in West Manhattan tells us LOUD AND CLEAR - no injured, no dead, OK? They TELL us and tell us and tell us and tell us and you're telling me to read Judy Wood?
The images of the injured are clearly fake and the miracle survivor stories have zero credibility. I could go on and on and on and on ... but would it get through?
All the evidence clearly shows that death and injury were staged and they used a False Dilemma propaganda strategy. It looks like the propagandists have you hook, line and sinker. That's unfortunate.
Dr Wood a controlled opposition agent, really? - What "truther" talking head's garble are you parroting?
A few YT video's you've watched a long time ago with people attacking her character and not the evidence she presents, which is irrefutable: https://911revision.substack.com/p/irrefutable-episode-0
Much of a detective you are if you don't want to look at all the evidence, so you'd rather just outsource your thinking to some "truther" talking heads that are bamboozling you? Why are you so scared of what this book contains?
Book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
You want to go on about the testimonies of the EMT's and firefighters?
I discuss and share them in this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/was-every-boom-a-bomb-on-911
And this article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the
And then regarding your "trusted experts" on the 9/11 narrative, you ever looked into the fact that they are disinformation peddlers?
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
You tend to easily project your uneducated opinion based in belief and NOT evidence...
Do you even know the difference between Observable Truth and Perception of Truth - video: https://youtu.be/L9CxPMhdcIc
The tell-tale signs of a 9/11 cult.
A cult that cannot count past 3.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-telltale-signs-of-a-911-cult
9/11 "Truthers" vs. The Seismic Evidence
No Primary or Secondary Waves Recorded
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence
Building 7 - the Ted Walter cut.
International Center for 9/11 Justice, suppression.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/building-7-the-ted-walter-cut
And at the end of the day, it comes down to....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11:
1. POOR Problem solving skills
2. Group Think (Peer Pressure, running with the herd)
3. They just can't handle the implications (they wish it weren't true)
But hey - bury your head in the sand and NEVER read this super duper scary book: https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/
A discussion on the sounds of explosions...
The Sounds of Explosions on 9/11
Was every BOOM a BOMB?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-explosions-on-911
Going in Search of Planes in NYC on 9/11
Revisiting 1st Responders’ Accounts
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/going-in-search-of-planes-in-nyc