reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Architects and Engineers discuss the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11, questioning the official explanation of office fires causing the collapse. They present evidence of controlled demolition, including molten steel, thermite residue, and eyewitness accounts of explosions. They call for an independent investigation backed by 9/11 families and technical professionals worldwide. The lack of investigation into explosives by NIST is criticized, and the need for a thorough examination of the evidence is emphasized. Ultimately, they urge people to look at the evidence and demand the truth.

Scientists reanimated a sample of the 1918 pandemic flu that had been stored in a permafrost lab. The goal was to study it, despite the fact that it hadn't been active for a century. Speaker 0 believes the world will end when someone in a lab says, "it worked." Speaker 0 states that racism, income inequality, fascism, authoritarianism and dwindling natural resources will not end the world.

Professor Jones believes explosives, not fire, brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7. He found explosive residue in the dust, not mentioned in the official report. The residue is a mix of iron oxide and aluminum, burning hotter than jet fuel. This suggests controlled demolition was used in all three buildings.

The documentary presents a sweeping narrative that the modern era’s wars and security state are driven by deliberate, government-sponsored manipulation—false flag operations and orchestrated crises designed to terrify populations, justify expanded power, and secure global hegemony. It threads together historical examples, contemporary incidents, and testimonies to argue that the public has been misled by official narratives and that truth is being hidden behind “specters of fear.” False flag origins and early precedents - The program defines false flag operations as covert actions designed to appear as if carried out by other actors, with a long focus on the use of terror as a pretext for political ends. - Adolf Hitler’s regime is cited as a classic example: Reichstag fire in 1933, with a patsy framed for the blaze, enabling new laws that consolidated power. The film emphasizes the crisis as a vehicle to drift toward dictatorship and aggression. - The 1953 Iran coup is described as a CIA-MI6 operation (Operation Ajax) that overthrew Mohammad Mossaddegh after his nationalization of oil, with Western intelligence allegedly admitting to terror attacks and propaganda against Mossaddegh. The narrative stresses the role of MI6 and the CIA in orchestrating fear and regime change, and the long-term consequences of SAVAK and imperial influence. - Operation Gladio is presented as an umbrella for Western intelligence-led bombings in Europe (Italy, NATO states) designed to be blamed on leftists; Bologna’s 1980 bombing is highlighted as an instance where officials later spoke of Gladio’s civilian targeting. - The Gulf of Tonkin incident is recounted as a staged pretext to escalate U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, with declassified accounts and tapes cited to show manipulated intelligence and the subsequent Tonkin Resolution enabling mass casualties. Cold War and postwar covert operations - The film cites Northwoods, a proposed plan to hijack aircraft and blame others to justify war with Cuba; it notes that President Johnson pursued some operational concepts in that vein, linking them to defense planning in the era. - The USS Liberty incident is recounted with claims of an Israeli attack that was allowed to proceed despite clear identification of the ship, and subsequent suppression of details. The narrative includes interviews with figures who allege political orders to sink the ship and to blame it on Egypt. - The 1964 Tonkin incident, the 1967-1968 war moves, and covert operations across the globe are woven into a larger claim that Western powers have repeatedly manufactured or exploited external threats to justify expansion and intervention. 7/7 and London: a modern false flag argument - The film pivots to the July 7, 2005 London bombings, arguing MI6 involvement and suggesting that Al Qaeda links were contrived or manipulated. It points to Madrid’s 2004 bombings as a precursor, noting that officials later admitted Al Qaeda had limited or no connection in some cases. - It presents testimony about MI6 involvement with operatives associated with or acting as assets, including claims about a mastermind linked to MI6 and the protection of a suspect (Aswat) by British intelligence. - The documentary emphasizes anomalies in the official narrative: a single bus diverted to Tavistock Square, eyewitness inconsistencies about the bomber, and post-event claims about surveillance footage and MO incongruities. It asserts evidence of cover-ups, whistleblowers, and political calculations aimed at maintaining fear and martial-law-like measures. - It frames the London attacks as a tool to bolster Tony Blair’s political standing, allow the passage of restrictive laws, and justify overseas military campaigns, while alleging a broader pattern of Western governments staging terror to secure interests. 9/11 and the “inside job” thesis - The centerpiece is a claim that 9/11 was an inside job, with expert and lay testimonies questioning the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Building 7, and the presence of alternative explanations (thermite, controlled demolition). - The film cites declassified and public materials (Northwoods-like concepts; cited White House memos about luring Saddam into a war through staged actions; investigations into the Pentagon frames) to argue that the government manipulated intelligence and public opinion to justify the Iraq War. - It features a roster of notable figures—former MI5/MI6 whistleblowers, CIA veterans, and academics—who challenge the official 9/11 account, including references to Operation Northwoods, the PNAC document, and analyses suggesting a “false flag” justification for imperial aims. - Charlie Sheen’s public remarks are highlighted as a turning point in mainstream attention to alternative theories, followed by media coverage of new 9/11 footage and debates about Building 7, the Pentagon frames, and thermite evidence. - The documentary cites physicists and engineers who question official explanations, citing molten metal, traces of thermite, and expert analyses of the WTC collapse as signs of demolition rather than collapse from fire alone. Surveillance, civil liberties, and the information war - A recurring claim is that the modern battle is largely informational: psychological warfare, public relations, and control of the narrative are seen as the dominant form of warfare, with public opinion manipulation described as the real battlefield. - Edward Bernays is invoked as the architect of modern propaganda, with quotes about shaping masses and an “invisible government” pulling the strings—an “unseen mechanism” that governs democratic societies. - The film argues that fear and threats are used to erode civil liberties: expanded surveillance, identity cards, free-speech restrictions, and the use of homeland-security rhetoric to suppress dissent, including zones for demonstrations and media suppression in multiple democracies. - It mentions whistleblowers from MI5/MI6 who claim funding of extremist groups and complicity in covert actions, and it frames journalists and activists as agents of influence or targets of state pressure when challenging official narratives. Iraq, oil, and empire - Pentagon and White House documents are cited to claim that post-9/11 strategy sought to counter regional threats and secure access to oil resources, with basing and long-term occupation framed as part of a broader plan for permanent military presence and regional control. - The film argues that the “war on terror” is a pretext for a broader imperial project: redrawing borders, destabilizing regions to facilitate resource control, and exploiting crises to profit defense contractors. - It contends that the “new world order” seeks to keep populations under surveillance and compliance, with public narratives constructed around fear of terrorism and the need for security measures that erode cherished liberties. Closing call - The speakers urge viewers to uncover motive (qui bono), question official stories, and resist the expansion of government power through fear and manipulation. - They advocate for independent inquiry, whistleblowing, and public accountability to stop what they call an ongoing cycle of manufactured crises used to justify a global empire and a police-state governance model. Note: The summary mirrors the documentary’s asserted claims, statements, and testimonies as presented, without endorsing their veracity.

Dr. Elizabeth Weisz, an anthropologist, discusses the challenges she has faced in academia due to the rise of woke ideology. She emphasizes the importance of basing scientific research on facts and evidence, particularly in her field of studying skeletal remains. Dr. Weisz highlights the hypocrisy of universities that claim to support free speech while silencing dissenting voices. She calls for a return to common sense and a focus on data-driven research. Dr. Weisz's book, "Repatriation and Erasing the Past," explores the controversy surrounding the reburial of skeletal remains and can be purchased on Amazon.

Structural engineering professor Leroy Hulsey and his team conducted a four-year study on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001. Their investigation concluded that fire did not cause the collapse, contrary to the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Hulsey's study revealed that the collapse of WTC 7 was a result of a global failure, with all columns failing simultaneously. The NIST report, which attributed the collapse to thermal expansion, has been criticized for its lack of transparency and failure to address key evidence. The findings of Hulsey's study challenge the official narrative of 9/11 and raise concerns about the integrity of the investigation.

Professor Francis Boyle, a sixth witness, is described as an expert on bioweapons who drafted several bioweapons conventions related laws in the United States. Three weeks after he agreed to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs that the products and the process were deployments of bioweapons, he suddenly died. The cause of death remains unknown. He was in his mid-seventies, perfectly healthy prior, and teaching full time at the time of his death. His death is considered a shock to all involved, and the account states that it looks very suspicious to the speaker. The speaker emphasizes that they cannot speculate on what happened but urgently would like to know the cause of death. The speaker concludes with, “These people stop at nothing.”

Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering, discusses her research on the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. She argues that the buildings did not collapse or burn up, but instead turned to dust in midair. She suggests that a directed free energy technology was used as the destructive mechanism, although she does not speculate on the source or location of this energy. Dr. Wood emphasizes the importance of focusing on the evidence and not jumping to conclusions or theories. She also mentions her unsuccessful attempt to sue contractors involved in the NIST report on the collapse of the towers.

Speaker 0 discusses legal challenges and submitting a request for correction to NIST, leading to a whistleblower status. Speaker 2 suggests that NIST should contract companies specializing in SIOPs and directed energy weapons for building destruction investigations. Speaker 3 questions why organizations haven't filed anything about nanothermite in court. Speaker 0 suggests reasons for this avoidance, including fear of defrauding the government or committing treason. Speaker 5 recounts questioning 9/11 after concerns about the wars, initially supporting Obama for his peace rhetoric, but later discovering alleged lies. Exposure to Dr. Judy Wood's website, detailing facts inconsistent with bombs, led to a focus on directed energy weapons. Attempts to share this information with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth resulted in being banned from their website. Wikipedia was also allegedly censoring information about Dr. Wood, with a moderator admitting her name is on a block list. Speaker 1 references Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex and its power.

Scientists reanimated a sample of the 1918 pandemic flu that had been stored in a permafrost lab. The goal was to study it, despite the fact that it hadn't been active for a century. According to the speaker, the world will end when someone in a lab says, "It worked." The speaker believes that the world will not end due to issues such as racism, income inequality, fascism, authoritarianism, or dwindling natural resources.

The speakers discuss the difficulty of considering alternative explanations to a prevailing narrative about a terrorist attack. They suggest that, in any ultimate scenario or alternative explanation, people are reluctant to contemplate other possibilities, and this reluctance blocks further inquiry. The conversation shifts to the idea that if the mainstream account isn’t correct—if it weren’t the crazy Islamic terrorists who had this plot that brought down the buildings—then what did happen? Speaker 0 notes that they would want to talk to experts such as structural engineers, architects, and firefighters, who “know what they're talking about.” However, these professionals do not believe the narrative at all. They reportedly lay out convincing evidence for why the narrative should not be believed, proposing explosives as an alternative explanation. The claimed evidence cited includes “explosions,” specifically “thermite, military grade, nanoparticle thermite,” and various forms of evidence such as “unexploded fragments of it” and references to “thermite and iron globules.” The discussion then turns to the question of who would have placed explosives in the buildings. Speaker 0 highlights that “nobody literally, virtually no one wants to go down that path.” The suggested question—“who would have placed explosives in those buildings?”—is described as unthinkable. The speakers acknowledge that the unthinkability functions as a defense that prevents people from asking the questions that they consider “so pressing.” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 restating the idea that the question of explosives remains a controversial or avoided line of inquiry.

The speaker discusses the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. They question the official explanation that the collapses were solely caused by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires. The speaker highlights the uniform collapse of Building 7 and suggests that controlled demolition may have been involved. They mention the presence of explosive material in the dust samples and the suspicious elevator renovation prior to the attack. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies from firefighters regarding explosions in the buildings. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation.

The speaker discusses the discovery of pools of molten metal in the rubble of the World Trade Center buildings after the 9/11 attacks. They mention that the molten steel was found weeks later during the removal process, including underneath World Trade Center 7. The speaker questions the lack of mention of this evidence in official reports and suggests that thermite, a substance that can cut through steel, may have been involved. Thermite produces molten iron and aluminum oxide as byproducts.

Speaker 0 asks if the government was involved in the 9/11 attack and if there is a conspiracy. Speaker 1 disagrees, but believes it's the first time fire has melted steel. They mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7 and suggest it couldn't have fallen without explosives. Speaker 0 asks who is responsible, and Speaker 1 admits they don't know but insists it was an implosion. They suggest looking at films and consulting physics experts to understand. Speaker 1 says it's unthinkable, but if someone could prove it, it would be significant.

The speakers discuss a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the possibility of a cover-up. They mention the work of Dr. Judy Wood and her book "Where Did the Towers Go," which questions the official explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. They also discuss evidence of molten metal and missing materials from the site. The conversation touches on the role of the government and media in shaping public perception of the events. Overall, they suggest that there is more to the story of 9/11 than what has been officially presented.

My name is Tom Sullivan, and I worked for CDI, a top explosives demolition firm, during 9/11. I loaded explosives for 2.5 years, knowing it was a controlled event. Building 7's collapse was a classic implosion - the core failed first, leading to a symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed. I didn't doubt this from the start.

Kristen Megan discusses geoengineering and the ethical concerns surrounding it. She emphasizes the importance of awareness and encourages the audience to share information about this issue. Megan highlights David Keith, a prominent advocate for geoengineering, and presents a video clip that raises questions about the implications of spraying chemicals into the atmosphere. She shares her personal journey, beginning with her military service in bioenvironmental engineering, where she discovered alarming quantities of harmful substances like aluminum and barium in military operations. Despite facing pushback for her inquiries, she became determined to expose these practices, ultimately leaving the military to advocate against what she sees as a violation of public health and safety.

An amateur video from the Beakman Towers reportedly shows the second plane 'practically flying through World Trade Tower Number 2.' Dr. Judy Wood argues the damage can't be explained by wing penetration: 'the wing tip isn't even strong enough to hold fuel in it' and 'there was a five inch deep slot cut into the building.' 'Right. So the end sections of the wings would not penetrate a section steel girdle.' 'the wing is delicate in places.' The clip is used to claim the damage occurred after impact, creating a Roadrunner effect. Wood's research claims a 'directed energy weapon' was used, citing 'variations in the earth's magnetic field' and 'lack of reflecting light glinting off the plane surfaces.' NASA/FAA allegedly 'staged an intentional disaster,' describing a remote-controlled unmanned plane and runway tests. The program also asserts there were no planes on nine eleven, no wreckage, remote-controlled planes, and magnetic-field spikes.

The speaker claims the only high-rise buildings to collapse from airplane impacts were the World Trade Center towers. They cite an architect's report stating the buildings were designed to withstand such impacts. One speaker says the collapses defied physics, stating that the upper sections should have destroyed the lower sections, not crushed them. Another speaker says the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, resembled a controlled demolition. A fire battalion chief, Oriole Palmer, reported being on the 78th floor, the floor of impact, and said they had two fires under control one minute before the building collapsed. The speaker alleges a cover-up related to 9/11, claiming the 9/11 Commission was part of it, led by Philip Zelikow, who was allegedly handpicked by Condoleezza Rice. They say Zelikow met with Tony Schaeffer in Afghanistan and then targeted him upon his return to the US. The speaker says they called it a scandal bigger than Watergate.

Scientists in 1918 reanimated a sample of the pandemic flu to study it. Despite concerns, they went ahead with it. The world will not end due to issues like racism or resource depletion, but rather when someone in a lab says, "it worked."

Speaker 0 frames post-9/11 geopolitics as: 'the primary form of conflict now is not between different nation states and different ruling classes. It's between the ruling classes united and coordinated through their transnational deep state and us, the rest of humanity.' He argues the technology deployed on nine eleven serves little in this conflict and that 'they want to keep it hidden.' He cites Doctor Judy Wood's claim of 'a method for the molecular dissociation of man. A technology which can cause things and people to come apart at the molecular level,' noting that 'over a thousand victims of that attack on 09/11, the remains were never found. Never not even a fingerprint or a hair or anything for over a thousand people, over a third of the victims.' He says 'the airplanes and the fire couldn't have done to the buildings what they did to the buildings.' He adds: 'the techniques of perception management were so strong' and that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' He concludes: 'it requires someone like Judy Wood to expose this, and then it requires other researchers to actually back her up,' and that 'we've been fighting this battle for almost a quarter of a century now.'

The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition. One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire. One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition. One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.