"If you think the government has the right to forcibly vaccinate people – for the good of society – what is to prevent them from forcibly sterilizing people, or forcibly euthanizing people, or forcibly implanting a tracking device – for the good of society?" ~ Dr. Lee Hieb, MD

This 9/11 video shows 2 anomalies. The first anomaly: As the video title “Flight 175 - Slow Motion Video” indicates, we see, in “super slow motion,” the purported United Airlines flight 175 passenger jet crashing into the South Tower on 9/11. The narrator/producer, Kevin Walsh, an independent researcher, announces that by slowing down the video, he’s going to point to two “impossibilities”. The first impossibility is that when the “plane” strikes the building, we see that it doesn’t break up into pieces as might be expected, but disappears and is swallowed up into the building which returns to its per-contact state as if it had never been struck. Already this suggests a physical impossibility, since a building struck by a passenger jet would not return to its pre-strike state, nor could a crashing plane slip into a building. As Walsh puts it: “A real airplane couldn’t have sliced through a building with a steel façade with reinforced concrete flooring, with 47 steel support beams. A jet’s wing can’t slice through a steel building like a hot knife through butter.” 9/11 activist, Morgan Reynolds, author and chief economist in the Bush administration (2001-2002), helps explain why a jet plane could not be swallowed up by a steel tower. The fuselage of an airplane is relatively fragile and is not built to penetrate a tall steel building. “With only minor hyperbole”, he writes, a plane’s fuselage is essentially “a hollow aluminum tube.” Compared to the weight of the building — half a million tons— vs the weight of the plane – 140 tons – “the plane, of course, would be crushed.”. Among large jetliner components, only engines and landing gear would retain serious structural integrity in a collision although small parts like actuators would remain intact too. Planes running into mountains, …, concrete barriers, and steel buildings fare very poorly, just as speeding automobiles hitting a … telephone pole or tree do. A plane flying into a WTC tower should break up, shatter and scatter pieces everywhere. The Second Impossibility: Walsh explains that the second impossibility is in plain sight – pun apparently intended – though he says with chagrin that the anomaly is sufficiently subtle that it took him almost twelve years to spot it. He begins with a still picture and points to a building that’s clearly behind the South Tower. Walsh explains that if the video was what it was purported to be, a real amateur video credited to Michael Hezarkhani, a diamond merchant from Los Angeles, the wing of the plane, as it moves toward the Tower, would appear in front of the background building. As the video proceeds, we see that the plane’s wing appears behind the building, not in front of it. Something is wrong. Walsh identifies this as a “glitch,” a layering CGI (Computer Generated Image) “glitch.” Once it’s pointed out, it seems an absurdly obvious mistake, and goes a long way to cracking the video’s credibility. It seems clear that this video, so critical to upholding the official story of hijackers, crashing planes and falling towers, cannot be trusted. It is a fake. My brief experience showing Walsh’s video indicated that it is this second anomaly of the wing appearing in the wrong place is that most persuasively exposes it as a scam. Source article: https://thedailyjournalist.com/theinvestigative/no-planes-on-911-the-two-minute-video/

Revelation 16:13 (KJV) 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.