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.
The more you downvote my comments without discourse, my darling clementine, the more you're proving yourself to be full of shit.
I've tried talking to you before. It's pointless.
That's not my experience.
I ask for evidence evidence that "viruses are soap bubbles and dead cells" and you either ignore it or act like I'm attacking you.
Literally all you can do is point to documentaries and tell me to watch 30 hours of garbage. At that point it becomes clear you either have no idea or no interest in talking about the ideas you're pushing. I note this is a tried and true flat earther playbook.
Can everyone at least recognize it's highly unpalatable to normies or even people who wash in from patriots for the mods to be screaming "germs are fake news" and "explosions are fake news" and "the earth is fake news" with absolutely no evidence to back that up?
I don't think discourse is ever pointless. I think it would expose your agenda. It's "pointless" to your agenda, whatever that is.
I dunno man, I researched it myself, and I can say that I find no proof viruses exist.
That no flight paths go near the south pole is concerning.
I mean, you don't have to pick a side, just admit where the evidence has a proper chain of custody. Where we can really rely on facts. Complaining that you would have to learn stuff to understand stuff doesn't really help your case.
You just make shit up and then say that i said it. Pretty sick of your bullshit TBH.