Hi Mate, I had this article nearly finished last week, but with all the stuff I had going on, and needing to rest, it got delayed. But this will be my last article for a good while. I need to take time out.
Not to mention the fact that the plane crash itself - constitutes blatant violations of the laws of physics . . . all 4 alleged airliner crashes on 9/11/2001 were impossible to have happened in the way that the official story claims.
Amazing research, and this is the kind of information they never expect people to take a close look at. Even more telling is when you hit a roadblock when asking for reasons behind discrepancies and missing evidence.
Did you know that the name Todd Beamer doesn't show up anywhere on the Social Security Death Index? From the 9/11 Memorial page, I checked EACH name against the SSDI. Of the nearly 3,000 people that supposedly died that day, only 433 names showed up and most of them were first responders.
The ACARS data alone proves their was no shoot down, plus, ALL the other information I have outlined time and time again. Please read my full analysis which I link to at the end of the article?
If you want to debate this I am more than happy to have you on a Zoom chat, where we can discuss it all. Let me know, as I am an open forum to discussing the evidence people have to bring to the table. Many thanks!
I have asked you twice if you could provide a link or source that will substantiate this claim you made below?
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged"
Interesting that you won't debate it? It seems people are very shy when it comes jumping on a chat with me.
There was no shoot down, this is just a fantasy when you take into account the totality of all the telemetry data evidence, which I have outlined time and time again.
Ah, now we have got to your "real" motivation here in my comments section, with the ad hominems.
I am not being snippy or defensive with you, this is in YOUR head, and even if I was, it makes no difference to the EVIDENCE contained in my article, which you have a problem with it seems?
You have made several claims in your comments, and I have asked you for a link or reference to a source to substantiate your claims, but again, you cannot produce one to back your claims.
Again I have asked you to pass onto me privately YOUR sources, so I can contact them and speak and get first hand information from them?
By the way, I have never claimed there was not several debris sites, however, this is very different to the evidence I have cited in this article, and for you to be attempting to muddle it up is very telling.
If anything perhaps YOU have offered an embedded confession regarding calling me a "government shill". Perhaps it is you? Perhaps this is why you cannot jump onto a Zoom video call, as this will give your real identity away?
Whereas, I use my real name and am easily contactable, and I certainly don't hide behind a pseudonym, I use my real name.
Not sure if your replying to my article, or Men's Media Network's comment?
If it is my article you are commenting on, I would say firstly, it isn't "my" information, it is the "official" 9/11 investigation documents, which the information originates, which was classified for years after 9/11. This data would not be admissible in court.
This is how silly you are, you say I am an "ideologue or a government shill, not of a serious investigator". Yet you have been subscribed and following me on Substack for quite a long time? I think you just outed yourself, and your "real" motives with you adhoms, and with your sniffing around my comments sections, trying to muddle-up and undermine the evidence I present in my articles.
Don't worry I have taken the steps to remove and block you, to save you the time, as you wouldn't want to be subscribed to a government shill would you. Goodbye!
I haven't presented theories, I have presented evidence throughout the article, such as "official" ACARS data, cell phone records, airphone records and Col Marr's testimony. Surely you understand the difference? That is not a theory!
Whereas you on the other hand, has theorized, that it is a "shoot down (of What?)".
Then you theorize that the cell phone could survive? Perhaps so, but how do you account for the EVIDENCE that 19 calls were made from the handset after an alleged crash? Or even a shoot down if you prefer? I asked you explain this? But again, you completely ignored this question?
You also said:
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged."
Please explain this information you posted to be correct? Please post evidence to substantiate your comment, a link or a reference will do?
By the way your interpretation of me being "snippy" is solely in your own head, and makes absolutely no difference to any of the evidence I have presented in the article, and is not a matter of "helping me".
Perhaps you could pass-on your details of your friends so I could ask them some questions to further my investigation?
There was other debris sites, which I have shown in a previous blog posting, and something I will address in my book. But as I have shown with the planting of the wrong wing at the United 93 site, these debris sites were most likely part of their prop training drills, like the fake ELT over Ann Arbor, and around NY.
I am starting to challenge people who jump on my comments sections now, who post stuff like - I have a friend or I heard this or that. If they have a problem passing on their contact info privately to me, then it is most likely bullshit, or they are unwilling to engage in a Zoom call, to exchange information, then they are most likely here to passively influence or attempt to muddle up the information I am researching. Just like Men's Media Network tried to do, by outing him or herself by making adhoms about me, when they are just cowards who have to hide behind fake names. Frankly I am getting sick of people dumping unsubstantiated info in the comments sections, and when you ask for a source or links, or can you put me in touch with these so-called friends they have or know, they get all put out with it, then accuse me of being a government shill. They are just pathetic!
I mean this Men's Media Network said;
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged."
When I asked for a reference or link to this info, they just completely ignore that you ever asked them 3 times. What his MO is, is too undermine the evidence in the article, and it is subtly done, by passive comments being left like that, which they will never address when I ask for more info, or links.
Going forwards, I will disable the comments on posts in future, like I did with my original blog website.
It was mainly paper at some of these sites though, no real large pieces of plane debris, as you would expect if the plane was shot down. We would expect fires smoke, but locals don't really mention that at Indian Lake, or New Baltimore I don't believe. I know in our film 9/11 Alchemy, we reported mysterious fuming at Interstate 71. Very similar fuming as we see at Shanksville site. No jet fuel, and the cottage moved of its foundations. Plus, an ever lasting contamination of iron. Just like these iron microspheres found in crop circles, which are energy effects. Plus it was a very weak seismic signal, and registered at 10:06 a.m., not 10:03 a.m. What ever caused the 4 plane holes seems to be related to energy effects. That is how they disappeared a plane in a plane shaped hole. You wouldn't have a plane shaped hole if a plane had of been shot down anyway. Plus, there is no way those engines would still be attached the way the plane allegedly came down, the engines would detatch, like Flight 587. The plane shaped holes are the biggest give away in my opinion.
Great article!
Suggestion to your Beamer article - Add in links to all your related Flight 93 articles.
I'll add my Shanksville article, if I may;
The 9/11 Hoodwink at Shanksville, PA
No Jet Fuel, or a plane at the Flight 93 Crash Site
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/hoodwinked-at-shanksville-on-911
Hi Mate, I had this article nearly finished last week, but with all the stuff I had going on, and needing to rest, it got delayed. But this will be my last article for a good while. I need to take time out.
Yes, you deserve to take a bit of a rest, to recharge them batteries…
Not to mention the fact that the plane crash itself - constitutes blatant violations of the laws of physics . . . all 4 alleged airliner crashes on 9/11/2001 were impossible to have happened in the way that the official story claims.
Amazing research, and this is the kind of information they never expect people to take a close look at. Even more telling is when you hit a roadblock when asking for reasons behind discrepancies and missing evidence.
Always more to discover dig dig dig
Did you know that the name Todd Beamer doesn't show up anywhere on the Social Security Death Index? From the 9/11 Memorial page, I checked EACH name against the SSDI. Of the nearly 3,000 people that supposedly died that day, only 433 names showed up and most of them were first responders.
The ACARS data alone proves their was no shoot down, plus, ALL the other information I have outlined time and time again. Please read my full analysis which I link to at the end of the article?
If you want to debate this I am more than happy to have you on a Zoom chat, where we can discuss it all. Let me know, as I am an open forum to discussing the evidence people have to bring to the table. Many thanks!
I have asked you twice if you could provide a link or source that will substantiate this claim you made below?
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged"
Many thanks!
Interesting that you won't debate it? It seems people are very shy when it comes jumping on a chat with me.
There was no shoot down, this is just a fantasy when you take into account the totality of all the telemetry data evidence, which I have outlined time and time again.
Ah, now we have got to your "real" motivation here in my comments section, with the ad hominems.
I am not being snippy or defensive with you, this is in YOUR head, and even if I was, it makes no difference to the EVIDENCE contained in my article, which you have a problem with it seems?
You have made several claims in your comments, and I have asked you for a link or reference to a source to substantiate your claims, but again, you cannot produce one to back your claims.
Again I have asked you to pass onto me privately YOUR sources, so I can contact them and speak and get first hand information from them?
By the way, I have never claimed there was not several debris sites, however, this is very different to the evidence I have cited in this article, and for you to be attempting to muddle it up is very telling.
If anything perhaps YOU have offered an embedded confession regarding calling me a "government shill". Perhaps it is you? Perhaps this is why you cannot jump onto a Zoom video call, as this will give your real identity away?
Whereas, I use my real name and am easily contactable, and I certainly don't hide behind a pseudonym, I use my real name.
Perhaps you could tell us who you really are?
The information you shared is not factual, it is hearsay and would not be admissible in court.
Not sure if your replying to my article, or Men's Media Network's comment?
If it is my article you are commenting on, I would say firstly, it isn't "my" information, it is the "official" 9/11 investigation documents, which the information originates, which was classified for years after 9/11. This data would not be admissible in court.
This is how silly you are, you say I am an "ideologue or a government shill, not of a serious investigator". Yet you have been subscribed and following me on Substack for quite a long time? I think you just outed yourself, and your "real" motives with you adhoms, and with your sniffing around my comments sections, trying to muddle-up and undermine the evidence I present in my articles.
Don't worry I have taken the steps to remove and block you, to save you the time, as you wouldn't want to be subscribed to a government shill would you. Goodbye!
Does your shoot down theory account for the cell phone having 19 phone calls being made from it too?
I haven't presented theories, I have presented evidence throughout the article, such as "official" ACARS data, cell phone records, airphone records and Col Marr's testimony. Surely you understand the difference? That is not a theory!
Whereas you on the other hand, has theorized, that it is a "shoot down (of What?)".
Then you theorize that the cell phone could survive? Perhaps so, but how do you account for the EVIDENCE that 19 calls were made from the handset after an alleged crash? Or even a shoot down if you prefer? I asked you explain this? But again, you completely ignored this question?
You also said:
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged."
Please explain this information you posted to be correct? Please post evidence to substantiate your comment, a link or a reference will do?
By the way your interpretation of me being "snippy" is solely in your own head, and makes absolutely no difference to any of the evidence I have presented in the article, and is not a matter of "helping me".
Perhaps you could pass-on your details of your friends so I could ask them some questions to further my investigation?
Regards!
There was other debris sites, which I have shown in a previous blog posting, and something I will address in my book. But as I have shown with the planting of the wrong wing at the United 93 site, these debris sites were most likely part of their prop training drills, like the fake ELT over Ann Arbor, and around NY.
I am starting to challenge people who jump on my comments sections now, who post stuff like - I have a friend or I heard this or that. If they have a problem passing on their contact info privately to me, then it is most likely bullshit, or they are unwilling to engage in a Zoom call, to exchange information, then they are most likely here to passively influence or attempt to muddle up the information I am researching. Just like Men's Media Network tried to do, by outing him or herself by making adhoms about me, when they are just cowards who have to hide behind fake names. Frankly I am getting sick of people dumping unsubstantiated info in the comments sections, and when you ask for a source or links, or can you put me in touch with these so-called friends they have or know, they get all put out with it, then accuse me of being a government shill. They are just pathetic!
I mean this Men's Media Network said;
"As for the Air Phone, they are 1980s vintage analog radiotelephone sets. It’s perfectly feasible the receiver channel on the ground might remain open if the signal from the airplane failed while engaged."
When I asked for a reference or link to this info, they just completely ignore that you ever asked them 3 times. What his MO is, is too undermine the evidence in the article, and it is subtly done, by passive comments being left like that, which they will never address when I ask for more info, or links.
Going forwards, I will disable the comments on posts in future, like I did with my original blog website.
It was mainly paper at some of these sites though, no real large pieces of plane debris, as you would expect if the plane was shot down. We would expect fires smoke, but locals don't really mention that at Indian Lake, or New Baltimore I don't believe. I know in our film 9/11 Alchemy, we reported mysterious fuming at Interstate 71. Very similar fuming as we see at Shanksville site. No jet fuel, and the cottage moved of its foundations. Plus, an ever lasting contamination of iron. Just like these iron microspheres found in crop circles, which are energy effects. Plus it was a very weak seismic signal, and registered at 10:06 a.m., not 10:03 a.m. What ever caused the 4 plane holes seems to be related to energy effects. That is how they disappeared a plane in a plane shaped hole. You wouldn't have a plane shaped hole if a plane had of been shot down anyway. Plus, there is no way those engines would still be attached the way the plane allegedly came down, the engines would detatch, like Flight 587. The plane shaped holes are the biggest give away in my opinion.
Yes, stay in touch via email.