While there's some claims that she was not a flight attendant, that doesn't matter if her research is verifiable. This video is simply loaded with good information, easily verifiable.
A collection of articles defining our times. The pages contain clickable links, don't let the titles fool you, some of the best articles have very non-descript titles and there are usually more articles on the matters in the days and week pages the links land on so it's a sort of treasure hunt through history, Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Monday, November 7, 2016
Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE 9/11
Oh, and Judy doesn't realize that with gas prices what they were, it makes more sense to drive cars with no engines to consume expensive fuel, right? LOL
No higher resolution exists of Second Plane from the FOIA Releases Update 3
9/11 - Absolutely Impossible Speeds from the Hijacked Aircraft
Yet some people do not understand that, an aircraft that will be severely damaged by 500mph air under 14.7lbs/sq.in. or by hitting a 25 lb duck, cannot slice through a steel and concrete building as if it were moving through air. Oh, and did I say that the videos of flight 175 don't agree? Yes I did and after reviewing some of these films again, I noticed that the clouds in the pictures are different! Wait just a minute, "clouds"? Where did clouds come from on that crystal clear Sept. day? But there they appear in all their glory on some of the vids. The more you watch the videos the more anomalies you see.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
9/11 TRUTH DECAY Studies in Propaganda 2016
She gets a lot wrong, but there's also a lot of good info in there as well.
About Conspiracy theories
First let me say this, anyone who denigrates another person, simply for having a conspiracy theory, is an ignorant fool unworthy of further attention.
There are all types of theories, psychological theories, scientific theories, mechanical theories, artistic and musical theories, they come in all shapes, sizes and colors too numerous to mention. But, at the heart of it all is the fact that, a theory, to be useful as a working theory, as opposed to being some propagandist or political construction. must have some basis in fact to support it.
A theory is only an idea that has been constructed to explain the observed facts. A theory does not, in and of itself, have to be true or false, because it is an attempt to explain observations, in a way that is understandable, so that it can be tested. Tests alone will decide whether a theory is true or false, thus, only a person, who is blissfully ignorant of investigative methodology, can or will assert that any theory is the work of a severely troubled mind, out of hand.
Look at Sean Hannity who says: "We saw the planes hit the buildings...etc.," Then think for a minute. He was sitting in a studio when the planes supposedly hit. He asserts that he saw the planes, simply because he believes that what he saw on tv was real, and therefore you should believe it too. He ignores the fact that he did not see anything first hand, and the descriptions of the events, from those who claimed to have seen them first hand are all over the place. Mind you, they are all supposedly looking at the very same event as it is taking place. But, some say it was a small twin engine private plane, some say it was commuter aircraft, While a trained observer in a police helicopter describes flt 175 as a "dark green plane". Not only do the descriptions vary widely from witness to witness, so too do the sounds of, what should be a heavy jet aircraft, flying low with it's engines open full bore. Some describe it as having been silent, while others claim to have heard anything other than the memorable earsplitting roar that should have been there. The recording equipment, which should have faithfully captured the very same sounds that the other recorders had, did not agree either.
Then there's the "crash physics" of the planes gliding into the buildings, without either distorting or slowing and without even damaging the building in places until after the planes are completely inside and the kerosene explosions cover the impact areas. Of course, you could not see that until much later on, when someone slowed the film down and was then able to observe the impact more carefully and closely. What they observed was impossible.
Of course we then saw, we were told, the engine of flight 175 flying through the building and over to land on Murry Street, but the only engine found there was a General Electric engine, of the type used on 747's. United Airlines uses Pratt & Whitney. When these anomalies are taken together, the only theory that explains them all in the simplest fashion, is that there were no planes at all. But, simply explosives placed inside the buildings to do the damage and disperse a huge cloud of burning combustible substance. Finished off by playing a video on tv to make it appear that planes had been the cause.
We note that the "amateur" videographers had better equipment than the network tv. The networks captures some terrible pictures, hardly showing lower Manhattan on a clear sunny day. And these videos should all agree on more than just flight paths, but on sound, colors observable events, but they do not. Worse yet is that wings which can be damaged by bird strikes, are shown to be slicing into box steel columns, backed by 54 inch steel spandrels, which are themselves backed by 4 inch concrete slabs, resting on steel floor pans, held up by steel trusses. These wings slice into the buildings steel facade as if the steel were less dense than 25 lb geese.
Now there are many theories available to explain some of these anomalies, but only the ones that do not include planes, simply and elegantly explains them all. Please feel free to copy the link to this post and share it in appropriate places as you surf the net.
There are all types of theories, psychological theories, scientific theories, mechanical theories, artistic and musical theories, they come in all shapes, sizes and colors too numerous to mention. But, at the heart of it all is the fact that, a theory, to be useful as a working theory, as opposed to being some propagandist or political construction. must have some basis in fact to support it.
A theory is only an idea that has been constructed to explain the observed facts. A theory does not, in and of itself, have to be true or false, because it is an attempt to explain observations, in a way that is understandable, so that it can be tested. Tests alone will decide whether a theory is true or false, thus, only a person, who is blissfully ignorant of investigative methodology, can or will assert that any theory is the work of a severely troubled mind, out of hand.
Look at Sean Hannity who says: "We saw the planes hit the buildings...etc.," Then think for a minute. He was sitting in a studio when the planes supposedly hit. He asserts that he saw the planes, simply because he believes that what he saw on tv was real, and therefore you should believe it too. He ignores the fact that he did not see anything first hand, and the descriptions of the events, from those who claimed to have seen them first hand are all over the place. Mind you, they are all supposedly looking at the very same event as it is taking place. But, some say it was a small twin engine private plane, some say it was commuter aircraft, While a trained observer in a police helicopter describes flt 175 as a "dark green plane". Not only do the descriptions vary widely from witness to witness, so too do the sounds of, what should be a heavy jet aircraft, flying low with it's engines open full bore. Some describe it as having been silent, while others claim to have heard anything other than the memorable earsplitting roar that should have been there. The recording equipment, which should have faithfully captured the very same sounds that the other recorders had, did not agree either.
Then there's the "crash physics" of the planes gliding into the buildings, without either distorting or slowing and without even damaging the building in places until after the planes are completely inside and the kerosene explosions cover the impact areas. Of course, you could not see that until much later on, when someone slowed the film down and was then able to observe the impact more carefully and closely. What they observed was impossible.
Of course we then saw, we were told, the engine of flight 175 flying through the building and over to land on Murry Street, but the only engine found there was a General Electric engine, of the type used on 747's. United Airlines uses Pratt & Whitney. When these anomalies are taken together, the only theory that explains them all in the simplest fashion, is that there were no planes at all. But, simply explosives placed inside the buildings to do the damage and disperse a huge cloud of burning combustible substance. Finished off by playing a video on tv to make it appear that planes had been the cause.
We note that the "amateur" videographers had better equipment than the network tv. The networks captures some terrible pictures, hardly showing lower Manhattan on a clear sunny day. And these videos should all agree on more than just flight paths, but on sound, colors observable events, but they do not. Worse yet is that wings which can be damaged by bird strikes, are shown to be slicing into box steel columns, backed by 54 inch steel spandrels, which are themselves backed by 4 inch concrete slabs, resting on steel floor pans, held up by steel trusses. These wings slice into the buildings steel facade as if the steel were less dense than 25 lb geese.
Now there are many theories available to explain some of these anomalies, but only the ones that do not include planes, simply and elegantly explains them all. Please feel free to copy the link to this post and share it in appropriate places as you surf the net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)