Tonight's program goes deep into the events of Sept. 11, 2001, from an engineering perspective, then a spiritual one. My guest is Roland Angle. And I share a little about my recent trip to Love Canal.
Debris? That's what I said -- why does it end up outside rather than inside when presumably the airplane flew into the wall and carried the debris using kinetic energy, inward, with the airplane. + Show me a photo of airplane wreckage...they don't exist
Never forget, no airliner ever flown could have done as was reported on 9/11/2001
Think about what happens if an aluminum airliner traveling at 800 ft/sec and encounters a stationary object, that being either the WTC tower wall, or the Pentagon wall, how about a bit of applied physics(?)
Planes, at both the WTC and the Pentagon, were/are a diversion. Whatever hit the Twin Towers did not bring them or WTC7 down. And whatever hit the Pentagon did not cause most of the damage and casualties, those happened in a different part of the structure.
its a given, that an airliner striking a wall ( wherein the only way to breach the wall, being that it must displace >5 tons of mass in order to make the hole ) The event would have had to involve a shock to the plane, now there would have to be a minimum of 60 milliseconds between first contact ( nose to wall ) & the point when the wings could have touched the wall, in that time, what is happening to the plane in this time. If there was sufficient time/energy available to breach the wall, there would most certainly sufficient time/energy to break the plane, and do so in a very serious manner, and with that said, why should anyone expect the wings to have met the wall completely edge-on?
Sep 9, 2023·edited Sep 9, 2023Liked by Eric F Coppolino
Right...in re WTC, it appears that AL compound cut through STEEL like a knife through fat. The airplane would have flown apart like balsa wood. I am open to the idea that all of the video was staged in advance, though it would be tricky to fake the live broadcast of 175 into II. However, the video is all rather CGI and I have not the slightest doubt that a missile and not an airplane struck the Pentagon, exploding on the inside and spilling no fuel, and shedding no wreckage, as there was neither fuel nor an airplane.
the ONLY view of the "FLT175" event that showed the south wall of the tower being penetrated, was shot, and then shown after the fact, ALL of the "live" shots are of such an angle as to NOT show the south wall of the tower.
this is critical because the "live" bits would have been very simple to fake in relation to the explosives that were installed to create the effect.
Ok then. Wow...here is a little something - I was hipped to the problems at the Penta very early on, and that was my way into the matrix. This was the article...get ready...he's piercing
A Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon would do exactly, precisely, the damage that a Boeing 757 would do to the building. American Airlines flight 77 hitting the Pentagon would cause exactly the damage that would be caused by it, and would leave exactly the evidence behind that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All the scores of witnesses who were in the area would see the plane hitting the building because it hit the building.
so then why does the debris not punch into the building, but rather, falls in the direction of where the airplane was coming from? If I throw a rock at a window, the glass does not end up behind me. The glass follows the rock.
and you seem to have never heard of a metaphor. No, it's not a rock, but the jets are made of titanium, as are the landing gear. Can you show me a photo of either, from the Pentagon or any other 9/11 event?
The witnesses? The ones which claimed they saw the plane drag its wingtip along the lawn, without flipping over, or the wing breaking off, or a large gouge left on the lawn? Or the ones who claimed they saw the faces of passengers in the window, looking terrified, who somehow could see into the windows of a plane going by at several hundred miles an hour, let alone see facial expressions? Whom do you think you're trying to snow? :-)
and tell us if this fits with a plane impact, no space big enough to let in a 757, no plane parts such as wings and tail or pieces thereof outside the hole. Again, whom are you trying to snow?
I have no idea how to reach her, I wish I did. I don't think she is 100% correct, nor do I think The Architects and Engineers are either. But I do think it was a combination event. And I don't think there were any planes involved. Just a lot of years of watching and reading and thinking. But despite ones views, I'd recommend Judy's book to everyone. It has hundreds of full color pictures and you'd find it hard to explain the toasted cars, lack of debris, etc.
There are things that cannot be explained by ordinary CD. However, what I appreciate in the AE911 approach is that it is conservative, and not over-reaching. We may never have the whole story, though the intentional demolition by whatever means, and even the potential lack of airplanes, takes down the official conspiracy theory, and that is enough. We must remember that this is a propaganda war above all else.
You have to fill out a form for email contact. The problem I've always had with the 9/11 Truth Movement, there are many theories, I'd like to see all those with different theories on what happened, get together with a public forum, and politely discuss this. But the infighting and back stabbing makes this impossible. Have a great day Eric, love your work!
One of the items he touched upon was the descent of the antenna at the top of the building, which began before the upper section, i.e. above the plane impact zone, began to descend. This indicates for one thing that the top was disintegrating even before it started moving, and hence could not have functioned like a pile driver, per all the mutually contradictory versions of the official story claim.
But also this shows that the truss hat assembly which had supported the antenna got taken out INSIDE the structure, with the core columns being blown up. This happened *without any damage visible on the building's exterior*. A directed energy weapon could not do this, unless it was inside the structure, which wouldn't make sense.
I had numerous conversations with Wood back in 2006-7 when she was putting together her theory. I pointed out discrepancies between her theories and the physical evidence. Her reaction was uniformly to dismiss all contrary evidence as "fake." She started out with good ideas, and then went off on her own tangent. My personal experience.
I have to take issue with a couple of thoughts expressed in the last segment. Enough food to guarantee survival is not a given. Even in the US, 34 million, over 10%, are food insecure, even per the US Department of Agriculture. 92% of Americans have a vitamin deficiency. https://thebiostation.com/bioblog/do-you-have-vitamin-deficiency/
Close to 46 percent of adults and 56 percent of children in the United States have an overall poor-quality diet
Outside the US and the core advanced industrial nations? Don't even ask.
Safety not a real problem? Here in Berkeley, California, i read almost daily reports of carjackings in Berkeley, nearby North Oakland,.... even in the well-to-do hills districts. It's pretty crazy here.
None of this of course justifies the atrocious things being done to poison the very ability of men and women to communicate, even make eye contact. The situation was horrendous in Berkeley way before Operation "Pandemic," in fact i agree that "me too" seemed to transition rather smoothly into the Operation.
I admit to being too discouraged to even try eye contact any more, and given where i am, i can't even be reasonably sure that any such attempts will lead to anything, not even a smile. But i did let a guy in a pick up truck turn in front of me into the very busy street i was driving on earlier today. A random act of kindness is quite worthwhile, i try to do one every day.
It's a little known fact that the bay area is one of the world's hotspots for stealth weapons attacks. I've been a victim of this kind of attack for over three decades. I know who the perpetrator is. The police turn a blind eye to this kind of assault and criminality. (I've also experienced garden-variety assaults: a robbery at knifepoint, and another one at gunpoint. Neither of those hold a candle to stealth weapons attacks in malice and the ability to ruin a person's life.) The person who attacks me has invaded my privacy in every conceivable way, including by hacking my computer and online accounts; she follows me everywhere I go online, and she writes comments on the Substacks I frequent which echo or distort things which I've previously written online or in personal emails. She started doing this here at Planet Waves a few days ago. The internet breeds epistemological confusion and chaos. She takes full advantage of this fact.
Carjackings at gunpoint, stuff stolen out of vehicles while people are loading or unloading stuff, attempted home invasions,....... These are in the residential areas. In North Oakland's Rockridge neighborhood, long regarding as chi-chi, stores are being robbed during daylight, people accosted on sidewalks,...... Even incidents in Berkeley's Gourmet Ghetto.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet, change your life, where you live and get out of the urban poison. Life is nature based and that is our source and you have to honor that in your being. You see it, why stay?
Why stay? Lack of resources which would enable me to move. Like the vast majority of the population of the US (and in fact everywhere), i don't have a big savings reserve. I'm 76, living on SocSec and pension and burning up my savings. I rent, so i can't sell a home i don't even even to raise some funds. I wish things hadn't worked out like that, but i spent a lot of time taking care of my elderly mom in her last decade of her life, lost a lot of mobility opportunities, but that's water under the bridge. I'll just have to make do with where i am and what i have.
Thank you so much for having Roland Angle on & delving deep into 9/11. Moving, clear, brilliant. And your brief comments on Love Canal are quite devastating. I recently finished a book length poem focusing on 9/11 called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, as a sequel to another book, from the warring factions, that focused on Bosnia with echoes of the Gulf War behind it. Needless to say, I was immersed in sources from the Engineers. A very important interview. Thank you again.
"People collected samples" your guest said. Did the authorities allow samples of the debris to be removed and analyzed? Really? or were they 'given samples'?
The lack of ruble which should have piled up in a mound 200 feet high suggests the material in the buildings was turned to dust. The buildings fell at free fall speed ,meaning zero resistance. Energy weapons combined with other explosives. Cannot attain freefall speed with column destruction alone.
I found it interesting that you don't want to "go there" regarding the possibility that DEWs were used on 9/11. The A&E theory may be able to explain the collapse of the buildings, but it does not address other evidence, such as columns disintegrating in mid air (watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb2i8R5YlRk) and the fact that the majority of the mass of the buildings never struck the earth (as would be measured by devices that detect earthquakes), which would have destroyed that bath tub.
Furthermore, it is so very interesting that cars that were toasted on FDR drive, far away from the WTC, look nearly identical to cars in Lahaina. Have you seen the recent videos comparing the two scenes?
An inside job is one thing. It would explain a certain level of corruption. But if DEWs were in fact used 22 years ago, that reveals a massive change to the story. It would indeed open Pandora's box, which I expect to be opened regardless in the coming years.
I completely understand why the Engineers and many others would not want to go there, but am surprised you shy away from it...after all, you've investigated some gnarly criminal acts.
At min 1:37, you said regarding the possibility of DEWs, "Why do we even need to go there?"
To me, there is a need to go there. There are questions that are unanswered by the other theories and it can't be ruled out, especially that we NOW KNOW DEWs exist; we know what companies hold patents for the various technologies, they even advertise the technologies on their web sites.
I'm not sure how things have evolved over the past number of years, but I know that Dr. Judy Wood was shunned by nearly everyone in the 9/11 truth community early on, and having read her book carefully (and with an engineering degree of my own), I found that unwarranted.
To me, the question, "Were actual passenger jetliners a part of the 9/11 attacks?" equates to the question, "Was covid an actually disease caused by sarscovII?"
The question, "Were DEWs used to dustify the WTC while it collapsed or perhaps to create the collapse?" equates to, "Do viruses exist?"
Most can't even approach these deeper and broader questions until they've accepted the more basic evidence showing the main stream narrative as being false.
I read through much of the discussion in the comments, so I better understand your thinking and questioning.
Those people still clinging to their trust of the msm, gov, etc are either actively ignoring lots of data, or are holding on to the lies with white knuckles.
David, please write me an accurate, fully-sourced paragraph about DEWs and the World Trade Center. The paragraph must account for the fact that they exist (with at least two sources), where one would be mounted, how we know that was there and that it was used, how it was powered, the type of weapon or device, and conclude for sure, as a matter of *attributed* fact, that it was used. No speculation involved. Thank you.
The best source I have found for what DEW might have been used in the 9/11 attacks was the first 8 pages of Elana Freedland’s 2nd book in her geoengineering trilogy. Her books go into great detail about how ionosphere heaters like HAARP can direct DEW energy precisely targeted, from a great distance. I’m not at home now so I don’t have it in front of me.
Dr. Wood’s book has a lot of convincing evidence as well. It is quite plausible that other destructive technologies were also used, though she doesn’t acknowledge that possibility.
There is a lot of similarity with some of the burn patterns on the ground there with those in other suspicious fire events like Maui. I’m not any kind of expert however.
I'm going to jump in here and I'm going to tell you that I know Rebekah Roth of Methodical Illusion and so many more contributions to this and everyone needs to read that book and distribute it.
I am also very familiar with everyone from A&E and a wonderful work that they do and the dedication to bringing the truth forward.
All these years there's been so much ongoing work in the background to determine what this is and appreciate William Hurt and his film as well and Cyril Wecht coming out of retirement because he knew better about this.
My husband was Iraqi and we lived in Hollywood Florida off of Johnson Street were all of those so-called terrorists were supposed to be.
It's been proven that most of them weren't in the country and the whole thing was a scheme with the ID out there which was peculiar in itself.
But my husband who was the chief engineer with Zim knew some of those guys that were blamed for this thing and he said none of them would ever fly a plane and none of them could.
Congratulations for bringing this forward right now. The timing of course is remarkable.
Thank you so much for this and made this thing open up until the truth for once and bring out the real perpetrators who have been in the background for far too long and gotten away with far too much.
I'm starting to think it was drones. I have one witness account, from someone who was a facilities manager wt WBAI, who told me her account of witnessing the crash from the Brooklyn Promenade, quite close to the towers -- the airplane was utterly silent, she said.
There was at least one media reporter who was told by a witness he was interviewing that the plane she saw crash into the North Tower was not an American Airlines liner. There was only one video of that flight, showing it for only a couple of seconds, very suspicious circumstances for the making of that video, http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/09/jules-naudets-911-film-was-staged.html I've seen that video slow down, the plane had wings attached to the fuselage way up front, totally unlike a 767.
Good analysis done by electronics engineer Aidan Monaghan demonstrates the paths flown by the two planes could not have been made by human pilots. You can get his book Declassifying 9/11 here, or at Amazon, etc.
The "19 terrorists" story is appalling and falls apart on its face. Let's see, they tell us that 19 were Saudi and two were Emeriti -- our "allies" -- and then the U.S. bombs...Afghanistan...and Iraq? What a crock.
How exactly is that spam, trolling or harassment. It is an observation based on logic, the logic of people's actions and the credibility of accusations that people, a large group of people, would come up with a plan that did not make sense to them, had no chance of succeeding in fooling anyone and was obvious because it 'defied the laws of physics'. Saying that there was a plan of that kind is buying into the logic of that plan. When people say that plan doesn't make sense they are undermining their own argument. I don't expect you to show any comments from me, it's your website, but why not allow debate on this subject with others? If you don't want to debate I'm quite willing to do so , and use any amount of facts and evidence.
If you are an editor and don't debate then how about allowing the people who make comments on your site debating. You have a comments section. Are the only comments allowed ones that you agree with?
I do not delete comments unless they fall under the category of spam, trolling or harassment. And you, unfortunately, meet that qualification. You have not presented one fact that supports your argument, and your intention is to disrupt the discussion; that is trolling.
Where did I say Cuban people are not important or say that if Cuba had been invaded that no one would be killed. It would also mean inevitably that US soldiers would be killed. I said that Op. Northwoods did not include people being killed. The idea of a plane swap was so that people would not be killed. The various things suggested involved blowing up empty ships and funerals for non existant victims. Do you think that applies to 9/11? And why was anyone even considering these pretexts for invading Cuba? Because they knew Cuba was not going to provide and actual pretext. They would have to be insane to go provoking the US. Do you think that applies to 9/11 when Bin Laden had publicly threatened to attack the US, had already attacked embassies and the USS Cole, when the system was blinking red and the PDBs and foreign intelligence were presenting these warnings. How many people died in the embassy bombings in Africa? Can you name anyone of the people who were killed there, or maimed for the rest of their lives?
See what you've done there. You said there were no photos of landing gear at the Pentagon. I showed you a photo. You say it's fake. Just like that. The 9/11 truth movement in a nutshell.
" No, it's not a rock, but the jets are made of titanium, as are the landing gear. Can you show me a photo of either, from the Pentagon or any other 9/11 event?"
Colin, I suggest you go with the evidence. Are you (for example) proposing that 1, 2 and 7 came down with controlled demolition, but the Pentagon was "real"?
What I'm suggesting is that if there is a plan to do something then the plan should make sense... to the people planning it. Controlled demolition doesn't make any sense and not crashing a plane into the Pentagon is just a completely illogical idea. If you base theories on illogical plans then they are illogical theories.
...and from that, you seem to think it flows logically that a steel skyscrapers should collapse on their footprint in 11 seconds? Maybe the thing lacking is your understanding. You don't seem to even hint that this is possible.
It would be great to hear Roland Angle debating all this with someone with common sense instead of getting softball questions and being allowed to waffle on with this bs. But seemingly this will not happen since he will choose to go on sympathetic podcasts and radio shows where he won't be challenged.
Colin, these were not softball questions. I've been investigating this since day 1, that is, for 22 years, and I know what to talk about; I have verified much of what Angle said. I am curious what original or secondary research you've done. Do you have any published articles or video presentations?
I have looked into the events of 9/11 for as long as you have and I would say I know as much about it as most people. Where in the interview did you challenge what Roland Angle was saying and present counter arguments? You basically went along with what he was saying without challenging him, which is basically why he would go on a show like yours where he knows he won't be challenged. Do you mainly agree with what he says?
I went to one of Richard Gage's presentations years ago and I was one of only two people who asked any kind of challenging questions, and they were ones he couldn't answer. AE911truth have this campaigning patriotic truth-seeking presentation and act as if anyone who questions them or disagrees with them has to be some part of some big coverup , the people in NIST, the ASCE, the list goes on and on, because how could Roland Angle be wrong? He is the experts, how could anyone disagree with him? Well Roland Angle might get that impression if people keep telling him he is the expert and commending him for his courage and determination and for being a brave patriotic truthseeker. Do you think that campaigning objective might be the important thing therefore, and not actually trying to work out why buildings collapsed?
I asked him to explain the physics of the official theory of how the buildings fell down, as presented by NIST. He did so competently, citing the one study used by the government in the Official Conspiracy Theory. Evidently you did not listen to the discussion. I am not an engineer; I asked him to begin with the OCT version of events, and he did. What did he get wrong in that description?
Please, ask ONE of your "challenging questions" right here; and the discussion will be ending soon. Your comments comprise half of the traffic in this discussion and offer fully none of the facts.
Regarding the Pfizer recipient losing their sense of God;Perhaps this sense of God is soul awareness,as all souls and their soul energies are parts of the whole, the original thought. Mediums, a few of which I know personally are detecting that the soul energy of many vaxxed people has moved outside of their bodies,floating adjacent to them,almost as though the body was no longer fit for habitation or that the soul had been evicted. A human body without a soul present would pretty much fit the definition of a zombie or dead person. It makes one wonder about the prophecy in revelations about the dead walking the earth during the end days. Could this then tie in with the CDC documentation warning of a zombie apocalypse event.
Roland Angle laments the fact that people have lost trust in US institutions . this coming .from someone who has spent the best part of 2 decades undermining trust in them by accusing the FBI , the CIA, FEMA, NIST, the people in engineering institutions, of course the media , the government, the Secret Service, the military, and God knows who else, of planning and carrying out and covering up a mass murder controlled demolition of the WTC towers, and of course, how could I forget , Building 7. Thank you Roland for your contribution to all of that, with your inane controlled demolition theories.
Debris? That's what I said -- why does it end up outside rather than inside when presumably the airplane flew into the wall and carried the debris using kinetic energy, inward, with the airplane. + Show me a photo of airplane wreckage...they don't exist
Cruise missile.
Never forget, no airliner ever flown could have done as was reported on 9/11/2001
Think about what happens if an aluminum airliner traveling at 800 ft/sec and encounters a stationary object, that being either the WTC tower wall, or the Pentagon wall, how about a bit of applied physics(?)
Planes, at both the WTC and the Pentagon, were/are a diversion. Whatever hit the Twin Towers did not bring them or WTC7 down. And whatever hit the Pentagon did not cause most of the damage and casualties, those happened in a different part of the structure.
https://dailybattle.pairsite.com/2014/pentagon_attack_in_context.pdf
Please, say more.
its a given, that an airliner striking a wall ( wherein the only way to breach the wall, being that it must displace >5 tons of mass in order to make the hole ) The event would have had to involve a shock to the plane, now there would have to be a minimum of 60 milliseconds between first contact ( nose to wall ) & the point when the wings could have touched the wall, in that time, what is happening to the plane in this time. If there was sufficient time/energy available to breach the wall, there would most certainly sufficient time/energy to break the plane, and do so in a very serious manner, and with that said, why should anyone expect the wings to have met the wall completely edge-on?
Right...in re WTC, it appears that AL compound cut through STEEL like a knife through fat. The airplane would have flown apart like balsa wood. I am open to the idea that all of the video was staged in advance, though it would be tricky to fake the live broadcast of 175 into II. However, the video is all rather CGI and I have not the slightest doubt that a missile and not an airplane struck the Pentagon, exploding on the inside and spilling no fuel, and shedding no wreckage, as there was neither fuel nor an airplane.
the ONLY view of the "FLT175" event that showed the south wall of the tower being penetrated, was shot, and then shown after the fact, ALL of the "live" shots are of such an angle as to NOT show the south wall of the tower.
this is critical because the "live" bits would have been very simple to fake in relation to the explosives that were installed to create the effect.
Ok then. Wow...here is a little something - I was hipped to the problems at the Penta very early on, and that was my way into the matrix. This was the article...get ready...he's piercing
https://planetwaves.net/the-so-called-evidence-is-a-farce/
Thanks for the link, he goes at it from a very different angle, however all roads lead to the same place, 9/11 was a lie.
A Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon would do exactly, precisely, the damage that a Boeing 757 would do to the building. American Airlines flight 77 hitting the Pentagon would cause exactly the damage that would be caused by it, and would leave exactly the evidence behind that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All the scores of witnesses who were in the area would see the plane hitting the building because it hit the building.
so then why does the debris not punch into the building, but rather, falls in the direction of where the airplane was coming from? If I throw a rock at a window, the glass does not end up behind me. The glass follows the rock.
A Boeing 757 is not a rock. The Pentagon is not a window.
and you seem to have never heard of a metaphor. No, it's not a rock, but the jets are made of titanium, as are the landing gear. Can you show me a photo of either, from the Pentagon or any other 9/11 event?
I read a comment from someone who said the exact opposite. He said 'Why does the debris end up outside the building instead of inside?
The witnesses? The ones which claimed they saw the plane drag its wingtip along the lawn, without flipping over, or the wing breaking off, or a large gouge left on the lawn? Or the ones who claimed they saw the faces of passengers in the window, looking terrified, who somehow could see into the windows of a plane going by at several hundred miles an hour, let alone see facial expressions? Whom do you think you're trying to snow? :-)
And the damage? Anyone can look at the two Pentagon photos here, the source page for this page, https://planetwaves.fm/september-11-incident-roland-angle-ae911-truth/
and tell us if this fits with a plane impact, no space big enough to let in a 757, no plane parts such as wings and tail or pieces thereof outside the hole. Again, whom are you trying to snow?
I'd recommend trying to interview Dr. Judy Wood. The twin towers did not collapse.
Tell me how to reach her and I will.
I have no idea how to reach her, I wish I did. I don't think she is 100% correct, nor do I think The Architects and Engineers are either. But I do think it was a combination event. And I don't think there were any planes involved. Just a lot of years of watching and reading and thinking. But despite ones views, I'd recommend Judy's book to everyone. It has hundreds of full color pictures and you'd find it hard to explain the toasted cars, lack of debris, etc.
There are things that cannot be explained by ordinary CD. However, what I appreciate in the AE911 approach is that it is conservative, and not over-reaching. We may never have the whole story, though the intentional demolition by whatever means, and even the potential lack of airplanes, takes down the official conspiracy theory, and that is enough. We must remember that this is a propaganda war above all else.
I found a contact page for her. https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/contact/
You have to fill out a form for email contact. The problem I've always had with the 9/11 Truth Movement, there are many theories, I'd like to see all those with different theories on what happened, get together with a public forum, and politely discuss this. But the infighting and back stabbing makes this impossible. Have a great day Eric, love your work!
Her research is excellent
Judy Wood's notion is a directed energy weapon. In his video about the Twin Towers, Roland Angle discussed what happened to WTC1, the North Tower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6F16xBQPMU
One of the items he touched upon was the descent of the antenna at the top of the building, which began before the upper section, i.e. above the plane impact zone, began to descend. This indicates for one thing that the top was disintegrating even before it started moving, and hence could not have functioned like a pile driver, per all the mutually contradictory versions of the official story claim.
But also this shows that the truss hat assembly which had supported the antenna got taken out INSIDE the structure, with the core columns being blown up. This happened *without any damage visible on the building's exterior*. A directed energy weapon could not do this, unless it was inside the structure, which wouldn't make sense.
I had numerous conversations with Wood back in 2006-7 when she was putting together her theory. I pointed out discrepancies between her theories and the physical evidence. Her reaction was uniformly to dismiss all contrary evidence as "fake." She started out with good ideas, and then went off on her own tangent. My personal experience.
I have to take issue with a couple of thoughts expressed in the last segment. Enough food to guarantee survival is not a given. Even in the US, 34 million, over 10%, are food insecure, even per the US Department of Agriculture. 92% of Americans have a vitamin deficiency. https://thebiostation.com/bioblog/do-you-have-vitamin-deficiency/
Close to 46 percent of adults and 56 percent of children in the United States have an overall poor-quality diet
https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/poor-nutrition-in-us-poses-threats-to-health-national-security-and-economy-panel-says/
Outside the US and the core advanced industrial nations? Don't even ask.
Safety not a real problem? Here in Berkeley, California, i read almost daily reports of carjackings in Berkeley, nearby North Oakland,.... even in the well-to-do hills districts. It's pretty crazy here.
None of this of course justifies the atrocious things being done to poison the very ability of men and women to communicate, even make eye contact. The situation was horrendous in Berkeley way before Operation "Pandemic," in fact i agree that "me too" seemed to transition rather smoothly into the Operation.
I admit to being too discouraged to even try eye contact any more, and given where i am, i can't even be reasonably sure that any such attempts will lead to anything, not even a smile. But i did let a guy in a pick up truck turn in front of me into the very busy street i was driving on earlier today. A random act of kindness is quite worthwhile, i try to do one every day.
I am aware certain inner cities are VERY bad and the Bay Area is now about as bad as it gets.
How do you measure safety? Mostly it's a feeling.
Feeling, and perception. I'm talking about parts of Berkeley and Oakland which are not "inner city," like the hills.
so what is going on there?
It's a little known fact that the bay area is one of the world's hotspots for stealth weapons attacks. I've been a victim of this kind of attack for over three decades. I know who the perpetrator is. The police turn a blind eye to this kind of assault and criminality. (I've also experienced garden-variety assaults: a robbery at knifepoint, and another one at gunpoint. Neither of those hold a candle to stealth weapons attacks in malice and the ability to ruin a person's life.) The person who attacks me has invaded my privacy in every conceivable way, including by hacking my computer and online accounts; she follows me everywhere I go online, and she writes comments on the Substacks I frequent which echo or distort things which I've previously written online or in personal emails. She started doing this here at Planet Waves a few days ago. The internet breeds epistemological confusion and chaos. She takes full advantage of this fact.
Carjackings at gunpoint, stuff stolen out of vehicles while people are loading or unloading stuff, attempted home invasions,....... These are in the residential areas. In North Oakland's Rockridge neighborhood, long regarding as chi-chi, stores are being robbed during daylight, people accosted on sidewalks,...... Even incidents in Berkeley's Gourmet Ghetto.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet, change your life, where you live and get out of the urban poison. Life is nature based and that is our source and you have to honor that in your being. You see it, why stay?
Why stay? Lack of resources which would enable me to move. Like the vast majority of the population of the US (and in fact everywhere), i don't have a big savings reserve. I'm 76, living on SocSec and pension and burning up my savings. I rent, so i can't sell a home i don't even even to raise some funds. I wish things hadn't worked out like that, but i spent a lot of time taking care of my elderly mom in her last decade of her life, lost a lot of mobility opportunities, but that's water under the bridge. I'll just have to make do with where i am and what i have.
Thank you so much for having Roland Angle on & delving deep into 9/11. Moving, clear, brilliant. And your brief comments on Love Canal are quite devastating. I recently finished a book length poem focusing on 9/11 called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, as a sequel to another book, from the warring factions, that focused on Bosnia with echoes of the Gulf War behind it. Needless to say, I was immersed in sources from the Engineers. A very important interview. Thank you again.
"People collected samples" your guest said. Did the authorities allow samples of the debris to be removed and analyzed? Really? or were they 'given samples'?
The lack of ruble which should have piled up in a mound 200 feet high suggests the material in the buildings was turned to dust. The buildings fell at free fall speed ,meaning zero resistance. Energy weapons combined with other explosives. Cannot attain freefall speed with column destruction alone.
my own observations are leading me here, yes
I found it interesting that you don't want to "go there" regarding the possibility that DEWs were used on 9/11. The A&E theory may be able to explain the collapse of the buildings, but it does not address other evidence, such as columns disintegrating in mid air (watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb2i8R5YlRk) and the fact that the majority of the mass of the buildings never struck the earth (as would be measured by devices that detect earthquakes), which would have destroyed that bath tub.
Furthermore, it is so very interesting that cars that were toasted on FDR drive, far away from the WTC, look nearly identical to cars in Lahaina. Have you seen the recent videos comparing the two scenes?
An inside job is one thing. It would explain a certain level of corruption. But if DEWs were in fact used 22 years ago, that reveals a massive change to the story. It would indeed open Pandora's box, which I expect to be opened regardless in the coming years.
I completely understand why the Engineers and many others would not want to go there, but am surprised you shy away from it...after all, you've investigated some gnarly criminal acts.
where did I say that?
At min 1:37, you said regarding the possibility of DEWs, "Why do we even need to go there?"
To me, there is a need to go there. There are questions that are unanswered by the other theories and it can't be ruled out, especially that we NOW KNOW DEWs exist; we know what companies hold patents for the various technologies, they even advertise the technologies on their web sites.
I'm not sure how things have evolved over the past number of years, but I know that Dr. Judy Wood was shunned by nearly everyone in the 9/11 truth community early on, and having read her book carefully (and with an engineering degree of my own), I found that unwarranted.
David, that's a question, not a statement.
As for why we may or may not want to, it's possible to argue from several points of view.
To me, the question, "Were actual passenger jetliners a part of the 9/11 attacks?" equates to the question, "Was covid an actually disease caused by sarscovII?"
The question, "Were DEWs used to dustify the WTC while it collapsed or perhaps to create the collapse?" equates to, "Do viruses exist?"
Most can't even approach these deeper and broader questions until they've accepted the more basic evidence showing the main stream narrative as being false.
I read through much of the discussion in the comments, so I better understand your thinking and questioning.
Those people still clinging to their trust of the msm, gov, etc are either actively ignoring lots of data, or are holding on to the lies with white knuckles.
David, please write me an accurate, fully-sourced paragraph about DEWs and the World Trade Center. The paragraph must account for the fact that they exist (with at least two sources), where one would be mounted, how we know that was there and that it was used, how it was powered, the type of weapon or device, and conclude for sure, as a matter of *attributed* fact, that it was used. No speculation involved. Thank you.
The best source I have found for what DEW might have been used in the 9/11 attacks was the first 8 pages of Elana Freedland’s 2nd book in her geoengineering trilogy. Her books go into great detail about how ionosphere heaters like HAARP can direct DEW energy precisely targeted, from a great distance. I’m not at home now so I don’t have it in front of me.
Dr. Wood’s book has a lot of convincing evidence as well. It is quite plausible that other destructive technologies were also used, though she doesn’t acknowledge that possibility.
There is a lot of similarity with some of the burn patterns on the ground there with those in other suspicious fire events like Maui. I’m not any kind of expert however.
I'm going to jump in here and I'm going to tell you that I know Rebekah Roth of Methodical Illusion and so many more contributions to this and everyone needs to read that book and distribute it.
I am also very familiar with everyone from A&E and a wonderful work that they do and the dedication to bringing the truth forward.
All these years there's been so much ongoing work in the background to determine what this is and appreciate William Hurt and his film as well and Cyril Wecht coming out of retirement because he knew better about this.
My husband was Iraqi and we lived in Hollywood Florida off of Johnson Street were all of those so-called terrorists were supposed to be.
It's been proven that most of them weren't in the country and the whole thing was a scheme with the ID out there which was peculiar in itself.
But my husband who was the chief engineer with Zim knew some of those guys that were blamed for this thing and he said none of them would ever fly a plane and none of them could.
Congratulations for bringing this forward right now. The timing of course is remarkable.
Thank you so much for this and made this thing open up until the truth for once and bring out the real perpetrators who have been in the background for far too long and gotten away with far too much.
Several of the suicide hijackers turned up alive after 9/11.
I'm starting to think it was drones. I have one witness account, from someone who was a facilities manager wt WBAI, who told me her account of witnessing the crash from the Brooklyn Promenade, quite close to the towers -- the airplane was utterly silent, she said.
By the way -- the use of drones in a special op was discussed in Operation Northwoods circa 1962. It's an old concept.
There was at least one media reporter who was told by a witness he was interviewing that the plane she saw crash into the North Tower was not an American Airlines liner. There was only one video of that flight, showing it for only a couple of seconds, very suspicious circumstances for the making of that video, http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/09/jules-naudets-911-film-was-staged.html I've seen that video slow down, the plane had wings attached to the fuselage way up front, totally unlike a 767.
Good analysis done by electronics engineer Aidan Monaghan demonstrates the paths flown by the two planes could not have been made by human pilots. You can get his book Declassifying 9/11 here, or at Amazon, etc.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/declassifying-911-a-between-the-lines-and-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-september-11-attacks_aidan-monaghan/11283957/#edition=57492621&idiq=45620753
The "19 terrorists" story is appalling and falls apart on its face. Let's see, they tell us that 19 were Saudi and two were Emeriti -- our "allies" -- and then the U.S. bombs...Afghanistan...and Iraq? What a crock.
17 Saudi and 2 Emerati - cannot edit now - I'm in a different account.
The comment you banned me for was
'Nothing flows logically from illogical plans'
How exactly is that spam, trolling or harassment. It is an observation based on logic, the logic of people's actions and the credibility of accusations that people, a large group of people, would come up with a plan that did not make sense to them, had no chance of succeeding in fooling anyone and was obvious because it 'defied the laws of physics'. Saying that there was a plan of that kind is buying into the logic of that plan. When people say that plan doesn't make sense they are undermining their own argument. I don't expect you to show any comments from me, it's your website, but why not allow debate on this subject with others? If you don't want to debate I'm quite willing to do so , and use any amount of facts and evidence.
ALL YOUR COMMENTS ARE POSTED. I GAVE YOU A ONE WEEK BREAK. ACCUSING ME OF DELETING YOUR COMMENTS WHEN I HAVE NOT IS TROLLING.
If you are an editor and don't debate then how about allowing the people who make comments on your site debating. You have a comments section. Are the only comments allowed ones that you agree with?
I do not delete comments unless they fall under the category of spam, trolling or harassment. And you, unfortunately, meet that qualification. You have not presented one fact that supports your argument, and your intention is to disrupt the discussion; that is trolling.
Where did I say Cuban people are not important or say that if Cuba had been invaded that no one would be killed. It would also mean inevitably that US soldiers would be killed. I said that Op. Northwoods did not include people being killed. The idea of a plane swap was so that people would not be killed. The various things suggested involved blowing up empty ships and funerals for non existant victims. Do you think that applies to 9/11? And why was anyone even considering these pretexts for invading Cuba? Because they knew Cuba was not going to provide and actual pretext. They would have to be insane to go provoking the US. Do you think that applies to 9/11 when Bin Laden had publicly threatened to attack the US, had already attacked embassies and the USS Cole, when the system was blinking red and the PDBs and foreign intelligence were presenting these warnings. How many people died in the embassy bombings in Africa? Can you name anyone of the people who were killed there, or maimed for the rest of their lives?
See what you've done there. You said there were no photos of landing gear at the Pentagon. I showed you a photo. You say it's fake. Just like that. The 9/11 truth movement in a nutshell.
It's fake. I didn't say provide a fake photo, out of context. I said a photo OF A JET ENGINE. And you said you would provide that. You did not.
I see, there are more. There is NO CONTEXT to these images; they could be anywhere, anytime. And that was all that was left of a 757?
" No, it's not a rock, but the jets are made of titanium, as are the landing gear. Can you show me a photo of either, from the Pentagon or any other 9/11 event?"
Colin, I suggest you go with the evidence. Are you (for example) proposing that 1, 2 and 7 came down with controlled demolition, but the Pentagon was "real"?
What I'm suggesting is that if there is a plan to do something then the plan should make sense... to the people planning it. Controlled demolition doesn't make any sense and not crashing a plane into the Pentagon is just a completely illogical idea. If you base theories on illogical plans then they are illogical theories.
...and from that, you seem to think it flows logically that a steel skyscrapers should collapse on their footprint in 11 seconds? Maybe the thing lacking is your understanding. You don't seem to even hint that this is possible.
It would be great to hear Roland Angle debating all this with someone with common sense instead of getting softball questions and being allowed to waffle on with this bs. But seemingly this will not happen since he will choose to go on sympathetic podcasts and radio shows where he won't be challenged.
Colin, these were not softball questions. I've been investigating this since day 1, that is, for 22 years, and I know what to talk about; I have verified much of what Angle said. I am curious what original or secondary research you've done. Do you have any published articles or video presentations?
I have looked into the events of 9/11 for as long as you have and I would say I know as much about it as most people. Where in the interview did you challenge what Roland Angle was saying and present counter arguments? You basically went along with what he was saying without challenging him, which is basically why he would go on a show like yours where he knows he won't be challenged. Do you mainly agree with what he says?
I went to one of Richard Gage's presentations years ago and I was one of only two people who asked any kind of challenging questions, and they were ones he couldn't answer. AE911truth have this campaigning patriotic truth-seeking presentation and act as if anyone who questions them or disagrees with them has to be some part of some big coverup , the people in NIST, the ASCE, the list goes on and on, because how could Roland Angle be wrong? He is the experts, how could anyone disagree with him? Well Roland Angle might get that impression if people keep telling him he is the expert and commending him for his courage and determination and for being a brave patriotic truthseeker. Do you think that campaigning objective might be the important thing therefore, and not actually trying to work out why buildings collapsed?
I asked him to explain the physics of the official theory of how the buildings fell down, as presented by NIST. He did so competently, citing the one study used by the government in the Official Conspiracy Theory. Evidently you did not listen to the discussion. I am not an engineer; I asked him to begin with the OCT version of events, and he did. What did he get wrong in that description?
Please, ask ONE of your "challenging questions" right here; and the discussion will be ending soon. Your comments comprise half of the traffic in this discussion and offer fully none of the facts.
Regarding the Pfizer recipient losing their sense of God;Perhaps this sense of God is soul awareness,as all souls and their soul energies are parts of the whole, the original thought. Mediums, a few of which I know personally are detecting that the soul energy of many vaxxed people has moved outside of their bodies,floating adjacent to them,almost as though the body was no longer fit for habitation or that the soul had been evicted. A human body without a soul present would pretty much fit the definition of a zombie or dead person. It makes one wonder about the prophecy in revelations about the dead walking the earth during the end days. Could this then tie in with the CDC documentation warning of a zombie apocalypse event.
Roland Angle laments the fact that people have lost trust in US institutions . this coming .from someone who has spent the best part of 2 decades undermining trust in them by accusing the FBI , the CIA, FEMA, NIST, the people in engineering institutions, of course the media , the government, the Secret Service, the military, and God knows who else, of planning and carrying out and covering up a mass murder controlled demolition of the WTC towers, and of course, how could I forget , Building 7. Thank you Roland for your contribution to all of that, with your inane controlled demolition theories.
wow, finally, a poet arrives among us.