Could it be that in spite of S.S.'s being of questionable repute & that some of his claims, including his remarks about Dr Judy Wood, are off-base, he could be correct in his claims that participants were crisis actors & that the passengers were mostly fictitious composites? I seem to recall others having this opinion & writing about it; as you're aware some even claim no one was killed in the towers.
How could Simon Shack (Hytten) be right about passengers being "fictitious composites", when I have shown people in a physical form in videos? If you have read my articles showing how Shack has deliberately misled people, why would you want to trust someone who is doing that? That is coupled with his family background, with his brother's connections to the Bin Laden family, and also his father working for the United Nations. Shack has also worked with the European Space Agency. Shack was forced to admit and come clean about those pieces of information. Shack is a proven LIAR and DECEIVER! I don't say that lightly, I am more than confident in what I have proven about him. He could always bring a court case of defamation, which he threatened in a comment, but I did remind him, that it is all facts I have written about him. But also I reminded him how he has accused Jennifer Spell and other videographers of faking their videos, and being part of a conspiracy. Shack has never bothered to speak with any of the videographers, or Jennifer Spell.
Check my articles and see what he has been up to. Judge for yourself. I take no pleasure exposing liars and deceivers, but it has to be done unfortunately. Ace baker is another, and Killtown, BS registration and Peggy Carter.
I am not saying some passengers weren't part of the operation, as I know they use real people in training exercises, which I have shown in my articles. But I do know that some passengers were collateral damage, and were most likely believing they were taking part in a drill and were killed. I am in touch and met a United Airlines Flight Attendant who worked with Cee Cee Lyles, and the pilot of "allegedly" United 93. Neither showed up again for work. Cee Cee Lyles was conned into that training exercise, just like Betty Ong was, and they were killed by those who had no issues killing all those who died in or around the WTC towers. The cult have no regard or conscience for human life.
The more people who are still alive in an operation, the more chances of them speaking out. They are more likely all dead. That way no one can ever talk!
Agreed, to a point, CeCe Lyles, et al, may have been placed in something like a "witness protection program" & compensated generously, in a video interview, Lyle's husband seemed remarkably calm about his wife's death & so does Solicitor General Ted Olsen, husband of Barbara Olsen, purportedly killed in one of the airliner crashes. You state, "I hate to out liars & deceivers," to the contrary, I think you should be proud.
Great work! We found similar issues and identities that either didn’t exist or are different identities altogether, for the same people. Feel free to check out my collab’s findings for some of these people. It’s incredible how far they go to hide these actors.
AA flight #77::probably one of my most personal favorite alleged events to have occurred on 9-11-2001. I will never claim to have all the answers to everything in this life but one thing that I will claim comfortably is that everything about the narrative surrounding AA flight #77 is a testament to just how completely ignorant the narrative-creators are. I believe it would be quite simple to prepare, submit, and publicly release a generalized overview of any event - so long as the event is grave enough, few minds will ever question the narrative. But, much to the narrative-creators displeasure, many minds, over many years now, have forced this narrative forwards and backwards through the bullshit detector countless times having the same conckusion: bullshit!
Adding to the comedy of it all: a review of Wikipedia's telling of events about some ho-hum Saudi Arabian guy who seemed to have a propensity fir failure and rejection, said to have ascertained his commercial pilot's license in a 3 year span of time. Keep in mind that a commercial pilot's license does not mean 'commercial' as in 'commercial airline pilot'. Commercial airline pilot's have even further, more advanced training and licensing, such as an ATP, which demonstrates that an individual has demonstrated the proficiencies necessary to operate a commercial ahrcraft and is entitled to such licensure. Younger pilots who attain their commercial licenses have trained up to small, multi-engine, general aviation aircraft - nothing at all the magnitude of a commercial jetliner. So, the Saudi Arabian guy, whose picture looks like one created by early computer-generated software, who ho-hums back and forth between the US and Saudi Arabia, working in the fields owned by his family and earlier in life desired to drop out of school and become a flight attendant, threw his hands in the air exclaiming, "screw it! I'm going to be a pilot". Again, we are talking about the poster child fir failure and rejection who originated from the fields of Saudi Arabia.
The narrative-creators failed to remember that science has to align with reality. Let's face it, science is great at demonstrating what can and cannot be done, or happen. There just are no two ways about this simple fact. Here ate a few of those facts with regard to the principles of flight:
1) There is no such thing as a liscensed, commercially-trained general aviation pilot who, after the pilots are removed from the cockpit of a commercial aircraft, then singlehandedly overtakes control of flight operations and the pre-programmed flight information system, performing a 180°, and successfully executing a perfectly level strike into the Pentagon. Doesn't happen. Can not happen. We are talking about speeds exponentially faster than what any commercial pilot has ever experienced where events occur in milliseconds as opposed to seconds or minutes.
2) No single, or team, of seasoned commercial airline pilots could ever perform such an event simply because of the laws of physics and aerodynamics. At the speeds that AA flight #77 are said to have been going upon impact, even the best and most trained piots would have required a very long, as in several miles, clear approach to the Pentagon, which is not at all present.
3) Even the most seasoned airline pilots could have ever overcome the ground effect. Ground effect is produced as an aircraft travels over the ground. The faster the aircraft is moving, the greater the ground effect. Any aircraft flying within feet of the ground at 500 mph would produce such strong ground effect that forcing the aircraft to remain so close toI the ground would be impossible and would destroy the avionics and likely cause the aircraft to disintegrate due to such extreme forces on the flight surfaces. Commercial airliners are designed to operate only at certain maximum speeds at various altitudes, much of this determined by the density of air.
4) Impossible to overcome sink rate. Obviously, commercial airliners don't exactly 'turn on a dime' while airborne, or on the ground for that matter. Were an aircraft, such as AA flight #77, to perform a steep descent tk lose altitude, as it were to pull out of that descent, while the aircraft is correcting back to a state of stable, straight and level flight, the aircraft is still descending. Descent does not just stop as pilots pull out of descent to retake level flight. Even if flight #77 had performed a steep descent to level before striking the Pentagon, the mental calculations behind this and then to overcome ground effect as a commercially trained pilot, would never happen. It is scientifically impossible for this event to have occurred.
Out of all the "alleged" 4 flights on 9/11, the photo and video evidence I have obtained during my research, does show, some of the named alleged passengers were present at Dulles Airport. Whether they boarded the plane or the plane took off from the named gate (D26) is another story, due to the BTS data base discrepancies.
I have shown though, using official unclassified documents, that Flight 77 was still airborne at the time of the alleged crash, and was still flying over Missouri and Kansas.
Could it be that in spite of S.S.'s being of questionable repute & that some of his claims, including his remarks about Dr Judy Wood, are off-base, he could be correct in his claims that participants were crisis actors & that the passengers were mostly fictitious composites? I seem to recall others having this opinion & writing about it; as you're aware some even claim no one was killed in the towers.
Hi Bernard,
How could Simon Shack (Hytten) be right about passengers being "fictitious composites", when I have shown people in a physical form in videos? If you have read my articles showing how Shack has deliberately misled people, why would you want to trust someone who is doing that? That is coupled with his family background, with his brother's connections to the Bin Laden family, and also his father working for the United Nations. Shack has also worked with the European Space Agency. Shack was forced to admit and come clean about those pieces of information. Shack is a proven LIAR and DECEIVER! I don't say that lightly, I am more than confident in what I have proven about him. He could always bring a court case of defamation, which he threatened in a comment, but I did remind him, that it is all facts I have written about him. But also I reminded him how he has accused Jennifer Spell and other videographers of faking their videos, and being part of a conspiracy. Shack has never bothered to speak with any of the videographers, or Jennifer Spell.
Check my articles and see what he has been up to. Judge for yourself. I take no pleasure exposing liars and deceivers, but it has to be done unfortunately. Ace baker is another, and Killtown, BS registration and Peggy Carter.
I am not saying some passengers weren't part of the operation, as I know they use real people in training exercises, which I have shown in my articles. But I do know that some passengers were collateral damage, and were most likely believing they were taking part in a drill and were killed. I am in touch and met a United Airlines Flight Attendant who worked with Cee Cee Lyles, and the pilot of "allegedly" United 93. Neither showed up again for work. Cee Cee Lyles was conned into that training exercise, just like Betty Ong was, and they were killed by those who had no issues killing all those who died in or around the WTC towers. The cult have no regard or conscience for human life.
The more people who are still alive in an operation, the more chances of them speaking out. They are more likely all dead. That way no one can ever talk!
Regards.
Agreed, to a point, CeCe Lyles, et al, may have been placed in something like a "witness protection program" & compensated generously, in a video interview, Lyle's husband seemed remarkably calm about his wife's death & so does Solicitor General Ted Olsen, husband of Barbara Olsen, purportedly killed in one of the airliner crashes. You state, "I hate to out liars & deceivers," to the contrary, I think you should be proud.
Great work! We found similar issues and identities that either didn’t exist or are different identities altogether, for the same people. Feel free to check out my collab’s findings for some of these people. It’s incredible how far they go to hide these actors.
AA flight #77::probably one of my most personal favorite alleged events to have occurred on 9-11-2001. I will never claim to have all the answers to everything in this life but one thing that I will claim comfortably is that everything about the narrative surrounding AA flight #77 is a testament to just how completely ignorant the narrative-creators are. I believe it would be quite simple to prepare, submit, and publicly release a generalized overview of any event - so long as the event is grave enough, few minds will ever question the narrative. But, much to the narrative-creators displeasure, many minds, over many years now, have forced this narrative forwards and backwards through the bullshit detector countless times having the same conckusion: bullshit!
Adding to the comedy of it all: a review of Wikipedia's telling of events about some ho-hum Saudi Arabian guy who seemed to have a propensity fir failure and rejection, said to have ascertained his commercial pilot's license in a 3 year span of time. Keep in mind that a commercial pilot's license does not mean 'commercial' as in 'commercial airline pilot'. Commercial airline pilot's have even further, more advanced training and licensing, such as an ATP, which demonstrates that an individual has demonstrated the proficiencies necessary to operate a commercial ahrcraft and is entitled to such licensure. Younger pilots who attain their commercial licenses have trained up to small, multi-engine, general aviation aircraft - nothing at all the magnitude of a commercial jetliner. So, the Saudi Arabian guy, whose picture looks like one created by early computer-generated software, who ho-hums back and forth between the US and Saudi Arabia, working in the fields owned by his family and earlier in life desired to drop out of school and become a flight attendant, threw his hands in the air exclaiming, "screw it! I'm going to be a pilot". Again, we are talking about the poster child fir failure and rejection who originated from the fields of Saudi Arabia.
The narrative-creators failed to remember that science has to align with reality. Let's face it, science is great at demonstrating what can and cannot be done, or happen. There just are no two ways about this simple fact. Here ate a few of those facts with regard to the principles of flight:
1) There is no such thing as a liscensed, commercially-trained general aviation pilot who, after the pilots are removed from the cockpit of a commercial aircraft, then singlehandedly overtakes control of flight operations and the pre-programmed flight information system, performing a 180°, and successfully executing a perfectly level strike into the Pentagon. Doesn't happen. Can not happen. We are talking about speeds exponentially faster than what any commercial pilot has ever experienced where events occur in milliseconds as opposed to seconds or minutes.
2) No single, or team, of seasoned commercial airline pilots could ever perform such an event simply because of the laws of physics and aerodynamics. At the speeds that AA flight #77 are said to have been going upon impact, even the best and most trained piots would have required a very long, as in several miles, clear approach to the Pentagon, which is not at all present.
3) Even the most seasoned airline pilots could have ever overcome the ground effect. Ground effect is produced as an aircraft travels over the ground. The faster the aircraft is moving, the greater the ground effect. Any aircraft flying within feet of the ground at 500 mph would produce such strong ground effect that forcing the aircraft to remain so close toI the ground would be impossible and would destroy the avionics and likely cause the aircraft to disintegrate due to such extreme forces on the flight surfaces. Commercial airliners are designed to operate only at certain maximum speeds at various altitudes, much of this determined by the density of air.
4) Impossible to overcome sink rate. Obviously, commercial airliners don't exactly 'turn on a dime' while airborne, or on the ground for that matter. Were an aircraft, such as AA flight #77, to perform a steep descent tk lose altitude, as it were to pull out of that descent, while the aircraft is correcting back to a state of stable, straight and level flight, the aircraft is still descending. Descent does not just stop as pilots pull out of descent to retake level flight. Even if flight #77 had performed a steep descent to level before striking the Pentagon, the mental calculations behind this and then to overcome ground effect as a commercially trained pilot, would never happen. It is scientifically impossible for this event to have occurred.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Hi Zach,
Out of all the "alleged" 4 flights on 9/11, the photo and video evidence I have obtained during my research, does show, some of the named alleged passengers were present at Dulles Airport. Whether they boarded the plane or the plane took off from the named gate (D26) is another story, due to the BTS data base discrepancies.
I have shown though, using official unclassified documents, that Flight 77 was still airborne at the time of the alleged crash, and was still flying over Missouri and Kansas.
Regards!