Mark Conlon on whether planes actually hit the Twin Towers

Jerm and Mark Conlon dive into the intricate details surrounding the events of 9/11, with a sharp focus on the planes involved (or, rather, allegedly involved). 
They trace the growth of scepticism towards the official narrative, underscoring the pivotal role of 9/11 in shaping public consciousness, and scrutinise anomalies in flight data and eyewitness accounts. 
Mark presents his research on the 'no planes' theory, probing the role of technology and obvious cover-ups. 
Their discussion also covers the physics of the impacts, the significance of military exercises on that day, and peculiarities in passenger manifests, urging listeners to question accepted narratives and consider the deeper implications of 9/11.
Bio: Mark is a researcher and author known for his critical analysis of the 9/11 events, particularly focusing on the anomalies surrounding the alleged plane crashes.Website: https://911planesresearch.substack.comMore Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:37):
Mark Conlon, thank you for joining me in the trenches
again. Nice to be back, Jeremy.
Thanks for asking me. It's a difficult one for, you
know, for most people, so many different schools of thought on
what's happened and, you know, how things played out on that
day, so and what we've been told.
Can you remember what you were doing on 9/11?

(00:58):
Yes, yes, I was at work. Didn't actually get to watch the
events unfold. It was on a radio.
And to be honest, I'd never heard of the World Trade Center,
so that was not in my consciousness at that time.
But when it unfolded and when I got home from work and seeing

(01:19):
the, the destruction of the towers, etcetera, it was just,
you know, absolutely unbelievable.
Did you think at the time that it was a cover up?
I mean, I thought it was exactlywhat we were told.
I thought it was, you know, these Muslims who were headed up
by this, by this brown guy with a beard in a cave with a Nokia

(01:40):
3310 somewhere in the Middle East.
And he orchestrated this entire thing.
And I believed it for years and years and years.
Yeah, yeah. Well, for me, I didn't question
it until about 2003. I had heard rumblings.
I think there was something on Channel 4 in the UK to do with
the Pentagon and Thierry Maison,but I didn't question it much

(02:06):
more than that was around about 2003 four after listening to an
early Internet radio show calledBlack Op Radio, and that's what
sort of got my interest. I should have known better
really because I would have considered myself quite a
sceptic back then because back in 1988 that catapulted me into

(02:30):
the JFK assassination and questioning that after watching
the Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary that was aired in
the UK. So that got me questioning other
assassinations so and well with Diana as well, I questioned
that. So I was a little bit miffed why
I didn't question 911. I think it may have been the

(02:54):
shock and awe of the whole event, I think.
It was incredible though, wasn'tit?
I mean, yeah, if you watch it now, it still is incredible.
Yeah, yeah, it is. It's truly, it is so shocking.
I think there must have been a level, you know, of trauma, you

(03:15):
know, for a lot of people, you know, seeing that I, I remember
feeling quite uneasy about it inthe evening and recorded, you
know, some of the news coverage through the night, you know, so
I felt uneasy about it back then.
Mark, when when did you start getting red pulled?

(03:39):
Like did you have a Damascus moment or was it just a gradual
evolution of of your thought processes?
It was, well, I think it was, itwas around 1988 after watching
that man who killed Kennedy, because I think I was about 17,
yeah, 17 years of age when he when he aired.
And he actually aired in the October 1988.

(04:02):
And that really sort of gave me a bit of a, you know, a kick,
kick up the the ass really. Because I remember thinking back
then, you know, if they can killthe president and cover it up
for 25 years as it was back then, then who among this is
safe? If they can do that And they did
it in front of, you know, a lot of people, you know, you know,

(04:25):
riding in a car down the street,it's like it was just truly the
power they had to do that and cover it up for that amount of
time. And they're still covering it
up, you know? I'm wondering why is that
people, Many, many people, simply don't want to even

(04:47):
entertain the idea of an alternative explanation.
Yeah, I think for some people, you know, I look at there's,
there's levels of consciousness really and it depends, you know,
sort of where you're at on that journey.
I mean, for some people, things that may be completely obvious
to us after waking up, if you want to use that term, is, you

(05:10):
know, they just things just stand out now.
Like I saw thumb when you see something, you can see the
playbook. So I think, I think for people,
I think if they're on that element of having a little bit
of scepticism and getting into questioning official narratives,
I think that that's quite good for them.

(05:31):
And it you know, it can help expand their consciousness and
and raise that into questioning and noticing when you know,
being told lies or untruths really, which is seems the order
of the day these days. Why do you think 911 is so

(05:51):
important? For me, I think there was just
to go back, there's 2 events where I noticed what I would
call a massive energy shift and that was the Princess Diana and
I'll say assassination. And the other one was 911.
Two huge events and something changed with with the energy you

(06:18):
could actually so palpable you could feel it.
The absolute change and obviously on the back of 911 we
had the Patriot Act, we had lawschanged in the UK, you know,
everything was tightened up and what followed obviously with 7/7
as well and some of the other events that happened with in

(06:44):
Europe, you know, it changed a lot.
It was like the trigger to cascade of things happening
really and the war in on terror.Yeah, you know, we got embroiled
in that and you know, people protested that.
But I think that pro, the protesting was a bit different

(07:06):
to what perhaps you know, where my mindset was with you at that
time. A lot of people ask the
question, what is the point of covering up 911?
Oh, well, it's, I don't think they, I think they plan, they
obviously plan a cover up in advance of when they're going to

(07:28):
do these events. But obviously these events are
used to further the agenda, which is more clamping down
draconian measures which was seen now.
You know, it's truly unbelievable in the UK, these
measures that, you know, what's being rolled out.
It is very draconian. You know, for example, you know,

(07:51):
my big tube channel, nobody can see in the UK yet laws were, you
know, brought in and so they sayto protect children.
But my channel has been completely censored in the UK.
So it, you know, to some degree it's, it's, it's furthered many

(08:15):
agendas all around the world, I would think.
So your sub stack has focused quite a lot on the planes
themselves, and more specifically no planes.
I just want to preface somethingregarding no planes and planes.

(08:35):
There's to just to begin with these.
If you're going to say to somebody there was no planes
involved on 9/11, then yeah. They'll laugh at you.
Yeah, they'll laugh at you, you know.
And so I came across the No Plains round about 2006.

(08:56):
It was more prevalent at the Shanksville site and Pentagon.
It was more acceptable, let's put it that way at that time.
But when it sort of moved over round about 2004 five to the New
York events, it became unacceptable about the Plains.
And I think the the actual term,you know, no planes is very, you

(09:21):
know, when you say that to people, they have a such a wide
interpretation about it. They'll either think, you know,
several schools of thought involved in that.
They'll say to video fakery thatthere was no planes at all.
So all the witnesses were fake and they'll say nobody's seen a
plane in the sky. And then we've got the the

(09:42):
missile, missile or missiles that we used.
We've got the 3D volumetric image projection stealth
technology, which is something that I've been heavily
researching behind and really going in to find out what
happened to the actual planes, because there was actual planes
that took off, but we don't knowwhere they went.

(10:04):
They didn't go to the the four name targets.
And there's a lot of telemetry data that's been well withheld
that's come out over the years, which proves that the four
planes were still airborne at the time of the alleged crashes.
So it's, you know, it's, it's very wide interpretation now

(10:29):
just. Hold on, hold on.
So what you're saying, just for clarity, Mark, is that when
someone says there were no planes, it's a little bit of an
incorrect statement. What you're saying is that there
were planes, but we need to be accurate about what we mean.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry about the pun, but early
on it all got hijacked. That actual part of that

(10:50):
movement, you know, so you had films like September Clues that
came out and they they, they pushed and promoted that, that
the planes were inserted into the video footage and all the
videographers involved like Jennifer Spell were were all in
on it and they faked their videos.

(11:12):
So this is what got me actually active in publishing research
into this, you know, this scenarios that were being put
forward in films like September Clues.
You had Ace Baker pushing, it's very similar to what Simon Shack
pushed in his film. Now, as soon as you mention no

(11:34):
planes, the conditioning has been to go the go to his
September clues, CGI footage andthe Great American Sai Opera,
which is Ace Baker's film. Where you're on the fringe is in
the stealth technology. Now, from my research that I've

(11:59):
done, which I started publishingin 2013, I can categorically
prove points in both of Ice Baker's film and Simon Shack's
film that there is disinformation in that contained
in that film which is very misleading, very clever editing
to steer the viewer in a certaindirection with no planes.

(12:23):
And in my opinion, that has beendone to cover up some technology
that was used on 9/11, which is a, let me just say this is a
very real and present danger in the future and it has to be kept
secret. So this is something that I've
been researching for a long time, not just the no planes and

(12:47):
you know, looking at what's beenproposed in people's films, but
also the real, the real evidencewith the planes to prove that
there was no planes. But there was something else
used to create the plane illusions.
And I can tell you now it was not video fakery or CGI planes.
And I've methodically gone through that to prove that.

(13:11):
But there's a cover up happeningto cover up this technology,
which in my opinion, the elite or powers that be, call them
what you will, will most likely used again.
They've probably been using it on and off in other areas,
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
has to be covered up and kept covered up this technology.
Well, I'll just establish some, some facts for you know, which
is what we went over and I'll, I'll try and go through this
quite quickly because I want to get on to the actual technology
and the perhaps the cover up of what's at work.

(13:59):
So an established fact is none of the four plane crashes
activated an ELT. Now an ELT is an emergency
locator transmission or transmitter.
They're fitted in 76 sevens and 75 sevens and small aircrafts.
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
won't go off early because of the parameter settings.
So what happened with Flight 11 and Flight 175?
There was 2 El TS registered that they've tried.
The authorities have tried to account to Flight 11 and Flight

(14:45):
175. Now this is impossible because
flight 11's ELT went off 2 minutes too early and flight 170
fives went off 4 minutes too early before the crashes.
So this is an impossibility. But what I can say is on record

(15:06):
in the NTSB reports, they do notreport an ELT for any of the
four flights going off at the time of the crashes, not one.
It's not recorded in there. And they should have gone off
and emitted this beacon to find the plane now and.

(15:28):
This is official. This is absolutely official.
It's in their own documents. It's, it's, they've even got one
of their expedite witnesses, which you know, I've, I've
published about, you know, articles about this.
So that's one of the areas to prove that none of the four
planes crashed at the named target.

(15:49):
So that's just an area. So I've, you know, these are
fitted in the back in the tail section.
Now normally with the plane crashes, tail sections suffer,
they break off. That's why they're fitted up in
that area. So in enlarged Boeing 767,
that's where they sort of be located.

(16:11):
Now. I'll just flick through this.
There's the document, you know, here it's explaining the again,
this is a Commission sensitive document.
Not all these were released at the time, but there was
interviews conducted part of theinvestigation and they actually
tell you from Paul Thompson who was an ex pilot and operations

(16:33):
manager. He said an ALT located
transmission can cannot be triggered by a pilot in a in a
767 and this is on record. So people are not don't know
these facts. You see, OK, but before you go

(16:53):
any further, Mark, so I just want to make sure that I'm
following. Yeah.
The the 76 sevens are not imaginary.
Those were real planes. They did fly, but it doesn't
appear that they flew into the buildings at this stage.
That's correct. Yeah.

(17:14):
Now that is established, we havemany areas of data to establish
the take off times. Now that they are, there's
discrepancies with that because as I allude in a lot of my
articles, there's a lot of military drills going on on 9/11
and you do have evidence of planes being what are called

(17:38):
duplicated. So you so an example might be
Flight 175. The official story says it took
off at 8:14. The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, which gets its data through the A cars.
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
through A cars that says that the wheels have left the ground,
they've left contact with the ground.
So that's all recorded. Everything on the plane is
recorded. It's performance with a cars
data. So you can you can glean a lot

(18:23):
of information from the icars data, which again didn't come
out, wasn't released straight away.
He'd come out many years later. So another example is Flight 93,
they say took off at 8:42. Bureau of Transportation

(18:43):
Statistics shows it took off at 8:28.
So you've got these inconsistencies and
discrepancies. Now, I've put all these into
articles to make it easy for people to follow in all of my
research articles. So again, we've got Flight 11

(19:07):
not taking off in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and
we've also got Flight 77 not taking off in the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. You know, it's quite mad, isn't
it, that they, they can, you've got all this data and a lot of
people don't know about this data that exists.

(19:27):
It's been, it's been covered up,that's why.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now just to move on to Flight
11. Flight 11, we're told, crashed
into the north tower at 8:46, but we have NORAD recordings
giving precise lat long coordinates showing that Flight

(19:50):
11 was 5.77 miles past the northtower on 9/11.
So this is after it's it's crashed, it's flowing past the
towers and there's reports in the NORAD you can listen to the
recordings and it says it's on the way to Washington.
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
is still airborne. It's on its way to Washington.
Military Boston Center just had a report that American 11 is
still in the air and it's on itsway towards heading towards
Washington. The American 11 is still in the
air on its way towards the other.
There was definitely another aircraft that at the town.

(20:35):
That's the latest report we have.
OK, I'm going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would
assume he's somewhere over either New Jersey or somewhere
further South. OK, so American 11 isn't the
hijack at all then, right? No, he is a hijack.
He the American 11 is a hijack. Yes, and he's going in to watch
it. Should be 1/3 aircraft.
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
did, but they've tried in the Commission to re pivot that to
say it was for flight 77 and flight 93.
They can't make their minds up. They knew they had a problem
with flight 11 because of this evidence.
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
for 77 and then it changed to flight 93.
So they changed the story. They changed the story, yes, but
there's the timeline of that story.
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
track down flight 11. Now, as it continues in
recording, it gives you a tail number for flight 11 as well.
So they not only give you the lat long coordinates, which
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
the tail number for flight 11. But would people not have seen
the plane or the planes? They may have done, but who
would know? If you're talking about people
on the ground, they would not perhaps know that that is Flight

(22:27):
11. They're not going to know.
They might just be like a plane flying through the sky, you
know, So we have the same for United 175 that was still
airborne. This is an established fact,
again through telemetry data that Flight 175 was picked up

(22:51):
and routed messages through ground stations to do with the a
cars, which is the addressing and reporting system messaging
which is sent to the aircrafts and they have uplinks and
downlinks. Now if a plane's over a certain
part of the country, the the messages are routed through the
nearest station, ground station,a cars ground station to that

(23:12):
plane. OK.
So it gives you a bit of insightto where the plane would have
been. So with Flight 175, as I'm going
to show now, it received some, it received some ACARS messages
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
would have been here and the ground station is here, that's
picking up where it's routed through.
So that is a major anomaly because it it should have been.

(23:58):
Yeah, so, so the IT changed, it changed course.
Well, we're told that United 175did this turn and flew back to
the Twin Towers. What seems to have happened is
it didn't make the turn and flewstraight, continued in its path
and was receiving A cars messages over in Harrisburg and

(24:23):
Pittsburgh, which is, you know, nowhere near New York.
Now there is a bit of a radius on the right on the A cars, but
not enough to be sending and routing messages through the
nearest ground station to the aircraft.
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
where it was heading. All I know is it wasn't heading
for New York. I'm trying not to be too
speculative with this flight. There's other flights, I can
tell you exactly where there washeading, but.
But this one you're not sure. This one, all I know is it's

(25:06):
still airborne. It's 154 miles away.
When it received that a cars message in Harrisburg, now it
also received nine O 3 a messagewhich was routed through
Pittsburgh. Now Pittsburgh is is quite a

(25:27):
considerable distance from New York.
Now the planes crashed at this point over here, and yet a car's
messages have been sent to the aircraft over here.
Was this at the same time period?
Yeah. In fact, if you're going by the
official timeline of when Flight175 crashed, it's actually the

(25:50):
the message he sent, I think something like 5 or 6, seven
seconds after the planes crashed.
But it doesn't end there with Flight 175 because, OK, I'll
just start that again now. Pittsburgh, that was 315 miles
away from where Flight 175 should have been crashing at the

(26:14):
South Tower at 9:03. Again, that's a considerable
distance which you can see in the Google Earth so.
Mark, though, Mark, but you knowthat by now somebody will ask,
OK, but there were people on board.
Isn't that fairly easy to track?Yeah, the well, we've got a lot

(26:38):
of problems with the people on board.
If you want me to go there with that.
Let's look at Flight 93 for example, with people on board
and I'll come back to 175 with with the passengers.
Regarding Flight 93, we've got Mark Bingham who was said to be
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
the manifest. He was not listed.
And plus in the official documents they actually say he
he wasn't assigned a seat numberon Flight 93.
So what happened? See, I can't say what happened

(27:26):
to him. Also, I can tell you he's in the
official documents that I've hadthat were released, they
classified this information telling you that Mark Bingham
didn't get that plane. They've tried to explain that he
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
employee pass. Now I'm in touch with the United
Airlines flight attendant who flew around that time, who
worked for United, and she, she tells me if if you're not on

(28:10):
that manifest, you're not on that plane.
Plus we got this other evidence admitted that he didn't have a
seat number because they will not get that plane off the
ground until that manifest is completed properly.
Because it has to take into account all sorts of information
to do with the passenger, the luggage, the weight, everything.

(28:31):
Ignore the. Passengers ignore the
passengers. What about the pilot?
I mean, isn't that public knowledge?
Well, again, if you look at Flight 93, you've got a fueller
named Anthony Mazza who was fuelling Flight 93.
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
copilot who was shown on the news and he didn't recognize the
captain. So he took it upon himself to
contact the FBI. Again, she's all admitted in
documents. It's all I'm it's all on my

(29:15):
research subtext site. So who were them?
Who was that person? So there could have been a there
could have been a bait and switch with the with the pilot
and copilot. Yeah, yeah, it could have been,
they could have been. Again, there was a lot of
military exercises taking place.But again, you have the you have
duplicate flights happening, which it's even worse with

(29:39):
Flight 93 because you have two lots of evidence showing that
Flight 93 is over Champaign, IL near Chicago.
And you also have it 44 miles past the crash site in
Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, in Shanksville.
It's heading towards Washington.So you have two flights giving 2

(30:03):
lots of data. It's as if the air traffic
control, we're seeing flight 93 over in Pittsburgh, but the A
cars and radar were showing thatit was over in Champaign, IL.
Now that's backed up that it wasin Champaign, IL because of

(30:24):
Colonel Maher He's again he's onrecord the saying that they
observed he was told somebody came in and told him to all in
his account that Flight 93 was circling over Chicago and they
didn't know whether it was coming into land or why it was
circling. They didn't know every something

(30:46):
to do with the attack. So you've got all this
information that you know, he's contained in these documents and
it paints a very, very differentpicture to just there's no
planes. My, my, my area is that there
was planes, some planes that went to different places.

(31:08):
They didn't go to the targets. But what?
But what we were seeing or be seen in the second videos was
not Flight 175. Then what was it?
Well, again, it's back to the contention that you have

(31:31):
different schools of thought. So some people, as I recently
heard the other night on a group, Richard Gage getting
involved saying it was a military plane.
Yet I can prove it's not a military plane, because military
planes don't have their wings disappearing in video footage,
not just one, but photographs some.

(31:54):
So that's an odd anomaly to have, you say.
We've also got the impossible speed of the plane travelling at
700 feet at 596 mph, which is impossible, but people will.
Argue. Break apart.
Break apart and there's numerouspilots that I've got in my

(32:15):
presentation. It will tell you it'll break
apart. It's physically impossible.
That's where Richard Gage said, oh, it's a military plane
because Jeff Hill rang Boeing. Jeff Hill rang Boeing and and
nice, she said she's on record Leslie Hazard that you can't do

(32:37):
it at that the plane wouldn't gothat fast that that because of
the density of the air will takethe wings off, takes the engine
off. And the best example for this is
actually Flight 587 that crashedin New York or Queens on in
November 2001. Now that is a perfect example

(33:02):
that crashed that a plane cannotgo through the dense air with
each VMO limitations. Well, you know, well above
those. So it's it's physically
impossible. And we also have the same with
the crash dynamics. When you look at the videos of
Flight 175, the crash dynamics is non existent.

(33:27):
Again, we have people saying, well, the plane would have gone
in and but but there's, there's no, there's absolutely no
resistance. There's no collision.
There's no proper collision thatyou would have.
The fuel is stored in the wings on a plane and there's no
ignition of that happening. And that's very strange.

(33:48):
The tail section doesn't break off.
And you know, again, on another group they said, boy, there was
Deb debris. Now none of the debris.
Now again, this is on record, the NTSB, none of the debris,
plane debris that was found, anyof the sites, there's no chain

(34:08):
of custody, there's no inventoryof it.
And there's it was never ever matched to any of the serial
serial numbers of the four plane.
They'll talk about that engine, they'll talk about that engine
that was found a few blocks awayor something.
Yeah, that was found on Morris St. wasn't it?
There's a lot of contention about that engine.
Some people believe that it is the engine.

(34:31):
I have been looking into that. There is some anomalies with it.
It did bounce off a building, collided with the building,
something exited the building. But whether you know it, again,
it's on record that you can't. There's no there's no serial
number being tracked back to flight 175.

(34:52):
They've not done that. There's no inventory, there's no
chain of custody to prove. The government never proved that
that engine belonged to that plane.
And there's a good reason for that because that plane was
nowhere near the target. And there was certainly no ELT
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
to do with Flight 175 is what they call the called the Dulles
Control Centre radar. Now this showed that Flight 175
flew past the South tower and itwas captured at 9:07 on that

(35:39):
radar data and it was over Connecticut.
Now again, this is all in the telemetry data which I've shown
on the screen there with the coordinates it even and it was
flying at 31,000 feet, which is not that plane is well above the
towers and it's captured over inat nine O 7 in the morning doing

(36:06):
31,000 feet and over Connecticut.
Now this information particularly this is new
information. This was we discovered this
totally backs up what was seen and broadcast on MSNBC at not at
1025 Live when they showed something called FlightAware and

(36:31):
they hover over the planes and it shows that Flight 175 is over
Connecticut. We've just received word that
all inbound international flights to the United States are
being diverted to Canada. The government will not allow
them to land here in the US. They are being diverted to
Canada. As we've been reporting, all
airports in the US have shut down departures.

(36:53):
We were watching on our Flight Explorer.
I don't know if we can put it onthe air right now.
This is a system in which we canactually look at the number of
airplanes in the air. Normally this would be dotted
with little blue airplane figures.
Look at how few were looking. It looks like only three over
the immediate New York City metro area, just a handful
airplanes in the air are being allowed to land at their
destinations and then that is it.

(37:14):
Now, keep in mind the planes you're looking at here are only
those that are participating in the FAA radar system, airliners.
This is does not include anybodyin a small Cessna or a small
plane who might be flying in what's called VFR traffic where
they're just flying below the commercial traffic.
But again, these represent commercial airplanes or
airplanes that are participatingin the FAA system.

(37:35):
Just a handful in the skies overthe Northeast right now.
Greg, Chris. Watching continuing NBC News
coverage on MSNBC of a series ofapparent terrorist attacks.
There you go. Gee, now you'll you'll struggle
to find that online. It's still online just about,

(37:59):
but this piece of evidence backsup the other piece of evidence
I'm just showing, which is the official DCC radar showing that
Flight 175 is over Connecticut. This absolutely backs that up.
So you've got one Flight 175 over Connecticut and you've got
the ACARS data communicating with the plane over in

(38:22):
Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, whichis in totally the other
direction. It's impossible.
Do you think the pilots knew what was going on?
Were they oblivious? Were they in on it?
Well, there are some pilots which are connected to the
military who were flying that day, but that's difficult to say

(38:43):
or don't know for definite regarding the pilot.
And just just quickly to go backto the passengers in Flight 11,
there's there's information, official information showing
reservations that were cancelledfor Flight 11.
OK. And yeah, these passengers were

(39:05):
alleged to have been on Flight 11.
They never there's no information proving they're
booked back on the flight. And apparently they found their
DNA at the site. So how can you have official
American Airlines information showing that there's passengers
who cancelled their reservationsand didn't really book onto that

(39:25):
flight? And that's the same.
We've got that again with Flight77 as well.
So we, there's a lot, there's a lot of people, there's some good
people doing work on that Who including myself, I've done
quite a bit to do with the passengers, which is all on my
sub stack. We've got as if aliases were

(39:49):
being prepared as well or what they call it photographic EXIF
data, which is dated before 911,which is impossible with the
obituaries, which is highly, highly strange.
Plus you've got with flight. 175, you've got 5 passengers

(40:10):
names, you are not on the flightmanifest.
So there's something very strange.
Again, I've looked into the victim compensations fund and
there's a lot of anomalies with that, with the numbers who
brought, you know, we were givenpayments from the fund.
There was a private litigation brought, but the numbers down

(40:33):
add up with the people who brought the private litigation
than the people who were paid out by the victim compensation
fund. So again, there's a lot of
anomalies with the passengers. Just to show you there that's
off the FlightAware and that information that's shown on
there is identical to the schedule of Flight 175.

(40:58):
And if you go into the BTS, there's no other Flight 170.
Well, there's Flight 175, but there's nothing that matches
that 5. So I'll just quickly move on to
American Airlines. You've got that.
That went off radar for 19, I think 18 minutes.

(41:22):
Now. Again, we've got evidence now
this evidence a lot to come out in the last few years that we've
managed to collate. So this proves that this plane
did not turn around and fly backto Washington, didn't, didn't
turn on the Kentuckian Ohio border.
It was actually on radar, on theDCC radar captured flying over

(41:45):
to Missouri and Kansas City. Now there's a lot of evidence to
support this, to support the radar information.
So this is the plotted radar coordinates showing that Flight
1, that's Flight 77, American Airlines flew on into Kentucky,

(42:06):
all the way over into Missouri and over into Kansas.
Now again, this come out for a Freedom of Information at this
information which people can go to National Archives and find
this stuff themselves of published research surrounding

(42:26):
this. I've gone through transcripts
where again this is an official document showing transcripts at
1429. So that's that.
This is at 1029. Now remember the Pentagon was
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
Missouri? So they know he's over Missouri,
they know he didn't turn around and fly back to Washington.
So again, we've got mentioned toabout tracking him over
Missouri. This is at 1031, all official

(43:09):
information. And again, at 1038, we've got
Flight 77, he's in Kansas area heading westward westbound.
And again 1040 the same, it's over in the ZKC, which is again
that Kansas City airspace and still airborne and again at

(43:34):
10:41. So there's a lot of official
evidence there. And we also have what was shown
on CNN, which showed that the flight didn't turn around.
It was still in green, which means it's transponder was still
on at that point. And this was shown the day after
on sea and enter. This is FlightAware again,

(43:55):
totally contradicting the official narrative.
So I'll just play this loop shows you the flight which I
made. What you're looking at here is
it's about to turn and then it jumps, which means it did not
make the turn. It's actually following that

(44:16):
radar path. So whoever let this slip on CNN,
whole thing got a bit of a bad rap.
Yeah, but a bunch of anomalies happened on the day.
Remember that that BBC wasn't Sky or BBC footage where they
announced the second tower goingdown, I think like 20 minutes

(44:37):
before it went down. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Which didn't register. Next to nothing.
Seismic reading, again that's pushed as a controlled
demolition. People need to look at the
evidence and go and do you do diligence and look at the
seismic readings which were naughty .6 that's impossible.
No SOP wave in the seismic reading.

(45:00):
Again, that's not anything kinetic that's destroyed that
building. There's something else at work
and people need to really understand that, that there was
a lot of technology going on on 9/11 and it's being covered up
and unfortunately, it's being covered up by the vast majority
of the truth movement. Sorry to say that, but that's
the truth. Infiltration.

(45:23):
Absolutely, and they're making alot of money doing it as well,
so people are actually paying for a cover up.
Both planes took off, but both planes they didn't, they didn't
go in the direction that we weretold they they went their own

(45:44):
way and the daughter shows this.Absolutely.
Absolutely. Yeah, Yeah.
All right. I can prove it.
I can prove it from their own documents.
Yeah, yeah. And and you say that they are
weird anomalies with with the military stuff that was
happening on the same day. Absolutely, yeah, Yeah.

(46:07):
If you look at some of the military exercises, I mean they
did have one planned in June, O2, which is Amalgam, Virgo, O2,
and that involved having real Delta Airlines employees and it
had FBII think as hijackers and actors as passengers.

(46:36):
So there's also other military exercises where they've got
simulated cell phone calls involved in the training
exercise, you know, hijacking involving simulated phone calls.
And I mean, we're only talking about the two towers here.

(46:56):
We're not even talking about thePentagon and what's the name the
the the other location. Shanksville Yes, we.
Aren't even talking about that. We're just talking about the two
towers. That's it, Yeah.
Yeah, which again. And, and I mean, it stands to

(47:17):
reason that if you're going to question what hit the Pentagon
and what happened in Shanksville, you should also be
asking what happened with the towers.
Yeah, the towers is very important because that
particular the second flight wasthemed all over the world.
That's what actually put conditioned people regarding the

(47:39):
planes. And obviously the news coverage
was it was on every channel in every country, I should think,
well, from what I know. If you, if you look at the the
still frames of the official footage, which anybody can find
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
cartoon. I mean, it, it just, it just
vanishes without any resistance.And the amount of mental
gymnastics that goes on from people trying to explain that,
well, this is what happens when it's going at that speed and the
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
resistance whatsoever. But it's so blatantly obvious
that the visuals don't look right.
The plane is going at a constantspeed, which also doesn't look
right. It doesn't even slow down.
Yeah, the whole thing doesn't make any sense.
No, the, the, the, the physics of it is totally off.

(48:42):
I know. Again, this is a big contention
in the truth movement. You know, they contend, I'm
going to show you why it's not military planes which is being
pushed at the moment. We've remote the remote
controlled planes. That is actually a cover story.
So you don't look at the technology that was involved to
produce those planes. Well, I'll just mention about
Flight 93 because it's just as I'm going through this

(49:05):
presentation. Yeah.
So, yeah, that that had the samewith the with the A cars.
It showed it was over Champaign,IL, which is 500 miles away from
Pittsburgh. Like I said, Colonel Miles on
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
yet it's registering a cars messages over here.
We even have a cars messages that chime in the cockpit of the
aircraft after it is allegedly crashed and he's no more.

(49:47):
It sets off a sound say that themessage has been received.
This is again that in part that couldn't happen if the planes
crashed. But what we're looking at now is
Colonel Mars testimony or a count on a Commission sensitive
document which was unclassified.So he admits it was served in

(50:12):
over Chicago, which is nowhere. It's nowhere near Pittsburgh.
I'll skip over that one. Plus we have the air traffic
controllers now. They're saying it's 15 miles
past the crash site of Shanksville, so it flew further
on. How can this do when we got the
plane and the A cars over in Champaign, IL.

(50:34):
Again, this is spoken about on the in the documents to do with
the transcripts from the air traffic control.
Again, it's listed the position coordinates which people can go
and put these coordinates into Google Earth and you will find
the same findings of what I've found.

(50:56):
Again, this has come from a Commission sensitive document.
This shows you the last lat longcoordinates showing it's 44
miles past the crash site. We also have Linda Justice who
shows that the plane is going toHagerstown, which is 69 miles
past the crash site. So this is giving us some

(51:17):
indication of where this other Flight 93 is heading.
So Hagerstown is 69 miles past the crash site, as you can see
there. So it's heading towards
Washington. Now, there was a change of
flight plan. Now, the Commission tripped
themselves up here because they didn't want to say it was the
the the hijackers that done thisor alleged hijackers.

(51:42):
But again, this is on record on CNN, which was broadcast at 5:00
on the day. And then disappeared off the
radar screens right here outsideof the Pittsburgh area place
called Shanksville. We don't know what happened
there. What's kind of odd about this
one, Joey, is that at some pointafter flying past Pittsburgh,
the pilot apparently radioed andchanged his destination to DCA,

(52:04):
which is Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Unclear what that means. Now let's let me just kind of
put this all onto 1 graphic if you.
There you go, Danny. It's mentioned in the Dateline.
He was right. Dateline obtained radar data
showing the path of United Flight 93.

(52:24):
A little more than an hour into the flight, it makes a sharp
turn off course near Cleveland, OH.
Radio communication is switched off.
Dateline has also been able to confirm that a new flight plan
was filed from on board, perhapsby a fourth hijacker identified
today as a pilot destination. Reagan International Airport.

(52:47):
The plane was now on a direct course for Washington, DC.
So again, there's numerous reports now, there's just some
evidence to to show that Flight 93 actually landed at Reagan
National Airport at 10:28. So again, this was put on this

(53:10):
flight, FlightAware, this is sorry, FlightAware.
So this was confirming it's landing at 10:28 as it was
heading to Washington. We also have from an Excel
spreadsheet from Reagan Nationalshowing it landed at 10:28.

(53:34):
Again, this just talks about ELTS there.
So this slide shouldn't be there.
So you might want to edit that one out.
So it leads it leads you to this.
So planes that are still airborne after the alleged crash
crashes stands to reason you're not going to have any AL TS
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
about? So none of the named planes hit
the four named targets. What what did we see crashing
into the South tower? Now, this is a big question.
This is a very contentious area of, you know, research causes a

(54:20):
lot of arguments. So there's some schools of
thought which I mentioned earlier.
So we have remote controlled planes, we have missiles, we
have CGI and video fakery inserted planes.
We've got 3D volumetric image projection which people might
not be too aware of, which is something that I've been
involved with, which we covered in the 9/11 Alchemy film.

(54:44):
But I'm just going to go to someestablished facts.
So flight data shows that the planes were travelling at
impossible speeds for both 76 sevens and 75 sevens below 1000
feet. Now as I said earlier, Boeing
are on record when Jeff Hill spoke to both Laurie Bechol Cole

(55:05):
and Leslie Hazard. So and these these have work at
Boeing and and Leslie's a an engineer.
We also have a lack of Newtonianphysics observed in the the
second plane video, which is very, very strange.
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
be able to handle it was flight 587.
And I'm just going to play this short clip here to explain out
of Manhattan 2 a little over twomonths after or two months and a
day after the 9/11 event same year, Do you remember it

(55:49):
crashed. Everybody thought it was another
terrorist event. It it took off right behind a
big Japanese airliner and it wasa little bit too close and had
turbulence. That wasn't so much the problem
as the less experienced pilot was had learned that you make
the rudder go to get out of turbulence and he went, you
know, hard left, hard right, youknow, hard left.

(56:11):
And he tore off the tail of the airplane.
Now that was just with air forces.
They're at about 2400 feet, about twice the height of the
World Trade Center. Not only that, as the the pieces
started coming down, the engineswere torn off the plane.

(56:34):
What does that tell you about a plane going supposedly going
twice the speed and banking a tight, tight turn into the
towers? It couldn't do it it.
Couldn't do it. Exactly.
And the best evidence we have a demonstration right there and
there you go. Impossible that you know, it's

(56:57):
impossible. And just this video here shows
just regarding the wings, how how they can be, you know, quite
fragile. I'm going to tell you though,
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
think about those wings. Yes, yes, well, they do have on
them. Don't step on them because of
that fragile. So again, you know, it's another

(57:42):
area that people need to be aware of.
And then as I go on quickly, I'll I'll show you quickly.
So this is Boeing. The phone call, just a quick
phone call from Jeff Hill. Leslie Hazard, you.
Have reached the point company. You know the number you wish to

(58:04):
reach. Please hang up and dial that
number. If you wish to continue to hold.
Your wait time could be up to 5 minutes.
Thank you for your call. Hi, Miss Hazard, Yes, I was
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
question that I was asking, I hope.
So. Well, the question is, I think
it's probably a rather simple one, is it has to do with the
maximum speed of a 767-200 at 700 feet altitude?
Oh boy. Like I looked all over the

(58:47):
Internet and everything and I couldn't find anything about it.
Here for 200. Pardon me for 200.
Yeah, 767-200. Yeah.
Anyway, we don't have much 100. Like I had asked some people and
they they assumed it would be about 250 miles an hour or

(59:11):
something. That sounds that sounds pretty
likely because 35,000 feet is 530 miles.
So there's no way that it could be going 500 miles an hour at
700 feet altitude there. So just to quickly sum up, we've

(59:35):
got another aircraft engineer onon record.
Now he, he says at sea level it will usually be around 400 mph,
which is or 360 Knox for heavilybuilt transport airplanes.
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
video, we're talking about 100,000 feet with that with
that. So he even says here that you
risk a breakup. Even rockets are built with
limitation limited strength. So they have to observe speed
limitations during certain phases of their climb through

(01:00:19):
the atmosphere to contain the aerodynamic forces on their
bodies. So what he's talking about there
is where the air is more dense. You cannot travel at cruising
speed because of the air and themolecules.
It's too dense. The two spread out.
It's the equivalent if you can imagine if somebody being pushed

(01:00:41):
through a swimming pool and you imagine sticking your arms out,
you'd be going through like a swimming pool and that density
of this pool compared to when you're outside of the pool.
So, and, and the airframes are not made to to, to travel at
those speeds. And there's, you know, you've
got all sorts of pilots. There was just quite a few in

(01:01:07):
the old pilots for 911 truth. They will.
They, they spoke out about this,about these limitations.
I do find it strange that there's other pilots who that
won't go there with a lot of this information who they won't
look at the a cars. They won't they won't tell their

(01:01:27):
viewers about the Elts. They don't talk about the DCC
radar. They don't talk about A cars.
They don't, and I'll find that strange because people need
information to make, you know, to digest the information and
make their own conclusions out of a lot of it.

(01:01:48):
I do worry about what they're not being told.
Now, just for the lack of Newtonian physics, I'll just
quickly play this. What we're looking at here is
the Michael has a Carney video on the right and the Lou Chesney

(01:02:08):
video on the left. Now they're both displaying
really unusual impact dynamics. There's no deceleration and
there's no breaking off of the tail.
There's no explosion when the wings come into contact with the
building. Now people are say, oh, well,

(01:02:30):
it's like going through a shredder.
There's fuel. The wings have fuel tanks in
them now. As soon as you hit steel with
that fuel, it is going to ignite.
You are going to see something ignite and you don't.
Adding to what you're saying, yeah, the plane is also hitting

(01:02:54):
the building at a diagonal, which means that it's it's it's
a cross section of various concrete floors and steel
frames. Yeah, yeah, That's correct.
And So what what what we're seeing in this video footage,
we're seeing not only impossiblephysics, which we can see in

(01:03:19):
this photograph. I mean, this is just truly, you
know, if you were seeing a magicshow, David Copperfield, would
you believe it that he's cut that woman in half?
You are seeing a very clever illusion at work here because
when that plane is hitting that building, like you say, on an

(01:03:42):
angle to that angle, you would get some type of shift as it
collided that building. And we're not, we're seeing it
colliding seamlessly. Very, very, you know, it's very
evident. But what I didn't it.
Doesn't even slow down. No, it doesn't slow down.
And, and incidentally, the matter STEFO has proven now,

(01:04:05):
which again, the truth movement will not accept this, that the
building didn't even move. There's no movement in the
building when that plane is actually gone through the
alleged war and into the plane. The movement only starts when
there's an explosion. Now you should have had some
type of physical object in that building.
You should have had some type ofrocking of that building.

(01:04:27):
And that doesn't happen until the plane has disappeared inside
the building, which is again, it's impossible physics.
Just to mention in the last video there, there was missing
wings, which is in the footage. Now again, people will try and

(01:04:48):
explain this as Oh well, it's, it's, it's compression and all
this. No, no, no.
The Nordai footage which I did analysis on, they shot their
footage with professional cameraand that is why I used it,
because there was a lot of otherfootage from further away which

(01:05:08):
showed the missing wing anomaly.And it's not just in one
footage, it's in photographs as well.
This was a study I did which is published on my sub stack as
well, where the wings disappear and they reappear.
Now this is over 12 frames. The wing disappears for six and
then comes back for six and you will see it here in another

(01:05:33):
video. It just doesn't look real.

(01:06:31):
No, no, it doesn't look real. Now this is because that footage
is quite grainy. People say it's compression, the
wing is disappearing and the tail section is because of print
compression, but it's not compression.
Now this still here is taken from the highest quality of the
Nordea footage and they had a professional camera that you
what I can talk, conducted my analysis with my frame by frame

(01:06:53):
analysis where that wing and tail section is missing for six
frames, which is quite a lot. Now that isn't compression.
That's not an artifact of compression, video compression.
The other thing is this would explain why people seen a small
plane, a large plane, a Cessna, and in some cases people say

(01:07:18):
they saw a missile or a rocket. So let's just strike out the top
1 remote controlled planes do not have wings disappearing.
Period. They don't.
This is trying to be pushed at the moment by a select people in
the truth movement that this is remote controlled planes

(01:07:39):
categorically is not a remote controlled plane you're looking
at. Remote controlled planes do not
have wings disappearing. Missile, Possibly, but can a
missile make a plane shaped hole?
Can I missile make a plane shaped hole?
Think about that, because that'swhat the cartoon physics showed,

(01:08:02):
a plane shaped hole. Then we have the CGI inserted
planes. Now where this falls down and
doesn't sufficiently explain everything is you have
eyewitnesses who've seen a plane.
I have a friend in New York who watched the second plane going
seamlessly into the building. So is he a liar?

(01:08:25):
Are all, are they all lawyers who filmed these and
photographed the plane? That's, that's you have to
contend with that. People have to weigh that up.
Have you got everybody involved and on board?
And just think about this, if they was, how did they track the
plane? If it wasn't there at all, how

(01:08:46):
would they plan and follow the plane?
So it doesn't suggest CGI planes.
Plus, what I said with my earlier research into September
clues showed a lot of errors andin my opinion, deliberate errors
that were put in that film to lead you away from the from #4
which is some type of image projection technology, which

(01:09:08):
sounds very, very Star Trek and sci-fi.
But the evidence is there to prove that this technology
exists and it's been there. Well, since I can track that the
desire to develop this technology was around the early
90s in 1991. So I just mentioned this.

(01:09:30):
So this is just a close up here of the disappearing wing.
Is that a Boeing 767? Everybody can get the Norde
footage going by the DVD. You'll see this.
You'll see this anomaly. Now, that is not only captured

(01:09:58):
in the Nordai footage again, which is on a professional
camera that they were filming the documentaries.
And I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding those
two French brothers, but we alsohave this particular person from

(01:10:19):
England. He was nameless, Sweeting, and
we believe from a lot of the testimonies that thought they
saw a small plane or small object or missile.
We believe that they were seeingthis technology from some angles
wasn't so good, which was captured on the cameras and also

(01:10:41):
witnessed by the eyewitnesses. When we came down here, I see a
rock. We got to go into this one, just
watch the rocket drive straight into the centre.
So I just put that on again whenwe came down here, see a rocket
go into this one. Just watch the rocket drive
straight into the centre. So what is he observing there?

(01:11:02):
He's saying he's observing a rocket.
I mean, that could that that object could pass as looking
like a rocket. But if you look at the the Luke
Courchesney video as well, compared to the Nordai, there's
no wing at all there. So what is this object again?
Luke Courchesney was filming on Beta recording video cassette,

(01:11:29):
which is a higher quality than VHS.
So what is he capturing there? They're capturing something that
is not a physical object, or nota 767 anyway.
Again, we have a photograph. We've got the disappearing wing
which we see in those videos on the other side in the loop

(01:11:50):
called Chesney Video here. So it's not just in the video,
it's in people's photographs. It's in the phasing out there in
Fairbanks now. This is what's going around at
the moment. We've got people altering the
videos to make the play more convincing, but also bring a

(01:12:14):
conspiracy element to it where they've adjusted the brightness
on the front of the tower there when that is in normally in
shadow, consistent with the sunlight, which you can go and
check the direction. Well, it was on 9/11, but
they've actually put the wing in, which should have been in
dark shadow, but they've made the plane look more convincing.

(01:12:36):
Very, very deceptive. This is the truth movement at
work at the moment, putting thisstuff out because something is
trying to prevent people from studying those planes very, very
closely again. We've got the secret program
admitted as being established in1994 for the holographic

(01:12:57):
projector for the PSYOPS. This is a desire of the military
back in 2004, sorry 1994 published in the Washington Post
again they had a desire for using holographic technology
again for PSYOPS. Again, just blown up there tells

(01:13:23):
you holographic imaging. So this actually was something
John Leah spoke about the holographic projector.
And there's some couple of schools of thought regarding the
play, by the way. So I'll just run you through
these documents. So it was admitted by the

(01:13:44):
Pentagon that the holographic projections openly as part of
its non lethal weapons program. But since 1994 the program
disappeared from view and it wasput into a black budget effort
and that's that was published inDefence Week.
So again this was it was even spoken about as early as 1991 in

(01:14:09):
the Army's JFK Special Warfare Centre and school in late 91
disclosed it was looking to develop psyops hologram system.
So again they're on record. This is a desire what they
wanted military. So the school authorities was

(01:14:30):
the was the the illusion, the plane illusion was it was it
broadcast in from something flying alongside it broadcasting
the plane, which would have meant it was not a physical
object at all. Well, this is possible because
this video again, which was put together by Matt Estefo, shows

(01:14:55):
something that possibly could bepart of it.
You're going to see an object flying beside very strange
footage. This is

(01:15:38):
now people say about registeringabout that being a bird or
something else to be captured onthat video, a small object like
that for the lens to register that that object is, it's very
tangibly something quite not as small even as a helicopter

(01:16:03):
perhaps, which travelling at a similar speed to the plane
within the plane was travelling at 586 miles an hour, which is
completely impossible. So I'll just move, move on.
Now the other school of thought,thought is, was we're looking at
something that was cloaking around the delivery system

(01:16:27):
object air vehicle to create theillusion of the plane.
Again, all very sounds unbelievable, but they were
working on this stuff. This is the type of technology
they were working on and it's ina patent where they can put a

(01:16:48):
plane or an aircraft volumetric in image ghost image they call
in the document into a desired space or thin air as are used as
a countermeasure decoy countermeasures.
We also have this deadly illusion, holographic missiles
and laser camouflage coming soon.

(01:17:10):
Need to knock the E off the soonThere.
We also have some very strange elements, which was at the time
of the four crashes, the Earth'smagnetic field fluctuated and
spiked. You know, this also happened
with the buildings disappearing.There was quite a lot of

(01:17:34):
disruption going on in the Earth's magnetic field and we've
got it listed shown there, plotted there quarter sharp dip
there 846 when the first plane hit.
We also have during the Pentagonincident, ledge crash, which

(01:17:54):
just to let people know, it didn't even register a seismic
signal. The tangible seismic signal at
the Pentagon now very strange because they described it as an
electrical interference disturbance, which is similar to
what was seen in the Earth's magnetic field.
So again, this is not, I'm just putting this out there, I'm not

(01:18:16):
saying exactly what it is, but plane crashes down do not 'cause
the Earth's magnetic field to behave in this manner.
And there we have 10 O 3 and 10 O 6.
What a lot of people may not know is that ten O 3 is the
official crash time of flight 93.

(01:18:36):
Yet the seismic signal, very weak signal that that, but that
was registered in Shanksville was at ten O 6.
Here we got like a dip in the Earth's magnetic field, some
short spikes, downward trend happening between ten O 3 and 10

(01:18:56):
O 6. So I just want to move on
quickly to the implications of the technology.
Now. This is why I believe it's been
covered up. This is why you're having the
remote controls playing for out there when remote control planes
don't have the wings disappearing.

(01:19:18):
We've had the video fakery that everybody's in on it every all
the people who videoed, all the eyewitnesses are in on the
conspiracy. I don't buy that.
And plus, I have a friend in NewYork who seen the plane, so he's
seen the illusion. And he said he went seamlessly

(01:19:38):
into the building. OK.
So the implications for this technology, which they're huge
because it's got to be kept secret and I think there's
people trying to keep it a secret.
So is this going to be used in another type Project Bluebeam
down down in the future? Possibly.

(01:19:59):
So it could be a clear and present danger.
So again, this was spoke about by Sergei Monast in the
disclosure of information about Project Bluebeam.
Which we we see. So we know the towers were
turned to dust again issued a big contention in the truth
movement. But the evidence shows them

(01:20:21):
towers did not hit the ground. WTC one registered I think it
was a 2.3 and the South tower registered 2.1.
Both of them had non existent S&P waves, which means it was
not kinetic. So it was the equivalent of the
floor. So if you imagine on your bed

(01:20:42):
getting up off your bed and the bed springs back, that was what
the rumble was in the ground. It wasn't through everything
falling to the ground because when you look at the rubble
pile, it's hardly above the lobby of the of the towers for
each tower. Very very minimal paper
survived. Now again, this is being covered

(01:21:03):
up and people need to understandthis technology is real and this
could what could be what they use in the future.
Because you change them planes to UFOs and you've got the
buildings turning to dust potentially you've got an alien
invasion or an alien attack or alien threat.
Now again, this is being spoken about in in the papers, been

(01:21:27):
spoken about online in publications.
Got it here. By all accounts, they've set up
a unit in the UK, the SAS to deal with an alien threat, like
a national security threat. Again, we've we've had all the

(01:21:49):
UFO things with the Pentagon. Now regarding that Pentagon
video potentially could be showing that piece of technology
that I've shown earlier, which was a decoy for countermeasures.
They could have been filming that the pilot again, this is
the one I'm talking about that could easily be that plasma

(01:22:11):
induced laser 3D volumetric doseimaging and they have it and
they speak about it. They use it for decoys.
It's also spoken about in the run corporation because they're
worried about China having it. Not that I think that the it's a
global thing. So I don't think for one minute
everything's separated, which mentioned in the rank

(01:22:33):
corporation report that they have what they call illusion
holographs or illusion hologramswith sound.
They can produce sound and that's been proven as videos
online. You can see the military can can
broadcast sound through plasma induced lasers.
So this isn't, this isn't fairy tale stuff, this is, you know,

(01:22:57):
it's real, it's a real technology that they've been,
you know, probably 30-40 years ahead then what we even have
been presented with. Mark I, I apologize, but we are
quite a lot over time. Oh.
OK, Yeah, I'll just say about the film then I'll just mention
that and you can if you want to edit that in, you can.

(01:23:18):
So anybody interested in this area, don't watch the film I was
involved with that was made by Chris Hampton and it's called
9/11 Alchemy Facing Reality. Thanks for having me on, Jeremy.
Just quickly your sub stack. Yeah, it's 911 planes research.
If you just type that in your, you'll find my sub stack.

(01:23:40):
It's sub stack COM I think. Mark Conlan, thank you so much
for joining me in the trenches. I really do appreciate your
time. This is an incredibly
interesting topic. Thanks for having me on, Jeremy.
Appreciate it.