Thank you for the new (to me) information that shows that some type of directed energy was used. I never really believed that the Pentagon was hit by a plane unlike my first impression of the towers. I questioned those, too, after getting over the initial shock, because what we were told didn’t agree with what we were seeing. This will be a true shock for many, as there are those who would never believe our own government could do this.
fact is that using basic applied physics, one can KNOW that "FLT77" would have been IMPOSSIBLE to do what was allegedly done, mowing down 5 light poles, striking a generator, & then penetrating a wall to totally disappear inside the building, NOT HAPPENING - - - total violation(s) of the laws of physics . . .
ps I haven't watched more than a few seconds of this so just a general caution; any content that might be revealing the truth regarding DEW/Scalar weaponry has a higher probability to be manipulated and or edited in some way. Important also for anyone who is sincerely interested in this guy's work; Hutchinson was personally attacked in that his reputation was smeared, he was successfully portrayed as a clueless cross dressing nutter etc. They so successfully destroyed his credibility it may have saved his life. The proof of his work I saw over 20+ yrs ago is in the (original unaltered by Ai etc )videos if you can find them. Maybe this compilation will have some of that footage.
Hi, which name do you want me use when I do my article about your rebuttal comments you have posted. You seem to go under two different names? I hope this is not due to a spilt personality? Just joking! Lorraine or Ruby? Are these your real names, just curious?
Why don't you grill all the other commenters here about whether their real names are "Brigadoon", "ALTab", "Revisionist", "the FreeRadical" etc etc ???
Norman Swanepoel thinks he is a hero for using my other name. What a jerk. Having him as your number 1 fan is no feather in your cap.
The sign up page asked me to select a user name. So I did.
Stop deflecting from the fact that you know nothing.
So many efforts to discredit work over the years. You would like to share something personal about John Hutchinson? That's great. let’s start with you post a link to your substack -or your website- or really just anything at all - where you share your bonafides that allow for ANY basis of credibility for us to even listen to you - and then, AFTER you have sufficiently established that you are not an 8200 keyboardist do please share your stories of your personal correspondence with John Hutchinson haha.
I don’t so much care what people think of my ability to spell Hutchisson. I care about the Judaic supremacist cabal utilizing weaponized spook tech that Hutchingsome had a part in connecting the dots on some very critical pieces of the puzzle. Your efforts to distract the conversation from it’s focal point is tiresome- from the get. Even if Hutchison was proven to be a complete fraud, it would have Z E R O bearing on the reality of these weapons systems existing. The irrefutable evidence is in plain sight, in multiple events, all over the world. THAT is the topic- connecting the dots on HOW they did it will inevitably reveal who exactly the perpetrators are.
I have just watched 9/11 alchemy again and it's essential viewing for anyone looking for answers. Thanks for your research mark it's really appreciated
1. Galvanised steel eventually rusts, especially in a maritime environment, such as Arlington. Absolutely nothing remarkable about this. Amenity trees are planted in many areas. Sometimes they don't thrive and are removed. Again, totally unremarkable.
2. EVERYBODY who has done the minimum research knows that once the fire got into the roof area, which was timber framed with 60 year old horsehair stuffing as insulation, the fire ran easily through the space, and was very difficult to control, as there was no internal access. No "energy weapon" required for smouldering dry old material to keep flaring up and following the line of least resistance.
3. No example nor evidence of "thermal blooming" provided.
4. Clothing facing the hot blast of the explosion was obviously burnt.
5. Clocks fell off the wall at 9:37:46 and hit the floor. Their minute hands were knocked towards the lower edge. Nobody has ever seen April Gallop's watch, and we don't know how accurate it was to begin with.
6. A single electrical anomaly 75 seconds after the plane flew over, recorded at 139 km away, is proof of nothing at the Pentagon.
7. Presumably that is the same magnetometer reading used by Judy Wood in her discussion of the New York event.
8. The explosion destroyed the back end of the fire truck, and severed the fuel line. The fuel caught fire, then the tyres caught fire, and the truck was burned in a perfectly normal case of a vehicle burning. Ditto the cars of ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd. Videos show these vehicles burning with firemen around them, hosing them. Absolutely nothing unusual here.
9. It's common knowledge that fires break out repeatedly after they have seemed to be extinguished, due to inaccessible pockets of embers flaring again.
10. So workers are washing their boots off. Standard practice.
11. Thick layers of gravel were shipped in to cover the waterlogged lawn, to provide access for the many heavy vehicles involved in the rescue and repair process. You cannot use a crane on a mud puddle.
Hi Ruby Gray, or is it, Lorraine Clarke? Which one are you? This is not a good start when alleged research commentators cannot commit to using their real names. After all, if you believe in your research, or opinion, one should be able to stand by it and use their real name?
You state:
1. Galvanised steel eventually rusts, especially in a maritime environment, such as Arlington. Absolutely nothing remarkable about this. Amenity trees are planted in many areas. Sometimes they don't thrive and are removed. Again, totally unremarkable.
My response:
Galvanised steel road guard rails are designed to resist rust and corrosion for an extended period, but they do eventually rust over time, however, not at the rates surrounding the Pentagon site, and in such a short space of time.
The galvanisation process involves coating steel with a layer of zinc, which acts as a barrier against oxygen and water, preventing rust from forming. This protective layer can last for protection for 50 years or more, depending on environmental conditions. While we are on the environmental conditions, you stated Arlington is a “maritime environment”. This is simply incorrect, why would state such a falsehood? Even in harsh weather conditions, galvanized steel may show signs of rust but after several decades.
If you closely observe the tree plantation around the Pentagon, you would know, that the trees can be observed to be planted next to the rusted guard road rails? They appear strategically located, and not in a normal manner, how you would expect. Also, I have never claimed trees died. There is no evidence to suggest the trees died that were removed, so please provide this evidence if you have it. Rivers do contain a small amount of salt, but it is much less than the salt concentration found in oceans.
Also, salt in rivers comes from the water absorbing minerals and materials from the land it flows over. However, the process of evaporation, which leads to the formation of rain, does not carry salt back into the atmosphere, so the water that falls as rain and eventually flows into rivers is relatively fresh. So the environmental weather salt would not cause the rusting of the guard rails.
You state:
2. EVERYBODY who has done the minimum research knows that once the fire got into the roof area, which was timber framed with 60-year-old horsehair stuffing as insulation, the fire ran easily through the space, and was very difficult to control, as there was no internal access. No "energy weapon" required for smouldering dry old material to keep flaring up and following the line of least resistance.
My response:
Surely you would know that horse hair is used because it is a natural non-flammable insulation and fire retardant. So how did the fire spread through a non-flammable material? Additionally, if the timber in the roof was burning as you claim, why was the roof line damage inconsistent in areas where fire had not reached or burnt areas of the Pentagon at all? Again, you are using falsehoods in your comment.
You state:
3. No example nor evidence of "thermal blooming" provided.
My response:
You claim there is no evidence for thermal blooming? In the CCTV video footage still image, you can clearly see thermal blooming effects, which is analogous to what was observed with John Hutchison’s ship/boat experiments. The interesting part about the thermal blooming that occurred at the Pentagon is, it was so far away from the impact zone. The blooming fire was not hot, and no damage was caused in that area officially. No or fire crews attended to that area. No refurbishment was needed to be done in that zone.
Question: Do you know and understand what thermal blooming is? Are you familiar with directed energy weapons and how they work? Your answer offers no refutation to the CCTV evidence.
You state:
4. Clothing facing the hot blast of the explosion was obviously burnt.
My response:
Again, you are using falsehoods, because the official photographic evidence shows none of the people’s clothes captured in the photographs were burnt. This is impossible, being as cotton and also polyester clothing materials are highly flammable, and should have been burnt, the fact they were not is conclusive evidence that the burnt looking skin is that analogous to those people photographed who suffered microwave radiation burns in the Star Wars weapons program in Iraq.
You state:
5. Clocks fell off the wall at 9:37:46 and hit the floor. Their minute hands were knocked towards the lower edge. Nobody has ever seen April Gallop's watch, and we don't know how accurate it was to begin with.
My response:
Again, the wall clocks may have fell off the wall due to the initial shock wave, however the coincidences regarding how the ALL the clocks time stopped before the crash time, is considered significant. Plus, you are telling us to believe that the minute hands on ALL the clocks just so happens to be the only hand that was pushed backward from falling to the floor? Yet all the hourly clock hands in ALL the clocks photos remained accurate and in place?
Also, you are effectively expecting people to doubt a first-hand survivor - April Gallop’s account regarding her wrist watch stopping at the time of 9:30 a.m., which is also consistent with one of the clocks, which also stopped at 9:30 a.m. Are you into coincidence theories?
You state:
6. A single electrical anomaly 75 seconds after the plane flew over, recorded at 139 km away, is proof of nothing at the Pentagon.
My response:
You claim the seismic data is proof of nothing at the Pentagon? The seismic data is absolutely proof that a very weak signal was recorded. If there was any type of conventional kinetic energy, the seismic data should have recorded it. The fact the seismologists determined it was an electrical disturbance is of significance. After all, why were people in a wide area in other buildings, reporting how their buildings shook badly and items was moved and fell in their buildings. Yet we have such a weak signal considering we are told a Boeing 757 crashed into the building with a massive explosion?
You state:
7. Presumably that is the same magnetometer reading used by Judy Wood in her discussion of the New York event.
My response:
Not sure how you believe this is a rebuttal to my evidence? However, the data is the same data that Dr. Wood published, but the observations are my own and the data, covers the Earth, and its magnetic field, which is not just restricted to the New York area. Is it a coincidence again that 4 plane crashes registered fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field? Do you expect people to believe in coincidence theory again?
A challenge for you! Please provide me with ANY evidence to show any other plane crashes that have caused fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field? I will await your response!
You sate:
8. The explosion destroyed the back end of the fire truck, and severed the fuel line. The fuel caught fire, then the tyres caught fire, and the truck was burned in a perfectly normal case of a vehicle burning. Ditto the cars of ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd. Videos show these vehicles burning with firemen around them, hosing them. Absolutely nothing unusual here.
My response:
You say the truck caught fire due severed fuel line? You also claim that the tyres caught fire The truck’s tyres did NOT catch fire? This is another falsehood, and is evident in the photographic record bith at the time and after, with 3 of the 4 tyres still intact, and one rear
tyre that was deflated. You have provided no evidence that the fuel line was severed? Please provide the evidence of this claim. Also, regarding the two cars, only one caught fire directly after the explosion, the other did not catch fire directly after the explosion, and was parked at least another distance from the from the other car, yet ended up toasted. So how did this happen that one of the cars was still intact after the explosion? You say another falsehood claiming both cars were damaged by the explosion?
You state:
9. It's common knowledge that fires break out repeatedly after they have seemed to be extinguished, due to inaccessible pockets of embers flaring again.
My response:
There is no way the fire department would have left any fires at the Pentagon to reignite, 60 hours later, considering ALL the thousands upon thousands of gallons of water that was used to put out the fires. And the area where the fire broke out is exactly where they had sprayed thousands upon thousands of gallons of water. Plus, we are dealing with a historic public building, not some house or office fires.
You state:
10. So, workers are washing their boots off. Standard practice.
My response:
I can accept YOUR point you have made here, that this is normal practice. And to be fair and balanced, I will update my article accordingly to document this, in fairness to your comment.
You state:
11. Thick layers of gravel were shipped in to cover the waterlogged lawn, to provide access for the many heavy vehicles involved in the rescue and repair process. You cannot use a crane on a mud puddle.
My response:
The area where the gravel and topping was laid, was not totally water logged, this is very clear in the photographic record. There was some water, but not completely water logged as you claim. Inner parts of the rings of the buildings was water logged, but totally on the front areas of the building. The FBI can even be observed walking through that area and picking "alleged" aircraft debris. None of their shoes or trousers were visibly soaked with water? Explain this?
Finally, The fact you say I am "deluding myself", shows that you have to attack ME, rather than focus on the "observable" evidence.
This video clip proves you know nothing, but merely talk off the top of your head, imagining that your subjective opinions prove anything.
Here you can see the Pentagon fire truck fully ablaze.
You can see its rear tyre consumed in flames.
The heat from fire raging on diesel fuel and rubber is immense. Plenty to cause all the effects seen on the truck.
It has always been a matter of public record that the explosion severed the fuel line at the rear of the truck, igniting this blaze, and preventing the truck from starting when firefighter Alan Wallace tried to move it out of the way.
He wrote about this in his lengthy, detailed report.
You should know this already!
ATC Sean Boger's car is fully ablaze to the right of the firetruck.
The firefighters stated that the vehicles did not violently explode as we see in Hollywood movies, but that their fuel was slowly released, feeding the fire continually. Even when the flanes were extinguished, the heat would reignite those fires. Thus can be seen on videos.
Jackie Kidd's vehicle is further to the right, not yet burning. But very shortly after this, it too caught fire, and was totally burned.
These 3 vehicles are absolutely typical of regular auto fires, fuelled by diesel or itetrol, rubber tyres, and synthetic interior materials.
It's as though you know nothing about the most basic facts in the Pentagon 9/11 story.
That video clip actually proves nothing, but does prove that the car to the right was not burning up after the explosion which you claim set a blaze the cars. The dark coloured car was unharmed?
I have high quality photos of the fire truck, and it 3 out the 4 tyres were intact actually. The damaged tyre was not burnt up, but the steel wheel did have excessive rusting, but the other 3 wheels did not? Did you not study the article photos of the truck. Why do you persist with your lies?
Tell all that to "911 Revisionist" and every other person who posts here.
I've said all I'm going to say about your weak claims of DEWS at the Pentagon.
No, Judy Wood did not claim they were used there.
You reference nothing. You just make unsubstantiated claims.
The obvious fact is that explosives made the directional damage path inside the Pentagon, and explosives in the two construction trailers parked beside the wall, simultaneously created all the external debris field and airplane parts.
For you information, as again your are clearly making a complete fool of yourself. I actually know 9/11 Revisionist personally, and speak with him via Telegram and Zoom video chats. You have declined to do that with me, on a video call? Why is that? Surely if you believed in your theories you would put your name and show your face instead of hiding away in a closed Facebook group, where you control the information and do not allow anyone to challenge the bullshit you are spreading?
I challenge you now again here, to come on and have a debate with me, which can be recorded and uploaded to both of our chosen platforms. Let's discuss the evidence, instead of you hiding behind your keyboard and throwing ad hominem attacks against me? I cannot think of anything more cowardly than someone hiding away in mom's basement calling people names and corrupting people's minds with bullshit.
I discredited all but one of your 11 points, plus exposed the falsehood claims you made in them. Why did you tell a lie saying Arlington is a maritime environment? Why did you lie that horsehair was burning up, when in fact it is a natural fire retardant? Do you stand by these falsehoods still?
So are you willing to have a debate of the evidence or not on Zoom video chat?
Such as "stainless steel guardrails," "Judy Wood claimed DEWs were used at the Pentagon," "the firetruck tyres didn't burn," "Jackie Kidd's car didn't catch fire," and everything else you have said.
Had you watched that video for a couple more minutes, you would have seen Jackie Kidd's car bursting into flames. It was totally burnt out.
You're just a know-nothing and your claims are a joke.
I take no lessons from someone who told falsehoods like Arlington being a maritime environment, or horsehair burning up? Plus, lying about the photographs of the people who's skin is burnt, yet their clothing is not. You said their clothing was "obviously burnt". That is an out and out lie. Are you going to fess up and correct yourself with these three lies you told or what?
By the way, I never said the car did not catch fire (please keep up). It did not catch fire from the initial explosion which you stated in your initial comments. You said the explosion caused them to catch fire. Well that didn't happen like that did it. You are talking shit again!
Please do take give your head a wobble and take another look at the fire truck photos, which I have included in my article. The tyres are not burnt? The back tyre is deflated but mainly intact. But does show excessive have rusting? Plus the other 3 wheels are not rusted?
By the way, Dr Judy Wood said in a video with Andrew Johnson, that if you look you will see the same effects as at the WTC event with the Pentagon event. Are you now calling Dr. Wood a liar? I have met Dr. Wood in 2011, and also spoke about this regarding other events like Oklahoma City Bombing event. You seem to be an out and out liar with statement make.
By the way, being a fair person, I removed the decontamination photo, as yes it could go either way. Now are you going to fess up about the other lies you told in your comments regarding Arlington, Horsehair, people clothing being burnt and what Judy Wood said about the Pentagon event.
Being as you are so confident of your conclusions, are you going to accept my challenge and jump on a Zoom video chat and discuss the evidence? You keep avoiding this question?
"Arlington has a warm maritime climate characterized by small differences in temperatures between summer and winter. Although Virginia has four distinct seasons differences in temperatures are not as big as in a continental climate type. Summers in Arlington are warm and wet. Precipitation figures are fairly high all year round. In December, January and February when temperatures drop just below freezing point most precipitation falls in the form of snow."
Exactly as I stated.
The mighty Atlantic ocean is just a few miles east of Arlington.
Snow falls there 3 months of the year, therefore salt is most probably used on the roads.
Both these factors cause accelerated rusting of galvanised rails which are decades old.
Thank you for the new (to me) information that shows that some type of directed energy was used. I never really believed that the Pentagon was hit by a plane unlike my first impression of the towers. I questioned those, too, after getting over the initial shock, because what we were told didn’t agree with what we were seeing. This will be a true shock for many, as there are those who would never believe our own government could do this.
Hey ALtab,
Many thanks for your comment, it means a lot to receive comments and feedback like this.
I have added some minor updates to the article, which you may find of interest.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Blessing to you!!
Not to rain on your parade . . . .(but . . . )
fact is that using basic applied physics, one can KNOW that "FLT77" would have been IMPOSSIBLE to do what was allegedly done, mowing down 5 light poles, striking a generator, & then penetrating a wall to totally disappear inside the building, NOT HAPPENING - - - total violation(s) of the laws of physics . . .
Yes, no way did a plane crash at any of the named targets on 9/11. Totally in agreement with your comment, and glad you reinforce the points you make.
found this link described as compilation of 2+ hrs of John Hutchinson original footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXTigZDG3cI
ps I haven't watched more than a few seconds of this so just a general caution; any content that might be revealing the truth regarding DEW/Scalar weaponry has a higher probability to be manipulated and or edited in some way. Important also for anyone who is sincerely interested in this guy's work; Hutchinson was personally attacked in that his reputation was smeared, he was successfully portrayed as a clueless cross dressing nutter etc. They so successfully destroyed his credibility it may have saved his life. The proof of his work I saw over 20+ yrs ago is in the (original unaltered by Ai etc )videos if you can find them. Maybe this compilation will have some of that footage.
Hutchison successfully portrayed HIMSELF as a clueless crossdressing nutter.
In my communications with him he proved himself to be a lying conman.
The worst thing Judy Wood did for her own credibility was getting involved with that charlatan.
so it goes
yawn
Hi, which name do you want me use when I do my article about your rebuttal comments you have posted. You seem to go under two different names? I hope this is not due to a spilt personality? Just joking! Lorraine or Ruby? Are these your real names, just curious?
Both my real names. Here I use Ruby
Hi, I am confused. So you are both Lorraine Clarke and Ruby Gray?
What does that have to do with anything??
Why don't you grill all the other commenters here about whether their real names are "Brigadoon", "ALTab", "Revisionist", "the FreeRadical" etc etc ???
Norman Swanepoel thinks he is a hero for using my other name. What a jerk. Having him as your number 1 fan is no feather in your cap.
The sign up page asked me to select a user name. So I did.
Stop deflecting from the fact that you know nothing.
"Hutchison"
So many efforts to discredit work over the years. You would like to share something personal about John Hutchinson? That's great. let’s start with you post a link to your substack -or your website- or really just anything at all - where you share your bonafides that allow for ANY basis of credibility for us to even listen to you - and then, AFTER you have sufficiently established that you are not an 8200 keyboardist do please share your stories of your personal correspondence with John Hutchinson haha.
At least spell his name correctly.
"HUTCHISON".
if you want people to think you know anything about him.
I don’t so much care what people think of my ability to spell Hutchisson. I care about the Judaic supremacist cabal utilizing weaponized spook tech that Hutchingsome had a part in connecting the dots on some very critical pieces of the puzzle. Your efforts to distract the conversation from it’s focal point is tiresome- from the get. Even if Hutchison was proven to be a complete fraud, it would have Z E R O bearing on the reality of these weapons systems existing. The irrefutable evidence is in plain sight, in multiple events, all over the world. THAT is the topic- connecting the dots on HOW they did it will inevitably reveal who exactly the perpetrators are.
I have just watched 9/11 alchemy again and it's essential viewing for anyone looking for answers. Thanks for your research mark it's really appreciated
Another great article - Thanx.
I'll just drop a link my my PentaCON coverage for more info...
The PentaCon on 9/11
When a missile AND a plane did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
1. Galvanised steel eventually rusts, especially in a maritime environment, such as Arlington. Absolutely nothing remarkable about this. Amenity trees are planted in many areas. Sometimes they don't thrive and are removed. Again, totally unremarkable.
2. EVERYBODY who has done the minimum research knows that once the fire got into the roof area, which was timber framed with 60 year old horsehair stuffing as insulation, the fire ran easily through the space, and was very difficult to control, as there was no internal access. No "energy weapon" required for smouldering dry old material to keep flaring up and following the line of least resistance.
3. No example nor evidence of "thermal blooming" provided.
4. Clothing facing the hot blast of the explosion was obviously burnt.
5. Clocks fell off the wall at 9:37:46 and hit the floor. Their minute hands were knocked towards the lower edge. Nobody has ever seen April Gallop's watch, and we don't know how accurate it was to begin with.
6. A single electrical anomaly 75 seconds after the plane flew over, recorded at 139 km away, is proof of nothing at the Pentagon.
7. Presumably that is the same magnetometer reading used by Judy Wood in her discussion of the New York event.
8. The explosion destroyed the back end of the fire truck, and severed the fuel line. The fuel caught fire, then the tyres caught fire, and the truck was burned in a perfectly normal case of a vehicle burning. Ditto the cars of ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd. Videos show these vehicles burning with firemen around them, hosing them. Absolutely nothing unusual here.
9. It's common knowledge that fires break out repeatedly after they have seemed to be extinguished, due to inaccessible pockets of embers flaring again.
10. So workers are washing their boots off. Standard practice.
11. Thick layers of gravel were shipped in to cover the waterlogged lawn, to provide access for the many heavy vehicles involved in the rescue and repair process. You cannot use a crane on a mud puddle.
You are deluding yourself.
Hi Lorraine Clarke
Mark should be with you shortly. You can feel free to comment here as well....
The PentaCon on 9/11
When a missile AND a plane did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
Looking forward to see what you share as your research into the PentaCON...
Hi Ruby Gray, or is it, Lorraine Clarke? Which one are you? This is not a good start when alleged research commentators cannot commit to using their real names. After all, if you believe in your research, or opinion, one should be able to stand by it and use their real name?
You state:
1. Galvanised steel eventually rusts, especially in a maritime environment, such as Arlington. Absolutely nothing remarkable about this. Amenity trees are planted in many areas. Sometimes they don't thrive and are removed. Again, totally unremarkable.
My response:
Galvanised steel road guard rails are designed to resist rust and corrosion for an extended period, but they do eventually rust over time, however, not at the rates surrounding the Pentagon site, and in such a short space of time.
The galvanisation process involves coating steel with a layer of zinc, which acts as a barrier against oxygen and water, preventing rust from forming. This protective layer can last for protection for 50 years or more, depending on environmental conditions. While we are on the environmental conditions, you stated Arlington is a “maritime environment”. This is simply incorrect, why would state such a falsehood? Even in harsh weather conditions, galvanized steel may show signs of rust but after several decades.
If you closely observe the tree plantation around the Pentagon, you would know, that the trees can be observed to be planted next to the rusted guard road rails? They appear strategically located, and not in a normal manner, how you would expect. Also, I have never claimed trees died. There is no evidence to suggest the trees died that were removed, so please provide this evidence if you have it. Rivers do contain a small amount of salt, but it is much less than the salt concentration found in oceans.
Also, salt in rivers comes from the water absorbing minerals and materials from the land it flows over. However, the process of evaporation, which leads to the formation of rain, does not carry salt back into the atmosphere, so the water that falls as rain and eventually flows into rivers is relatively fresh. So the environmental weather salt would not cause the rusting of the guard rails.
You state:
2. EVERYBODY who has done the minimum research knows that once the fire got into the roof area, which was timber framed with 60-year-old horsehair stuffing as insulation, the fire ran easily through the space, and was very difficult to control, as there was no internal access. No "energy weapon" required for smouldering dry old material to keep flaring up and following the line of least resistance.
My response:
Surely you would know that horse hair is used because it is a natural non-flammable insulation and fire retardant. So how did the fire spread through a non-flammable material? Additionally, if the timber in the roof was burning as you claim, why was the roof line damage inconsistent in areas where fire had not reached or burnt areas of the Pentagon at all? Again, you are using falsehoods in your comment.
You state:
3. No example nor evidence of "thermal blooming" provided.
My response:
You claim there is no evidence for thermal blooming? In the CCTV video footage still image, you can clearly see thermal blooming effects, which is analogous to what was observed with John Hutchison’s ship/boat experiments. The interesting part about the thermal blooming that occurred at the Pentagon is, it was so far away from the impact zone. The blooming fire was not hot, and no damage was caused in that area officially. No or fire crews attended to that area. No refurbishment was needed to be done in that zone.
Question: Do you know and understand what thermal blooming is? Are you familiar with directed energy weapons and how they work? Your answer offers no refutation to the CCTV evidence.
You state:
4. Clothing facing the hot blast of the explosion was obviously burnt.
My response:
Again, you are using falsehoods, because the official photographic evidence shows none of the people’s clothes captured in the photographs were burnt. This is impossible, being as cotton and also polyester clothing materials are highly flammable, and should have been burnt, the fact they were not is conclusive evidence that the burnt looking skin is that analogous to those people photographed who suffered microwave radiation burns in the Star Wars weapons program in Iraq.
You state:
5. Clocks fell off the wall at 9:37:46 and hit the floor. Their minute hands were knocked towards the lower edge. Nobody has ever seen April Gallop's watch, and we don't know how accurate it was to begin with.
My response:
Again, the wall clocks may have fell off the wall due to the initial shock wave, however the coincidences regarding how the ALL the clocks time stopped before the crash time, is considered significant. Plus, you are telling us to believe that the minute hands on ALL the clocks just so happens to be the only hand that was pushed backward from falling to the floor? Yet all the hourly clock hands in ALL the clocks photos remained accurate and in place?
Also, you are effectively expecting people to doubt a first-hand survivor - April Gallop’s account regarding her wrist watch stopping at the time of 9:30 a.m., which is also consistent with one of the clocks, which also stopped at 9:30 a.m. Are you into coincidence theories?
You state:
6. A single electrical anomaly 75 seconds after the plane flew over, recorded at 139 km away, is proof of nothing at the Pentagon.
My response:
You claim the seismic data is proof of nothing at the Pentagon? The seismic data is absolutely proof that a very weak signal was recorded. If there was any type of conventional kinetic energy, the seismic data should have recorded it. The fact the seismologists determined it was an electrical disturbance is of significance. After all, why were people in a wide area in other buildings, reporting how their buildings shook badly and items was moved and fell in their buildings. Yet we have such a weak signal considering we are told a Boeing 757 crashed into the building with a massive explosion?
You state:
7. Presumably that is the same magnetometer reading used by Judy Wood in her discussion of the New York event.
My response:
Not sure how you believe this is a rebuttal to my evidence? However, the data is the same data that Dr. Wood published, but the observations are my own and the data, covers the Earth, and its magnetic field, which is not just restricted to the New York area. Is it a coincidence again that 4 plane crashes registered fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field? Do you expect people to believe in coincidence theory again?
A challenge for you! Please provide me with ANY evidence to show any other plane crashes that have caused fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field? I will await your response!
You sate:
8. The explosion destroyed the back end of the fire truck, and severed the fuel line. The fuel caught fire, then the tyres caught fire, and the truck was burned in a perfectly normal case of a vehicle burning. Ditto the cars of ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd. Videos show these vehicles burning with firemen around them, hosing them. Absolutely nothing unusual here.
My response:
You say the truck caught fire due severed fuel line? You also claim that the tyres caught fire The truck’s tyres did NOT catch fire? This is another falsehood, and is evident in the photographic record bith at the time and after, with 3 of the 4 tyres still intact, and one rear
tyre that was deflated. You have provided no evidence that the fuel line was severed? Please provide the evidence of this claim. Also, regarding the two cars, only one caught fire directly after the explosion, the other did not catch fire directly after the explosion, and was parked at least another distance from the from the other car, yet ended up toasted. So how did this happen that one of the cars was still intact after the explosion? You say another falsehood claiming both cars were damaged by the explosion?
You state:
9. It's common knowledge that fires break out repeatedly after they have seemed to be extinguished, due to inaccessible pockets of embers flaring again.
My response:
There is no way the fire department would have left any fires at the Pentagon to reignite, 60 hours later, considering ALL the thousands upon thousands of gallons of water that was used to put out the fires. And the area where the fire broke out is exactly where they had sprayed thousands upon thousands of gallons of water. Plus, we are dealing with a historic public building, not some house or office fires.
You state:
10. So, workers are washing their boots off. Standard practice.
My response:
I can accept YOUR point you have made here, that this is normal practice. And to be fair and balanced, I will update my article accordingly to document this, in fairness to your comment.
You state:
11. Thick layers of gravel were shipped in to cover the waterlogged lawn, to provide access for the many heavy vehicles involved in the rescue and repair process. You cannot use a crane on a mud puddle.
My response:
The area where the gravel and topping was laid, was not totally water logged, this is very clear in the photographic record. There was some water, but not completely water logged as you claim. Inner parts of the rings of the buildings was water logged, but totally on the front areas of the building. The FBI can even be observed walking through that area and picking "alleged" aircraft debris. None of their shoes or trousers were visibly soaked with water? Explain this?
Finally, The fact you say I am "deluding myself", shows that you have to attack ME, rather than focus on the "observable" evidence.
This video clip proves you know nothing, but merely talk off the top of your head, imagining that your subjective opinions prove anything.
Here you can see the Pentagon fire truck fully ablaze.
You can see its rear tyre consumed in flames.
The heat from fire raging on diesel fuel and rubber is immense. Plenty to cause all the effects seen on the truck.
It has always been a matter of public record that the explosion severed the fuel line at the rear of the truck, igniting this blaze, and preventing the truck from starting when firefighter Alan Wallace tried to move it out of the way.
He wrote about this in his lengthy, detailed report.
You should know this already!
ATC Sean Boger's car is fully ablaze to the right of the firetruck.
The firefighters stated that the vehicles did not violently explode as we see in Hollywood movies, but that their fuel was slowly released, feeding the fire continually. Even when the flanes were extinguished, the heat would reignite those fires. Thus can be seen on videos.
Jackie Kidd's vehicle is further to the right, not yet burning. But very shortly after this, it too caught fire, and was totally burned.
These 3 vehicles are absolutely typical of regular auto fires, fuelled by diesel or itetrol, rubber tyres, and synthetic interior materials.
It's as though you know nothing about the most basic facts in the Pentagon 9/11 story.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxa2c3v0TcK9eRxNMbFi0DH4vA5diqcf0c?si=1gM3N92ZbDdDwK6c
That video clip actually proves nothing, but does prove that the car to the right was not burning up after the explosion which you claim set a blaze the cars. The dark coloured car was unharmed?
I have high quality photos of the fire truck, and it 3 out the 4 tyres were intact actually. The damaged tyre was not burnt up, but the steel wheel did have excessive rusting, but the other 3 wheels did not? Did you not study the article photos of the truck. Why do you persist with your lies?
You're pathetic, harping on about my name.
Tell all that to "911 Revisionist" and every other person who posts here.
I've said all I'm going to say about your weak claims of DEWS at the Pentagon.
No, Judy Wood did not claim they were used there.
You reference nothing. You just make unsubstantiated claims.
The obvious fact is that explosives made the directional damage path inside the Pentagon, and explosives in the two construction trailers parked beside the wall, simultaneously created all the external debris field and airplane parts.
Hi Ruby, or Lorraine?
For you information, as again your are clearly making a complete fool of yourself. I actually know 9/11 Revisionist personally, and speak with him via Telegram and Zoom video chats. You have declined to do that with me, on a video call? Why is that? Surely if you believed in your theories you would put your name and show your face instead of hiding away in a closed Facebook group, where you control the information and do not allow anyone to challenge the bullshit you are spreading?
I challenge you now again here, to come on and have a debate with me, which can be recorded and uploaded to both of our chosen platforms. Let's discuss the evidence, instead of you hiding behind your keyboard and throwing ad hominem attacks against me? I cannot think of anything more cowardly than someone hiding away in mom's basement calling people names and corrupting people's minds with bullshit.
I discredited all but one of your 11 points, plus exposed the falsehood claims you made in them. Why did you tell a lie saying Arlington is a maritime environment? Why did you lie that horsehair was burning up, when in fact it is a natural fire retardant? Do you stand by these falsehoods still?
So are you willing to have a debate of the evidence or not on Zoom video chat?
I await your answer?
YOU'RE the one telling outrageous lies!!
Such as "stainless steel guardrails," "Judy Wood claimed DEWs were used at the Pentagon," "the firetruck tyres didn't burn," "Jackie Kidd's car didn't catch fire," and everything else you have said.
Had you watched that video for a couple more minutes, you would have seen Jackie Kidd's car bursting into flames. It was totally burnt out.
You're just a know-nothing and your claims are a joke.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx7fakCjx2eiRgNyUiwxeuOlnZbmAW2abC?si=DrOvK_xq8p-SCE7K
Hi Ruby or Lorraine?
I take no lessons from someone who told falsehoods like Arlington being a maritime environment, or horsehair burning up? Plus, lying about the photographs of the people who's skin is burnt, yet their clothing is not. You said their clothing was "obviously burnt". That is an out and out lie. Are you going to fess up and correct yourself with these three lies you told or what?
By the way, I never said the car did not catch fire (please keep up). It did not catch fire from the initial explosion which you stated in your initial comments. You said the explosion caused them to catch fire. Well that didn't happen like that did it. You are talking shit again!
Please do take give your head a wobble and take another look at the fire truck photos, which I have included in my article. The tyres are not burnt? The back tyre is deflated but mainly intact. But does show excessive have rusting? Plus the other 3 wheels are not rusted?
By the way, Dr Judy Wood said in a video with Andrew Johnson, that if you look you will see the same effects as at the WTC event with the Pentagon event. Are you now calling Dr. Wood a liar? I have met Dr. Wood in 2011, and also spoke about this regarding other events like Oklahoma City Bombing event. You seem to be an out and out liar with statement make.
By the way, being a fair person, I removed the decontamination photo, as yes it could go either way. Now are you going to fess up about the other lies you told in your comments regarding Arlington, Horsehair, people clothing being burnt and what Judy Wood said about the Pentagon event.
Being as you are so confident of your conclusions, are you going to accept my challenge and jump on a Zoom video chat and discuss the evidence? You keep avoiding this question?
Regards,
Mark Conlon.
You're a very stupid, dishonest person.
From the website
whatstheweatherlike.org
"Arlington has a warm maritime climate characterized by small differences in temperatures between summer and winter. Although Virginia has four distinct seasons differences in temperatures are not as big as in a continental climate type. Summers in Arlington are warm and wet. Precipitation figures are fairly high all year round. In December, January and February when temperatures drop just below freezing point most precipitation falls in the form of snow."
Exactly as I stated.
The mighty Atlantic ocean is just a few miles east of Arlington.
Snow falls there 3 months of the year, therefore salt is most probably used on the roads.
Both these factors cause accelerated rusting of galvanised rails which are decades old.