9/11: Truth Still Matters, Over 20 Years Later

[Rizotto]

The truth about 9/11 has yet to be fully exposed and integrated at the political level.

Here's a very interesting interview by Jason Bermas with Curt Weldon (ex-congressman for Pensylvania).
Funny how so many of these dual citizens (Israel-USA) seem to be involved in some cover up or other.

BOMBSHELL!!! 9/11 Hijackers Were On The CIA Payroll!!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aUwUn-FN-iQ

[Rizotto]

Oh wow! A second report about uncovering data on 9/11 within the same week, and this one below includes an interview with Anna Luna!
I haven't watched this video yet. Will appreciate feedback from those who have seen it.

9/11 BOMBSHELL "We are about to release something big with the 9/11 files and JFK" Rep. Anna Luna

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hdquYLhOCQY

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Oh wow! A second report about uncovering data on 9/11 within the same week, and this one below includes an interview with Anna Luna!
I haven't watched this video yet. Will appreciate feedback from those who have seen it.

9/11 BOMBSHELL "We are about to release something big with the 9/11 files and JFK" Rep. Anna Luna

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hdquYLhOCQY

Yes, I just listened to this myself. But there were no '9/11 pilots', or '9/11 hijackers'. Talk of, and intrigue about, pilots or hijackers is all wheels within wheels within wheels.

This is one affair where I doubt the whole truth will come out and be widely known for maybe 50-100 more years.

[mountain_jim]

copying here

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1911830764716535845

Tucker Carlson

@TuckerCarlson

After twenty years in congress, Curt Weldon was about to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when he publicly questioned the accuracy of the 9-11 report. In retaliation, the Bush administration sent federal agents to his daughter’s house and ended his political career. At 77, Weldon has decided to tell the truth about what actually happened on September 11, 2001.

(0:00) Introduction
(2:33) Why Did They Oust Weldon?
(7:12) Could the CIA Have Prevented 9-11?
(16:00) How the FBI Tried to Intimidate Weldon
(19:23) Did the CIA Lie About Osama bin Laden’s Location?
(25:47) The Real Culprit Behind America’s Wars in the Middle East
(31:27) Trump’s Biggest Challenge Right Now
(33:11) How the Deep State Undermined Weldon’s Political Career
(43:16) Will Weldon Be Killed for Speaking Out?
(48:04) Why Hillary Clinton Had to Take Down Gaddafi
(49:31) The 9-11 Commission Was a Scam
(55:17) The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7
(1:05:13) How Will This Revelation Impact America’s Future?
(1:07:56) The Bush Administration and China
(1:14:32) Why Politicians Are So Scared of Declassifying 9-11 Documents
(1:20:14) Where Can Americans Find the Truth About 9-11?

Includes paid partnerships.

[ExomatrixTV]

• NEW WTC 9/11 Video Helicopter view (MUST SEE) 4K 60 fps:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wZ34eWqbayk

Hey, guys, I've always admired the WTC, and I've been studying and analyzing 9/11 for over 20 years. This aerial perspective of 9/11 is so mind-blowing... it took me a few days to enhance this video using AI. I tried my best! I hope you enjoy it, with a bit of narration and insights from the police helicopter pilot.

[Rizotto]

Here's the best (in my opinion) and brief (7 minutes) video clearly explaining the evidence behind the claim that the planes that were flown into the WTC towers were remotely controlled by a central command.

"Why made all four hijacked planes on 9/11 long detours? How did the hijackers know about "radar holes"? How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes? Who controlled the planes?"

Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4

_______________________________________

I first saw this video something like 15 years ago, and had to do an internet search today to look it up. I couldn't remember the exact title of the video, so I typed in the search bar "youtube how airplanes were remote controlled on september 11 2001". The widely different results of the search using two different search engines is interesting.

First, I searched with google, and it did not list the video at all. Instead there was at the top some AI response stating that the planes were piloted by hijackers, and the planes were not remotely controlled. Several listings further below only discussed the hijackers and how they flew the planes, or that remotely controlled planes on 9-11was just a conspiracy theory.

Then I searched with yandex, and there was the video I was looking for, at the very top of the list. All the other listings below were discussing the evidence that the 9-11 planes were remotely controlled.

So, there you have it. We live in two very different worlds, superimposed. I still find it very difficult to this day to discuss 9-11 with normies, as they all use google for internet searches. Just like with the plandemic, they don't want to hear that the government is lying to them, and setting up big tech to lie to them.

[Rizotto]

Not an 9-11 event, just a test crash of a plane at 500 MPH into a concrete wall. The plane seems to vaporise on impact.

Posting this here because I've come across too many online posts all over the internet from the 'no plane' camp, claiming that there couldn't have been any plane hitting the WTC because the videos of the event just show the planes 'disappeared' on impact. In reality, the planes didn't 'disappear' on impact, they practically vaporised, as demonstrated on the video below.

Total Destruction: F4 Phantom Rocketed Into Concrete Wall At 500 MPH

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U4wDqSnBJ-k

[mountain_jim]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Here's the best (in my opinion) and brief (7 minutes) video clearly explaining the evidence behind the claim that the planes that were flown into the WTC towers were remotely controlled by a central command.

"Why made all four hijacked planes on 9/11 long detours? How did the hijackers know about "radar holes"? How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes? Who controlled the planes?"

Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4

_______________________________________

I first saw this video something like 15 years ago, and had to do an internet search today to look it up. I couldn't remember the exact title of the video, so I typed in the search bar "youtube how airplanes were remote controlled on september 11 2001". The widely different results of the search using two different search engines is interesting.

First, I searched with google, and it did not list the video at all. Instead there was at the top some AI response stating that the planes were piloted by hijackers, and the planes were not remotely controlled. Several listings further below only discussed the hijackers and how they flew the planes, or that remotely controlled planes on 9-11was just a conspiracy theory.

Then I searched with yandex, and there was the video I was looking for, at the very top of the list. All the other listings below were discussing the evidence that the 9-11 planes were remotely controlled.

So, there you have it. We live in two very different worlds, superimposed. I still find it very difficult to this day to discuss 9-11 with normies, as they all use google for internet searches. Just like with the plandemic, they don't want to hear that the government is lying to them, and setting up big tech to lie to them.

I also have always resonated with the likelihood that the planes were real and remote controlled. (and that Cheney was involved and should be arrested and tried while still alive)

meme I happened to see today....

[Tintin]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Not an 9-11 event, just a test crash of a plane at 500 MPH into a concrete wall. The plane seems to vaporise on impact.

Posting this here because I've come across too many online posts all over the internet from the 'no plane' camp, claiming that there couldn't have been any plane hitting the WTC because the videos of the event just show the planes 'disappeared' on impact. In reality, the planes didn't 'disappear' on impact, they practically vaporised, as demonstrated on the video below.

Total Destruction: F4 Phantom Rocketed Into Concrete Wall At 500 MPH

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U4wDqSnBJ-k

This still does not help to explain, aerodynamically at least, that the purported passenger aircraft could manage the speeds claimed at the altitudes that they were flown, without suffering any obvious structural damage; isn't consistent with the external architecture of the towers which were predominantly steel not thick several feet solid concrete; doesn't explain why we see clearly manufactured representation of 'wing' damage on the buildings, most likely caused by planted charges to create that very impression.

There weren't any pilots; there weren't any hijackers. Whatever was flown at the buildings were at least made to look like passenger airliners. And certainly a LOT of the video imagery that was rolled out across mainstream mass media was, and remains, highly suspect. There may well have been some vapourising, of whatever material was used to shroud, I don't know, some kind of drone (?) to be made to look like a plane.

Considering the materials technology at the disposal of those actually responsible for pulling this 'appearance' off being likely decades ahead, as testimony from insiders within Black Budget projects have attested to over the years, a 'no plane' scenario isn't that crazy. In fact most probably an accurate statement.

[Rizotto]

I agree, the planes that hit the WTC were probably not the regular passenger planes. Many have speculated that the passenger planes were switched in the radar gaps with upgraded military planes equipped with bombs that could be remotely maneouvered at higher speeds. While the military planes were remotely crashed in the WTC, the passenger planes were remotely rerouted to land at other airstrips. Once on the ground, the passengers & crew were forced to make phone calls to loved ones claiming they were still in the flying plane piloted by hijackers. Eventually passengers and crew were eliminated. I recall that a retired flight attendant, Rebecca Roth (pseudonym?) reviewed all the records of the calls and pieced that scenario together. Which seems quite plausible to me, given that in 2001 it wasn't possible to make a phone call from an airplane at high altitude with a cell phone.

But I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility that the passenger planes themselves were of 'military grade', selected for that particular operation, and were crashed in the WTC with all passengers and crew aboard.

As for the disappearing of the plane into the building at the crash point, my guess is that a plane flying that fast into a steel building will have some parts vaporized, i.e. the softer shell, and some of the harder parts (e.g. titanium engines) will crash right through the building. Wasn't it the case that one of the jet engines was found to have traveled through the building and landed on the street? It's quite possible that explosives were BOTH pre-planted at impact point in the buildings AND in the planes, for maximum disintegration of both.

However, I don't get the 'no plane' theory. I recall there was witness testimony of the noise of approaching airplanes as they flew towards the WTC. Also, the second plane that hit the tower was videoed from multiple angles by a number of witnesses. I don't believe there's any sort of hologram technology capable of incorporating all these elements. There would have been a high risk of failure or the risk of detection of something fake, in an age where so many people have video cameras. The perpetrators would probably have used the proven method of remotely controlling the planes.

But hey, all of these are hypothesis, until we get a solid investigation done, we can speculate to no end.

Just one more note, about the conflicting theories. There have been so many heated debates, even name-calling, and accusations of 'cointelpro' among the various theorists. Some of it may well have been set up by the perpetrators themselves to sow discord and confusion. On the other hand, the best approach might be to include all reasonable possibilities based on available evidence. For example, the evidence of thermite in the WTC debris does not exclude the use of DEW weapons on that fateful day. Perhaps BOTH were used. The row of burned out cars outside the WTC is indeed very weird.

As for dustification, Judy Wood presents the video of the final moments of the core steel column as evidence of its turning to dust in its collapse. But I wonder if it isn't just the result of the intense stress that the steel column had been under, what with all the explosive charges, plus the bending under assymetrical weight.

Just for comparison, watch the video of the Arecibo antenna collapse. You will see that some steel cables that were holding it seem to turn to 'dust'. I'm no expert, but isn't that dust the result of intense stress in the metal due to extreme tension.

Watch Collapse of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=joLYVix5DLU

[jaybee]

*
*

I'm inclined to think that the 9/11 plot would be kept as simple as possible - although the whole story about it gets pretty complicated when you add in the demise of Flight 77 and 93 as well as what happened to the WTC Towers...


My current thinking is that the regular passenger airliners were used but may have been modified in some way...and that the main modification could have been adding more depleted uranium as 'counterbalance' than was usual -

The depleted uranium in the planes - including the wings could be what allowed it to penetrate the buildings like they did...?

I see that there are statements in different places giving the impression that tungsten alloys were used as the counter balance in all/most planes after a certain date - BUT - this is probably to move away from the controversial use of depleted uranium because people didn't know it was in planes they were flying in - I would guess that tungsten is NOW used in all passenger airliners (?).... but depleted uranium would have been needed on 9/11 to do the necessary damage to the towers..... (?)

Radiation Exposure from Depleted Uranium Counterweights

Depleted uranium in the ballasts of the airplanes that caused 9/11 explain the diseases in NYC after the attacks

The depleted uranium would have given the airliners the umph to do the damage they did although it still wouldn't be enough to bring the Towers down - but would be enough to necessitate the (DEW?) planned controlled demolition...

We don't know if the hijackers knew they were on a suicide mission - or not - they may have thought they were going to land somewhere with the passengers - although they could have known it was suicide mission - they might have known the planes were going to be taken to REMOTE CONTROL or they might not - it is said they were CIA assets and I've read somewhere about them being fast tracked through visa control in Saudi Arabia (Riyadh?) .... by none other than John Brennan - ex CIA chief, when he worked there...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
In reality, the planes didn't 'disappear' on impact, they practically vaporised, as demonstrated on the video below.

That reinforced concrete wall is a million miles away from the WTC. As I've thoroughly argued in many posts -- with screenshots and diagrams from the WTC blueprints -- those towers were mostly fresh air. The facade those planes hit was just GLASS slotted between HOLLOW steel columns 9.5 millimeters thick, whose strength was designed for vertical strength (to hold the building up, braced at every floor) not lateral.

A cross-section of those steel columns:


Those planes - a rigid body - have been calculated to have hit the buildings - a less rigid body - with a kinetic force of 3.6 Million Joules. That basically means that against an outer shell of just glass and hollow girders, it's going to plough straight through it as though it wasn't there. That's just physics.

The 'it should've vaporised on impact' hypothesis makes less sense than Kamala Harris on a bad day!

[DustOff72]

There were no hijacked aircraft that day. It is the foundational myth of the false flag operation. Its purpose was to vilify Muslims in accordance with Zionist goals.

The aircraft that hit the towers were drones. No airliner hit the Pentagon, but something else did. No airliner at Shanksville, as supported by Coroner Miller's first statements.

[Delight]

Posted by Delight (here)
Judy Wood has been demonized. As with "covid" MDs and scientists' alternative views being demonized, I wonder if the suppression actually gives her information even more credibility. She had spent time with John Hutchison.

John Hutchison Interview with Art Bell (2002) - The Hutchison Effect

comment below video
"Explains 9/11then and the lack of debris and bodies concrete steel filing cabinets toilets 🚽 etc you look at the very fast disintegration of the twin towers fits with this Hutchison effect without effecting the surrounding buildings"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b5qWnlqHt8s

Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI

Can anyone see the dustification now?

[Rizotto]

Judy Wood's presentation on the toasted cars is raising so many questions. Has there been any other explanation from some other source? What could possibly have burned these cars that were parked a block or so away from the WTC?

[Tintin]

Posted by DustOff72 (here)
There were no hijacked aircraft that day. It is the foundational myth of the false flag operation. Its purpose was to vilify Muslims in accordance with Zionist goals.

The aircraft that hit the towers were drones. No airliner hit the Pentagon, but something else did. No airliner at Shanksville, as supported by Coroner Miller's first statements.

This is the closest most succinct and accurate summary so far, and thank you for it. Particularly the reference to 'Zionist' goals which became all too apparent to me many many years ago too.

[Tintin]

Posted by Delight (here)

Posted by Delight (here)
Judy Wood has been demonized. As with "covid" MDs and scientists' alternative views being demonized, I wonder if the suppression actually gives her information even more credibility. She had spent time with John Hutchison.

John Hutchison Interview with Art Bell (2002) - The Hutchison Effect

comment below video
"Explains 9/11then and the lack of debris and bodies concrete steel filing cabinets toilets 🚽 etc you look at the very fast disintegration of the twin towers fits with this Hutchison effect without effecting the surrounding buildings"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b5qWnlqHt8s

Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI

Can anyone see the dustification now?

See also: Where Did The Towers Go?, Judy Wood's book.

Funnily enough I was about to watch Judy Wood's presentation (again!) last night but it was getting a bit too late. I'd also ploughed my way through the excellent September 11th - New Pearl Harbour 5 hour documentary where a lot of familiar clips shared in many another of the many dozens, if not hundreds of videos out there appears, in many cases I think, to have been the source, although the makers of that had also culled from others too.

My view. for what it may be worth, is that trying to deduce what happened solely relying on what we call conventional physics, much of which certainly appeared to have been violated from a limited understanding, or avoidance of other possible methods, assumed 'unknown', has been a huge factor in distracting folks and most effectively: no wonder the rabbit hole.

Bill had used this classic Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle) extract on one of the 9/11 threads some time ago, and it is somewhat apposite I think, and I'll share it again:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Our library copy of Judy Wood's 'Breakthrough' conference has been in there for some years too now. Highly recommended.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Tintin (here)

Posted by DustOff72 (here)
There were no hijacked aircraft that day. It is the foundational myth of the false flag operation. Its purpose was to vilify Muslims in accordance with Zionist goals.

The aircraft that hit the towers were drones. No airliner hit the Pentagon, but something else did. No airliner at Shanksville, as supported by Coroner Miller's first statements.

This is the closest most succinct and accurate summary so far, and thank you for it. Particularly the reference to 'Zionist' goals which became all too apparent to me many many years ago too.

I would amend: the Shanksville crash -- Flight 93 -- was a real crash; the passengers really did take back the aircraft. I've heard the 'theory' floated around that it was on its way to New York to hit Building 7, timed to coincide with its orchestrated demolition. When the passengers fought back, it fell behind schedule. They had no choice but to drop the building anyway without a collision, and then take out the airliner with a missile. They'd later insert the false narrative that its target was the White House, or the Capitol Building. It was actually Building 7, a building, which, for reasons known only to God (so say), caught fire and then collapsed onto its own footprint without being struck by anything.

A plausible scenario.

[Tintin]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Tintin (here)

Posted by DustOff72 (here)
There were no hijacked aircraft that day. It is the foundational myth of the false flag operation. Its purpose was to vilify Muslims in accordance with Zionist goals.

The aircraft that hit the towers were drones. No airliner hit the Pentagon, but something else did. No airliner at Shanksville, as supported by Coroner Miller's first statements.

This is the closest most succinct and accurate summary so far, and thank you for it. Particularly the reference to 'Zionist' goals which became all too apparent to me many many years ago too.

I would amend: the Shanksville crash -- Flight 93 -- was a real crash; the passengers really did take back the aircraft. I've heard the 'theory' floated around that it was on its way to New York to hit Building 7, timed to coincide with its orchestrated demolition. When the passengers fought back, it fell behind schedule. They had no choice but to drop the building anyway without a collision, and then take out the airliner with a missile. They'd later insert the false narrative that its target was the White House, or the Capitol Building. It was actually Building 7, a building, which, for reasons known only to God (so say), caught fire and then collapsed onto its own footprint without being struck by anything.

A plausible scenario.

Or, that something was headed toward 'Site R': Raven Rock Mountain Complex in Pennsylvania. RR is the underground Pentagon which I'd make a strong case for being the actual centre of operations for the entire false flag operation on the day.

Hear Bill's fascinating interview with 'Elizabeth Nelson' (pseudonym) conducted in 2009, and to quote that again from there:

(From Bill):

(2) Re Flight 93, in 2009 I interviewed 'Elizabeth Nelson', a personal witness to the decision being made to shoot down Flight 93. She was in the room. I knew her well, and I believe her 100%.

• http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_...flight_93.html

She never saw the plane come down, of course. And given that particular situation (the military personnel involved didn't appear to know about the False Flag setup), they might have been trying to shoot down a radar ghost. (If a hologram can be seen in the visible spectrum, just maybe it's detectable in the radar spectrum, also, though the physics is certainly rather different.)

MP3 audio:

Elizabeth Nelson: What really happened to Flight 93



Transcript here: https://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/e...script_en.html

[mountain_jim]

I saw a post recently (here I think) showing that an existing geological feature was used to fake the Shanksville crash - and that the evidence on the scene after the crash was quite underwhelming in proving a plane crashed there.