Latest / UK Column Radio / Mark Conlon on whether planes actually hit the Twin Towers

Transcript

Mark Conlon on whether planes actually hit the Twin Towers · UK Column Radio

• 0:37
  Mark Conlon, thank you for joining me in the trenches
• 0:40
  again. Nice to be back, Jeremy.
• 0:42
  Thanks for asking me. It's a difficult one for, you
• 0:45
  know, for most people, so many different schools of thought on
• 0:49
  what's happened and, you know, how things played out on that
• 0:53
  day, so and what we've been told.
• 0:56
  Can you remember what you were doing on 9/11?
• 0:58
  Yes, yes, I was at work. Didn't actually get to watch the
• 1:03
  events unfold. It was on a radio.
• 1:07
  And to be honest, I'd never heard of the World Trade Center,
• 1:10
  so that was not in my consciousness at that time.
• 1:14
  But when it unfolded and when I got home from work and seeing
• 1:19
  the, the destruction of the towers, etcetera, it was just,
• 1:23
  you know, absolutely unbelievable.
• 1:26
  Did you think at the time that it was a cover up?
• 1:29
  I mean, I thought it was exactly what we were told.
• 1:33
  I thought it was, you know, these Muslims who were headed up
• 1:37
  by this, by this brown guy with a beard in a cave with a Nokia
• 1:40
  3310 somewhere in the Middle East.
• 1:42
  And he orchestrated this entire thing.
• 1:44
  And I believed it for years and years and years.
• 1:46
  Yeah, yeah. Well, for me, I didn't question
• 1:50
  it until about 2003. I had heard rumblings.
• 1:56
  I think there was something on Channel 4 in the UK to do with
• 2:00
  the Pentagon and Thierry Maison, but I didn't question it much
• 2:06
  more than that was around about 2003 four after listening to an
• 2:11
  early Internet radio show called Black Op Radio, and that's what
• 2:16
  sort of got my interest. I should have known better
• 2:19
  really because I would have considered myself quite a
• 2:24
  sceptic back then because back in 1988 that catapulted me into
• 2:30
  the JFK assassination and questioning that after watching
• 2:35
  the Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary that was aired in
• 2:37
  the UK. So that got me questioning other
• 2:41
  assassinations so and well with Diana as well, I questioned
• 2:47
  that. So I was a little bit miffed why
• 2:50
  I didn't question 911. I think it may have been the
• 2:54
  shock and awe of the whole event, I think.
• 2:59
  It was incredible though, wasn't it?
• 3:00
  I mean, yeah, if you watch it now, it still is incredible.
• 3:06
  Yeah, yeah, it is. It's truly, it is so shocking.
• 3:10
  I think there must have been a level, you know, of trauma, you
• 3:15
  know, for a lot of people, you know, seeing that I, I remember
• 3:19
  feeling quite uneasy about it in the evening and recorded, you
• 3:24
  know, some of the news coverage through the night, you know, so
• 3:29
  I felt uneasy about it back then.
• 3:34
  Mark, when when did you start getting red pulled?
• 3:39
  Like did you have a Damascus moment or was it just a gradual
• 3:43
  evolution of of your thought processes?
• 3:47
  It was, well, I think it was, it was around 1988 after watching
• 3:51
  that man who killed Kennedy, because I think I was about 17,
• 3:54
  yeah, 17 years of age when he when he aired.
• 3:57
  And he actually aired in the October 1988.
• 4:02
  And that really sort of gave me a bit of a, you know, a kick,
• 4:07
  kick up the the ass really. Because I remember thinking back
• 4:12
  then, you know, if they can kill the president and cover it up
• 4:15
  for 25 years as it was back then, then who among this is
• 4:19
  safe? If they can do that And they did
• 4:21
  it in front of, you know, a lot of people, you know, you know,
• 4:25
  riding in a car down the street, it's like it was just truly the
• 4:31
  power they had to do that and cover it up for that amount of
• 4:33
  time. And they're still covering it
• 4:35
  up, you know? I'm wondering why is that
• 4:42
  people, Many, many people, simply don't want to even
• 4:47
  entertain the idea of an alternative explanation.
• 4:50
  Yeah, I think for some people, you know, I look at there's,
• 4:54
  there's levels of consciousness really and it depends, you know,
• 4:59
  sort of where you're at on that journey.
• 5:01
  I mean, for some people, things that may be completely obvious
• 5:05
  to us after waking up, if you want to use that term, is, you
• 5:10
  know, they just things just stand out now.
• 5:13
  Like I saw thumb when you see something, you can see the
• 5:16
  playbook. So I think, I think for people,
• 5:20
  I think if they're on that element of having a little bit
• 5:23
  of scepticism and getting into questioning official narratives,
• 5:28
  I think that that's quite good for them.
• 5:31
  And it you know, it can help expand their consciousness and
• 5:35
  and raise that into questioning and noticing when you know,
• 5:39
  being told lies or untruths really, which is seems the order
• 5:46
  of the day these days. Why do you think 911 is so
• 5:51
  important? For me, I think there was just
• 5:58
  to go back, there's 2 events where I noticed what I would
• 6:01
  call a massive energy shift and that was the Princess Diana and
• 6:06
  I'll say assassination. And the other one was 911.
• 6:10
  Two huge events and something changed with with the energy you
• 6:18
  could actually so palpable you could feel it.
• 6:21
  The absolute change and obviously on the back of 911 we
• 6:27
  had the Patriot Act, we had laws changed in the UK, you know,
• 6:32
  everything was tightened up and what followed obviously with 7/7
• 6:36
  as well and some of the other events that happened with in
• 6:44
  Europe, you know, it changed a lot.
• 6:47
  It was like the trigger to cascade of things happening
• 6:51
  really and the war in on terror. Yeah, you know, we got embroiled
• 6:56
  in that and you know, people protested that.
• 7:01
  But I think that pro, the protesting was a bit different
• 7:06
  to what perhaps you know, where my mindset was with you at that
• 7:09
  time. A lot of people ask the
• 7:13
  question, what is the point of covering up 911?
• 7:20
  Oh, well, it's, I don't think they, I think they plan, they
• 7:25
  obviously plan a cover up in advance of when they're going to
• 7:28
  do these events. But obviously these events are
• 7:31
  used to further the agenda, which is more clamping down
• 7:37
  draconian measures which was seen now.
• 7:40
  You know, it's truly unbelievable in the UK, these
• 7:43
  measures that, you know, what's being rolled out.
• 7:46
  It is very draconian. You know, for example, you know,
• 7:51
  my big tube channel, nobody can see in the UK yet laws were, you
• 7:56
  know, brought in and so they say to protect children.
• 8:02
  But my channel has been completely censored in the UK.
• 8:09
  So it, you know, to some degree it's, it's, it's furthered many
• 8:15
  agendas all around the world, I would think.
• 8:21
  So your sub stack has focused quite a lot on the planes
• 8:26
  themselves, and more specifically no planes.
• 8:30
  I just want to preface something regarding no planes and planes.
• 8:35
  There's to just to begin with these.
• 8:39
  If you're going to say to somebody there was no planes
• 8:42
  involved on 9/11, then yeah. They'll laugh at you.
• 8:46
  Yeah, they'll laugh at you, you know.
• 8:48
  And so I came across the No Plains round about 2006.
• 8:56
  It was more prevalent at the Shanksville site and Pentagon.
• 9:01
  It was more acceptable, let's put it that way at that time.
• 9:05
  But when it sort of moved over round about 2004 five to the New
• 9:09
  York events, it became unacceptable about the Plains.
• 9:14
  And I think the the actual term, you know, no planes is very, you
• 9:21
  know, when you say that to people, they have a such a wide
• 9:23
  interpretation about it. They'll either think, you know,
• 9:27
  several schools of thought involved in that.
• 9:29
  They'll say to video fakery that there was no planes at all.
• 9:33
  So all the witnesses were fake and they'll say nobody's seen a
• 9:38
  plane in the sky. And then we've got the the
• 9:42
  missile, missile or missiles that we used.
• 9:45
  We've got the 3D volumetric image projection stealth
• 9:50
  technology, which is something that I've been heavily
• 9:53
  researching behind and really going in to find out what
• 9:57
  happened to the actual planes, because there was actual planes
• 10:01
  that took off, but we don't know where they went.
• 10:04
  They didn't go to the the four name targets.
• 10:07
  And there's a lot of telemetry data that's been well withheld
• 10:13
  that's come out over the years, which proves that the four
• 10:19
  planes were still airborne at the time of the alleged crashes.
• 10:23
  So it's, you know, it's, it's very wide interpretation now
• 10:29
  just. Hold on, hold on.
• 10:30
  So what you're saying, just for clarity, Mark, is that when
• 10:34
  someone says there were no planes, it's a little bit of an
• 10:37
  incorrect statement. What you're saying is that there
• 10:39
  were planes, but we need to be accurate about what we mean.
• 10:42
  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry about the pun, but early
• 10:46
  on it all got hijacked. That actual part of that
• 10:50
  movement, you know, so you had films like September Clues that
• 10:56
  came out and they they, they pushed and promoted that, that
• 10:59
  the planes were inserted into the video footage and all the
• 11:03
  videographers involved like Jennifer Spell were were all in
• 11:08
  on it and they faked their videos.
• 11:12
  So this is what got me actually active in publishing research
• 11:18
  into this, you know, this scenarios that were being put
• 11:22
  forward in films like September Clues.
• 11:25
  You had Ace Baker pushing, it's very similar to what Simon Shack
• 11:30
  pushed in his film. Now, as soon as you mention no
• 11:34
  planes, the conditioning has been to go the go to his
• 11:40
  September clues, CGI footage and the Great American Sai Opera,
• 11:46
  which is Ace Baker's film. Where you're on the fringe is in
• 11:52
  the stealth technology. Now, from my research that I've
• 11:59
  done, which I started publishing in 2013, I can categorically
• 12:03
  prove points in both of Ice Baker's film and Simon Shack's
• 12:08
  film that there is disinformation in that contained
• 12:12
  in that film which is very misleading, very clever editing
• 12:17
  to steer the viewer in a certain direction with no planes.
• 12:23
  And in my opinion, that has been done to cover up some technology
• 12:28
  that was used on 9/11, which is a, let me just say this is a
• 12:32
  very real and present danger in the future and it has to be kept
• 12:37
  secret. So this is something that I've
• 12:42
  been researching for a long time, not just the no planes and
• 12:47
  you know, looking at what's been proposed in people's films, but
• 12:51
  also the real, the real evidence with the planes to prove that
• 12:56
  there was no planes. But there was something else
• 12:59
  used to create the plane illusions.
• 13:01
  And I can tell you now it was not video fakery or CGI planes.
• 13:06
  And I've methodically gone through that to prove that.
• 13:11
  But there's a cover up happening to cover up this technology,
• 13:15
  which in my opinion, the elite or powers that be, call them
• 13:21
  what you will, will most likely used again.
• 13:25
  They've probably been using it on and off in other areas,
• 13:30
  whether it's UFO sightings to use later on in a project blue
• 13:36
  beam style event. But the, the, The thing is, it
• 13:41
  has to be covered up and kept covered up this technology.
• 13:46
  Well, I'll just establish some, some facts for you know, which
• 13:50
  is what we went over and I'll, I'll try and go through this
• 13:54
  quite quickly because I want to get on to the actual technology
• 13:56
  and the perhaps the cover up of what's at work.
• 13:59
  So an established fact is none of the four plane crashes
• 14:04
  activated an ELT. Now an ELT is an emergency
• 14:09
  locator transmission or transmitter.
• 14:12
  They're fitted in 76 sevens and 75 sevens and small aircrafts.
• 14:17
  Now what's unique in a 767 and 75 sevens is you cannot manually
• 14:24
  activate an ELT. So what I mean by that is it
• 14:28
  won't go off early because of the parameter settings.
• 14:32
  So what happened with Flight 11 and Flight 175?
• 14:37
  There was 2 El TS registered that they've tried.
• 14:40
  The authorities have tried to account to Flight 11 and Flight
• 14:45
  175. Now this is impossible because
• 14:50
  flight 11's ELT went off 2 minutes too early and flight 170
• 14:56
  fives went off 4 minutes too early before the crashes.
• 15:00
  So this is an impossibility. But what I can say is on record
• 15:06
  in the NTSB reports, they do not report an ELT for any of the
• 15:14
  four flights going off at the time of the crashes, not one.
• 15:19
  It's not recorded in there. And they should have gone off
• 15:24
  and emitted this beacon to find the plane now and.
• 15:28
  This is official. This is absolutely official.
• 15:30
  It's in their own documents. It's, it's, they've even got one
• 15:34
  of their expedite witnesses, which you know, I've, I've
• 15:38
  published about, you know, articles about this.
• 15:41
  So that's one of the areas to prove that none of the four
• 15:45
  planes crashed at the named target.
• 15:49
  So that's just an area. So I've, you know, these are
• 15:55
  fitted in the back in the tail section.
• 15:57
  Now normally with the plane crashes, tail sections suffer,
• 16:01
  they break off. That's why they're fitted up in
• 16:03
  that area. So in enlarged Boeing 767,
• 16:08
  that's where they sort of be located.
• 16:11
  Now. I'll just flick through this.
• 16:13
  There's the document, you know, here it's explaining the again,
• 16:19
  this is a Commission sensitive document.
• 16:21
  Not all these were released at the time, but there was
• 16:23
  interviews conducted part of the investigation and they actually
• 16:27
  tell you from Paul Thompson who was an ex pilot and operations
• 16:33
  manager. He said an ALT located
• 16:36
  transmission can cannot be triggered by a pilot in a in a
• 16:40
  767 and this is on record. So people are not don't know
• 16:49
  these facts. You see, OK, but before you go
• 16:53
  any further, Mark, so I just want to make sure that I'm
• 16:57
  following. Yeah.
• 17:00
  The the 76 sevens are not imaginary.
• 17:03
  Those were real planes. They did fly, but it doesn't
• 17:08
  appear that they flew into the buildings at this stage.
• 17:13
  That's correct. Yeah.
• 17:14
  Now that is established, we have many areas of data to establish
• 17:21
  the take off times. Now that they are, there's
• 17:24
  discrepancies with that because as I allude in a lot of my
• 17:27
  articles, there's a lot of military drills going on on 9/11
• 17:33
  and you do have evidence of planes being what are called
• 17:38
  duplicated. So you so an example might be
• 17:44
  Flight 175. The official story says it took
• 17:47
  off at 8:14. The Bureau of Transportation
• 17:51
  Statistics, which gets its data through the A cars.
• 17:54
  So when a plane takes off, just to preface this piece of
• 17:59
  information, there's there's a sensor that records the data
• 18:06
  through A cars that says that the wheels have left the ground,
• 18:10
  they've left contact with the ground.
• 18:12
  So that's all recorded. Everything on the plane is
• 18:14
  recorded. It's performance with a cars
• 18:17
  data. So you can you can glean a lot
• 18:23
  of information from the icars data, which again didn't come
• 18:27
  out, wasn't released straight away.
• 18:30
  He'd come out many years later. So another example is Flight 93,
• 18:38
  they say took off at 8:42. Bureau of Transportation
• 18:43
  Statistics shows it took off at 8:28.
• 18:50
  So you've got these inconsistencies and
• 18:52
  discrepancies. Now, I've put all these into
• 18:57
  articles to make it easy for people to follow in all of my
• 19:01
  research articles. So again, we've got Flight 11
• 19:07
  not taking off in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and
• 19:11
  we've also got Flight 77 not taking off in the Bureau of
• 19:15
  Transportation Statistics. You know, it's quite mad, isn't
• 19:19
  it, that they, they can, you've got all this data and a lot of
• 19:25
  people don't know about this data that exists.
• 19:27
  It's been, it's been covered up, that's why.
• 19:29
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now just to move on to Flight
• 19:33
  11. Flight 11, we're told, crashed
• 19:38
  into the north tower at 8:46, but we have NORAD recordings
• 19:44
  giving precise lat long coordinates showing that Flight
• 19:50
  11 was 5.77 miles past the north tower on 9/11.
• 19:56
  So this is after it's it's crashed, it's flowing past the
• 19:59
  towers and there's reports in the NORAD you can listen to the
• 20:03
  recordings and it says it's on the way to Washington.
• 20:07
  Here's a recording that I made from well edited from the NORAD
• 20:14
  tapes and transcripts where it it it tells you that Flight 11
• 20:19
  is still airborne. It's on its way to Washington.
• 20:22
  Military Boston Center just had a report that American 11 is
• 20:25
  still in the air and it's on its way towards heading towards
• 20:28
  Washington. The American 11 is still in the
• 20:31
  air on its way towards the other.
• 20:33
  There was definitely another aircraft that at the town.
• 20:35
  That's the latest report we have.
• 20:36
  OK, I'm going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would
• 20:38
  assume he's somewhere over either New Jersey or somewhere
• 20:42
  further South. OK, so American 11 isn't the
• 20:45
  hijack at all then, right? No, he is a hijack.
• 20:47
  He the American 11 is a hijack. Yes, and he's going in to watch
• 20:50
  it. Should be 1/3 aircraft.
• 20:52
  People have tried to make it. That's a phantom plane that they
• 20:57
  apparently we're going to send fighter jets to, which they they
• 21:00
  did, but they've tried in the Commission to re pivot that to
• 21:05
  say it was for flight 77 and flight 93.
• 21:10
  They can't make their minds up. They knew they had a problem
• 21:13
  with flight 11 because of this evidence.
• 21:16
  So they had to re pivot the story to make out that they the
• 21:20
  fighter jets that were sent to track down 11 were actually sent
• 21:25
  for 77 and then it changed to flight 93.
• 21:29
  So they changed the story. They changed the story, yes, but
• 21:32
  there's the timeline of that story.
• 21:35
  To say when flight 77 was classed as a hijack doesn't fit
• 21:40
  this story's timeline. So they were actually trying to
• 21:44
  track down flight 11. Now, as it continues in
• 21:49
  recording, it gives you a tail number for flight 11 as well.
• 21:54
  So they not only give you the lat long coordinates, which
• 21:58
  places it after flying past the Twin towers by 5.77 miles and
• 22:05
  they say it's on the way to Washington, they also give you a
• 22:10
  the tail number for flight 11. But would people not have seen
• 22:15
  the plane or the planes? They may have done, but who
• 22:20
  would know? If you're talking about people
• 22:23
  on the ground, they would not perhaps know that that is Flight
• 22:27
  11. They're not going to know.
• 22:29
  They might just be like a plane flying through the sky, you
• 22:33
  know, So we have the same for United 175 that was still
• 22:42
  airborne. This is an established fact,
• 22:45
  again through telemetry data that Flight 175 was picked up
• 22:51
  and routed messages through ground stations to do with the a
• 22:55
  cars, which is the addressing and reporting system messaging
• 22:59
  which is sent to the aircrafts and they have uplinks and
• 23:02
  downlinks. Now if a plane's over a certain
• 23:05
  part of the country, the the messages are routed through the
• 23:08
  nearest station, ground station, a cars ground station to that
• 23:12
  plane. OK.
• 23:15
  So it gives you a bit of insight to where the plane would have
• 23:19
  been. So with Flight 175, as I'm going
• 23:24
  to show now, it received some, it received some ACARS messages
• 23:29
  at 8:59 and it it was sent, it was routed through Harrisburg,
• 23:35
  which is nowhere near New York. Now, at the time Flight 175
• 23:42
  would have been here and the ground station is here, that's
• 23:47
  picking up where it's routed through.
• 23:53
  So that is a major anomaly because it it should have been.
• 23:58
  Yeah, so, so the IT changed, it changed course.
• 24:03
  Well, we're told that United 175 did this turn and flew back to
• 24:10
  the Twin Towers. What seems to have happened is
• 24:12
  it didn't make the turn and flew straight, continued in its path
• 24:18
  and was receiving A cars messages over in Harrisburg and
• 24:23
  Pittsburgh, which is, you know, nowhere near New York.
• 24:28
  Now there is a bit of a radius on the right on the A cars, but
• 24:32
  not enough to be sending and routing messages through the
• 24:36
  nearest ground station to the aircraft.
• 24:41
  So that's a good question. That's something I'm trying to
• 24:45
  establish with that. So I don't know for definite
• 24:51
  where it was heading. All I know is it wasn't heading
• 24:54
  for New York. I'm trying not to be too
• 24:57
  speculative with this flight. There's other flights, I can
• 25:00
  tell you exactly where there was heading, but.
• 25:03
  But this one you're not sure. This one, all I know is it's
• 25:06
  still airborne. It's 154 miles away.
• 25:09
  When it received that a cars message in Harrisburg, now it
• 25:16
  also received nine O 3 a message which was routed through
• 25:21
  Pittsburgh. Now Pittsburgh is is quite a
• 25:27
  considerable distance from New York.
• 25:29
  Now the planes crashed at this point over here, and yet a car's
• 25:35
  messages have been sent to the aircraft over here.
• 25:39
  Was this at the same time period?
• 25:42
  Yeah. In fact, if you're going by the
• 25:44
  official timeline of when Flight 175 crashed, it's actually the
• 25:50
  the message he sent, I think something like 5 or 6, seven
• 25:54
  seconds after the planes crashed.
• 25:57
  But it doesn't end there with Flight 175 because, OK, I'll
• 26:04
  just start that again now. Pittsburgh, that was 315 miles
• 26:09
  away from where Flight 175 should have been crashing at the
• 26:14
  South Tower at 9:03. Again, that's a considerable
• 26:18
  distance which you can see in the Google Earth so.
• 26:25
  Mark, though, Mark, but you know that by now somebody will ask,
• 26:31
  OK, but there were people on board.
• 26:33
  Isn't that fairly easy to track? Yeah, the well, we've got a lot
• 26:38
  of problems with the people on board.
• 26:40
  If you want me to go there with that.
• 26:42
  Let's look at Flight 93 for example, with people on board
• 26:48
  and I'll come back to 175 with with the passengers.
• 26:52
  Regarding Flight 93, we've got Mark Bingham who was said to be
• 26:58
  on that flight. Now I've done extensive research
• 27:02
  into this for just to to make this clear, he was not listed on
• 27:09
  the manifest. He was not listed.
• 27:12
  And plus in the official documents they actually say he
• 27:16
  he wasn't assigned a seat number on Flight 93.
• 27:22
  So what happened? See, I can't say what happened
• 27:26
  to him. Also, I can tell you he's in the
• 27:28
  official documents that I've had that were released, they
• 27:34
  classified this information telling you that Mark Bingham
• 27:39
  didn't get that plane. They've tried to explain that he
• 27:42
  didn't get on that plane, that he got on that plane with.
• 27:46
  He was flying on his mum's employee pass or her sister's
• 27:54
  employee pass. Now I'm in touch with the United
• 27:58
  Airlines flight attendant who flew around that time, who
• 28:04
  worked for United, and she, she tells me if if you're not on
• 28:10
  that manifest, you're not on that plane.
• 28:13
  Plus we got this other evidence admitted that he didn't have a
• 28:16
  seat number because they will not get that plane off the
• 28:20
  ground until that manifest is completed properly.
• 28:23
  Because it has to take into account all sorts of information
• 28:27
  to do with the passenger, the luggage, the weight, everything.
• 28:31
  Ignore the. Passengers ignore the
• 28:34
  passengers. What about the pilot?
• 28:35
  I mean, isn't that public knowledge?
• 28:39
  Well, again, if you look at Flight 93, you've got a fueller
• 28:43
  named Anthony Mazza who was fuelling Flight 93.
• 28:50
  And when he gets on board to hand the docket and the
• 28:53
  documentation to get to the copilot, he didn't recognize the
• 29:00
  copilot who was shown on the news and he didn't recognize the
• 29:04
  captain. So he took it upon himself to
• 29:08
  contact the FBI. Again, she's all admitted in
• 29:12
  documents. It's all I'm it's all on my
• 29:15
  research subtext site. So who were them?
• 29:20
  Who was that person? So there could have been a there
• 29:22
  could have been a bait and switch with the with the pilot
• 29:24
  and copilot. Yeah, yeah, it could have been,
• 29:28
  they could have been. Again, there was a lot of
• 29:29
  military exercises taking place. But again, you have the you have
• 29:33
  duplicate flights happening, which it's even worse with
• 29:39
  Flight 93 because you have two lots of evidence showing that
• 29:42
  Flight 93 is over Champaign, IL near Chicago.
• 29:47
  And you also have it 44 miles past the crash site in
• 29:52
  Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, in Shanksville.
• 29:58
  It's heading towards Washington. So you have two flights giving 2
• 30:03
  lots of data. It's as if the air traffic
• 30:05
  control, we're seeing flight 93 over in Pittsburgh, but the A
• 30:13
  cars and radar were showing that it was over in Champaign, IL.
• 30:19
  Now that's backed up that it was in Champaign, IL because of
• 30:24
  Colonel Maher He's again he's on record the saying that they
• 30:29
  observed he was told somebody came in and told him to all in
• 30:33
  his account that Flight 93 was circling over Chicago and they
• 30:39
  didn't know whether it was coming into land or why it was
• 30:44
  circling. They didn't know every something
• 30:46
  to do with the attack. So you've got all this
• 30:49
  information that you know, he's contained in these documents and
• 30:55
  it paints a very, very different picture to just there's no
• 30:59
  planes. My, my, my area is that there
• 31:05
  was planes, some planes that went to different places.
• 31:08
  They didn't go to the targets. But what?
• 31:11
  But what we were seeing or be seen in the second videos was
• 31:17
  not Flight 175. Then what was it?
• 31:26
  Well, again, it's back to the contention that you have
• 31:31
  different schools of thought. So some people, as I recently
• 31:35
  heard the other night on a group, Richard Gage getting
• 31:40
  involved saying it was a military plane.
• 31:42
  Yet I can prove it's not a military plane, because military
• 31:46
  planes don't have their wings disappearing in video footage,
• 31:51
  not just one, but photographs some.
• 31:54
  So that's an odd anomaly to have, you say.
• 31:59
  We've also got the impossible speed of the plane travelling at
• 32:02
  700 feet at 596 mph, which is impossible, but people will.
• 32:09
  Argue. Break apart.
• 32:11
  Break apart and there's numerous pilots that I've got in my
• 32:15
  presentation. It will tell you it'll break
• 32:18
  apart. It's physically impossible.
• 32:22
  That's where Richard Gage said, oh, it's a military plane
• 32:25
  because Jeff Hill rang Boeing. Jeff Hill rang Boeing and and
• 32:30
  nice, she said she's on record Leslie Hazard that you can't do
• 32:37
  it at that the plane wouldn't go that fast that that because of
• 32:41
  the density of the air will take the wings off, takes the engine
• 32:46
  off. And the best example for this is
• 32:48
  actually Flight 587 that crashed in New York or Queens on in
• 32:57
  November 2001. Now that is a perfect example
• 33:02
  that crashed that a plane cannot go through the dense air with
• 33:07
  each VMO limitations. Well, you know, well above
• 33:13
  those. So it's it's physically
• 33:16
  impossible. And we also have the same with
• 33:19
  the crash dynamics. When you look at the videos of
• 33:22
  Flight 175, the crash dynamics is non existent.
• 33:27
  Again, we have people saying, well, the plane would have gone
• 33:29
  in and but but there's, there's no, there's absolutely no
• 33:33
  resistance. There's no collision.
• 33:36
  There's no proper collision that you would have.
• 33:39
  The fuel is stored in the wings on a plane and there's no
• 33:42
  ignition of that happening. And that's very strange.
• 33:48
  The tail section doesn't break off.
• 33:51
  And you know, again, on another group they said, boy, there was
• 33:55
  Deb debris. Now none of the debris.
• 34:01
  Now again, this is on record, the NTSB, none of the debris,
• 34:05
  plane debris that was found, any of the sites, there's no chain
• 34:08
  of custody, there's no inventory of it.
• 34:13
  And there's it was never ever matched to any of the serial
• 34:16
  serial numbers of the four plane.
• 34:18
  They'll talk about that engine, they'll talk about that engine
• 34:20
  that was found a few blocks away or something.
• 34:24
  Yeah, that was found on Morris St. wasn't it?
• 34:26
  There's a lot of contention about that engine.
• 34:28
  Some people believe that it is the engine.
• 34:31
  I have been looking into that. There is some anomalies with it.
• 34:35
  It did bounce off a building, collided with the building,
• 34:38
  something exited the building. But whether you know it, again,
• 34:44
  it's on record that you can't. There's no there's no serial
• 34:48
  number being tracked back to flight 175.
• 34:52
  They've not done that. There's no inventory, there's no
• 34:54
  chain of custody to prove. The government never proved that
• 34:58
  that engine belonged to that plane.
• 35:00
  And there's a good reason for that because that plane was
• 35:02
  nowhere near the target. And there was certainly no ELT
• 35:07
  to say to suggest that that plane crashed into that target.
• 35:14
  Now if you just want me to mention the some other evidence
• 35:21
  to do with Flight 175 is what they call the called the Dulles
• 35:24
  Control Centre radar. Now this showed that Flight 175
• 35:31
  flew past the South tower and it was captured at 9:07 on that
• 35:39
  radar data and it was over Connecticut.
• 35:43
  Now again, this is all in the telemetry data which I've shown
• 35:49
  on the screen there with the coordinates it even and it was
• 35:53
  flying at 31,000 feet, which is not that plane is well above the
• 35:58
  towers and it's captured over in at nine O 7 in the morning doing
• 36:06
  31,000 feet and over Connecticut.
• 36:10
  Now this information particularly this is new
• 36:13
  information. This was we discovered this
• 36:18
  totally backs up what was seen and broadcast on MSNBC at not at
• 36:24
  1025 Live when they showed something called FlightAware and
• 36:31
  they hover over the planes and it shows that Flight 175 is over
• 36:36
  Connecticut. We've just received word that
• 36:40
  all inbound international flights to the United States are
• 36:43
  being diverted to Canada. The government will not allow
• 36:45
  them to land here in the US. They are being diverted to
• 36:47
  Canada. As we've been reporting, all
• 36:49
  airports in the US have shut down departures.
• 36:53
  We were watching on our Flight Explorer.
• 36:55
  I don't know if we can put it on the air right now.
• 36:56
  This is a system in which we can actually look at the number of
• 36:59
  airplanes in the air. Normally this would be dotted
• 37:02
  with little blue airplane figures.
• 37:04
  Look at how few were looking. It looks like only three over
• 37:06
  the immediate New York City metro area, just a handful
• 37:09
  airplanes in the air are being allowed to land at their
• 37:12
  destinations and then that is it.
• 37:14
  Now, keep in mind the planes you're looking at here are only
• 37:17
  those that are participating in the FAA radar system, airliners.
• 37:21
  This is does not include anybody in a small Cessna or a small
• 37:24
  plane who might be flying in what's called VFR traffic where
• 37:28
  they're just flying below the commercial traffic.
• 37:30
  But again, these represent commercial airplanes or
• 37:33
  airplanes that are participating in the FAA system.
• 37:35
  Just a handful in the skies over the Northeast right now.
• 37:39
  Greg, Chris. Watching continuing NBC News
• 37:42
  coverage on MSNBC of a series of apparent terrorist attacks.
• 37:49
  There you go. Gee, now you'll you'll struggle
• 37:53
  to find that online. It's still online just about,
• 37:59
  but this piece of evidence backs up the other piece of evidence
• 38:02
  I'm just showing, which is the official DCC radar showing that
• 38:08
  Flight 175 is over Connecticut. This absolutely backs that up.
• 38:13
  So you've got one Flight 175 over Connecticut and you've got
• 38:17
  the ACARS data communicating with the plane over in
• 38:22
  Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, which is in totally the other
• 38:25
  direction. It's impossible.
• 38:28
  Do you think the pilots knew what was going on?
• 38:33
  Were they oblivious? Were they in on it?
• 38:35
  Well, there are some pilots which are connected to the
• 38:38
  military who were flying that day, but that's difficult to say
• 38:43
  or don't know for definite regarding the pilot.
• 38:47
  And just just quickly to go back to the passengers in Flight 11,
• 38:52
  there's there's information, official information showing
• 38:55
  reservations that were cancelled for Flight 11.
• 38:58
  OK. And yeah, these passengers were
• 39:05
  alleged to have been on Flight 11.
• 39:07
  They never there's no information proving they're
• 39:09
  booked back on the flight. And apparently they found their
• 39:13
  DNA at the site. So how can you have official
• 39:17
  American Airlines information showing that there's passengers
• 39:21
  who cancelled their reservations and didn't really book onto that
• 39:25
  flight? And that's the same.
• 39:29
  We've got that again with Flight 77 as well.
• 39:34
  So we, there's a lot, there's a lot of people, there's some good
• 39:38
  people doing work on that Who including myself, I've done
• 39:43
  quite a bit to do with the passengers, which is all on my
• 39:45
  sub stack. We've got as if aliases were
• 39:49
  being prepared as well or what they call it photographic EXIF
• 39:53
  data, which is dated before 911, which is impossible with the
• 39:58
  obituaries, which is highly, highly strange.
• 40:05
  Plus you've got with flight. 175, you've got 5 passengers
• 40:10
  names, you are not on the flight manifest.
• 40:15
  So there's something very strange.
• 40:17
  Again, I've looked into the victim compensations fund and
• 40:22
  there's a lot of anomalies with that, with the numbers who
• 40:26
  brought, you know, we were given payments from the fund.
• 40:30
  There was a private litigation brought, but the numbers down
• 40:33
  add up with the people who brought the private litigation
• 40:37
  than the people who were paid out by the victim compensation
• 40:40
  fund. So again, there's a lot of
• 40:43
  anomalies with the passengers. Just to show you there that's
• 40:47
  off the FlightAware and that information that's shown on
• 40:52
  there is identical to the schedule of Flight 175.
• 40:58
  And if you go into the BTS, there's no other Flight 170.
• 41:04
  Well, there's Flight 175, but there's nothing that matches
• 41:07
  that 5. So I'll just quickly move on to
• 41:15
  American Airlines. You've got that.
• 41:16
  That went off radar for 19, I think 18 minutes.
• 41:22
  Now. Again, we've got evidence now
• 41:25
  this evidence a lot to come out in the last few years that we've
• 41:30
  managed to collate. So this proves that this plane
• 41:34
  did not turn around and fly back to Washington, didn't, didn't
• 41:37
  turn on the Kentuckian Ohio border.
• 41:40
  It was actually on radar, on the DCC radar captured flying over
• 41:45
  to Missouri and Kansas City. Now there's a lot of evidence to
• 41:49
  support this, to support the radar information.
• 41:53
  So this is the plotted radar coordinates showing that Flight
• 41:58
  1, that's Flight 77, American Airlines flew on into Kentucky,
• 42:06
  all the way over into Missouri and over into Kansas.
• 42:11
  Now again, this come out for a Freedom of Information at this
• 42:16
  information which people can go to National Archives and find
• 42:21
  this stuff themselves of published research surrounding
• 42:26
  this. I've gone through transcripts
• 42:30
  where again this is an official document showing transcripts at
• 42:35
  1429. So that's that.
• 42:37
  This is at 1029. Now remember the Pentagon was
• 42:41
  hitted apparently at 937. Now they're still tracking this
• 42:47
  guy who they say is American 77. How do we get tracking over
• 42:53
  Missouri? So they know he's over Missouri,
• 42:55
  they know he didn't turn around and fly back to Washington.
• 43:00
  So again, we've got mentioned to about tracking him over
• 43:04
  Missouri. This is at 1031, all official
• 43:09
  information. And again, at 1038, we've got
• 43:14
  Flight 77, he's in Kansas area heading westward westbound.
• 43:20
  And again 1040 the same, it's over in the ZKC, which is again
• 43:29
  that Kansas City airspace and still airborne and again at
• 43:34
  10:41. So there's a lot of official
• 43:39
  evidence there. And we also have what was shown
• 43:41
  on CNN, which showed that the flight didn't turn around.
• 43:45
  It was still in green, which means it's transponder was still
• 43:48
  on at that point. And this was shown the day after
• 43:52
  on sea and enter. This is FlightAware again,
• 43:55
  totally contradicting the official narrative.
• 43:59
  So I'll just play this loop shows you the flight which I
• 44:01
  made. What you're looking at here is
• 44:09
  it's about to turn and then it jumps, which means it did not
• 44:13
  make the turn. It's actually following that
• 44:16
  radar path. So whoever let this slip on CNN,
• 44:23
  whole thing got a bit of a bad rap.
• 44:27
  Yeah, but a bunch of anomalies happened on the day.
• 44:29
  Remember that that BBC wasn't Sky or BBC footage where they
• 44:33
  announced the second tower going down, I think like 20 minutes
• 44:37
  before it went down. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 44:41
  Which didn't register. Next to nothing.
• 44:43
  Seismic reading, again that's pushed as a controlled
• 44:46
  demolition. People need to look at the
• 44:48
  evidence and go and do you do diligence and look at the
• 44:52
  seismic readings which were naughty .6 that's impossible.
• 44:57
  No SOP wave in the seismic reading.
• 45:00
  Again, that's not anything kinetic that's destroyed that
• 45:03
  building. There's something else at work
• 45:05
  and people need to really understand that, that there was
• 45:10
  a lot of technology going on on 9/11 and it's being covered up
• 45:13
  and unfortunately, it's being covered up by the vast majority
• 45:16
  of the truth movement. Sorry to say that, but that's
• 45:19
  the truth. Infiltration.
• 45:23
  Absolutely, and they're making a lot of money doing it as well,
• 45:29
  so people are actually paying for a cover up.
• 45:32
  Both planes took off, but both planes they didn't, they didn't
• 45:41
  go in the direction that we were told they they went their own
• 45:44
  way and the daughter shows this. Absolutely.
• 45:49
  Absolutely. Yeah, Yeah.
• 45:51
  All right. I can prove it.
• 45:52
  I can prove it from their own documents.
• 45:55
  Yeah, yeah. And and you say that they are
• 45:59
  weird anomalies with with the military stuff that was
• 46:03
  happening on the same day. Absolutely, yeah, Yeah.
• 46:07
  If you look at some of the military exercises, I mean they
• 46:10
  did have one planned in June, O2, which is Amalgam, Virgo, O2,
• 46:17
  and that involved having real Delta Airlines employees and it
• 46:24
  had FBII think as hijackers and actors as passengers.
• 46:36
  So there's also other military exercises where they've got
• 46:40
  simulated cell phone calls involved in the training
• 46:47
  exercise, you know, hijacking involving simulated phone calls.
• 46:52
  And I mean, we're only talking about the two towers here.
• 46:56
  We're not even talking about the Pentagon and what's the name the
• 47:02
  the the other location. Shanksville Yes, we.
• 47:05
  Aren't even talking about that. We're just talking about the two
• 47:08
  towers. That's it, Yeah.
• 47:10
  Yeah, which again. And, and I mean, it stands to
• 47:17
  reason that if you're going to question what hit the Pentagon
• 47:20
  and what happened in Shanksville, you should also be
• 47:25
  asking what happened with the towers.
• 47:28
  Yeah, the towers is very important because that
• 47:31
  particular the second flight was themed all over the world.
• 47:36
  That's what actually put conditioned people regarding the
• 47:39
  planes. And obviously the news coverage
• 47:43
  was it was on every channel in every country, I should think,
• 47:48
  well, from what I know. If you, if you look at the the
• 47:52
  still frames of the official footage, which anybody can find
• 47:56
  on YouTube and you break it apart into images and you watch
• 48:00
  the plane actually going into the building, it looks like a
• 48:04
  cartoon. I mean, it, it just, it just
• 48:07
  vanishes without any resistance. And the amount of mental
• 48:11
  gymnastics that goes on from people trying to explain that,
• 48:15
  well, this is what happens when it's going at that speed and the
• 48:18
  building is effectively made from paper.
• 48:20
  I mean, it's, it's so thin and it's, it's just, there's no
• 48:23
  resistance whatsoever. But it's so blatantly obvious
• 48:27
  that the visuals don't look right.
• 48:30
  The plane is going at a constant speed, which also doesn't look
• 48:34
  right. It doesn't even slow down.
• 48:36
  Yeah, the whole thing doesn't make any sense.
• 48:38
  No, the, the, the, the physics of it is totally off.
• 48:42
  I know. Again, this is a big contention
• 48:44
  in the truth movement. You know, they contend, I'm
• 48:47
  going to show you why it's not military planes which is being
• 48:50
  pushed at the moment. We've remote the remote
• 48:53
  controlled planes. That is actually a cover story.
• 48:57
  So you don't look at the technology that was involved to
• 48:59
  produce those planes. Well, I'll just mention about
• 49:02
  Flight 93 because it's just as I'm going through this
• 49:05
  presentation. Yeah.
• 49:06
  So, yeah, that that had the same with the with the A cars.
• 49:11
  It showed it was over Champaign, IL, which is 500 miles away from
• 49:16
  Pittsburgh. Like I said, Colonel Miles on
• 49:19
  record it's in the United 93 circling over Chicago yet again.
• 49:26
  This is where we have flight 93 should have been here the crash
• 49:30
  yet it's registering a cars messages over here.
• 49:37
  We even have a cars messages that chime in the cockpit of the
• 49:41
  aircraft after it is allegedly crashed and he's no more.
• 49:47
  It sets off a sound say that the message has been received.
• 49:54
  This is again that in part that couldn't happen if the planes
• 49:57
  crashed. But what we're looking at now is
• 49:59
  Colonel Mars testimony or a count on a Commission sensitive
• 50:05
  document which was unclassified. So he admits it was served in
• 50:12
  over Chicago, which is nowhere. It's nowhere near Pittsburgh.
• 50:15
  I'll skip over that one. Plus we have the air traffic
• 50:20
  controllers now. They're saying it's 15 miles
• 50:22
  past the crash site of Shanksville, so it flew further
• 50:28
  on. How can this do when we got the
• 50:30
  plane and the A cars over in Champaign, IL.
• 50:34
  Again, this is spoken about on the in the documents to do with
• 50:40
  the transcripts from the air traffic control.
• 50:44
  Again, it's listed the position coordinates which people can go
• 50:48
  and put these coordinates into Google Earth and you will find
• 50:53
  the same findings of what I've found.
• 50:56
  Again, this has come from a Commission sensitive document.
• 51:00
  This shows you the last lat long coordinates showing it's 44
• 51:04
  miles past the crash site. We also have Linda Justice who
• 51:10
  shows that the plane is going to Hagerstown, which is 69 miles
• 51:15
  past the crash site. So this is giving us some
• 51:17
  indication of where this other Flight 93 is heading.
• 51:21
  So Hagerstown is 69 miles past the crash site, as you can see
• 51:26
  there. So it's heading towards
• 51:27
  Washington. Now, there was a change of
• 51:31
  flight plan. Now, the Commission tripped
• 51:33
  themselves up here because they didn't want to say it was the
• 51:36
  the the hijackers that done this or alleged hijackers.
• 51:42
  But again, this is on record on CNN, which was broadcast at 5:00
• 51:47
  on the day. And then disappeared off the
• 51:49
  radar screens right here outside of the Pittsburgh area place
• 51:52
  called Shanksville. We don't know what happened
• 51:54
  there. What's kind of odd about this
• 51:55
  one, Joey, is that at some point after flying past Pittsburgh,
• 52:00
  the pilot apparently radioed and changed his destination to DCA,
• 52:04
  which is Ronald Reagan National Airport.
• 52:06
  Unclear what that means. Now let's let me just kind of
• 52:09
  put this all onto 1 graphic if you.
• 52:12
  There you go, Danny. It's mentioned in the Dateline.
• 52:18
  He was right. Dateline obtained radar data
• 52:21
  showing the path of United Flight 93.
• 52:24
  A little more than an hour into the flight, it makes a sharp
• 52:27
  turn off course near Cleveland, OH.
• 52:30
  Radio communication is switched off.
• 52:33
  Dateline has also been able to confirm that a new flight plan
• 52:36
  was filed from on board, perhaps by a fourth hijacker identified
• 52:41
  today as a pilot destination. Reagan International Airport.
• 52:47
  The plane was now on a direct course for Washington, DC.
• 52:52
  So again, there's numerous reports now, there's just some
• 52:57
  evidence to to show that Flight 93 actually landed at Reagan
• 53:01
  National Airport at 10:28. So again, this was put on this
• 53:10
  flight, FlightAware, this is sorry, FlightAware.
• 53:17
  So this was confirming it's landing at 10:28 as it was
• 53:24
  heading to Washington. We also have from an Excel
• 53:27
  spreadsheet from Reagan National showing it landed at 10:28.
• 53:34
  Again, this just talks about ELTS there.
• 53:38
  So this slide shouldn't be there.
• 53:40
  So you might want to edit that one out.
• 53:42
  So it leads it leads you to this.
• 53:44
  So planes that are still airborne after the alleged crash
• 53:49
  crashes stands to reason you're not going to have any AL TS
• 53:52
  activated, you know, which is again officially in the NTSB.
• 53:58
  So as awfully to the next part of what were what were you asked
• 54:03
  about? So none of the named planes hit
• 54:05
  the four named targets. What what did we see crashing
• 54:10
  into the South tower? Now, this is a big question.
• 54:12
  This is a very contentious area of, you know, research causes a
• 54:20
  lot of arguments. So there's some schools of
• 54:24
  thought which I mentioned earlier.
• 54:26
  So we have remote controlled planes, we have missiles, we
• 54:29
  have CGI and video fakery inserted planes.
• 54:33
  We've got 3D volumetric image projection which people might
• 54:36
  not be too aware of, which is something that I've been
• 54:39
  involved with, which we covered in the 9/11 Alchemy film.
• 54:44
  But I'm just going to go to some established facts.
• 54:47
  So flight data shows that the planes were travelling at
• 54:50
  impossible speeds for both 76 sevens and 75 sevens below 1000
• 54:56
  feet. Now as I said earlier, Boeing
• 54:59
  are on record when Jeff Hill spoke to both Laurie Bechol Cole
• 55:05
  and Leslie Hazard. So and these these have work at
• 55:10
  Boeing and and Leslie's a an engineer.
• 55:15
  We also have a lack of Newtonian physics observed in the the
• 55:19
  second plane video, which is very, very strange.
• 55:22
  So as I said earlier, the best example have impossible speed
• 55:28
  because the plane would not the airframe of that plane would not
• 55:32
  be able to handle it was flight 587.
• 55:36
  And I'm just going to play this short clip here to explain out
• 55:42
  of Manhattan 2 a little over two months after or two months and a
• 55:45
  day after the 9/11 event same year, Do you remember it
• 55:49
  crashed. Everybody thought it was another
• 55:50
  terrorist event. It it took off right behind a
• 55:54
  big Japanese airliner and it was a little bit too close and had
• 55:58
  turbulence. That wasn't so much the problem
• 56:00
  as the less experienced pilot was had learned that you make
• 56:05
  the rudder go to get out of turbulence and he went, you
• 56:08
  know, hard left, hard right, you know, hard left.
• 56:11
  And he tore off the tail of the airplane.
• 56:18
  Now that was just with air forces.
• 56:20
  They're at about 2400 feet, about twice the height of the
• 56:24
  World Trade Center. Not only that, as the the pieces
• 56:28
  started coming down, the engines were torn off the plane.
• 56:34
  What does that tell you about a plane going supposedly going
• 56:38
  twice the speed and banking a tight, tight turn into the
• 56:41
  towers? It couldn't do it it.
• 56:44
  Couldn't do it. Exactly.
• 56:46
  And the best evidence we have a demonstration right there and
• 56:52
  there you go. Impossible that you know, it's
• 56:57
  impossible. And just this video here shows
• 57:00
  just regarding the wings, how how they can be, you know, quite
• 57:04
  fragile. I'm going to tell you though,
• 57:17
  that freaks me out still. I don't know how often you fly,
• 57:21
  but when when I fly and I hit a bit of turbulence, I always
• 57:26
  think about those wings. Yes, yes, well, they do have on
• 57:31
  them. Don't step on them because of
• 57:33
  that fragile. So again, you know, it's another
• 57:42
  area that people need to be aware of.
• 57:46
  And then as I go on quickly, I'll I'll show you quickly.
• 57:50
  So this is Boeing. The phone call, just a quick
• 57:52
  phone call from Jeff Hill. Leslie Hazard, you.
• 58:01
  Have reached the point company. You know the number you wish to
• 58:04
  reach. Please hang up and dial that
• 58:06
  number. If you wish to continue to hold.
• 58:09
  Your wait time could be up to 5 minutes.
• 58:12
  Thank you for your call. Hi, Miss Hazard, Yes, I was
• 58:21
  talking to a lady at Boeing yesterday and she had directed
• 58:25
  me to you because she said that you have an answer to the
• 58:28
  question that I was asking, I hope.
• 58:29
  So. Well, the question is, I think
• 58:32
  it's probably a rather simple one, is it has to do with the
• 58:36
  maximum speed of a 767-200 at 700 feet altitude?
• 58:43
  Oh boy. Like I looked all over the
• 58:47
  Internet and everything and I couldn't find anything about it.
• 58:51
  Here for 200. Pardon me for 200.
• 58:59
  Yeah, 767-200. Yeah.
• 59:01
  Anyway, we don't have much 100. Like I had asked some people and
• 59:07
  they they assumed it would be about 250 miles an hour or
• 59:11
  something. That sounds that sounds pretty
• 59:15
  likely because 35,000 feet is 530 miles.
• 59:20
  So there's no way that it could be going 500 miles an hour at
• 59:25
  700 feet altitude there. So just to quickly sum up, we've
• 59:35
  got another aircraft engineer on on record.
• 59:38
  Now he, he says at sea level it will usually be around 400 mph,
• 59:45
  which is or 360 Knox for heavily built transport airplanes.
• 59:52
  Now again, he's talking about here about sea level.
• 59:56
  So what we mean by that is if you look at the Flight 175
• 1:00:00
  video, we're talking about 100,000 feet with that with
• 1:00:04
  that. So he even says here that you
• 1:00:07
  risk a breakup. Even rockets are built with
• 1:00:11
  limitation limited strength. So they have to observe speed
• 1:00:15
  limitations during certain phases of their climb through
• 1:00:19
  the atmosphere to contain the aerodynamic forces on their
• 1:00:23
  bodies. So what he's talking about there
• 1:00:26
  is where the air is more dense. You cannot travel at cruising
• 1:00:29
  speed because of the air and the molecules.
• 1:00:33
  It's too dense. The two spread out.
• 1:00:36
  It's the equivalent if you can imagine if somebody being pushed
• 1:00:41
  through a swimming pool and you imagine sticking your arms out,
• 1:00:47
  you'd be going through like a swimming pool and that density
• 1:00:50
  of this pool compared to when you're outside of the pool.
• 1:00:54
  So, and, and the airframes are not made to to, to travel at
• 1:00:58
  those speeds. And there's, you know, you've
• 1:01:00
  got all sorts of pilots. There was just quite a few in
• 1:01:07
  the old pilots for 911 truth. They will.
• 1:01:10
  They, they spoke out about this, about these limitations.
• 1:01:15
  I do find it strange that there's other pilots who that
• 1:01:17
  won't go there with a lot of this information who they won't
• 1:01:24
  look at the a cars. They won't they won't tell their
• 1:01:27
  viewers about the Elts. They don't talk about the DCC
• 1:01:32
  radar. They don't talk about A cars.
• 1:01:35
  They don't, and I'll find that strange because people need
• 1:01:39
  information to make, you know, to digest the information and
• 1:01:43
  make their own conclusions out of a lot of it.
• 1:01:48
  I do worry about what they're not being told.
• 1:01:51
  Now, just for the lack of Newtonian physics, I'll just
• 1:01:54
  quickly play this. What we're looking at here is
• 1:02:02
  the Michael has a Carney video on the right and the Lou Chesney
• 1:02:08
  video on the left. Now they're both displaying
• 1:02:13
  really unusual impact dynamics. There's no deceleration and
• 1:02:20
  there's no breaking off of the tail.
• 1:02:23
  There's no explosion when the wings come into contact with the
• 1:02:27
  building. Now people are say, oh, well,
• 1:02:30
  it's like going through a shredder.
• 1:02:33
  There's fuel. The wings have fuel tanks in
• 1:02:37
  them now. As soon as you hit steel with
• 1:02:41
  that fuel, it is going to ignite.
• 1:02:44
  You are going to see something ignite and you don't.
• 1:02:49
  Adding to what you're saying, yeah, the plane is also hitting
• 1:02:54
  the building at a diagonal, which means that it's it's it's
• 1:02:58
  a cross section of various concrete floors and steel
• 1:03:03
  frames. Yeah, yeah, That's correct.
• 1:03:08
  And So what what what we're seeing in this video footage,
• 1:03:13
  we're seeing not only impossible physics, which we can see in
• 1:03:19
  this photograph. I mean, this is just truly, you
• 1:03:25
  know, if you were seeing a magic show, David Copperfield, would
• 1:03:28
  you believe it that he's cut that woman in half?
• 1:03:32
  You are seeing a very clever illusion at work here because
• 1:03:39
  when that plane is hitting that building, like you say, on an
• 1:03:42
  angle to that angle, you would get some type of shift as it
• 1:03:49
  collided that building. And we're not, we're seeing it
• 1:03:51
  colliding seamlessly. Very, very, you know, it's very
• 1:03:55
  evident. But what I didn't it.
• 1:03:57
  Doesn't even slow down. No, it doesn't slow down.
• 1:04:00
  And, and incidentally, the matter STEFO has proven now,
• 1:04:05
  which again, the truth movement will not accept this, that the
• 1:04:08
  building didn't even move. There's no movement in the
• 1:04:12
  building when that plane is actually gone through the
• 1:04:15
  alleged war and into the plane. The movement only starts when
• 1:04:20
  there's an explosion. Now you should have had some
• 1:04:23
  type of physical object in that building.
• 1:04:25
  You should have had some type of rocking of that building.
• 1:04:27
  And that doesn't happen until the plane has disappeared inside
• 1:04:31
  the building, which is again, it's impossible physics.
• 1:04:38
  Just to mention in the last video there, there was missing
• 1:04:42
  wings, which is in the footage. Now again, people will try and
• 1:04:48
  explain this as Oh well, it's, it's, it's compression and all
• 1:04:52
  this. No, no, no.
• 1:04:56
  The Nordai footage which I did analysis on, they shot their
• 1:05:00
  footage with professional camera and that is why I used it,
• 1:05:05
  because there was a lot of other footage from further away which
• 1:05:08
  showed the missing wing anomaly. And it's not just in one
• 1:05:11
  footage, it's in photographs as well.
• 1:05:14
  This was a study I did which is published on my sub stack as
• 1:05:18
  well, where the wings disappear and they reappear.
• 1:05:21
  Now this is over 12 frames. The wing disappears for six and
• 1:05:26
  then comes back for six and you will see it here in another
• 1:05:33
  video. It just doesn't look real.
• 1:06:31
  No, no, it doesn't look real. Now this is because that footage
• 1:06:35
  is quite grainy. People say it's compression, the
• 1:06:38
  wing is disappearing and the tail section is because of print
• 1:06:40
  compression, but it's not compression.
• 1:06:43
  Now this still here is taken from the highest quality of the
• 1:06:46
  Nordea footage and they had a professional camera that you
• 1:06:49
  what I can talk, conducted my analysis with my frame by frame
• 1:06:53
  analysis where that wing and tail section is missing for six
• 1:06:57
  frames, which is quite a lot. Now that isn't compression.
• 1:07:04
  That's not an artifact of compression, video compression.
• 1:07:08
  The other thing is this would explain why people seen a small
• 1:07:12
  plane, a large plane, a Cessna, and in some cases people say
• 1:07:18
  they saw a missile or a rocket. So let's just strike out the top
• 1:07:24
  1 remote controlled planes do not have wings disappearing.
• 1:07:28
  Period. They don't.
• 1:07:31
  This is trying to be pushed at the moment by a select people in
• 1:07:36
  the truth movement that this is remote controlled planes
• 1:07:39
  categorically is not a remote controlled plane you're looking
• 1:07:42
  at. Remote controlled planes do not
• 1:07:43
  have wings disappearing. Missile, Possibly, but can a
• 1:07:51
  missile make a plane shaped hole?
• 1:07:55
  Can I missile make a plane shaped hole?
• 1:07:58
  Think about that, because that's what the cartoon physics showed,
• 1:08:02
  a plane shaped hole. Then we have the CGI inserted
• 1:08:06
  planes. Now where this falls down and
• 1:08:09
  doesn't sufficiently explain everything is you have
• 1:08:12
  eyewitnesses who've seen a plane.
• 1:08:15
  I have a friend in New York who watched the second plane going
• 1:08:18
  seamlessly into the building. So is he a liar?
• 1:08:25
  Are all, are they all lawyers who filmed these and
• 1:08:28
  photographed the plane? That's, that's you have to
• 1:08:32
  contend with that. People have to weigh that up.
• 1:08:35
  Have you got everybody involved and on board?
• 1:08:38
  And just think about this, if they was, how did they track the
• 1:08:42
  plane? If it wasn't there at all, how
• 1:08:46
  would they plan and follow the plane?
• 1:08:48
  So it doesn't suggest CGI planes.
• 1:08:51
  Plus, what I said with my earlier research into September
• 1:08:54
  clues showed a lot of errors and in my opinion, deliberate errors
• 1:08:59
  that were put in that film to lead you away from the from #4
• 1:09:03
  which is some type of image projection technology, which
• 1:09:08
  sounds very, very Star Trek and sci-fi.
• 1:09:13
  But the evidence is there to prove that this technology
• 1:09:16
  exists and it's been there. Well, since I can track that the
• 1:09:21
  desire to develop this technology was around the early
• 1:09:25
  90s in 1991. So I just mentioned this.
• 1:09:30
  So this is just a close up here of the disappearing wing.
• 1:09:36
  Is that a Boeing 767? Everybody can get the Norde
• 1:09:45
  footage going by the DVD. You'll see this.
• 1:09:48
  You'll see this anomaly. Now, that is not only captured
• 1:09:58
  in the Nordai footage again, which is on a professional
• 1:10:03
  camera that they were filming the documentaries.
• 1:10:06
  And I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding those
• 1:10:08
  two French brothers, but we also have this particular person from
• 1:10:19
  England. He was nameless, Sweeting, and
• 1:10:24
  we believe from a lot of the testimonies that thought they
• 1:10:28
  saw a small plane or small object or missile.
• 1:10:32
  We believe that they were seeing this technology from some angles
• 1:10:37
  wasn't so good, which was captured on the cameras and also
• 1:10:41
  witnessed by the eyewitnesses. When we came down here, I see a
• 1:10:45
  rock. We got to go into this one, just
• 1:10:47
  watch the rocket drive straight into the centre.
• 1:10:51
  So I just put that on again when we came down here, see a rocket
• 1:10:55
  go into this one. Just watch the rocket drive
• 1:10:57
  straight into the centre. So what is he observing there?
• 1:11:02
  He's saying he's observing a rocket.
• 1:11:04
  I mean, that could that that object could pass as looking
• 1:11:07
  like a rocket. But if you look at the the Luke
• 1:11:10
  Courchesney video as well, compared to the Nordai, there's
• 1:11:14
  no wing at all there. So what is this object again?
• 1:11:20
  Luke Courchesney was filming on Beta recording video cassette,
• 1:11:29
  which is a higher quality than VHS.
• 1:11:35
  So what is he capturing there? They're capturing something that
• 1:11:38
  is not a physical object, or not a 767 anyway.
• 1:11:44
  Again, we have a photograph. We've got the disappearing wing
• 1:11:47
  which we see in those videos on the other side in the loop
• 1:11:50
  called Chesney Video here. So it's not just in the video,
• 1:11:56
  it's in people's photographs. It's in the phasing out there in
• 1:12:04
  Fairbanks now. This is what's going around at
• 1:12:08
  the moment. We've got people altering the
• 1:12:10
  videos to make the play more convincing, but also bring a
• 1:12:14
  conspiracy element to it where they've adjusted the brightness
• 1:12:19
  on the front of the tower there when that is in normally in
• 1:12:22
  shadow, consistent with the sunlight, which you can go and
• 1:12:26
  check the direction. Well, it was on 9/11, but
• 1:12:30
  they've actually put the wing in, which should have been in
• 1:12:32
  dark shadow, but they've made the plane look more convincing.
• 1:12:36
  Very, very deceptive. This is the truth movement at
• 1:12:39
  work at the moment, putting this stuff out because something is
• 1:12:45
  trying to prevent people from studying those planes very, very
• 1:12:48
  closely again. We've got the secret program
• 1:12:53
  admitted as being established in 1994 for the holographic
• 1:12:57
  projector for the PSYOPS. This is a desire of the military
• 1:13:01
  back in 2004, sorry 1994 published in the Washington Post
• 1:13:10
  again they had a desire for using holographic technology
• 1:13:14
  again for PSYOPS. Again, just blown up there tells
• 1:13:23
  you holographic imaging. So this actually was something
• 1:13:30
  John Leah spoke about the holographic projector.
• 1:13:35
  And there's some couple of schools of thought regarding the
• 1:13:38
  play, by the way. So I'll just run you through
• 1:13:41
  these documents. So it was admitted by the
• 1:13:44
  Pentagon that the holographic projections openly as part of
• 1:13:49
  its non lethal weapons program. But since 1994 the program
• 1:13:54
  disappeared from view and it was put into a black budget effort
• 1:14:00
  and that's that was published in Defence Week.
• 1:14:03
  So again this was it was even spoken about as early as 1991 in
• 1:14:09
  the Army's JFK Special Warfare Centre and school in late 91
• 1:14:14
  disclosed it was looking to develop psyops hologram system.
• 1:14:19
  So again they're on record. This is a desire what they
• 1:14:24
  wanted military. So the school authorities was
• 1:14:30
  the was the the illusion, the plane illusion was it was it
• 1:14:35
  broadcast in from something flying alongside it broadcasting
• 1:14:40
  the plane, which would have meant it was not a physical
• 1:14:42
  object at all. Well, this is possible because
• 1:14:46
  this video again, which was put together by Matt Estefo, shows
• 1:14:55
  something that possibly could be part of it.
• 1:15:02
  You're going to see an object flying beside very strange
• 1:15:10
  footage. This is
• 1:15:38
  now people say about registering about that being a bird or
• 1:15:43
  something else to be captured on that video, a small object like
• 1:15:48
  that for the lens to register that that object is, it's very
• 1:15:55
  tangibly something quite not as small even as a helicopter
• 1:16:03
  perhaps, which travelling at a similar speed to the plane
• 1:16:09
  within the plane was travelling at 586 miles an hour, which is
• 1:16:13
  completely impossible. So I'll just move, move on.
• 1:16:18
  Now the other school of thought, thought is, was we're looking at
• 1:16:22
  something that was cloaking around the delivery system
• 1:16:27
  object air vehicle to create the illusion of the plane.
• 1:16:31
  Again, all very sounds unbelievable, but they were
• 1:16:37
  working on this stuff. This is the type of technology
• 1:16:41
  they were working on and it's in a patent where they can put a
• 1:16:48
  plane or an aircraft volumetric in image ghost image they call
• 1:16:53
  in the document into a desired space or thin air as are used as
• 1:16:59
  a countermeasure decoy countermeasures.
• 1:17:03
  We also have this deadly illusion, holographic missiles
• 1:17:07
  and laser camouflage coming soon.
• 1:17:10
  Need to knock the E off the soon There.
• 1:17:15
  We also have some very strange elements, which was at the time
• 1:17:20
  of the four crashes, the Earth's magnetic field fluctuated and
• 1:17:26
  spiked. You know, this also happened
• 1:17:29
  with the buildings disappearing. There was quite a lot of
• 1:17:34
  disruption going on in the Earth's magnetic field and we've
• 1:17:39
  got it listed shown there, plotted there quarter sharp dip
• 1:17:43
  there 846 when the first plane hit.
• 1:17:48
  We also have during the Pentagon incident, ledge crash, which
• 1:17:54
  just to let people know, it didn't even register a seismic
• 1:17:58
  signal. The tangible seismic signal at
• 1:18:01
  the Pentagon now very strange because they described it as an
• 1:18:05
  electrical interference disturbance, which is similar to
• 1:18:09
  what was seen in the Earth's magnetic field.
• 1:18:12
  So again, this is not, I'm just putting this out there, I'm not
• 1:18:16
  saying exactly what it is, but plane crashes down do not 'cause
• 1:18:21
  the Earth's magnetic field to behave in this manner.
• 1:18:27
  And there we have 10 O 3 and 10 O 6.
• 1:18:30
  What a lot of people may not know is that ten O 3 is the
• 1:18:33
  official crash time of flight 93.
• 1:18:36
  Yet the seismic signal, very weak signal that that, but that
• 1:18:39
  was registered in Shanksville was at ten O 6.
• 1:18:45
  Here we got like a dip in the Earth's magnetic field, some
• 1:18:49
  short spikes, downward trend happening between ten O 3 and 10
• 1:18:56
  O 6. So I just want to move on
• 1:19:03
  quickly to the implications of the technology.
• 1:19:06
  Now. This is why I believe it's been
• 1:19:08
  covered up. This is why you're having the
• 1:19:12
  remote controls playing for out there when remote control planes
• 1:19:16
  don't have the wings disappearing.
• 1:19:18
  We've had the video fakery that everybody's in on it every all
• 1:19:22
  the people who videoed, all the eyewitnesses are in on the
• 1:19:25
  conspiracy. I don't buy that.
• 1:19:29
  And plus, I have a friend in New York who seen the plane, so he's
• 1:19:34
  seen the illusion. And he said he went seamlessly
• 1:19:38
  into the building. OK.
• 1:19:41
  So the implications for this technology, which they're huge
• 1:19:47
  because it's got to be kept secret and I think there's
• 1:19:49
  people trying to keep it a secret.
• 1:19:51
  So is this going to be used in another type Project Bluebeam
• 1:19:56
  down down in the future? Possibly.
• 1:19:59
  So it could be a clear and present danger.
• 1:20:02
  So again, this was spoke about by Sergei Monast in the
• 1:20:08
  disclosure of information about Project Bluebeam.
• 1:20:13
  Which we we see. So we know the towers were
• 1:20:15
  turned to dust again issued a big contention in the truth
• 1:20:18
  movement. But the evidence shows them
• 1:20:21
  towers did not hit the ground. WTC one registered I think it
• 1:20:27
  was a 2.3 and the South tower registered 2.1.
• 1:20:31
  Both of them had non existent S&P waves, which means it was
• 1:20:35
  not kinetic. So it was the equivalent of the
• 1:20:40
  floor. So if you imagine on your bed
• 1:20:42
  getting up off your bed and the bed springs back, that was what
• 1:20:46
  the rumble was in the ground. It wasn't through everything
• 1:20:49
  falling to the ground because when you look at the rubble
• 1:20:51
  pile, it's hardly above the lobby of the of the towers for
• 1:20:57
  each tower. Very very minimal paper
• 1:21:00
  survived. Now again, this is being covered
• 1:21:03
  up and people need to understand this technology is real and this
• 1:21:08
  could what could be what they use in the future.
• 1:21:11
  Because you change them planes to UFOs and you've got the
• 1:21:14
  buildings turning to dust potentially you've got an alien
• 1:21:18
  invasion or an alien attack or alien threat.
• 1:21:22
  Now again, this is being spoken about in in the papers, been
• 1:21:27
  spoken about online in publications.
• 1:21:32
  Got it here. By all accounts, they've set up
• 1:21:37
  a unit in the UK, the SAS to deal with an alien threat, like
• 1:21:43
  a national security threat. Again, we've we've had all the
• 1:21:49
  UFO things with the Pentagon. Now regarding that Pentagon
• 1:21:53
  video potentially could be showing that piece of technology
• 1:21:57
  that I've shown earlier, which was a decoy for countermeasures.
• 1:22:03
  They could have been filming that the pilot again, this is
• 1:22:08
  the one I'm talking about that could easily be that plasma
• 1:22:11
  induced laser 3D volumetric dose imaging and they have it and
• 1:22:17
  they speak about it. They use it for decoys.
• 1:22:20
  It's also spoken about in the run corporation because they're
• 1:22:23
  worried about China having it. Not that I think that the it's a
• 1:22:27
  global thing. So I don't think for one minute
• 1:22:30
  everything's separated, which mentioned in the rank
• 1:22:33
  corporation report that they have what they call illusion
• 1:22:37
  holographs or illusion holograms with sound.
• 1:22:41
  They can produce sound and that's been proven as videos
• 1:22:45
  online. You can see the military can can
• 1:22:48
  broadcast sound through plasma induced lasers.
• 1:22:52
  So this isn't, this isn't fairy tale stuff, this is, you know,
• 1:22:57
  it's real, it's a real technology that they've been,
• 1:23:00
  you know, probably 30-40 years ahead then what we even have
• 1:23:04
  been presented with. Mark I, I apologize, but we are
• 1:23:09
  quite a lot over time. Oh.
• 1:23:11
  OK, Yeah, I'll just say about the film then I'll just mention
• 1:23:14
  that and you can if you want to edit that in, you can.
• 1:23:18
  So anybody interested in this area, don't watch the film I was
• 1:23:22
  involved with that was made by Chris Hampton and it's called
• 1:23:26
  9/11 Alchemy Facing Reality. Thanks for having me on, Jeremy.
• 1:23:32
  Just quickly your sub stack. Yeah, it's 911 planes research.
• 1:23:37
  If you just type that in your, you'll find my sub stack.
• 1:23:40
  It's sub stack COM I think. Mark Conlan, thank you so much
• 1:23:44
  for joining me in the trenches. I really do appreciate your
• 1:23:47
  time. This is an incredibly
• 1:23:48
  interesting topic. Thanks for having me on, Jeremy.
• 1:23:51
  Appreciate it.