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.
There's a reason why you never hear debunkers or official address this whenever they attack 9/11 skeptics with "debunking" talking points and articles. It's much harder to rebuff than the easily debunkable theories like "no planes" or "missiles" (which were probably planted to overshadow and discredit real evidence that contradicts the official story such as the ones you mention here, as well as to be "debunked" by those who highlight them).
I’ve posted this same comment dozens of times, but here it is again. A coworker of mine, in touch with family in Altoona in real time during the events of 9/11, told me that everyone in the Altoona area was reporting booms and multiple crash sites. This is consistent with a shoot down. Of what? Who knows. But a shoot down, vice a nose first crash, would lend some credence to a cell phone surviving the trauma. 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.
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.
What’s to debate? I shared some factual information that was passed to me in real time on 9/11 without agenda or motive. I stand by the fact that locals reporting multiple crash sites was reported to me second hand. You are free to accept or discard it. No hair off my balls. But your snippy defensiveness puts your entire narrative into question as far as I’m concerned. This is the behavior of an ideologue or a government shill, not of a serious investigator.
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!
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.
Sad to hear you will disable comments on your future posts. I have so much to share with you here. But on the other hand, I can communicate with you privately about this topic, so it's not really a huge loss (at least as long as I don't lose email contact).
And I can imagine how annoying it is to deal with people who tell such stories without actually backing up their claims. I was curious to learn more about the guy's story of Pennsylvania locals reporting numerous plane crash sites near or in Altoona, but he never seemed to follow it up. It could've tallied well with what we know about the oddities surrounding Shanksville and Flight 93.
As for shoot-downs, remember that Operation Northwoods spoke of shooting down drone aircraft in place of a chartered commercial flight in one of their false-flag scenarios dealing with air terrorism. Perhaps that's what happened near Shanksville, which would account for the odd debris fields, the wrong wing part, UA93's apparent airborne status after 10:03 AM, and Todd Beamer's phone calls.
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.
True, the way the debris was scattered in that area doesn't really fit well with the scenario of an aircraft that suffered midair damage, such as a missile strike or a bomb explosion while in flight. Otherwise, had that been the case, the plane would've ended up like TWA800 or PA103.
And we probably wouldn't have had that plane-shaped crater if an aircraft disintegrated in the sky.
Plus, the lack of jet fuel and iron contamination appears to rule out an ordinary plane crash.
Regarding the engines, though, one of them did apparently break off when the plane reportedly crashed there and flung itself a couple hundred yards away from the crater. But this poses yet another problem for the story, since why would one of the engines separate and be flung somewhere else instead of being driven to the ground with the rest of the heavy debris due to its sheer weight and velocity? Debunkers may say that due to the unpredictable nature of the crash that one of the engines may have ended up that way, but I beg to differ.
Plus, if I remember correctly, there are also conflicting reports about where this engine was found. I believe Killtown covered the Flight 93 engine discrepancies in this post a long time ago:
Furthermore, there's no visual evidence in the public domain to confirm this story, either. No photos or videos available show where this engine was discovered after the crash.
I have no “shoot down theory.” I have the word of a trusted coworker regarding multiple crash sites being reported by his relatives on the ground in Altoona on the morning of 9/11. I’m open minded to your theories. Your snippy closed minded replies aren’t helping you.
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?
"..., 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?"
Obviously, he cannot account for those odd 19 calls made after 10:03-10:06 AM with his "shoot-down" scenario. Had the plane really crashed at those times near Shanksville, it's unlikely you would have so many calls made after the fact. There would be nobody alive to make such calls, for starters. And it's doubtful there would even be much of a phone left, much less one that still worked and could transmit calls. And airphones would be completely out of the table, since they don't have their own independent power supply that's plane crash proof.
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…
Creator bless and keep you safe in the bosom of health.
Blessings ~
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
Like a winter pot of stew, the plot thickens...
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.
There's a reason why you never hear debunkers or official address this whenever they attack 9/11 skeptics with "debunking" talking points and articles. It's much harder to rebuff than the easily debunkable theories like "no planes" or "missiles" (which were probably planted to overshadow and discredit real evidence that contradicts the official story such as the ones you mention here, as well as to be "debunked" by those who highlight them).
I’ve posted this same comment dozens of times, but here it is again. A coworker of mine, in touch with family in Altoona in real time during the events of 9/11, told me that everyone in the Altoona area was reporting booms and multiple crash sites. This is consistent with a shoot down. Of what? Who knows. But a shoot down, vice a nose first crash, would lend some credence to a cell phone surviving the trauma. 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.
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 nothing to debate. I stand by the information I shared. That’s it.
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.
What’s to debate? I shared some factual information that was passed to me in real time on 9/11 without agenda or motive. I stand by the fact that locals reporting multiple crash sites was reported to me second hand. You are free to accept or discard it. No hair off my balls. But your snippy defensiveness puts your entire narrative into question as far as I’m concerned. This is the behavior of an ideologue or a government shill, not of a serious investigator.
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!
They may've been shooting down or crashing planes in that area as part of their exercises, but I doubt any of them was Flight 93.
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.
Sad to hear you will disable comments on your future posts. I have so much to share with you here. But on the other hand, I can communicate with you privately about this topic, so it's not really a huge loss (at least as long as I don't lose email contact).
And I can imagine how annoying it is to deal with people who tell such stories without actually backing up their claims. I was curious to learn more about the guy's story of Pennsylvania locals reporting numerous plane crash sites near or in Altoona, but he never seemed to follow it up. It could've tallied well with what we know about the oddities surrounding Shanksville and Flight 93.
As for shoot-downs, remember that Operation Northwoods spoke of shooting down drone aircraft in place of a chartered commercial flight in one of their false-flag scenarios dealing with air terrorism. Perhaps that's what happened near Shanksville, which would account for the odd debris fields, the wrong wing part, UA93's apparent airborne status after 10:03 AM, and Todd Beamer's phone calls.
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.
True, the way the debris was scattered in that area doesn't really fit well with the scenario of an aircraft that suffered midair damage, such as a missile strike or a bomb explosion while in flight. Otherwise, had that been the case, the plane would've ended up like TWA800 or PA103.
And we probably wouldn't have had that plane-shaped crater if an aircraft disintegrated in the sky.
Plus, the lack of jet fuel and iron contamination appears to rule out an ordinary plane crash.
Regarding the engines, though, one of them did apparently break off when the plane reportedly crashed there and flung itself a couple hundred yards away from the crater. But this poses yet another problem for the story, since why would one of the engines separate and be flung somewhere else instead of being driven to the ground with the rest of the heavy debris due to its sheer weight and velocity? Debunkers may say that due to the unpredictable nature of the crash that one of the engines may have ended up that way, but I beg to differ.
Plus, if I remember correctly, there are also conflicting reports about where this engine was found. I believe Killtown covered the Flight 93 engine discrepancies in this post a long time ago:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250608171734/https://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/09/little-engine-that-couldnt.html
Furthermore, there's no visual evidence in the public domain to confirm this story, either. No photos or videos available show where this engine was discovered after the crash.
Does your shoot down theory account for the cell phone having 19 phone calls being made from it too?
I have no “shoot down theory.” I have the word of a trusted coworker regarding multiple crash sites being reported by his relatives on the ground in Altoona on the morning of 9/11. I’m open minded to your theories. Your snippy closed minded replies aren’t helping you.
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!
"..., 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?"
Obviously, he cannot account for those odd 19 calls made after 10:03-10:06 AM with his "shoot-down" scenario. Had the plane really crashed at those times near Shanksville, it's unlikely you would have so many calls made after the fact. There would be nobody alive to make such calls, for starters. And it's doubtful there would even be much of a phone left, much less one that still worked and could transmit calls. And airphones would be completely out of the table, since they don't have their own independent power supply that's plane crash proof.