Steven E. Jones, an Insider at the Department of Energy in the 1980s, falsified data to cover up the existence of free energy

Can you handle the top 5 facts of 9/11?

There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;

1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications

Isn't it time you question what you think you know about… pic.twitter.com/heDsDoM7ih

— 9/11 Revisited (@911Revisionist) February 20, 2025

1.  The towers turned to dust.  It only took 8 to 12 seconds for each building to disappear.  This requires an enormous release of energy.  No paper burned that day, and there was no ionizing radiation; therefore, jet fuel, heat, and explosives could not be the cause of this huge release of energy.

2.  The destruction at the World Trade Center is identical to the experiments of John Hutchison in what is known as the Hutchinson Effect, which is outlined and compared to the evidence in Dr. Judy Woods' book, Where Did the Towers Go?  Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, 2010.

3.  Bombs planted in the building and the evidence of nanothermite was fabricated by Steven E. Jones, an insider at the Department of Energy in the 1980s, when he falsified data to cover up the existence of free energy.  30 years later, he became a 911 Truther.

4.  The corporations hired by the government to investigate 9/11 all specialized in directed- energy weapons, psychological warfare, and advanced Optical 3D illusion technology.

5.  Even though the airplanes behaved impossibly and the five recurrent accepted laws of physics nevertheless the footage is real and authentic. 

From Richard Hall,

Those videos had not been tampered with.  The videos were not fake, but something about the planes were fake because the impact dynamics was completely nonsensical.  It did not follow the laws of physics.  The two videos which show very well the impact on the side of the Tower, they are just ridiculous.  They do not show something impacting on the side of a tower.  They show an illusion, but I think it's an illusion which is happening in real time in front of your eyes. 

Mark Conlon pipes in,

Mark Conlon, mark-conlon.blogspot.com.  What they captured was some kind of technology on their videos that was, that they captured technology that was in the flight video that I didn't 

02:16.  The speed is a big giveaway to me.  A 767 cannot travel anywhere near that fast at sea level.  So we know it's not a 767 that's being used in this operation.

02:28.  So what actually hit those buildings 20 years ago?

02:30.  I'm convinced that covert technology was used in both the destruction of the towers and in what we were seeing with the [alleged] planes.

02:38.  So were the planes a hologram?

02:40, WOOD. I think it was some kind of image thing, and a lot of people have done more research into that.

02:48, ANDREW JOHNSON. What was actually involved was some type of image projection technology.  And I know that you've probably done more research in that area because I know you've been talking to Mark. Andrew Johnson

03:00.  I've found companies that specialize in Holograms or holography, all members of the Directed Energy Professional Society alongside Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed, Boeing what about SCIC or ARE? They all work on psyops.  They all work on psychological operations, directed energy, Holograms, lasers.  All things that you would see in a Sci-Fi film.  it's actually being worked on, and these are the same people that investigated 9/11.  They were paid, hired by NIST.

03:30, MARK Conlon, Yeah, well, just to mention you, when you did the film, you covered a lot of contractors that were involved in those technologies.  After the film, I always got a bit more engrossed with this.  I wanted something tangible like how rich is done and even people are trying to debunk what was in the film, saying that you can't project a hologram into thin air.  That was one of my main missions to keep searching to try and prove that this technology exists.  So anyway, March this year, I actually came across a patent.  I think it was published on the 6th of February to 2020; actually I think it may have been applied for in 2018.  That's around when your film but the actual .  It ticked a lot of boxes for what we were talking about in the film.  There's a system and method for laser-induced plasma for infrared homing missile countermeasure.  Essentially what it is it's a device that can be connected or attached to an air craft and if that aircraft is going to be sought out by a missile it's going to project multiple aircraft into space, and they are three dimensional volumetric image. Which are the ghost image which is what they use in the document . . . .

We had Grossman publishing article that's on my website called Ghost Gun UA175, and he talks about a military Black Op project using using the term ghost.  So I think it's very interesting this patent that you found using the same term.

Yeah, that's the term they use, yeah.

Do you have the document there with you?

I do, yeah, this is what really struck me because when you read it some of the things he describes it ticks every box

The method of claim three further comprising rastering the LIPF using Optics and mirrors to generate a volumetric image in space and where in the volumetric images used to detract the threat.

And what you spoke about for a long time.  

It is possible to generate 2D or 3D volumetric image in space.  In one potential embodiment a laser system would be mounted on the back of an air vehicle such that the beam can be rastered using Optics and mirrors to generate a large ghost image in space.  This ghost image would appear to distract the humming missile away from the tangible air vehicle.  In the second embodiment there can be multiple laser systems mounted on the back of the air vehicle with each laser system generating a ghost image such that there would appear to be multiple air vehicles present.

I have to say Chris this takes me back to Richard's very very first radar analysis from Boeing.

06:30.  It became a project to compare all of those videos and ask the question, "Were they all showing a consistent plane path?"

06:37.  

06:45.  I actually looked at two separate radar paths one of them was from the military and known as the RADES system, which was positioned much further away than the domestic radar system and I commented on the fact that there seemed to be a discrepancy that the two radar pass were actually the same, they were all in the same direction the same speed but they were many many meters apart running in parallel.

07:10.  They explain that way that that could have been due to the laser calibration and difference between the military and the civilian

07:20.  Apparently, if your radar equipment is a long distance away from the thing that you're observing, you've got a fixed offset error.  So this was just an error in the equipment.  Once you take out that error, the two pathways were the same. 

Richard thought that there was something traveling alongside the projection plane.

07:38.  Okay well I thought was one of them being used to project an image that was producing the other one perhaps?  And I wasn't sure.

07:50.  That to me becomes plausible.

07:55.  You're saying that this patent supports that first idea that one plane could be projecting stealth image and and as the document says that you just read a three dimensional volume metric object of a ghost aircraft?

08:22. In one of those clips the wing actually disappears at one point that could be due to some sort of strobing effects.

08:28.  When light doesn't do it and you think it's supposed to do you start wondering about what's happening with the Optics.

08:35.  It wasn't a projection I don't go that far to say it was a holographic projection I just say that what we were seeing was at least to some degree fake and it was certainly not the standard 767 of an aircraft.

08:45.  And you know as well as me that what we're talking about a military move it's not even alleged it's is spoken about it it's something protective that we are around these Technologies some type of censorship around big airplanes I think it's a very sensitive subject.

09:07. Whatever technology was used, maybe they want to use that technology again and maybe they want to keep it a secret.

09:11.  Peter Revere.  I want to say that you can only keep a secret weapon secret up until you use it.  

09:20.  Norio Hayakawa.  It's part of the psychological operations program.  So this is not science fiction and they make people think it's science fiction.

09:   Steven E. Jones, the Pioneer who created the truth movement who covered up cold fusion in the '80s and then found thermite at the towers almost 30 years later worked at Brigham Young University a prominent Mormon college and at that same University they are talking about the same technology illusion technology and comparing it to sci-fi films like Star Wars.

09:51. Popular Mechanics was asking the question does the Navy's missile fooling plasma Tech explained recent UFO sightings?  Which I think is very relevant for the implications we're talking like project bluebird event I'm almost of the opinion that that they're trying to keep this a secret this technology releasing the Pentagon to teach some of these Optics flying around because I'm very skeptical of was this part of this technology that we touched on earlier?