22 Responses to “Richard D Hall updated his excellent 9/11 analysis”

  1. ian says:

    I don’t trust this guy, He goes along with Judy Woods.

    • Tapestry says:

      What’s the problem with Dr Judy Woods?

      • ian says:

        We know that explosives were used. We know that thermite/thermate was used. She seems to or even suggests that directed energy weapons which have never been seen or demonstrated were used. I can just see some body being torn to pieces in a tv debate because they say that some space age ray gun was used. I don’t say that she’s definitely wrong just divisive and unnecessary.

  2. ian says:

    He also did an extensive piece on the Derek Bird shootings in Cumbria, which was in MHO arranged to take the attack on the Mavi Marmara off the headlines, as the Cliff Richard house search took the attack on Gaza off the headlines. If Israel is up to no good , then look out.

    • Tapestry says:

      I would look more closely at RIchard D Hall’s work. Much of it is excellent.

      • ian says:

        I don’t trust him Tap. I watch his stuff, I enjoyed his work on Madeleine McCaan, but I don’t trust him, it’s allowed you know. I feel some of his stuff like Derek Bird and Judy Woods is distraction.

      • ian says:

        He also seemed to spring up from nowhere with tv shows and an all singing all dancing website. Who funded him and backed him.

  3. ian says:

    Again, I just watched his video, why do we need directed energy, when explosives would work, why get judy woods to tell us that aluminium wing tips can’t cut steel, why prove there was a plane then prove there wasn’t a plane. A long and unnecessarily complex video to say that the video evidence proves a plane flew in then it didn’t.

    • Tapestry says:

      He did not say there was a plane. Read Dr Judy Woods some time.

      • ian says:

        No Tap, I don’t care if she’s correct, she possibly is, but I said she’s an unnecessary distraction, which could and would be used against us. As for RDH he spends the first part of the video proving there is a plane.

  4. ian says:

    We are different people Tap. I am suspicious and untrusting of authority, I am who I am, and if I dislike something or someone, that’s it.

  5. ian says:

    No disrespect, to anyone here, I like your site and your commenters are usually pretty on the money, but I don’t nor ever have had any desire to conform, in any way or form. It’s cost me dearly but I’m 66 and not likely to change now. Take care.

  6. quenelka says:

    I have been following Richards work for years, he is a genuine guy. His live talks are great.
    I don’t see why people nitpick over the methods used to bring down the WTC complex. Since they had to come down, why not employ every means available? If the structure can be weakened by directed energy that seems perfectly reasonable to use it and follow up with explosives or whatever.
    To me it seems likely that 2 operations were going on at the same time and the event was hijacked, like we saw at the London 7/7 event where a drill was used as the cover for a real attack with the drill company not knowing that would happen.

    • ian says:

      I wasn’t nitpicking Q” if you want to go with the space ray weapon that’s never been proved or seen, then be my guest. I am merely suggesting that to suggest it would weaken your argument rather than prove it. The planes couldn’t cut the steel so were dubbed on but only at the last minute, up until then it was a missile, see where this is going. It just muddies things up nicely.

      • quenelka says:

        Unseen wind at a certain frequency brought down the tacoma narrows bridge, and the weapon doesn’t have to have been used from space as the HAARP is ground based, it could be something similar. There are likely to be many unknown weapon systems. One thing I would argue with Judy wood is that she shows a picture of the part of the building where the wing tip punctured the steel, however when you look closely you see that it only knocked off the decorative alu cladding plate and the rusty steel girder is still there intact not even dented

  7. ian says:

    I’m not saying it’s false, just not necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

  8. ian says:

    Re RDH, I watch him occasionally but as I said I don’t trust him. It’s ok to have different opinions you know.

  9. Dee says:

    I watched of RDH video with the 3D model analysing the trajectories of the incoming ‘plane’ on 911, I gathered from that, he is not saying it was a plane but possibly a missile made to look like a plane. Personally, I really like his approach and he is open to new information and tries to stick with evidence and not so much speculation. But I’ve been caught out before, with Ken O’Keefe for example…!

    • ian says:

      Ok guys, Hi Dee, I apologise, I may be wrong about RDH. I spoke to him via email in his early days about something via email, and we didn’t agree, but since my dummy spitting episode on here this morning, I’ve been searching and while on a revisionist site I found some videos that make me eat my words. I’m sorry, and perhaps RDH is ok. He isn’t perfect, but he seems to be on our side. I’m still out on Dr woods though.

      • Dee says:

        Hi Ian 🙂 He loses me a bit with the UFO stuff. I watched a show where he was interviewing a chap who had written a book in a revisionist style regarding the holocaust. I liked how RDH tried to present the information in a very balanced way, it’s smart because then he doesn’t turn off people who might be finding this stuff out for the first time. As far as Judy Woods goes, I found her info on the melted cars at 911 compelling but in all honesty my science education isn’t good enough to make my own conclusions. Plus there is SO much conflicting info out there (deliberately of course) that it’s just mind blowing. I am satisfied though, that it was not perpetrated by a man in a cave etc etc.

      • ian says:

        Yes Dee, I’m not saying that she’s definitely wrong, although I watched a very compelling video regarding the use of mini nukes, but I don’t know. As I said earlier definitely explosives and thermite was used but, given the grip that the cabal have over everything, it would take a brave person to get it out there, if in fact they could find a way of getting into the mainstream at all. They’re even using algorithms on FB now to hide posts containing certain words. They appear on your homepage but only there, and people don’t see it unless they look on your page. They’re upping the anti at the moment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.