9/11 was my first conspiracy wake-up call and I was long into the James Corbett > Architects/ Engineers/ thermite, controlled demolition truther narrative for 12 years. I was aware of Judy Wood's info for the last 4-5 years and thought it held weight, but it is interesting how their (now obviously) controlled narratives are able to hold even sceptical minds for a decent period of time, compared to the later and less prevalant DEW explanation. First mover advantage it seems.
Until.
I found substack and there is a lot of quality (and controlled) info on here. But for me a big phrase that clicked with me was something along the lines of:
"the planes were being drawn in mid-air"
This was my light bulb moment... the sketchy looking planes from different angles, the duel radar readings, the towers swallowing the planes, witnesses seeing different things, impossible speeds, etc. I knew about the holograms explanation for years, but "being drawn in mid-air" was key for me. I honestly can't remember where it was from... potentially from 9/11 Alchemy. This docco has been around since ~2018 and I had never heard of it until I found Substack this year. And I thought I had heard everything on 9/11.
So thank you all for filling in this gap.
Of course, this means there are some extremely powerful technolgically elite psychos in charge of this realm so anything is possible. I think they've used this tech several times recently: Hawaii, California wildfires, Notre-Dame fire? I'm popcorn ready for Project Bluebeam/ Independence Day theatre if they try that - what else can I do? - no one listens. I hope otherwise.
Whatever happens... enjoy each day as best you can whilst still possible.
Yes the plane being drawn in mid air was from the 9/11 Alchemy film which I was involved with regarding the research with the film maker Chris Hampton.
I am glad people are waking up to the plane illusions.
There is some evidence in the Naudet 1st plane video, because of the position of the sun and building, although the shadow doesn't seem to show the size of a 767 aircraft. There is an indistinct shadow captured in the Luc Courchesne 2nd plane video, but it is not a shadow of an aircraft. However, both suggest something solid was in the air, possibly projecting the 3D volumetric image around whatever the small object was.
Which is funny because some of the people there did claim to have found plane parts in the rubble, such as the so-called black boxes from AA11 and UA175.
The thing is, it is officially on record, none of the plane parts were ever matched via serial number to any of the four alleged planes. FBI were running the show, and the NTSB were not doing their usual investigation.
Plus, it would have been impossible to have matched any of the plane parts to any of the four named planes because none of the four planes crashed. This is proven because there were no Emergency Locator Transmissions at any of the four plane crashes. NTSB is on record with this information. Plus, AA11 was still airborne after the alleged crash time, and flying towards Washington, which can be heard on the official NORAD recordings. Also, UA175, was receiving messages over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh after the alleged crash time, and also was picked up still in the air at 10:25 a.m. on MS-NBC news flight explorer. As for AA77, it was also still airborne over Missouri and flying over Kansas according to the official DCC radar returns. And finally, UA93 was still airborne according to the ACARS messages over Champaign IL. We also have another plane which landed at Reagan National Airport which was identified as UA93.
I covered all this info in my presentations I have given recently.
Fair points, Mark. But ultimately, my point is it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that no one involved said they saw plane parts, because some did claim to have seen such things, irrespective of their veracity. Whether or not they actually belonged to the planes said to have crashed that day is another story, but knowing what you and others have uncovered, they likely didn't.
I am totally with you, people did see plane debris, however if you read my UA93 article, covering debris evidence, it is most likely that the debris was either pre planted or planted after the fact. For example at the towers with the empty floor upgrades, it would have been easy to have planted some plane parts in there which would be ejected or found. Also at the Pentagon, they had done work in that part of the building that was allegedly hit, which could have parts planted before hand, like an engine part or wheel, which seem a common theme. So you are correct, people did observe plane parts.
You may want to have a quick read of this piece I wrote about this piece of plane debris at the UA93 crash site, where the wrong type plane debris had to be planted at the site.
Never said there were real planes (official or otherwise) involved. I'm just pointing out that some did claim to have seen such parts while others claimed to have seen none or very little. Same with the Pentagon and Shanksville.
I'm sure detractors will have a hard time explaining any of what's shown here as being merely due to compression or filters. Missing or blurry plane parts is one thing, but shadows and lighting not matching is another.
Thanks Mark. great analysis. My 2 pennies worth: With an engineering hat, Lab scale experiments and large scale viability can be 2 different things. Particularly thinking about Hutchison effect & DEW theories. Along same lines do do folks believe that UFO hoaxes & optical projection, possibly going back couple decades before 9/11, were test beds for the 9/11 impossible physics such as planes melting into buildings violating Newton;s 3rd law?
not to mention that the alleged penetration event, constitutes violation of the laws of physics
9/11 was my first conspiracy wake-up call and I was long into the James Corbett > Architects/ Engineers/ thermite, controlled demolition truther narrative for 12 years. I was aware of Judy Wood's info for the last 4-5 years and thought it held weight, but it is interesting how their (now obviously) controlled narratives are able to hold even sceptical minds for a decent period of time, compared to the later and less prevalant DEW explanation. First mover advantage it seems.
Until.
I found substack and there is a lot of quality (and controlled) info on here. But for me a big phrase that clicked with me was something along the lines of:
"the planes were being drawn in mid-air"
This was my light bulb moment... the sketchy looking planes from different angles, the duel radar readings, the towers swallowing the planes, witnesses seeing different things, impossible speeds, etc. I knew about the holograms explanation for years, but "being drawn in mid-air" was key for me. I honestly can't remember where it was from... potentially from 9/11 Alchemy. This docco has been around since ~2018 and I had never heard of it until I found Substack this year. And I thought I had heard everything on 9/11.
So thank you all for filling in this gap.
Of course, this means there are some extremely powerful technolgically elite psychos in charge of this realm so anything is possible. I think they've used this tech several times recently: Hawaii, California wildfires, Notre-Dame fire? I'm popcorn ready for Project Bluebeam/ Independence Day theatre if they try that - what else can I do? - no one listens. I hope otherwise.
Whatever happens... enjoy each day as best you can whilst still possible.
Hi Arrrr Jay,
Many thanks for your comment.
Yes the plane being drawn in mid air was from the 9/11 Alchemy film which I was involved with regarding the research with the film maker Chris Hampton.
I am glad people are waking up to the plane illusions.
All the best,
Mark.
Ex 5 bottom left - right wing also gone, right aileron faded.
Is there any evidence of the planes casting a shadow as they pass by?
There is some evidence in the Naudet 1st plane video, because of the position of the sun and building, although the shadow doesn't seem to show the size of a 767 aircraft. There is an indistinct shadow captured in the Luc Courchesne 2nd plane video, but it is not a shadow of an aircraft. However, both suggest something solid was in the air, possibly projecting the 3D volumetric image around whatever the small object was.
Retired FBI Agent John Desouza on NO PLANE PARTS found at the WTC and being told to shut up...
Link: https://rumble.com/v5j6yqh-retired-fbi-agent-no-plane-parts-found.html
Thanks for linking this Norman. Will be in touch privately soon with a private email address.
Which is funny because some of the people there did claim to have found plane parts in the rubble, such as the so-called black boxes from AA11 and UA175.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041030230945/https:/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html
As usual, things don't add up.
Hi Jane,
Thanks for link!
The thing is, it is officially on record, none of the plane parts were ever matched via serial number to any of the four alleged planes. FBI were running the show, and the NTSB were not doing their usual investigation.
Plus, it would have been impossible to have matched any of the plane parts to any of the four named planes because none of the four planes crashed. This is proven because there were no Emergency Locator Transmissions at any of the four plane crashes. NTSB is on record with this information. Plus, AA11 was still airborne after the alleged crash time, and flying towards Washington, which can be heard on the official NORAD recordings. Also, UA175, was receiving messages over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh after the alleged crash time, and also was picked up still in the air at 10:25 a.m. on MS-NBC news flight explorer. As for AA77, it was also still airborne over Missouri and flying over Kansas according to the official DCC radar returns. And finally, UA93 was still airborne according to the ACARS messages over Champaign IL. We also have another plane which landed at Reagan National Airport which was identified as UA93.
I covered all this info in my presentations I have given recently.
Yes, nothing adds up!
Have a good day!
Fair points, Mark. But ultimately, my point is it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that no one involved said they saw plane parts, because some did claim to have seen such things, irrespective of their veracity. Whether or not they actually belonged to the planes said to have crashed that day is another story, but knowing what you and others have uncovered, they likely didn't.
Hi Jane,
I am totally with you, people did see plane debris, however if you read my UA93 article, covering debris evidence, it is most likely that the debris was either pre planted or planted after the fact. For example at the towers with the empty floor upgrades, it would have been easy to have planted some plane parts in there which would be ejected or found. Also at the Pentagon, they had done work in that part of the building that was allegedly hit, which could have parts planted before hand, like an engine part or wheel, which seem a common theme. So you are correct, people did observe plane parts.
You may want to have a quick read of this piece I wrote about this piece of plane debris at the UA93 crash site, where the wrong type plane debris had to be planted at the site.
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/was-the-wrong-plane-debris-planted
All the best, and thanks for your comment, it is truly appreciated!
There were no planes - You need to read a couple more of 9/11 Planes Research's articles....
Revisiting the various 9/11 Plane Narratives
The most important thought experiment to date
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-911-cgi-plane-narrative
Never said there were real planes (official or otherwise) involved. I'm just pointing out that some did claim to have seen such parts while others claimed to have seen none or very little. Same with the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Retired FBI Agent John Desouza on what people saw in the sky on 9/11.
Link: https://rumble.com/v5j6vxx-retired-fbi-agent-john-desouza-on-what-people-saw-in-the-sky-on-911..html
Thank you!
Wouldn't it be something, if all of your hard work and efforts were the downfall of these vermin!
Blessings ~
November 12, 2001 - The crash of AA flight 587 in NYC
Link: https://rumble.com/v4h4c7h-november-12-2001-the-crash-of-aa-flight-587-in-nyc.html
Comments from Dr Judy Wood with regards to the plane anomalies on 9/11
I'm sure detractors will have a hard time explaining any of what's shown here as being merely due to compression or filters. Missing or blurry plane parts is one thing, but shadows and lighting not matching is another.
The "planes" are so blurry. Almost like a ghost.
Thanks Mark. great analysis. My 2 pennies worth: With an engineering hat, Lab scale experiments and large scale viability can be 2 different things. Particularly thinking about Hutchison effect & DEW theories. Along same lines do do folks believe that UFO hoaxes & optical projection, possibly going back couple decades before 9/11, were test beds for the 9/11 impossible physics such as planes melting into buildings violating Newton;s 3rd law?
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback and comment.
I totally agree with you! Also, for sure with the ufos. Definitely a test beds before 9/11. Yes Hutchison effect and DEW also.
Regards
Mark.