Interview 1485 - 9/11 Whistleblowers on The Whistleblower Newsroom

10/22/201933 Comments

James joins Kristina Borjesson and Celia Farber of The Whistleblower Newsroom to discuss 9/11 Whistleblowers. Using whistleblowers and a laser beam focus on the forensic evidence, this conversation exposes just how preposterous the official 9/11 narrative really is.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / / YouTube or Download the mp4

Whistleblower Newsroom

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

9/11 Whistleblowers

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

9/11 War Games

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (33)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ethan Hunter says:

    Loved the interview James. The interviewers were a little chaotic but sweet yet I understood the question about an overarching or overall theory about whom is at fault or involved.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld (and all those who were on the Project for A New American Century document) are certainly prime suspects.

    However, I do see invisible threads going back to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the NeoCon establishment.

    The overall goal is certainly the Technocratic Surveillance Grid that is a significant part of the NWO…but I understand the cartoonish nature of some “cabals” that are responsible.

    It certainly points to the whole idea of a One World Government that is centrally controlled.

    Whether that is Corporate Fascistic, Socialistic, or Technocratic in nature I guess remains to be seen.

    Good work as always.

    • Arby says:

      Corporatocracy – rule by corporations – ‘is’ one world government, even if some parts of the world (those targetted by the US for regime change) resist absorption into the global dictatorship of the US. The targetting of Russia and China for example is not because those aren’t capitalist societies. That especially applies to China, which Naomi Klein points out in her 2008 article on the 2008 Beijing Olympics. (I was going to link to article that was on her site or on the Rolling Stone site, but I can’t find it now on either. Nice. Then again, Naomi, in my view, has gone over to the dark side. Who knows why that article’s been scrubbed from those sites? Here it is in the cloud:

      China delivers capitalism the way that capitalists like. The only real problem that the US has with Russia and China are the ruling classes in those countries. They can’t have ‘additional’ corporatocracies, from the US-dominated West’s point of view. There can only be one global hegemon. Alexander Mercouris (who gets some things very wrong but still knows a thing or two) points out that the Pentagon doesn’t want war with Russia. Well, The Pentagon probably understands that war with Russia, if it went all the way and included a nuclear exchange, would not be good for anyone. (Is ‘some’ war okay, because, you know, the ‘defence’ contractors need to make money and if weapons are never used…) But who knows? Why has Hollywood (the American empire’s premier PR industry as Arundhati Roy explains) tried mightily for so many years now to have people not be concerned about nukes if the Pentagon (which is, like the FBI, CIA and NSA, intertwined with Hollywood) was determined to never use them?

  2. cooly says:

    One question that was raised is one that I’ve always had. Who was flying the planes when they went off and were swapped out in radar dead zones? Was it the legitimate pilots who were in some way forced to? I’m trying to remember the exact detail, but wasn’t some kind of transponder switched off in all the planes, that a legit pilot would never do normally? What actually happened in those cockpits? My guess is that the planes were commandeered by operatives after incapacitating or in some way neutralizing the flight crews. Unless the real crews were cooperating because they were scared to death or given ‘offers they couldn’t refuse’. I suppose we’ll never know, I’ve just always wondered.

    • scpat says:

      My response won’t answer your question, but part of the puzzle begins with what is physically possible. The September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor documentary goes into depth on the aspect of the planes and their capabilities. If what the interviewed air traffic controllers said was true, then you have planes that are going to unusually high altitudes, and then dropping into the lower altitudes at a nose dive without losing control of the aircraft. Then, flying in low altitudes at very high speeds prior to impact. Speeds that, according to airplane manufactures cannot be achieved without the planes falling apart due to the increased resistance of the lower atmosphere. This was all supposedly done by inexperienced pilots that managed to maintain perfect control of these large aircraft and accurately slam them into small targets.

      With all this evidence taken into consideration, I think there is a very strong possibility that these were not your standard commercial jets, but were probably drones (remote controlled missiles) dressed up as commercial jets. I cannot see how else these aircraft could be controlled in the manner they were A) without breaking apart, and B) without losing control and crashing prior to reaching the targets.

      Other information corroborates this in my opinion. A huge record of eyewitness testimony, dust samples, heat levels, etc. at the WTC indicate that timed explosives were extensively rigged in these buildings to bring them down. If this is true, then how could the conspirators behind the scenes leave their entire plot in the hands of these amateur hijackers who could have easily missed their targets. Then you have 3 buildings rigged with explosives and no believable justification for how they would be destroyed. So many things had to go right in a certain order on September 11th, and I think that it was all tightly managed and controlled in a way that limited errors.

      Below I have linked to the documentary, queued up to the time where these things are delved into.

      • cooly says:


        Thanks for responding.
        I am aware of all the issues and testimony that you have brought up. The only conclusion I can come to is that military drones hit the towers. I think we agree on that.

        I was just wondering(futilely, I know) what happened in the cockpits. Who was in control when the planes deviated for the swap out.

        • scpat says:

          I was wondering the same thing and haven’t heard discussion of much research on this particular aspect, so I started digging this morning.

          Some potential clues come from Shoestring 9/11 research. New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute

          The article reports last minute switches of pilots, crew, and passengers. The last minute nature of the switches of the pilots was an anomaly according to one pilot who was switched out on September 10th.

          It seems possible that the new pilots and crews could have had been intentionally replaced in a coordinated effort, forced or not, which would have made a transition from jet to drone smoother. As far as how they could have actually done it. I seem to remember Operation Northwoods discussing a switch from jet to drone, so the military has perfected this by now.

          • cooly says:


            Cool. Thanks for that info. Hadn’t heard about it. I will check out that link. You seem to have remembered Operation Northwoods quite correctly. They have had that little trick in their toolbox for decades.

  3. cstrouss1 says:

    @cooly as far as who was flying the planes…

    I’ve been told by experienced pilots that the tasks were not really so difficult, including the Pentagon descending spiral, as some people have claimed, so that it is conceivable that it was the untrained pilots as the government alleges.

    Of course, a lot of people are no-planers, especially regarding DC. My personal guess is that they really were genuinely the types of planes we were told, rather than missiles or some kind of mockups.

    It is possible that these were done fly-by-wire, without humans on board, but would the people behind these things object at all to killing a few hundred more people? I doubt it.

    I haven’t heard much about the backgrounds of the offical pilots, but many airline pilots are former military. The other thing is that it probably wouldn’t be hard to recruit some pilots who, for example, could be blackmailed, but promised substantial financial rewards to their families. Were there any crew changes or pilot substitutions? There were many suitable flights to choose from, perhaps they found suitable candidates who were already scheduled to fly in the right place at the right time.

    I suppose the details will always remain elusive. Speculation can be fun, but we should not confuse it with knowledge.

    • AnimalsArentFood says:

      Pilots for 9/11 Truth have produced a great deal of data and analysis on the difficulties, improbabilities, impossibilities and absurdities related to the plane & pilot elements of the bin laden boxcutter boys fairytale.

    • cooly says:


      Hello. I appreciate your take on events but I think we have come to some different conclusions. But that’s cool.
      As far as pilots possibly being blackmailed, that occurred to me, and I brought that up. Whether, if that’s the case, they were the scheduled pilots or substitutions, who knows.

      Speculation can be fun in some cases, about some things, but my query about events in the cockpits and how they came about is not a matter of idle amusement, rather genuine curiosity.


  4. generalbottlewasher says:

    Funny ha ha or funny funny how the communication blips occur at the apex of the story. It disrupted the narrative just enough to cause a loss of continuity. Or Im i just a tin foil hat conspiracy nutter?.

    However, It was Handled with poise by all involved.

  5. russ says:


    Dr. David Ray Griffin is a world-recognized expert and investigative writer on 9/11, an author of some 10 books on the subject, and a professor of philosophy of religion and theology at the Claremont School of Theology (that he helped found) in California for more 30 years. He also is co-director of the Center for Process Studies there, and has authored, co-authored, or edited more than 20 other books.

    To have any understanding, or to take part in any meaningful discussion about 9/11, knowledge of Dr. Griffin’s foot-noted findings surrounding the event are a prerequisite. For example, the technology for air-to-ground cell phone calls did not exist on 9/11.

    The so-called “elite” have tried and failed twice to debunk Dr. Griffin’s findings. He answered them with another in-depth, foot-noted book— “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” (

    Mainstream media’s propaganda outlets—the nation’s and world’s “official” electronic, print, and other controlled information sources—droned on with the “official” 9/11 anniversary mantra in 2019 that often culminates with PBS and network “specials” and general “where-were-you” testimonies, along with the obligatory boogeyman hunt/war for?on terrorists, and is every radio talk show host’s “official” stance, left or right.

    None of the 9/11 presentations or information aimed at the masses ever touches on, or reviews, the uncomfortable facts that Dr. David Ray Griffin has researched, written about, and foot-noted for America. Or the uncomfortable truths surrounding the event pointed out in articles by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and others, as well as professional architect, engineering, and demolition organizations worldwide (the two 100-story Twin Tower’s steel beams and their entire structures could not have collapsed upon their own foot-prints—each in under 15 seconds—without being prewired for destruction), and professional firefighter associations—especially New York’s who lost some 300 firefighters in this heinous mass murder and crime.

    Firefighters inside the buildings who were not killed in the explosions (and somehow survived) the blasts HEARD THE DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS OCCURING AND SO GAVE SWORN STATEMENTS. And the first fire-fighting crew that reached the floor where the initial “plane” hit HAD RADIOED BACK DOWN THAT THE FIRE WAS NOT THAT HOT AND COULD BE KNOCKED DOWN. (Neither jet nor missile fuel can melt steel beams, and no multi-story steel-framed high rise anywhere in the world has ever collapsed upon itself; even after burning two days.

    It appears the perpetrators of 9/11 attempted to incorporate one of the 36 ancient Stratagems of War — the deception and lie — and assumed the public would be too traumatized by the event, and too stupid to grasp the planning behind the deception. The stratagem involves making somebody (or a public) believe there is something when, in fact, there is nothing. One method of using this stratagem is to create an illusion of something’s existence. Or, create an illusion that something does not exist when, in reality, it does. Goebbels and Hitler used this stratagem on their citizenry in the run-up to, and during, WWII.

    The government’s attempt to use this plain lie stratagem to explain to the public what happened on 9/11 went terribly wrong in the 21st century, however. Millions already had access to the Internet and instant information when the event occurred, and millions more were coming online daily.

  6. russ says:

    Information and facts contradicting the government’s official explanation of the event began to appear almost as soon as the dust settled. The collapse, for example, of WTC-7 on its own footprint the afternoon following 9/11 without being struck by anything were obvious, even to the casual viewer; especially when an in-studio BBC lady looked America in the eye and reported a third building (WTC-7) had just collapsed or words to that effect, when it was clearly visible in the background as she talked (
    Meaning she was following a script.

    Reporters first on the scene at what was supposed to be the Shanksville, Pennsylvania, crash site of United Flight 175, a Boeing 767, found little or no debris, or other wreckage normally associated with airline crashes. There were other telling signs and onsite statements from local responders as well.

    Did the perps think us all stupid? That expert architects and engineers and firefighters who had a first hand look at and heard the explosions going off in the buildings, including WTC-7, would buy bogus facts like jet fuel melting the upper beams (it can’t) in the Twin Towers, and the lower levels collapsing under the pancake pressures of the melted-beam-floors falling above them; thus causing two of the tallest structures in the world to collapse at free-fall speed in approximately 12 seconds, each onto their own footprints?
    Can’t be done without special explosives.

    Did the perps miscalculate the Internet’s breadth and depth? Or did they not care whether or not the public could see their plain lie? They had, after all, gotten a free pass from the MSM following Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1993 parking basement bombing attempt beneath the Towers by a blind Mullah and his followers in a first attempt to blow up a Tower with a Ryder Truck packed with explosives that government officials were monitoring with an informant inside the group.

    For those who have had neither the opportunity nor time to read Dr. Griffin’s account of 9/11, here’s a concise, accurate, online overview (and fairly quick read) of his findings surrounding one aspect of the event: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True This piece by Dr Griffin documents the findings and statements of architects, engineers, demolition experts, and firefighters (whose oral statements about the event were suppressed for three years until a Freedom of Information Act requests forced their release.)

    Dr. Griffin’s writings are footnoted and he openly invites readers to cross-check and refute his facts

    If you have time for one or two of his books, a good, quick read is “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press”

    (, and his

    “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up, and the Expose′” (

    Both are important updates and overviews of the event chronicled in his first book, “The New Pearl Harbor”, and immediately pointed out indictable acts that can be easily investigated by grand juries.

  7. russ says:


    All things destructive pertaining to America’s Constitutional rights and laws, including the Constitutional-shredding Patriot Act that was prewritten prior to 9/11 and deliberately rushed unread through congress immediately after 9/11, are tied to 9/11. The 4,000-page document was also designed and written to do away with authoritative checks like habeas corpus and posse comitatus; all under the guise of “protecting” America.

    This cancerous document and the lie ON which it was must be ripped from America’s body politic and its perpetrators punished if this nation is ever to restore its Constitutional balance and Republic.

    1. Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Rebuttal of His Critics: Debunking 9/11 Debunking

    2. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: The “Critics” of 9/11. . .

    3. BBC’s Premature [Read: Scripted] On-Air Report of WTC-7’s Collapse

    4. Unusual Aspects Surround the Shanksville, PA, Crash Site

    5. Evidence of Special Explosives Found At 9/11

    6. Why the Official Explanation of the Destruction of the Twin Towers Cannot Be True, According to Dr. David Ray Griffin

    7. Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Open Letter to Congress and the Press

    8. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Dr. David Ray Griffins Latest Book Updating the Integrated Events Surrounding 9/11

  8. russ says:

    You nailed it James. Great work, great vid.

  9. scpat says:

    These interviewers were really looking to put a nice bow on the 9/11 story, weren’t they? Regardless, you did a nice job James.

  10. Arby says:

    James: Osama bin Laden was not buried at sea. I highly recommend you read Seymour Hersh’s “The Killing Of Osama bin Laden.” If you don’t want to read the whole (short) book – We all know that you’re very busy – then just read that section. Or, You can check this out:

    • CQ says:

      Arby, it’s been a few hours since I listened to this interview, so I don’t recall James’s mention of OBL being buried at sea. I’m not doubting that he did, but I’m sure he was either being facetious or he was telling us that this is the official version of OBL’s demise. Or both!

      If you’d like to see what James has said about OBL in the past, you’re welcome to click here and find out:

      • Arby says:

        Fair enough. He says it in his rapid, comedic breakdown of 9-11 at the beginning of the show. Indeed, It’s not crystal clear whether the burial at sea mentioned by Corbett is something he agrees with. Regardless, I would recommend that anyone, James included, who is interested in knowing the facts about the killing of Osama bin Laden, check it out his book on that. I’m not a great fan of Hersh, the person. But one must judge a book by its contents. Hersh does good reporting. I learned a great deal about the awful Kennedys from his book “The Dark Side Of Camelot” (which was, intriguingly, a non establishment treatment by an establishment person) and therefore was very interested in his “The Killing Of Osama bin Laden.” I wasn’t disappointed.

        It’s all about learning.

      • Arby says:

        I just reviewed your linked-to video. James expresses skepticism about the burial at sea story.

  11. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Online Mainstream Newspaper Ads with Corbett Report video links

    I happened across these older posts this morning.
    I want to mention that sometimes it is not very costly to place an ad in an online newspaper or publication. Prices are often negotiable.

    A few years back, our North Texas 9/11 Group had a small animated, flashy gif ad “The Official 9/11 Story in 5 minutes – Click Here!”.
    It linked to Corbett’s 5 minute video.
    The YouTube video count did go up a decent amount during that season.
    The ads ran for a good period of time in over 14 local publications.


    You don’t need James’ or anyone’s permission to run an online ad.
    In fact, you could link to any of Corbett’s videos. It does not need to be limited to the 9/11 video.

  12. candlelight says:

    Crack me up!

    Just prior to 9:05mins into it, I think it’s Kristina who asks James about the various whistle-blowers, and James rattles off two names, when Kristina chimes in “Sibel Edmunds” (we hear “yeah’ in the background, presumably from Kristina’s partner Celia) and James hesitates, nearly chokes Lol, but totally ignores that prompt.

    Oh, man, did I find that humorous, indeed.

    Sibel Edmunds, the most gagged lady in America! Under the all seeing eye of FBI Director Mueller, Sibel manages to leak and disseminate confidential files and information to the outside world, holds court on the discombobulated intelligence agencies whom allowed 911 to happen, er, let the official narrative to happen, that is; suffers absolutely no criminal wrong-doing, and lives happily ever after as a soccer mom in a quiet, peaceful suburban setting in Oregon with her hubby, who’s no doubt one of her lucky, former handlers at GQ. A smitten handler.

    No, I wouldn’t suspect James would like to discuss the matter of Sibel to any degree, with most anyone….

    We’re still waiting to find out James’ reexamination of his body of work which he did in collaboration with Sibel.

    It’s been over a year. Is the subject entirely mute? Why?

    Does anybody know?

  13. B00ND0GGLE says:

    The uplink modulated code software enabling a ground based transmission to seize control of Boeing jet has been fully operational since 1984 or earlier. Mainstream Media made a big flap about needing to create a ground based ability to commandeer jets in 2001 and announced it was all set in 2006 which is odd since at least for Boeing, it waa already done.

    All flour’hijacked’ flights were Boeing 757 or 767 jets.

    And don’t let’s forget the flight controllers radar videos. 3 or 4 other aircraft converge on the hijacked flights like escorts; transponders go out; then we see loop-shaped traces and the escorts peel off and disappear. Any of the escorts could in fact be the one which turned back toward NY or DC.

    I have attempted to place voice calls on every flight I’ve taken since 2001. Finding: from takeoff to landing, GSM or CDMA, never ever got one call to connect. Its exceedingly unlikely that any of those calls from passengers were real. And that was the only hard evidence the Bush Administration ever came up with to support their crazy coincidence theory.

    QUESTION: has anyone ever seen an images in which the American or United airlines markings were visible on the incoming planes? I’ve looked and looked and I’ve never been able to confirm whether those markings were there or not.

    • candlelight says:

      Nope. Every image/video that I’ve seen of the plane coming into the south tower looked dark or gray with no markings. All looked extremely ominous. The Naudet Brothers’ video shows a plane a second or so before impact of the north tower, but the distance of the shot is too far to see it clearly. After impact the camera zoomed in – ah, a little too late to make out any markings….

      By the way, very interesting what you’re saying about “uplink modulated code”. It’s the first I’ve heard of this technology to remotely control airplanes going back to 1984. Do you have any references pertaining to this that you can share?

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      B00ND0GGLE says:
      “I have attempted to place voice calls on every flight I’ve taken since 2001. Finding: from takeoff to landing, GSM or CDMA, never ever got one call to connect. Its exceedingly unlikely that any of those calls from passengers were real.”

      First off, not being able to make calls 20,000+ feet up in the air does not prove the ‘passenger’ calls were not real.
      The most likely scenario is that the passengers were not aboard the remote-controlled aircraft that struck the towers.

      The aircraft that the passengers were aboard most likely landed somewhere safely.
      The cell phone calls would have been made from the ground, where the phones are fully capable of transmitting from.

      “And that was the only hard evidence the Bush Administration ever came up with to support their crazy coincidence theory.”

      The Bush Admin. had plenty of other ‘hard evidence’ to ‘support’ their crazy conspiracy story. The hijacker’s passport that fell to the ground blocks from the WTC. The hijackers’ red bandanas found in the dirt surrounding the Flt. 93 crash in Shanksville. Atta’s briefcase with all its ‘incriminating evidence’, etc. etc.

      “QUESTION: has anyone ever seen an images in which the American or United airlines markings were visible on the incoming planes? I’ve looked and looked and I’ve never been able to confirm whether those markings were there or not.”

      We don’t have images of these markings on the incoming planes.
      But what we do have is equally important.
      We have witnesses who have spotted at least one jet that allegedly crashed on 9/11.
      The plane’s tail number was photographed several years after 9/11, before the aircraft was finally decommissioned.

      • candlelight says:

        Fawlty Towers,

        To be fair, BOONDOGGLE did mention attempting to place calls – “from takeoff to landing” . In other words, the attempts weren’t limited to a 20,000 foot altitude.

        But, what’s this about when you make the following claim:

        “The aircraft that the passengers were aboard most likely landed somewhere safely.”


        Says who?

        This is exactly the problem with “conspiracy theory”, and why such “gatekeepers” such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky may have said what they said when they said – paraphrasing (Zinn)- that endless speculation is a waste of good energy, a distraction. Or Chomsky’s “What does it matter?

        In that very narrow sense, of wasted energy, time and exasperation, I can almost agree. Yet, though it may be an unfortunate consequence, the getting at the truth, and not accepting the lie, is still paramount. The bogus case of Zinn’s pessimistic argument (non-argument) – that since it’s unlikely we’ll ever find the truth about 9/11 – comparing it to the inconclusiveness of the Kennedy assassination 50 years out – it’s better we concentrate our energy on finding out what the United States is doing wrong that is promoting an increase in terrorism around the world, etc., etc., is obviously a fallacy in reasoning….. When I heard him say that, I literally felt embarrassed for him, as this doesn’t sound like anything close to an argument that a supposedly smart, intellectual individual would make. Quite the contrary. That is, if you don’t attempt first to get to the bottom of what could possibly be a massive false flag attack, then all attempts to evaluate whatever reasons one might find for so-called terrorism is potentially illusory, at best. Zinn should have known that, and so should Noam Chomsky…. Actually, this obvious blunder makes me feel something else has to be going on. Like arms being twisted. I don’t know, it’s just very bizarre. Or, maybe the business of gatekeeping is just really simple, stupid, and that’s all it needs to be kept, and still be as effective as it needs to be.


        • Fawlty Towers says:

          “Yet, though it may be an unfortunate consequence, the getting at the truth, and not accepting the lie, is still paramount. The bogus case of Zinn’s pessimistic argument (non-argument) – that since it’s unlikely we’ll ever find the truth about 9/11 – comparing it to the inconclusiveness of the Kennedy assassination …
          Or, maybe the business of gatekeeping is just really simple, stupid, and that’s all it needs to be kept, and still be as effective as it needs to be.”

          I completely agree with your sentiments about Zinn. He is completely misguided. However you haven’t hit the nail on the head with him. I will do it now.

          His position is simple, he states that we shouldn’t be investigating 9/11. Who did 9/11 etc. That it is futile that it will never prove anything or lead us anywhere.
          He states that instead, we should be investigating ‘In what way has American foreign policy enflamed and antagonized people all over the world to the point of creating terrorists?’

          What he is saying is that O.B.L. and 19 muslim hijackers planned and carried out 9/11. These were the terrorists.
          And rather than having an investigation to actually prove that they were the guilty parties, we should be investigating American foreign policy, because that’s what creates terrorists!!!

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          “But, what’s this about when you make the following claim:

          “The aircraft that the passengers were aboard most likely landed somewhere safely.”


          Says who?

          This is exactly the problem with “conspiracy theory”, and why such “gatekeepers” such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky may have said what they said when they said – paraphrasing (Zinn)- that endless speculation is a waste of good energy, a distraction. Or Chomsky’s “What does it matter?

          In that very narrow sense, of wasted energy, time and exasperation, I can almost agree… ”

          candlelight, we all arrive at our current position on 9/11 from a myriad of different starting points, twists and turns, revelations, false starts, rabbit holes, enlightenment, research, indoctrination, debates, and blood sweat and tears.

          Every serious 9/11 researcher has their own style of investigating the events that occured on, leading up to and after Sept. 11, 2001..

          James Corbett’s style is to investigate all of the circumstantial evidence. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that would convince most open-minded people able to reason, that the official government story about 9/11 cannot be true.
          As powerful as all of this evidence is, I prefer not to hang my hat on it.

          My brain is wired to prefer hard, physical evidence. and in almost all court cases, it is the hard physical evidence that will trump the circumstantial evidence.

          So this is what I concentrated almost all of my research time on.
          The best place to start and end 9/11 research is with the WTC towers.
          It is easy to prove, far beyond any reasonable doubt, that all three WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
          Any physicist in the world, who hasn’t been bought or paid for by the deep state or its affiliates, will laugh at any explanation attempting to say the towers fell down on their own, without the aid of explosives. They know it isn’t physically possible.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          But you don’t have to be a physicist to understand why it’s not possible.

          This is the starting point for 9/11 studies. The towers were demolished. Then you must ask yourself who could possibly have demolished them? Most people would agree that OBL and the alleged 19 hijackers couldn’t have done it.
          There had to have been another conspiracy going on with other people.

          Then you can start studying the flights and the passengers.
          You learn that no hard evidence was ever produced showing that the 19 hijackers boarded the planes.
          You learn that the cell phone calls that were claimed to have been made during the flights couldn’t have been made. The FBI admitted to this years after 9/11.

          So then you try to come up with an explanation for how the calls could have been made.
          You examine the flight patterns of the four ‘hijacked’ aircraft. You notice very strange maneuvers being made at strategic locations.
          Planes losing their radar transmissions at these strategic locations.

          You examine the videos (all 30+ videos) of the aircraft heading for the WTC towers.
          You notice that none of them showed any markings that were typical for American Airlines or United Airlines aircraft.
          You notice a bulge on the belly of the aircraft that crashed into the WTC South Tower.
          You notice flashes of light on the buildings WTC1/WTC2 a split second before the jets crash into them.

          When you examine all of this physical evidence it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that there were no passengers on the planes that struck the towers.

          But candlelight I must emphasize, the theories as to what happened to the passengers, how the calls were made, are not important in the big picture. And none of that can be proven at this stage.
          What can be proven, and I repeat, what I hang my hat on, is that the towers can not have collapsed, as is the official story.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top