Thanks to everyone who voted. Our featured documentary is:
-
9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality (bitchute)
Since this was was my suggestion, and it's proving to be a somewhat controversial one, here's a "short" intro / justification for my wanting to bring it to people's attention:
This film could be described as an alternative documentary to the mainstream of 9/11 truth. It is not a replacement for a documentary such as “September 11: The New Pearl Harbor”, which I hold in high regard of and recommend that everyone should see.
However. "9/11 Alchemy" explores in depth anomalous evidence that NPH and other 9/11 documentaries don’t. It also considers some evidence that NPH does cover, but does not go into much depth by way of hazarding an explanation e.g. the technical impossibility of maneuvers made by the Boeing 757 / 767 planes on 9/11.
The possibility that advanced optical holographic projection was utilized on 9/11 is considered in this documentary, in light of the publicly available R&D documentation of the technology. R&D for this technology was well funded and sought-after as long as 30 years prior to 9/11, and is likely developed to a far higher standard than is known to the general public or commercially available, since the target market was military application. One early stated, seemingly realistic aim of using this tech in a military setting was to convince an enemy that an optical holographic projection of a plane was the real deal.
Also explored in the film is the strong evidence for the use of an exotic, directed-energy, black technology, based on “zero point” energy generation, to "dustify" the World Trade Centre buildings. This evidence is also documented in great detail in the book "Where Did The Towers Go?" by Dr. Judy Wood, a pdf of which is available for download in our wiki.
Since the latter technology produces similar effects to some of those seen during hurricanes/tornadoes, the strange behaviour of Hurricane Erin on 9/11 is addressed, and how the weather conditions over New York in the 24 hours prior to the morning of 9/11 could have been conducive to the use of this technology, and potentially contributed, by design.
For a basic operating outline of a smaller scale form of this technology, please see this brief explanation. What's described in that article was achieved with second hand, decommissioned Naval machinery and no more than domestic, mains electricity.
Another concern of the film is addressing the claims of certain 9/11 researchers. One might be mistaken in believing these would be comrades of those who seriously consider the possibility of that hidden technologies were used on 9/11. The researchers concerned make claims of camera trickery on the day, and claims of there being “no planes”.
However their claims do not hold up to scrutiny, as demonstrated in the film, and it must be seriously considered that their aim is to obscure, muddle or muddy the narrative for people who are seeking the truth. They are hostile to the proponents of the issues considered in this film.
If this is your first foray into 9/11 truth, this film may not be for you; it might be better to start with “September 11: A New Pearl Harbor”. However, the issues covered by this film should be of concern to anyone who has spent time looking into the truth of 9/11, even if they seem controversial, “bat-shit insane” or “woo” on the surface.
The people who have come to dominate the 9/11 truth movement actively censor mention of the issues covered in this film, and more often than not resort to ad hominem attack, among other logical fallacies, when dealing with these issues and with those who discuss them or are proponents of them. This was something I noticed years ago before I ever looked into the topics covered in this film properly; It concerned me and eventually led me to want to give a fair hearing to what was being unfairly suppressed.
I don't dispute that people saw planes. Nor does the maker of this film. Almost everyone there that day and looking up saw planes. They are on video, and they were recorded live, not added later. The claim is that in reality they were extremely powerful and advanced optical holographics, developed military use. Some of the reasons for thinking so are covered in the film.
The technology potentially used to destroy the towers was independently demonstrated to be possible, and to work, many times by Canadian John Hutchison, on a much smaller scale than 9/11, from the mid 70's onwards. He was trying to recreate the experiments of Nikola Tesla by studying photographs of Tesla's laboratory and obtaining and/or building machinery that Tesla had. One would imagine Tesla documented his process and discoveries in his papers, but, as you may or may not know, upon his death, Tesla's papers were confiscated by the US gov, specifically by Donald Trump's uncle. Nikola Tesla did publicly describe this destructive force which he had discovered, and how he experimented successfully with it. He gave a dire warning about it's capabilities.
The main truth movement is heavily influenced by, and potentially under the control of "controlled opposition" agents. Alleged evidence of explosives/thermate is weak, yet it is touted as iron clad by Steven Jones and others.
The evidence for the use of an exotic energy technology is much stronger, and in abundance, and yet it is ridiculed and censored by them, without rational response.
Steven Jones has a history of suppressing research into "zero point" energy (LENR - low energy nuclear reaction - the energy source used for the destruction of the WTC) in his career as a USGov, DOE-funded scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The dude glows.
Wtc 7 was destroyed from the bottom. It was a text book controlled demolition. How do laser beams from space destroy the bottom of the building first? I'm sorry but you've been taken in by lunatic fringe theories aka flat earth designed deliberately to discredit all legitimate questions.
WTC7 may have looked like a "text book" controlled demolition at the moment of it's collapse, but the collapse of the towers did not, and the physical evidence for "text book" controlled demolition is weak.
It's based reports of the sound of explosions (not captured on any footage that I've seen, not like the boom boom boom we hear in footage of other controlled demolitions); and also on microscopic bits of metal in the rubble, that anyway one could expect to be there regardless, since the buildings themselves were composed of those same metals.
Also, the chain of custody of the evidence (the dust) in which Steven Jones found his "microspheres" was not maintained or logged. It's a "trust me bro" type of situation.
What is covered in the film has nothing to do with flat earth or lasers (or mazers or plasmoids), and no serious proponent of LENR or DEW is a flat earther, nor am I.
Nor is there some requirement for a DEW to be operated from space.
You are making the same mistake that the blue-pilled do, when they believe what they're told on the news without researching it for themselves.
Suppression of the success of this type of "quantum vacuum" energy creation, or low energy nuclear reaction, is a conspiracy with far-reaching consequences. The cover-up has been very successful, but 9/11 is evidence of it's utilisation.
The towers came down from the top down because that was the only way to do it semi-safely. They didnt want to take a chance of tipping them over. So the buildings get imploded from the top down in sections. You’d only need 10 or so rows of charges in the core. When you set off charges from the bottom up in a slim core building like that, you risk damaging your det cord other charges leading to failure and having the tower tip over. They don’t set charges on the exterior, the core pulls everything down and in.
Larry wanted them gone becuase of asbestos and a new WTC7, but couldn’t foot the bill and implosions of a building that size would never be allowed in NYC. They must disassemble it top down. So take the cost of an implosion style demolition, and multiply that by 500 and you have your cost to mechanically demo a building like that. Now you also find a way to get 4 BILLION in insurance money to pay for the new ones as a little cherry on top.
I think Larry was late to the plan, not that he isn't complicit in everything because he is. But he bought the buildings when it was a known secret that they were asbestos infested and largely redundant. He knew before he bought them that the buildings that would cost twice what he paid to bring up to code. After purchasing he immediately took out terrorist attack insurance. As soon as that was granted the attacks then took place. It was quite clearly planned, and he knew it was going to happen, but there's no way to judge if he organized it or was involved with that. It's possible he ran in the circles where there imminent destruction was known about. If his buying was part of the plan or not is unclear to me. He may have been an opportunist. Or it may be related to making sure that the planners had complete control of the site after the destruction and clean up, through Larry's ownership, to manage it in some specific way.
The speed at which they came down tends to contradict this. The top of the building met no resistance at all as it fell. Everything below it was already on the same path of destruction as it and so it was not obstructed. The face of the buildings are already peeling away like a banana as the top descends, and there is no impedance to the top's falling from the interior structure. The entire moment is incredibly "smooth" for buildings that size, aside the massive volumes of clouds and dust, and dissimilar to any controlled demolition I've seen a video of. The buildings fall at the same speed as an object that were thrown off the top of one of them and plummeted directly to the ground.
Watching it basically live on TV that day, it struck me, in my youth, as a controlled demolition.
I also believe it was a controlled demolition. I just don't think it was a typical one, that is was unlike any that have happened or been recorded before. I didn't think this originally, but once it was pointed out to me I saw it.
People can't see to get their head around nano thermate. It would be like saying, yeah the building collapsed and turned to dust but the dust just happened to turn into a microchip. After all there were silicone and other constituent elements for microchips in there. The nano thermate was an extremely high end material mixed at the nano level. There were only a few labs in the world in 2001 capable of manufacturing such a material. It was also highly explosive, which regular thermite is not, it's more of an incendiary. It should have been an open and shut case. Contact the relevant companies, find out who they supplied in large quantities. But Jones was shut down, forced out of the university. The case could have been followed up upon, but like the financial aspect of 9/11 was deliberately ignored by the relevant agencies in government. Yes the 'chain of custody' of the material could have been better, but the issue was looked at like 5 years after 9/11. But I don't believe that Jones was the only scientist to study the material and come to such conclusions. But even if Jones didn't exist there is plenty of evidence for controlled demolition and bombs, from countless eye witnesses testimony etc. Ie the lobbies of the buildings were literally blown up before the towers collapsed, that is on video. In a controlled demolition they usually weaken the building by cutting up to 20% of the core columns before the implosion takes place. These buildings have massive structural redundancy.
Dude, Jones is an agent. You definitely should know this.
He sabotaged Pons and Fleischmann during the cold fusion debacle.
Jones was tasked with pushing the thermite red herring. He's the most glowing of ALL 9/11 researchers.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. Just like screaming "the earth is flat!!!!!!" doesn't make it true.
Would you stop making things up about "metal shards " and address the actual issues?
agreed.
https://www.spikeartmagazine.com/articles/one-work-gelatins-b-thing
Here are pictures of mossad agents in the towers with pallets and pallets and pallets full of industrial switches. Switches which, theoretically, could be used to rig ordinance to fire in a controlled manner, exactly as needed to take down a tower of this size.
Do you have anything comparable to that with these alleged "holograms"?
Have you never heard the mossad agents (dancing Israelis) confess?
Why does everything you say sound like disinfo and why do you refuse to defend it?