a friend called me that morning to ask if i’d heard. i hadn’t. he told me to turn on the tv (i had tv at the time). i laughed. not because of people suffering but because it was so absurd.
i only recently heard about tower7.
i think it’s in JFK to 9/11 EVERYTHING IS A RICH MAN’S TRICK where we can see the news footage showing a news actor reporting that tower 7 collapsed but the image/video they show has the tower standing and it’s possible (i can’t recall) that at the time of broadcast it hadn’t collapsed yet.
Yes, it is a well coordinated psyop. Covid is a total psyop too, but I now have a little more sympathy for people who fell for the scam, because I know I fell for the 9/11 scam. Jim Corbett had a great post - https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/flashback-our-leaders-are-psychopaths - yeah, nailed it.
Thanks Gabby, btw, you helped a lot by introducing me to Elena Freeland, which lead me to the Hutchinson Effect, which lead me to Judy Wood, which helped me write this post... :)
Watch out for Corbett though! He's a thermite-head who refuses to spend any time on Dr. Wood's work. The network of people out there tasked with covering up the use of DEW's is enormous...
Yes, I remember David Martin saying that, which caught my attention. Do you remember the Oklahoma bombing? Did you know the Clintons had some of their documents there? Check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R96tBbpOHIw I believe Judy Wood may have said a DEW was involved, though I need to double check that.
Yes. And, I think it was the 15th floor that was likely the control and command center. It was allegedly self contained like a bunker, so it had its own air system, reinforced walls and glass, electrical system, etc.
Lots of Enron and other uncomfortable records were contained in Building 7. No problem, though, because they conveniently disappear when Silverstein said the magic words, “Pull it”.
yeah, i thought Elana Freeland’s Geoengineered Transhumanism was a really great resource to understand the interconnected aspects of what we’re experiencing and even just to provide terminology to be able to seek and learn more.
i often find that i see or question something, but if i don’t know the proper words for what it is i get stuck in my inquiry. i’m also finding that using the scientific/proper terminology is also a good way to bypass internet censorship to get less ‘spoonfed propaganda prechewed narrative’ results and more informative resources.
ooh ooh ooh! i haven’t checked the website out yet but someone posted this on librti, and it relates to the DEWs!! (there’s a market report and everything. in case one was concerned that it might be a made up conspiracy theory, or something):
This site will keep one busy....
"Technology has always been one of the vital components of war. Nowadays, government agencies and war-fighters across the globe are aimed at leveraging technology to boost their advantages on the battlefield against competitors. In addition, continuous advancements in combat technologies has enabled war-fighters to fight at vast distances and expanded warfare into space, undersea, and air. Militaries across the globe have modernize their activities by the adoption of advance technologies. Further, they are inclined towards investing massive amount on development of modern technologies to equip their forces with unbeatable weapons and terminate their opponents.
Government organizations develop multiple level strategies and consider and assess several factors and potential utility of a new technology such as strategic operational value, maturity of the technology, potential adversary countermeasures, and enemy deception, prior investing into any new technologies, whether proven or novel, can bring disruptive changes in the warfare. Adoption of modern technologies has altered the metrics for what makes weapons useful and the very characteristic of how militaries fight. In the past several years, prominent players, manufacturing lasers and other-directed energy weapons, have witnessed significant developments in the weapons production owing to advances in the science and technology applications.
These are just some of the business-critical headlines that have surfaced about your industry in the past 12 months. How are you, and your company, reacting to news such as this? By ordering and reading our new report today, you will be fully informed and ready to act.
What does the future hold for the Directed Energy Weapon market?"
I consider Judy Woods DEW theory very very highly in my list of probablilities. but I am very suspicious about the planes. It took me 10 years on and off to get my head around the theory that the planes did not exist. I watched the you tube clip above that shows the second plane hitting from many angles and found it, on the face of it quite convincing, indeed it was all these shots that stopped me going to the no planes theory for years. However, the more I looked in to the possible hologram theory and saw a few more clips (one that clearly showed the INTACT nose cone of the second plane for a split second protruding out of the opposite side of the initial impact, I could not stop thinking about how this could have happened other that the use of holograms. Hologram technology, even in the mainstream now is quite amazing. Its fair to consider that the powers that be have access to tech that is aons ahead of what they show to us. While I refuse to say that I'm 100 convinced that the planes never existed, I am happy to say that I consider no plane theory about 80% probable. I'm always open to new evidence when it arises.
No planes! Well, no planes hit those buildings simply because they couldn't have... a flimsy aluminum plane - a flying tin can essentially - CANNOT just disappear through the intense reinforced steel grid that was the exterior of those buildings. Just look at any WTC construction video and you'll see what was under that aluminum cladding... almost solid STEEL - more steel than glass, actually! A real passenger plane would have caused some damage for sure, but the majority of it would have crumpled up and fallen to the ground below.
Also look up "bird strikes" in regards to planes. See what the soft body of a BIRD can do to the exterior of a plane then ask yourself what STEEL should have done...
The category of propaganda that most applies to 9/11 is DISTRACTION. 9/11 is just one layer of distraction propaganda on top of another which isn't to say that all the propaganda is lies, no, distraction propaganda sometimes works better when it's actually the truth, however, it still functions as propaganda because it distracts from the most important truth.
The propaganda campaign for 9/11 included both distraction propaganda that is lies and distraction propaganda that is the truth.
Consider: what is the real crime of 9/11?
The real crime of 9/11 isn't lying about terrorists, planes or how buildings came down is it? Those are not the real crimes. The real crime is the murder of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000. The real crime is harm and injury to people, it's about people.
Consider: what consideration has been given to the real crime? What scrutiny has it been subjected to? If, for example, nobody died or was harmed would we care so much? Would we all have just moved on if that crime hadn't been part of the events of the day?
Why hasn't the real crime of 9/11 been subjected to scrutiny? If we know they told lies why do we accept what is laid before us as the real crime: the deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000? Why do we accept this part of the narrative as true when we perhaps reject in some cases every single other part of the narrative? They told us a terror story that was a lie so why would we accept any part of the story without subjecting it to scrutiny? They needed "dead" people as part of their terror story ... but did they need people to die for real for their terror story? They didn't need real plane crashes or a credible explanation for the destruction of buildings for their terror story so why would they need real dead people for their terror story?
Consider these facts and speculations:
1. The perps knew that a small percentage of people would not believe their nonsense story so they had a separate propaganda campaign all laid out for the anticipated disbelievers.
2. We are told that Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) cleared the rubble after the building destructions.
3. Demolition crews normally ensure evacuation of buildings before they bring them down.
4. Assuming demolition crews were involved in the building destructions on 9/11 how would they have been persuaded to only partially evacuate the buildings before destroying them?
5. As the evidence shows the passenger airliner crashes were faked right off the bat we know that 265 people didn't die in the alleged plane crashes and we have no evidence they died another way.
6. We have evidence that some of the people in the planes were completely made up and we can only infer that their loved ones are actors.
7. All the images presented of injured people perfectly fit "drill" injured. https://shorturl.at/nopx2
8. The media show us empty gurneys and wheelchairs at Bellevue Hospital emergency entrance https://youtu.be/Zw_IfI9BcEw
9. The 118 firefighter "oral histories" published by the New York Times contain numerous nonsensicalities, don't contain a single reference to the alleged deaths of the 343 firefighters who allegedly died on 9/11 and have no recordings to match the transcripts. What are the transcripts based on if not recordings? https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
10. They distracted us with the buildings when the planes were really more important ... and they distracted us with the planes when the real alleged crime of 9/11 was more important: the death and injury. But when we blow away the magic propaganda dust and scrutinize the evidence for death and injury all we see is a chimera.
Tell us how they got THOUSANDS of New York (and other places) families to pretend they lost someone? How do they get all those people out to the 9/11 memorial every year, crying and holding pictures of their loved ones?
Are the dying first responders lying, too?
LOTS of lies were told to the world in regards to all this, but that does NOT mean that they didn't sacrifice about 3,000 innocent people that day. The theory that no one died and that all the victims were manufactured is THE MOST ridiculous of all of them. I suppose the towers were empty as well?
Do you agree the plane crashes were faked thus at the outset 265 people didn't die in a plane so all those deaths were made up unless the people were killed another way but we have no evidence of that.
Yes! Definitely the visuals of planes just disappearing into buildings are laughable and ridiculous. That doesn't mean that actual people did not board planes, never to be seen again. Why do the MONUMENTAL job of fabricating all these identities, and family members, and co-workers at actual companies who will all vouch for each person's existence, when you can just kill actual people? There's nothing they love more.
One aspect of the crime being an illusion does not mean that the whole thing was... some things are too big to fake, even for them.
Allegedly, 3,000 people died, 6,000 were injured and a number of people give testimonies of surviving the event one way or another. Can you provide any clear piece of evidence for any of these claims?
Great post! I'm wondering what a skydiver thinks of what happened to the people forced from the buildings from the upper floors that day... ?
Also - the plane image was fake... an aluminum plane cannot slip effortlessly into and through the intense reinforced steel grid that made up the exterior of those buildings. ..
Yeah, it took a while to wrap my head around a plane image as fake, because it looked so real. The lack of aircraft debris in Shanksville, flight 93, is what first raised my suspicion - where was NTSB. Judy Wood suggested that people on the upper floors were getting radiated, like in a microwave oven. It must have been horrifying and painful. I want to know what prick Cheney knew. Although 20 years later, this story is not finished - Jr. is a war criminal.
The planes look real in SOME of the footage... but that black fuzzy thing in a lot of the footage shows that the technology was pretty good, but definitely not perfect...
I hate to ask, but do you know anything about skydiving accidents?
All agree here about free fall and the psy op. But the energy weapon theory has one simple, incontravertable flaw. A fatal one. The analysis of world trade centre dust by more the one group of scientists clearly demonstrated the presence of high concentrations of hi-tech superthermate explosives. You’ll find it covered if you go to AE9/11 and elsewhere.
Use enough explosives and you can pulverise anything.
Nice try Sparky (or Spook), but you outed yourself with ene... weap... "theory" and grossly confused the concept of "EVIDENCE!" Obviously, either intentionally or unintentionally, you are severely ignorant of DEW (clue: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/directed-energy).
Judy Wood presents overwhelming EVIDENCE of what happened to the towers. If you can't see that, I can't help you. By all means, remain ignorant, I don't care.
Meanwhile, congratulations for your stay at the clown camp of Gage & AE9/11, as well as with surprisingly other clowns like: Glenn Beck, James Corbett, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and, apparently, you - Quentin Craven. Good luck dude.
Not worthy of a reply. Apart from saying that an honest exchange of views should take place in a polite space where insults are anathema and evidence is presented calmly and dispassionately. Not your style? End of conversation and best wishes.
Oh so they found aluminum and iron in the dust? Well since the STEEL towers clad in ALUMINUM were turned to dust, I'd say that definitely should have been there.
Thermite is a very fiery, sparks flying kind of a substance. No fire, no sparks, nothing of the sort can be seen during the takedowns of the buildings. Not a SINGLE witness in the 499 oral testimonies of the FDNY and other first responders mention anything of the sort.
Gage is lying to you.
Oh and that "peer-reviewed" nano-thermite paper he's always crowing about? Here's some info on the "scientific publication" that accepted it:
a friend called me that morning to ask if i’d heard. i hadn’t. he told me to turn on the tv (i had tv at the time). i laughed. not because of people suffering but because it was so absurd.
i only recently heard about tower7.
i think it’s in JFK to 9/11 EVERYTHING IS A RICH MAN’S TRICK where we can see the news footage showing a news actor reporting that tower 7 collapsed but the image/video they show has the tower standing and it’s possible (i can’t recall) that at the time of broadcast it hadn’t collapsed yet.
the psyop was well coordinated.
Yes, it is a well coordinated psyop. Covid is a total psyop too, but I now have a little more sympathy for people who fell for the scam, because I know I fell for the 9/11 scam. Jim Corbett had a great post - https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/flashback-our-leaders-are-psychopaths - yeah, nailed it.
Thanks Gabby, btw, you helped a lot by introducing me to Elena Freeland, which lead me to the Hutchinson Effect, which lead me to Judy Wood, which helped me write this post... :)
Watch out for Corbett though! He's a thermite-head who refuses to spend any time on Dr. Wood's work. The network of people out there tasked with covering up the use of DEW's is enormous...
oh, and have you heard that intelligence agencies had offices housing investigations, evidence and materials in tower 7?
all conveniently destroyed.
Yes, I remember David Martin saying that, which caught my attention. Do you remember the Oklahoma bombing? Did you know the Clintons had some of their documents there? Check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R96tBbpOHIw I believe Judy Wood may have said a DEW was involved, though I need to double check that.
Yes. And, I think it was the 15th floor that was likely the control and command center. It was allegedly self contained like a bunker, so it had its own air system, reinforced walls and glass, electrical system, etc.
Lots of Enron and other uncomfortable records were contained in Building 7. No problem, though, because they conveniently disappear when Silverstein said the magic words, “Pull it”.
yeah, i thought Elana Freeland’s Geoengineered Transhumanism was a really great resource to understand the interconnected aspects of what we’re experiencing and even just to provide terminology to be able to seek and learn more.
i often find that i see or question something, but if i don’t know the proper words for what it is i get stuck in my inquiry. i’m also finding that using the scientific/proper terminology is also a good way to bypass internet censorship to get less ‘spoonfed propaganda prechewed narrative’ results and more informative resources.
ooh ooh ooh! i haven’t checked the website out yet but someone posted this on librti, and it relates to the DEWs!! (there’s a market report and everything. in case one was concerned that it might be a made up conspiracy theory, or something):
This site will keep one busy....
"Technology has always been one of the vital components of war. Nowadays, government agencies and war-fighters across the globe are aimed at leveraging technology to boost their advantages on the battlefield against competitors. In addition, continuous advancements in combat technologies has enabled war-fighters to fight at vast distances and expanded warfare into space, undersea, and air. Militaries across the globe have modernize their activities by the adoption of advance technologies. Further, they are inclined towards investing massive amount on development of modern technologies to equip their forces with unbeatable weapons and terminate their opponents.
Government organizations develop multiple level strategies and consider and assess several factors and potential utility of a new technology such as strategic operational value, maturity of the technology, potential adversary countermeasures, and enemy deception, prior investing into any new technologies, whether proven or novel, can bring disruptive changes in the warfare. Adoption of modern technologies has altered the metrics for what makes weapons useful and the very characteristic of how militaries fight. In the past several years, prominent players, manufacturing lasers and other-directed energy weapons, have witnessed significant developments in the weapons production owing to advances in the science and technology applications.
These are just some of the business-critical headlines that have surfaced about your industry in the past 12 months. How are you, and your company, reacting to news such as this? By ordering and reading our new report today, you will be fully informed and ready to act.
What does the future hold for the Directed Energy Weapon market?"
https://www.visiongain.com/report/dew-market-2021/
I consider Judy Woods DEW theory very very highly in my list of probablilities. but I am very suspicious about the planes. It took me 10 years on and off to get my head around the theory that the planes did not exist. I watched the you tube clip above that shows the second plane hitting from many angles and found it, on the face of it quite convincing, indeed it was all these shots that stopped me going to the no planes theory for years. However, the more I looked in to the possible hologram theory and saw a few more clips (one that clearly showed the INTACT nose cone of the second plane for a split second protruding out of the opposite side of the initial impact, I could not stop thinking about how this could have happened other that the use of holograms. Hologram technology, even in the mainstream now is quite amazing. Its fair to consider that the powers that be have access to tech that is aons ahead of what they show to us. While I refuse to say that I'm 100 convinced that the planes never existed, I am happy to say that I consider no plane theory about 80% probable. I'm always open to new evidence when it arises.
No planes! Well, no planes hit those buildings simply because they couldn't have... a flimsy aluminum plane - a flying tin can essentially - CANNOT just disappear through the intense reinforced steel grid that was the exterior of those buildings. Just look at any WTC construction video and you'll see what was under that aluminum cladding... almost solid STEEL - more steel than glass, actually! A real passenger plane would have caused some damage for sure, but the majority of it would have crumpled up and fallen to the ground below.
Also look up "bird strikes" in regards to planes. See what the soft body of a BIRD can do to the exterior of a plane then ask yourself what STEEL should have done...
You might like some of my articles - Found you on Rumble in the comment sections...
Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.
Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-operation-reason-building-7-didnt
The controlled demolition of the thermite & nuke theory
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite
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
The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.
Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the
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
Good stuff, some weekend I'm gonna have to binge on going through your substack about 9/11.
The category of propaganda that most applies to 9/11 is DISTRACTION. 9/11 is just one layer of distraction propaganda on top of another which isn't to say that all the propaganda is lies, no, distraction propaganda sometimes works better when it's actually the truth, however, it still functions as propaganda because it distracts from the most important truth.
The propaganda campaign for 9/11 included both distraction propaganda that is lies and distraction propaganda that is the truth.
Consider: what is the real crime of 9/11?
The real crime of 9/11 isn't lying about terrorists, planes or how buildings came down is it? Those are not the real crimes. The real crime is the murder of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000. The real crime is harm and injury to people, it's about people.
Consider: what consideration has been given to the real crime? What scrutiny has it been subjected to? If, for example, nobody died or was harmed would we care so much? Would we all have just moved on if that crime hadn't been part of the events of the day?
Why hasn't the real crime of 9/11 been subjected to scrutiny? If we know they told lies why do we accept what is laid before us as the real crime: the deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000? Why do we accept this part of the narrative as true when we perhaps reject in some cases every single other part of the narrative? They told us a terror story that was a lie so why would we accept any part of the story without subjecting it to scrutiny? They needed "dead" people as part of their terror story ... but did they need people to die for real for their terror story? They didn't need real plane crashes or a credible explanation for the destruction of buildings for their terror story so why would they need real dead people for their terror story?
Consider these facts and speculations:
1. The perps knew that a small percentage of people would not believe their nonsense story so they had a separate propaganda campaign all laid out for the anticipated disbelievers.
2. We are told that Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) cleared the rubble after the building destructions.
3. Demolition crews normally ensure evacuation of buildings before they bring them down.
4. Assuming demolition crews were involved in the building destructions on 9/11 how would they have been persuaded to only partially evacuate the buildings before destroying them?
5. As the evidence shows the passenger airliner crashes were faked right off the bat we know that 265 people didn't die in the alleged plane crashes and we have no evidence they died another way.
6. We have evidence that some of the people in the planes were completely made up and we can only infer that their loved ones are actors.
7. All the images presented of injured people perfectly fit "drill" injured. https://shorturl.at/nopx2
8. The media show us empty gurneys and wheelchairs at Bellevue Hospital emergency entrance https://youtu.be/Zw_IfI9BcEw
9. The 118 firefighter "oral histories" published by the New York Times contain numerous nonsensicalities, don't contain a single reference to the alleged deaths of the 343 firefighters who allegedly died on 9/11 and have no recordings to match the transcripts. What are the transcripts based on if not recordings? https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
10. They distracted us with the buildings when the planes were really more important ... and they distracted us with the planes when the real alleged crime of 9/11 was more important: the death and injury. But when we blow away the magic propaganda dust and scrutinize the evidence for death and injury all we see is a chimera.
See:
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-false-dilemma-propaganda
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/both-believers-and-disbelievers-of
Good stuff Petra - I'm a subscriber now... :)
Check out my first post that got the ball rolling:
https://philberg.substack.com/p/american-brainwashed also this:
https://www.americanbrainwashed.us/
Tell us how they got THOUSANDS of New York (and other places) families to pretend they lost someone? How do they get all those people out to the 9/11 memorial every year, crying and holding pictures of their loved ones?
Are the dying first responders lying, too?
LOTS of lies were told to the world in regards to all this, but that does NOT mean that they didn't sacrifice about 3,000 innocent people that day. The theory that no one died and that all the victims were manufactured is THE MOST ridiculous of all of them. I suppose the towers were empty as well?
Do you agree the plane crashes were faked thus at the outset 265 people didn't die in a plane so all those deaths were made up unless the people were killed another way but we have no evidence of that.
Yes! Definitely the visuals of planes just disappearing into buildings are laughable and ridiculous. That doesn't mean that actual people did not board planes, never to be seen again. Why do the MONUMENTAL job of fabricating all these identities, and family members, and co-workers at actual companies who will all vouch for each person's existence, when you can just kill actual people? There's nothing they love more.
One aspect of the crime being an illusion does not mean that the whole thing was... some things are too big to fake, even for them.
Allegedly, 3,000 people died, 6,000 were injured and a number of people give testimonies of surviving the event one way or another. Can you provide any clear piece of evidence for any of these claims?
What claims.
Their claims of death, injury and survival stories.
Great post! I'm wondering what a skydiver thinks of what happened to the people forced from the buildings from the upper floors that day... ?
Also - the plane image was fake... an aluminum plane cannot slip effortlessly into and through the intense reinforced steel grid that made up the exterior of those buildings. ..
Yeah, it took a while to wrap my head around a plane image as fake, because it looked so real. The lack of aircraft debris in Shanksville, flight 93, is what first raised my suspicion - where was NTSB. Judy Wood suggested that people on the upper floors were getting radiated, like in a microwave oven. It must have been horrifying and painful. I want to know what prick Cheney knew. Although 20 years later, this story is not finished - Jr. is a war criminal.
The planes look real in SOME of the footage... but that black fuzzy thing in a lot of the footage shows that the technology was pretty good, but definitely not perfect...
I hate to ask, but do you know anything about skydiving accidents?
All agree here about free fall and the psy op. But the energy weapon theory has one simple, incontravertable flaw. A fatal one. The analysis of world trade centre dust by more the one group of scientists clearly demonstrated the presence of high concentrations of hi-tech superthermate explosives. You’ll find it covered if you go to AE9/11 and elsewhere.
Use enough explosives and you can pulverise anything.
Nice try Sparky (or Spook), but you outed yourself with ene... weap... "theory" and grossly confused the concept of "EVIDENCE!" Obviously, either intentionally or unintentionally, you are severely ignorant of DEW (clue: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/directed-energy).
Judy Wood presents overwhelming EVIDENCE of what happened to the towers. If you can't see that, I can't help you. By all means, remain ignorant, I don't care.
Meanwhile, congratulations for your stay at the clown camp of Gage & AE9/11, as well as with surprisingly other clowns like: Glenn Beck, James Corbett, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and, apparently, you - Quentin Craven. Good luck dude.
P.S.
You can find additional clues here:
https://911revision.substack.com/
Not worthy of a reply. Apart from saying that an honest exchange of views should take place in a polite space where insults are anathema and evidence is presented calmly and dispassionately. Not your style? End of conversation and best wishes.
Awww, who's a cute little "conspiracy theorist?" Nya Nya...
Oh so they found aluminum and iron in the dust? Well since the STEEL towers clad in ALUMINUM were turned to dust, I'd say that definitely should have been there.
Thermite is a very fiery, sparks flying kind of a substance. No fire, no sparks, nothing of the sort can be seen during the takedowns of the buildings. Not a SINGLE witness in the 499 oral testimonies of the FDNY and other first responders mention anything of the sort.
Gage is lying to you.
Oh and that "peer-reviewed" nano-thermite paper he's always crowing about? Here's some info on the "scientific publication" that accepted it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/