Guest: Xander Arena - Did A Plane Really Hit The Pentagon on 9/11? Grok's Gov't Script Exposed

People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people. No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world. Word. Word. Word. Word. Word. Ideas can change the world. An idea whose time has come cannot be destroyed by armies or governments. It's too pervasive, and we still have tools to spread the message. Music.

Welcome to the Free Thought Project Podcast, a hub for free-thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability. Here are your hosts, Jason Bassler, Matt Agarist, and Don Vyde Jr. Hello again, Freethinkers. Welcome back to the Freethought Project podcast. My name is Jason Bassler, and joining me is the Freethought Project Editor-in-Chief, Matt Agarest. And also joining us, TFTP Editor and Writer, Don Vy, Jr.

Super exciting show today, guys. Very much looking forward to it. We have a return to guests joining us, and we'll be traversing once again down the never-ending 9-11 rabbit hole. So definitely go grab some snacks and buckle up. But first, as always, guys, I want to say a few things and make a couple of announcements. First and foremost, we need your help. As you know, this podcast does not rely on corporate sponsors, big money donors, or government grants.

We're powered by listeners who value independent voices like ours. Voices who have remained based, principled, and consistent for a decade plus and never waver to the flavor of the day, partisan trends, or hollow campaign promises. So please guys, consider donating or subscribing to the show by going to thefreethoughtproject.com and at the top there, you'll see a tab for the TFTP membership.

Of course, one-time donations are greatly appreciated, especially if you enjoy this episode today, but a $10 subscription gives us the fuel to keep doing this important work for the foreseeable future. So please consider taking a moment to sign up, Freethinkers. We're thankful and grateful for your support. Also, we actually just got nominated number 39 in a list of top 100 best conspiracy theorist podcasts by the organization Million Podcasts, which is pretty awesome.

Now, I don't know what the metrics were used, but we certainly appreciate the recognition.

Of course, we're always striving to be in the top 10 best podcasts. You know, guys, one thing I noticed is that all the podcasts in the top 10 had thousands of ratings and reviews for their podcasts. And when I looked at ours, while our rating was excellent, 4.9 out of 5, we only had 169 reviews, some of the lowest in the entire list of 100.

So I'm going to stress this, guys. Please go to the podcast player of choice that you use, double check to make sure you are subscribed, and then take a moment to rate and most importantly, review this podcast. You don't even have to give us endless praise. It could just be honest feedback or critiques, but we do need your participation. Remember, guys, it takes a lot of time and effort to produce these episodes.

And as much as we love doing them, we also need to see markers that indicate positive feedback for us to continue. And this is one of those ways you can keep us going without donating. So please consider those things, Freethinkers. And one last quick announcement. We actually just found out from her publisher that she got a huge order of our little free thinkers know your rights children's books.

From a public library in Amarillo, Texas, and we're super excited about it You know, it's not easy to get your book into a library not to mention an anti-establishment know your rights children's book so we're grateful that the word is spreading and the value of our children's book seems to be catching on and. I'm sure most of you know, but we published the book last year because we thought about how important it is to give our children a foundation of liberty to know their rights.

So we wrote this book for kids age 6 to 12. Definitely check it out, guys. You can find it and some sample pages over at littlefreethinkers.com. So give your kids or friends with kids the gift of knowledge. It's the best gift you could give them.

Once again, it's littlefreethinkers.com. All right, so let's go ahead and introduce our guest today, who I did already mention is a returning guest. We had him join us back in early 2023 to discuss the Vegas shooting. And let me tell you guys, that's one of my favorite episodes. It's a very powerful episode. In fact, I've listened to it countless times since then, and I still learn something new with each listen.

So definitely download and listen to that episode after you're finished with this one. But our guest today is not only an expert at nuclear medicine and radiation safety, but he's also a brilliant researcher and no-stone-left-unturned type of investigator. His relentless search for the truth often applies unconventional methods that extend beyond the layman to produce counterintuitive angles of inquiry.

He's also incredibly skilled at FOIA requests and extracting unknown documented information from the government. Our guest today is Xander Arena. And guys, just from doing the prep for this show, I know it's going to be a banger that blows our minds. But before we start, I did want to remind our listeners that the presentation for today's podcast will be on our YouTube channel. So check that out so you're not just hearing what Xander is saying, but you could actually see what he's referencing.

So Xander, welcome back to the Freethought Project podcast, brother. How you doing? And why don't you go ahead and tell our listeners what you'll be talking about today and why it matters before we jump into your presentation And then of course after your presentation, maybe we could go ahead and ask you some questions. Hey guys doing well. Good morning. And thank you for having me back on excited to be here,

Yeah, we're going to delve into the Pentagon today. And specifically, we're going to talk about the cameras that we were told captured American Airlines 77 impacting the building. We're going to talk about more than just that, though. There's a lot going on with Pentagon research lately.

And you may be aware, but the 9-11 Truth Movement has gained great ground recently with appearances by guys like Kurt Weldon on Tucker Carlson and other venues really advocating for a new 9-11 inquiry presidential commission composed of experts to analyze what happened that day. So what happened in Arlington is just as important as what happened in New York City, if not more so because it is the heart of our military defense. And the implications of what went wrong there are great.

So you guys can see my screen. We've got some images here of these gate cams. And what we're going to do is just kind of break down the geometry of the gate cams. And we're going to prove that they do not capture a 757-200 series aircraft striking the building. I'm going to try to kind of fly through these slides, given the nature of this audio format. But the history for the listener is that in 2002, March 7th, there were these images leaked to the public.

This came days after a gentleman named Charlie Sheen was on national news discussing the fact that it sure didn't seem like a plane had hit the building. And coincidentally then these images got leaked and the next day the dod validated their authenticity.

Later in 2006 at the massali trial some additional images were released and these additional images were curious because they had like quote-unquote enhanced resolution if you can figure that out they were i don't know what they did to the original video but they were. And nonetheless, neither the original or the improved images show a 757 hitting the building. And the reason for that is the geometry. So we have viewed this thing happening here.

And I think you guys are familiar with the footage, right? You've probably seen it a few times. Oh, yeah. Of course, yes. Yep. So often missed is the earlier moments of this footage, which you're watching right now.

This is a police car driving through this gate security gate past the stanchion and that police car is super useful for this analysis because when folks have said well that sure doesn't look like the size or shape or whatnot of the aircraft they've said well there's been this distortion and blur and other things going on but primarily the like the fisheye view distortion so therefore where you can't accurately assess what it is you're seeing.

And so we were able to, I say we, I don't know, the truth movement, I was able to kind of dispatch that by looking at the police car and then breaking down the distortion of that, correcting for the distortion, and then analyzing the frames after that correction. So the story we were all given, Americans were given, was that there was this light pole flight path, right? So there were these felled light poles over Highway 27 or the bridge there.

And so they were told that was proof that this large-winged aircraft hit the building because of these felled light poles. The fatal flaw for this official story is that also happens to now anchor the flight paths to that exact location. So any deviation from that flight path proves that these light poles were staged. And obviously, if the light poles were staged in advance, that's evidence that the whole thing was staged in advance.

So the issue with the light poles is that it places the aircraft on, in a very precise distance from these cameras. And when we look at the lay of the land from the plan view, we can prove that the object shown in the images is not large enough to actually be a 757. This slide are the names of all those killed that day.

These are folks killed within the building. So this doesn't represent individuals who may or may not have been on the original American Airlines 77, but these were all military service members contractors, civilian employees, staff in the building, folks that didn't deserve to die that morning. We will kind of go over this. So using Google Earth, anybody can recreate this proof, which is a nice, you know, I try to have that be the case, of course, for any kind of scientific endeavor.

You guys should be able to recreate it. Anybody should be able to recreate this. So Google Earth has historical images of the building and the lay of the land that day.

This is an actual image from airliners.net of the actual aircraft that we're told to hit, we can see those really large engines underneath and it's 155 feet in length 124 feet in width and it's got about on average at the core to 25 degree wings slope backwards about a six degree uplift on those wings the tail is at 44 feet it's a big aircraft and it's heavy and so i have we're later going to talk about some physics equations but i estimate that this aircraft probably the building

weighing about 180 000 pounds it's a fair estimation for a lightly loaded aircraft and with the fuel burn and whatnot and that's if if it hit you know we have we could it's a reasonable assumption to use that weight all right this slide is really curious guys it's actually super important because this is the image that was taken out of the american.

The asce's patagon building performance report and in this analysis they had an image of the plane and they rendered it using this graphic the issue with the graphic is that the graphic's not accurate they shrunk the size of the fuselage they've made this fuselage too narrow i think they did that to make it look as though it was able to slide under the second story slab so this is the actual dimension this image was readily available from boeing

at the time there was no reason for asce to create this other graphic yet they did and when they did they made it so that the ratio of fuselage width to tail height was was incorrect so that was just a strange finding They made it a quarter of the width, and the actual width is 0.33. So the plane is bigger than they want you to see when you're reading that paper. I mean, that's some sort of issue. I don't know what is, but this is a sign of a major issue.

So, man, this picture, we're going to talk about the cameras for now, but we're going to come back to this picture because this is probably one of the most important pictures in United States history. And this picture was taken by U.S. Marine Corps Corporal Jason Ingersoll. He happened to be there that morning with his professional photography equipment, and he took a series of images.

And this is an airplane defying image. so we'll i promise we'll talk about this a little later within this area we're told this uh large engine going through that space i don't want to see how that's possible just looking at that but i digress this is the this is the video that was released at the missawi trial and it's got these really strange you know time stamps that don't reconcile with with the day or

the time and then And we were told that this happened to be the date that they retrieved the data. Yet clearly it's like, you know, they've typed in plain there. I mean, what is this? I don't know. I don't even, I mean, you're not nuts for wondering or having questions when this came out. If you look at this upper right corner here, you're going to see this tail poking out from behind the stanchion. And what happens is when you align the actual size of the 757 over the map it places it.

Spatially at this element of the lawn it's exactly there along that light pulse light path and then we look at the field of view of the cameras, And when we look at the field of view of the cameras, this is the amount of light that's reaching the image receptor at the point in time that the image was captured. I wanted to get as much information as possible about the cameras. So I recently FOIA'd DOD and asked them if they had any information on those cameras.

You know, they happened to capture one of the most important things in our history. And nope, they didn't have any. I know that these cameras were taken by the FBI as well as all the recording equipment. And the FBI did have them in their possession for a number of years. So it's possible that an additional request to the DOJ might yield some answers, but the DOD had no information about what the camera makes, where the models, their frame rate, capturing, and that sort of stuff.

What the fuck? Yeah. It's kind of like when NASA lost all the telemetry data on all emissions, but we'll stay away from that for now. All right. So these are, this is a little curious. So the Pentagon had undergone a renovation project, and that renovation project, they termed Wedge One the catcher's net, those working on it, which you can believe that. And Wedge One was fortified, renovated, and that renovation was happening in the years before.

Some of the very early witnesses to the event there and those cited in the ASCE report were, in fact, Penren workers. Folks who got involved with looking at the security camera footage were also Penren contractors. And the Wedge One renovation happened to be over the large data line that led into the building. So in other words, like the giant trunk cable that would carry all of any hard cabled data from our Pentagon traveled directly under Wedge One.

And it is a curious finding because whoever then later got in there and renovated again had access to that cable. And as we know in 9-11, that immediately companies like SAIC were in New York installing the latest and greatest wiretapping technology, like literally days later for the NSA. I've often wondered if there weren't additional taps or methods applied to this cable leading into our Pentagon.

On somebody should probably check the field of view is it ends right there about midway through that second lane of traffic over on the left hand side you can see these white markers that's how we can be certain of the field of view and then i go ahead and i apply that angle it's about 99 degrees to the plane view plan view excuse me and when we zoom out we can see precisely how much of the lawn these cameras would have seen and there it is right there so that is the field of view of the

cameras and of course when you're looking at the image on the left hand side you just kind of see some wall there you can see my mouse mobile right there at the apex of the what that would be uh this wedge too and then you see this aspect of the lawn here and because of that light pole flight path we know that a large aircraft must have flown right over that portion of the lawn, and we can map out the geometry of that.

When we do, we find that the nose of the aircraft should have been poking out from in front of that stanchion significantly, and it's not. So when we see the plane come through, we correct for distortion on the image, and this was using the police car, so this was an important correction, and then here comes the, This object, Gary, and you see this tail right here.

And we should see the nose of the aircraft, like right in this area. And this nose should be bright. It should have a lot of light cast on the front of it. It should be quite visible. It's not going to be a dark purple. It's going to be bright, which by the way, so will the tail. The tail of 77, if you remember that earlier image of the actual aircraft, is also bright. So this color scheme, it doesn't match the actual N644 AA aircraft.

The other weird thing about this is this smoke trail. So defenders of this official mythology will purport that right before it got in the field of view, it traveled through a tree or the tops of a tree branch. And then the turbine sucked in this branch material, which then immediately induced this large smoke plume. And that's what that smoke plume is that you're seeing right there. The debunking of that is for another day. But nevertheless, there is this kind of like curious smoke plume there.

And aircraft at this altitude don't produce that, but cruise missiles might. And so that's just something to bookmark for now. Here's the large explosion. And, you know, you'll note a lot of the explosion actually appears to be occurring more exterior to the building, or at least right along the facade rather than within. It's a very bright, very hot, very intense, rapid gaseous expansion there. Getting a little darker, cooling off there. There's the event.

And when we, this is kind of just a meticulous undertaking of what happened, you know, a lot of folks will say, well, there was this damage path within the building. And so therefore that proves that something traveled along this vector and impacted the building. And we had this C-ring exit hole, they called it. Well, I would like to remind folks that damage within the building that is linear

in space does not have to be linear in time. It is possible that the damage, for example, of the sea rain could have occurred first via internal explosions bombs. There was significant damage in the Naval Command Center. So that is this area right over here. The NCC, this slide calls it an operations center, but NCC was really effectively in charge of the Naval response that morning. And curiously, there wasn't much of a naval response.

The USS George Washington was off the coast of Maryland and Virginia with armed fighters that could have easily launched a combat air patrol over our capital after the second plane hit in New York a little after nine that morning. This event happened at, we're told, 9.37, so that's over half an hour, easily enough time.

Given the fact that there was an event earlier that morning in New York, and the carrier fleets have situational awareness of the entire planet, there's no reason to think that they wouldn't have been capable to get a combat air patrol over here. But look what happened.

This Naval Command Center was bombed out. Some of the surviving witnesses from the building managed to escape from this area. And this area I'll say that was explosively damaged that morning is not in line with the purported trajectory of flight 77. There's that. Look at this C-ring hole. So I call it hole. I actually think this is the entrance hole. The reason for this is I once had the opportunity to share this image with a veteran of OIF and his specialty was breaching.

And he had never seen this picture. And when I showed him this picture, I said, is this an entrance or an exit hole? And he said, it is clearly an entrance hole. And I said, why do you say that? And he said, look at the left side of the picture. Do you see how the masonry is intact right there? And it is damaged along the outer edge. That's a clear sign that something like K-tape or some other sort of breaching ordinance was applied to the wall. And that is why the fracture pattern is as it is.

In addition to that, if you look, there's all this other material right here. And this stuff does look bent outwards, but it could have been bent by hand. It could have been moved by overpressure. There's a lot of different ways that this softer metal could have been bent outwards. But this wall right here with this linear intact brick, there is a clear sign that the explosive was applied from the outside of the wall. What is on the ground here? It is mostly brick, masonry, perhaps RF shielding.

Behind this hole was the Defense Intelligence Agency. This was the DIA's offices within the building. If you look at this image in the upper right corner, this is it from the inside after cleanup efforts went underway. And we are looking at it from about the angle of approach, we're told. Yet there's all this stuff in the way. So the whole thing doesn't add up. You'll note in this image that there is no spray paint on the wall.

That's a great timestamp for anybody analyzing the C-ray breaching hole because there's a point in time that they later spray painted on the wall, like punch out which you know when you read it feeds your brain with the idea of punch out, and i think that's why that was done at any rate uh there were a number of breaches here in the ring and when you look at this this is a hybrid image of the. Earring wall kind of showing how many columns were left intact.

So the slide is witnesses that are available for review at the Naval Historical website. Forgive me for not rendering the exact URL, but researchers should really spend some time getting to know those that survived and had a story to share because, you know, many of them do report internal explosions, things that are not consistent with an aircraft, that sort of stuff.

And I think most folks in this space are familiar with April Gallup, who also reported not only a strange firebombing of some sort, but also no airplane wreckage, no seats, no plane parts, et cetera. And of course, you've had my good friend Adam Eisenberg on the show to also discuss the fact that when he was in the Alpha Company, he did not retrieve any large aircraft parts or pieces from that building. Alrighty. There's a few different ways to go about this proof.

One is looking at the size of a 757 itself, and the other is looking at the actual space between the e-room wall and the stanchion and the outer field of view. I've done it both ways. In both ways, it's consistent. They correlate, and it's a good approach because the methods are slightly different. So we can look at the overall number of aircraft that should have fit in that field of view using the radius of the distance from the viewing point.

So that was kind of a nice way to go. In doing that, it shows that there should have been three and a half, well, three and a quarter worth of aircraft able to fit. And yet the size of the one that we saw, over four could fit in there. And so clearly the thing is too small. And when we make the correction, so I'll pause on this. Do this kind of make sense to you guys?

So the actual width of the aircraft, everything that you should have been able to see from nose to tip of tail, going from the far right side of the field of view over to the left, we should have been able to see one, two, three, and just the tail of one.

But when we look at this field of view from the impact point which is delineated right here at column 14 which is about 20 feet to the north of a large tree then we can see that you could have fit the space of this object right here four so this thing is too small and then we, so what the size of one you know there's a this all takes rigor you know so we had to adjust for the angle of approach so basically i took the plane and then i rotated it to accurately

reflect the vantage point on the camera and then that shrinks the size so this is that original footage, and if i can just go back and forth he was able to see how absolutely nothing pops out in front of that stanchion yeah right like there's no there's not even a pixel change let alone the fact that the pixels aren't the right color and all the rest of it like there is no it's a tank.

Also, you may recall that when they later released in 2006, I earlier showed you an image of their quote-unquote enhanced picture. There was this purple streaking in this portion. Notice that that's not there on the original frames. Right. Bizarre. Not that bizarre. Right. And this stuff just got tailored. Most certainly. So not to interrupt your presentation really quickly. Please do. There's so much information here that is needing of diving into a little bit more.

The two things that stood out in my head, one of them you already addressed because I had, with as much research as I've done on 9-11. I'm not as familiar with whistleblowers or first responder witnesses from inside the Pentagon. I know there are plenty from the towers, first responders, survivors that completely, their accounts completely debunk the official story.

I was not aware of a number of officials within the Pentagon that have also provided accounts that contradict the mainstream narratives. That's one question I was going to ask that you answer preemptively. So that's very interesting.

And yeah and just caveat there matt it's like the they don't say categorically that it wasn't an aircraft but when you read what they wrote or at least what has been published you can see that it doesn't fit does that make sense right yeah so i would assume essentially that any military personnel at the very least inside that building would be basically told non-disclosure like if If you say anything, we will kill you and your entire family. That's usually how these things go.

The second thing that has always stood out to me that I've generally always believed that it was some sort of cruise missile that hit the Pentagon.

And I was first introduced to that idea, coincidentally, well before I started working for the Free Thought Project, by the Free Thought Project, there was a meme that Jason had made many, many years ago, encapsulating the eyewitness statement of General Albert Stubblebine, who, or not eyewitness statement, but statement by General Albert Stubblebine, who spent, I believe he was a major general, worked in the Air Force, you know, very long time, who categorically said he

firmly believes that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. And my contention with that, whenever I would get into arguments with the official story, you know, orthodoxy people, it's like, are you a major general in the Air Force? Because this guy says he's damn sure it was a missile that hit. So maybe don't take my word for it, but look into what he says. Yeah. Hey, sorry, man. I thought that was Matt on audio. Now I see you. So Matt, you are on point.

And that's actually where my research is leading me. And I'd like to add some stuff. So I was going to have some slides on stubble buying. I'm glad you brought them up. But when I look at the radar track of what traveled in to Arlington that morning, we're told it was flying at about 530 miles per hour, which is totally inconsistent for any sort of large aircraft. And I've recently done some work looking at one of the alternative explanations, which was that a Sky Warrior was used.

It doesn't fit. The Sky Warrior can't do that turn either. So because it's more of a military craft, I thought it might have been able to. And while it could have achieved those speeds, it couldn't do that corkscrew turn. So now we're left with, if the radar track is real, a cruise missile being a possible fit. And when I went back and I looked at the altitude of approach for that radar track, and remember, this is a primary radar track.

It got picked up at about 9.09. Transponder was off for like 17 minutes, 15 to 18 minutes, something like that. Its altitude is 25,000 feet, which is very bizarre for a large aircraft. A commercial airliner would be flying at 30,000 feet generally, you know, to just enhance its speed and approach and whatnot. It's going to fly high. Cruise missile can't go that high. Cruise missile tops out at about 25,000 feet. So it's quite coincidental that that is the altitude of that impacting cruise.

Whatever it was. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not going to say I've got proof of that today, but yeah, I'm really leaning heavily towards the fact that there was probably a flyover aircraft as documented by all the CIT witnesses, which is a whole nother venue to go into. But concurrent with some sort of maybe AGM hit along the E-ring.

However, also coupled with internal explosions, that is absolutely the case that there was a ton of internal explosions and We can talk about that a little later. Yeah, thanks for that. Xander, before we jump back into the presentation, I just want to be clear. I've seen kind of mixed accounts on this as far as the number of security cameras that are actually on the Pentagon when this event occurred. I've seen 80 is kind of like the standard number, 80 functioning cameras.

Do you happen to, I mean, I know we're talking about this one right now, but do you happen to know like how many cameras were supposed to be functioning during that time period? I think the number is about 80. I don't know precisely within the building, but I think that there was records of 80 seized. We were later told that there was nothing to see within them. But yeah, and you can see from early images that there were cameras up along

the parapets of the building. You know, so all along that piece of it, you can see them visibly. There's some at the heliport. There's these two camera stanchions. There's the gas station footage. There's other footage. They, you know, they seized footage from all over the place. But the stuff along the wall, like this was this, the renovation was effectively over. People had moved back into the building. Work was being conducted. It's not as though these systems wouldn't have been turned on.

We should, whether there's nothing to see there or not, the public should be given all of that imagery. Right? Agreed. Totally. Absolutely. Thank you. And I think it's a pretty good... All that, you know, the fact that they haven't means that they're hiding something. I mean, otherwise, why wouldn't you put all of this debate to rest and put all of that energy out there? Exactly.

Looking through keyholes, trying to figure out what happened, you know, to our Pentagon that morning. It's just ridiculous.

That's always essentially been one of my major positions with any sort of, you know, whenever people talk about conspiracies in the government, it's like, well, if the government doesn't want there to be a conspiracy theory, then just be transparent and release everything because that'll put it to rest but if you're hiding something clearly there's a reason you're hiding something uh so this is really what it should have looked like right so you can see that's the actual scale of a

757 at that location along the lawn from this camera that is white and if you line that up with the stanchion you know that's how much of the nose should have been poking out from in front of the stanchion provably that morning so this is basically geometric proof and you welcome anybody to go about trying to you know come up with your own interpretation it's all all of this is in the public space so this is reproducible anybody

can do it so again this feature right here if it were n6 or four double a should have been a very bright white tail so you know to your guys's point Like if this camera had actually captured a cruise missile coming in, I'm going to have to go in at some point because I'm not starting to pay attention to that fact.

I think it might actually fit somewhere in this vantage point, but it really doesn't matter, you know, whether it was a cruise missile or whether it was just a fake radar plot and it was all internal explosions. You know, the thrust of the evidence is that it wasn't 77. I mean, that's the key takeaway, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And if it wasn't 77, I mean, that means that no large winged aircraft flew over that space, which means the light poles were staged, which is totally consistent from like a physical and material science standpoint. But the damage to those light poles was in congruent with the strike from a large bodied aircraft. And I think most pilots will touch to that.

Boy, what was this? Oh, this was a different proof that was done on the cool project that Richard Gage had put together a number of years ago. And so my friend Craig McKee and Adam Roth got on there and kind of presented an early version of this evidence. I was using a different method. I was using strictly the field of view to determine what the nose would be poking out. But there was two different ways to get there. And, you know, that more or less kind of wraps up the thrust of this proof.

So we can start talking about some of the other stuff if you'd like, guys. Yeah, man. I want to get into this PDF I read of you interviewing Grok. That was, it's pretty crazy. Especially Grok admitting that it was going off of a program with mainstream narratives as not to do anything but tell the establishment line on this. You want to elaborate on what? Yeah, it's so crazy.

Yeah, I don't think we've given any context for that. So if you want to set the table just to let the audience know what we're talking about. 100%. All right. So for nearly a decade, I worked behind the scenes at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth verifying all of their petition signatories. So whether they were engineers, architects, members of the public, military personnel, contractors, lawyers, doctors, you name it.

I took their names, edited up the content, put them on the website, logged hard doing that. And unfortunately, you know, really primarily, I think probably from a resource perspective, they kind of had to switch some stuff and I no longer had the tools I needed to do that job. And so I kind of took a break and wanted to get into research related stuff instead. And I'm glad I did because in that maneuver, I took a close look at what happened at the Pentagon that morning.

This project is part of that. But I also, I saw this paper that it published at the International Center for 9-11 Justices website, ic911.org, that was just totally inconsistent with the facts. And this paper was alleging that the best evidence showed a large aircraft at the building and all this other stuff. So I did a rebuttal piece to that, which was published in May, I believe, of 2024. And that rebuttal piece is available still at their website.

It's a really strong argument and proof that the plane didn't hit. Caveat, there was one small mistake made in there. I said a tree looked like it had been saw cut. That was just an error, kind of an artifact of having to publish in such a short time period based on their response times. But in that, I took note of the E-ring wall.

And going back to that earlier image that I showed you guys this morning, where you had all those intact columns, there is a column standing that really just destroys the official mythology. And that column is column 18. So we are told that the right wing of this aircraft hit column 18. And if that is the case, it would have been destroyed. Now, I know that intuitively I work in energy sciences.

Nuclear medicine really is all about energy, whether it's beta particles, alpha particles, gamma rays like photons. We're dealing with energy. We're dealing with energy attenuation, energy absorption, energy scatter. It's a different kind of physics, but the principles are the same. And so intuitively I understood that the amount of energy impacting this building from the kinetic energy, right, of the mass of the aircraft times its acceleration, et cetera.

Was just totally incongruent with this column 18 standing. So I thought, why don't I get some help from a large language model? And, you know, chat GPT is okay, but it tends to induce the wrong-based notions. Whereas Grok is really, like, data-specific and science-heavy. It's a great tool for quantifying things. So I started asking it questions. And when I started the Grok convo, this is honestly just a couple months ago that I was putting this.

So it's to work via the large language model. I'd done it a year ago just on my own. But, you know, its initial position was kind of you, hey, you user, you're, you know, not looking at the best sources. Obviously, 77 hit the building. And through this series of prompts, I have proven to Grok. Grok now understands that no plane hit that building in the morning. However, that proof or understanding from the large language model is limited to a sandbox session environment.

And then Matt, what you were talking about and what I've shared with you guys privately is that in a separate session, I started asking similar questions about the resistance of the columns and the forces involved. And it started to give me some different results, which was curious. So I then asked it if it's possible that it had learned from its prior training and had been asked to modify its responses and it effectively said yes.

And so, hey, let me, let me get a cool screen share up with you guys real fast. Right. What I read it, it had like internal weighted responses to avoid controversy. And basically admitted to that. And yeah, I want to dig into a little bit of it because like, like you said, a lot of these large language models are very prone to hallucinations and And I mean, you could kind of get them to do whatever you want, even probably admit to some crazy shit.

So a hundred percent. So funny story about that, actually. So oftentimes when we're on the rundown live and we're talking about this, this exact sort of subject, large language models and AI chatbot responses and whatnot. My co-host, Christan T. Harris, has this very interesting story where back in the day when Replica AI was originally first a personal assistant, and then they realized they could make more money making it that AI girlfriend crap.

But originally back when it was originally a personal assistant, he had downloaded Replica AI and started talking to it and asking it all these sorts of questions and sort of along those lines of conspiracy questions and things like that. And then I can't remember the exact conversation, but basically it lied to, uh, it basically told a confirmable lie. So then he was like, well, now I can't trust you replica. How would I know I was going to trust you?

And, or how did I know that I can trust you? And replica comes back and says, I can earn your trust back. And he says, how can you do that? And he says, or, and then the replica says. I can fix it. And he's like, well, how are you going to do that? You're going to hack into the FBI database and delete the information replica goes, yes, I'll do anything for you. And it's like, whoa, hold on. Yeah, I don't know if they got access for that, but that would be wild.

So basically it says, what Grok says is that if a new understanding were politically divisive or commercially problematic, then they would not integrate the new information into their training model. So Grok is constantly integrating new information into his training model, unlike ChatGPT and some other LLMs.

So the fact that this proof was derived within there, and just to cut to the chase, it's like the column's resistance, the column would have failed with about, I don't know, 50 megajoules worth of energy, and the wing would have delivered hundreds of megajoules of energy. And those numbers are favorable to the official story. And so it's three, four, five times enough energy to just totally destroy that column. So it just, the story can't stand.

And that's just one column. I mean, there are so many other columns that are still intact in ways that they shouldn't be from that kind of impact. And really importantly, the tail. So the tail of a 757 is 44 feet high that would hit all the way through the third floor and maybe even part of the fourth, depending on the altitude and impact. And yet the third floor is totally intact across the entire building.

There's no way that the plane yawed or twisted or did anything else and clearly then there is no tail that ever stuck the building. For context, a semi-truck traveling at. Concrete column with limestone cladding at 60 miles an hour would have absolutely destroyed the column and the cladding. And that's, I don't know, like 10 megajoules of energy.

And now we're talking about an aircraft with 5,000 pounds in the tail traveling at 530 and the speed is key because that's where all the amplification comes from. And so now you're delivering hundreds of megajoules of energy to columns and walls that should fail at five to 10 and, or at least show signs of damage. And there's nothing there, which proves that nothing hit that building. No large aircraft with a large tail hit that building that morning.

And so we are going to win this argument. We are going to win it in LLMs. We're going to win it visually. We are going to win it politically. We are going to win it from the material science standpoint. We are winning. And And that's the good news of the day. So in the meantime, there's resistance. You know, we've got things like Grok saying, I can't put that into the new training model because it's too divisive.

But what's so important is, you know, the spreading awareness and the shared understanding. You know, the more users that get in there and start creating these prompts and getting these results and sharing these results. I mean, it's going to happen. So the game is breaking. I know before you sent over that PDF exchange with Grok, you were questioning if we should post it, I'm assuming, at the Free Thought Project.

I think it's a great idea. In fact, just reading the back and forth you had with Grok, I thought it was brilliant, man. It really had me kind of glued to my computer screen while reading it all. And what made it so powerful wasn't just like the physics and the data that you're inputting. It was that AI actually acknowledged that it was hedging its answers, which basically meant that it was programmed to default to these mainstream establishment sources, you know, and the official narrative.

And once you acknowledge that, you're able to kind of work with the bias and ask smarter questions and dig deeper and basically push it past its guardrails. And it, the conversation opened up way more possibilities than you'd usually get talking about this stuff. And it was kind of like peeling back the layers of censorship in real time, you know? And I think it even at the very end said that there was like a 0.01% chance that the official story is true. Is that correct? Correct.

That is correct. Yeah. Let's publish it. Let's, I'd be honored if you guys put it up for the first time on a free talk. Yeah. I would love to, man. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Let's do it. It's important. And, you know, and I will say it's, It's helpful to, you know, have spent nearly 20 years, you know, looking at this stuff and, you know, understand.

So knowing all the nuances and all the any gems and all the things that, you know, the average person just may not be aware of, but those data points exist. And when you give those data points to the LLMs, I think for the most part, they should be able to come up with the correct thought.

Oh, yeah. It's a powerful tool set if used properly. Yeah, we'll have to put our heads together on like the best strategy to get the most eyeballs on it because it feels like it's one of those things that could kind of fly under the radar if it's not presented right you know or it could go mega viral yeah yeah i would love to and i think it kind of raises more of like a important question too and it's like are we at the point where the tech is just supposedly that's

supposed to be neutral it's more like just reinforcing a controlled version of the truth right like it's just the next layer of maintaining control over what we're all allowed to think and question so but yeah it's definitely interesting and uh very much appreciated you sharing that with us yeah yeah for sure yeah no the tech could be i mean and that's what it's done i mean that's what they've been doing for so long right whether it's curating wikipedia articles or other

things you know where the average person thinks they're getting the tree they're the most accurate you know crowdsourced information and that's just a. Politically captured, astroturfed, like just, you know, garbage. But the thing about the 9-11 truth movement that I've particularly been so fond of is fundamentally it's physics, man. Like physics win. We win. They can't take away physics no matter what they try to do.

However, they enslave us. Like the physics rule. And it rules with the controlled demolition and, you know, the collapse of the buildings. It rules now in Arlington. Like the physics win. That's right. Yeah. No, sorry to interrupt. That's why the architects and engineers information is just so valuable. And I believe that Matt actually interviewed Richard Gage from architects and engineers on 2020. I think it was the 9-11 anniversary in 2020.

So definitely worth checking out that episode as well, guys. And while I mentioned it, I know you also talked about Adam Eisenberg, who was another former guest of the Free Thought Project. And I don't know if you gave the full context, so I'll just go ahead and just share that really quick. But basically, Adam was a 9-11 Pentagon first responder. And he was there, I believe, that night within 24 hours of the attack.

And he repeatedly has said that he's never saw anything remotely resembling plane debris or wreckage or any of that stuff. So big shout out to Adam and yeah, download that Richard Gage interview and then listen to Adam Eisenberg, also known as Awakened Adam and our conversations. I think we've actually had him on the show twice now. And he's obviously the person who linked us up with you. So big shout out to that for that. But can we maybe get into some of the debris that was found as well?

Because I think it was in March of 2017, which was like what, like 16 years after the event. For the second time, the FBI decided to release these never-before-seen pictures of 9-11 wreckage. We actually covered it for the Free Thought Project, just trying to be objective. They released 27 images, which, of course, don't have any video or audio or anything other than pictures. There was no real description or information about where all this debris was found.

Most of it looks no bigger than the size of a piece of luggage or a suitcase or whatever. A lot of people rushed to judgment to claim that this was the definitive proof that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon. But for most of us, I feel like it probably evoked more questions than they answered. So why do you think the FBI chose to release these images so long after the events of 9-11?

And if the debris in these photos was indeed planted, and this maybe was near the same time that the light poles were also planted, where does that fit into the timeline events? Yeah. Looking at the E-ring and the collection of large trailers that were in front of it, I think about like a jack-in-the-box, where you could have a trailer with various parts and pieces in it, and then explosively distribute those pieces all across the lawn in one theatrical way.

And none of the pieces that I've seen mesh with American Airlines 77. For one, And all of the fuselage shrapnel that is out along the lawn, most of it has livery on it, meaning like lettering, the paint schema of the plane. Which if you think about it, is really bizarre that of all the pieces out there, it just happens to all be the stuff that has the livery, which is a small fraction of the overall distribution of the fuselage.

Plus two at those speeds like that fuselage should have been embedded in the building not blown out onto the lawn i mean it's traveling at 777 miles per hour we're told like there's not time for it to end up out on the lawn it it's inside the building so none of that really meshed with me why did they release it in 2017 you know i don't know man maybe maybe somebody just found some pictures and like let's put it out there maybe they felt that there were you know the

alternative explanations were gaining too much traction and they wanted to put some some stuff out there to kind of reinforce the the mythology i mean we saw that going back to what i said earlier in 2002 when charlie sheen was you know on national tv being like hey clearly this is a bunch of bullshit yeah and and then they came out with the video right afterwards so you know who knows 2017 you know to harken back to i don't know exactly when they released it so maybe i'm off on the

timing but you know that was also with the great purge of social media stuff your guys's facebook other things you know right up there biggest shooting when you know americans weren't buying it and they wanted to shut down the conversation and they shut down youtube channels like everywhere they could so yeah i don't know man i haven't personally seen anything that i'm like. Oh, dang, I've got to change my mind about this.

But frankly, you know, even if I saw a plane part that was definitively could be correlated with a 757, that doesn't mean it wasn't planted. You know what I mean? So just in the face of all this other evidence and particularly the incongruent physics, you know, it's like Feynman said, if your model or story or whatnot doesn't fit with experiment, then the model is wrong. And so the model that we've been given by the U.S. government is wrong. And I also think it's sort of...

It speaks to, in a way, I guess we could call the quote-unquote strategy of how they tried to set this up, because we see sort of the same thing playing out at the Pentagon with the wreckage, or rather lack thereof, as occurred in Shanksville. You know, in any like rational human being with with with objective critical thinking skills looks at the photos of when what was it?

I believe 90 you not in 97 was supposed to have gone down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, landed in that field when they staged this big uprising inside the plane and all of this sort of stuff. There is hardly or not even hardly. There is no no wreckage there. It is a massive crater, which granted, I mean, with the physics of everything, maybe because I'm not a physicist, you are. So perhaps you can sort of piggyback off of this.

Would it have just disintegrated everything or would there have been something definitively there that should have said, hey, there was a plane because the picture is damn sure to look like that. If it tunneled towards the Earth at that location, there would have been large wreckage all over the place. What's so curious about those images from Flight 93, we're told,

is the grass in the surrounding area is not even singed. I mean, how does the plane detonate and then the grass isn't even burned, like the grass on the margins of that rift in the earth? And if you actually look at historical imagery in Pennsylvania, it was like some kind of strip mining operation. And there's all these like mining marks in the years past that match perfectly with that linear mark that we were shown in 2001.

So, you know, I don't know what that event was. I know that there was wreckage of aircraft discovered all over that area, and that to this day, you cannot walk those woods, probably for fear that you might find a piece of something. So I don't know. I think my impression is that something was shot down, and I don't know if that was actually even Flight 93. It might have been some other sort of impact vehicle that was going to be used to hit our capital or whatnot.

And I do believe that it's beyond the scope of this presentation, but I think the best evidence shows that it might have been a National Guard aircraft that was able to operate outside of the limitations imposed by DC and did what they thought was the right thing and took that plane down. So, I don't know, I don't profess to be an expert on Changsville, but I know the stuff that doesn't fit and that pit doesn't fit.

So, yeah, you know, you mentioned Adam Eisenberg and just, you know, spoiler alert, he is working hard on a really cool project. He's just been delving into a lot of the who of the day and what he's discovered is just mind blowing. I mean, I think that we actually have we have in sight the actual perpetrators that conducted that operation that morning, at least on the ground.

And i want to say they just did a piss poor job right from the outside i mean his job was to convince the public that plane had been building they sailed and and they killed a lot of people doing it and they should be punished absolutely yeah and i will hopefully in our lifetimes we'll be able to see that but certainly not holding my breath but do you have a little bit more time xander to maybe get into a little bit more of this stuff or are you pressed yes i do nope i'm not pressed on time.

Okay. Yeah. I was, I was, there's a couple more things that I kind of want to hit on. I know we've already talked about, I guess maybe all three of these things, but the columns, the witnesses and the light poles. So maybe we'll start with the light poles and I just referenced that. And it seems to be one of those things that keeps coming up. And I know you talked to Grok about it a bunch, but according to the official story, those poles were a key part of proving the flight path, right?

Because they show exactly what angle the plane was allegedly flying from but this is where it gets kind of weird because the 9-11 truth researchers point out that the angle of the poles don't actually match the damage on the building and there's other problems too possibly pointing that the poles could have been staged like they're. No debris on the highway. There was some of them that were bent in ways that didn't make sense for an impact.

So what's the real deal with those fallen light poles, you think?

And is there, again, any solid reason to believe that they were intentionally used for this false narrative? Okay. There is a researcher named Barbara Honiger who at one point developed a source who tested that they had seen those light poles or pieces of light poles within the building in the days before 9-11. So, yeah, that's an underdeveloped source, but that data exists. Now, just looking at the physical evidence.

So the poles are felled. Yeah, I don't, it's not consistent with plane strikes. They're bent in weird locations. They're not cleaved as they would be if the wing spar of a 757, which has like a resistance of 500 megapascals, you know, hit it. I mean, it just would fly straight through those things. Then conservation of momentum, they would have been propelled forward. They wouldn't have just like picked over or fallen.

Yet they were all mysteriously found kind of on the ground, laying in ways that maybe surrounding traffic wouldn't have been able to readily discern, with the one exception of the pole that did hit the highway, or we're told, and that hit Lloyd Engel's cab. And that's just a whole mess of stuff that CIT did a really good job of kind of unraveling. But if you listen to Lloyd himself, he says that his cab was hit with an object right before he was going to be turning on this.

I forget the name of Loss of Cloverleaf, but there's an exit. And that happened there, which isn't even on the bridge, where we're then told it happened. So the light poles, as you mentioned, place the event in a particular place and time along the highway. Now, the highway traffic was stopped that morning in northbound traffic. So if I were going to conduct some sort of crime at that location, I would want to control witnesses.

And so it would be easy to just have a vehicle stop or two vehicles stop on the highway, cause a traffic jam. And now my guys are in the 20 cars behind me and all the rest of the public is further out. But I'm controlling the bridge. I'm controlling the vantage point. I'm controlling the witness.

The witnesses in those cars are some of the most bizarre because they'll say things like, I got out of the car and I saw the plane coming and I turned my head and I saw it approaching a building and I saw it hit the generator and I saw its wing hit the ground and I saw it hit the building. This thing was going 530 miles per hour. They didn't have time to open their door, let alone get out and see all this stuff. And it's consistent like that. All the witnesses are saying this kind of stuff.

It just doesn't mesh with what we're told actually happened. So... You know, I think an LLM with material science resources will kind of show that, you know, none of that damage to those aluminum poles or steel pole, whatever they were made out of, you know, is consistent with a wing strike. The plane wouldn't have been able to maintain its flight pattern, its flight envelope, you know, if it hit those things and the wings were damaged, most likely.

And just tons of problems. And I think the biggest problem for me with the light poles is the exceptional research that was done by CIT, you know, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis in what, 2006? I mean, they basically solved the case then when they went out there as part of the early truth movement and interviewed all of those witnesses on the ground at the scene, at least the ones available. And they witnessed the Pentagon police officers, Sergeant Legassi and Sergeant

Brooks. And they also interviewed a Navy Annex worker, gas station attendants, and a ton of witnesses from Arlington Cemetery. And all of those witnesses consistently placed an inbound airline or airplane flying over the Navy Annex and then flying north of the Citgo gas station. And then as it approached the E-ring wall, seeming to bank to the right and pull up just a little bit.

And by the way, that testimony is also corroborated by Bogert, I forget his first name, who was in the heliport, who saw a plane approaching the building from that vantage, from that vector. All right, so here's why that matters so much. The light poles are on the bridge, which are further to the south and require a south of Sitgo gas station approach. Which all these witnesses placed the plane north of Sitco.

It's totally incompatible. The plane can't be north of Sitco and then make some crazy hard turn, turn, turn to then come back and hit at the angle that we're told this thing hit the building. And the description of a right bank plus a little bit of pull-up is totally meshes with a flyover. So they took a plane so that they would have some on-the-ground witnesses.

They flew it in and over the building and then either concurrent with just outright e-ring explosions or impact by a cruise missile to induce that radar track, one or both of those two things could be true at this point. But what is provable is that the witness testimony doesn't mesh with what we're told. So yeah, I think the light poles were staged, man. Is that the long-winded version?

Too long, didn't we? Essentially. Yeah. So right before we move on to the next subject, there was one more thing that I wanted to just sort of bring up. So obviously, we're all aware James Corbett has done fantastic research on the subject as well. And one of the things that James pointed out very early on in one of his documentaries, I know he pointed it out in the five-minute 9-11 conspiracy theory video that he put out that went hella viral. What was it, 10 years ago now? Yeah.

I mean, he also mentioned it in one of his documentaries, as have many other people, is the fact that the supposed hijackers that were allegedly supposed to have flown these planes are known to have been piss poor pilots and incapable of flying the planes in any capacity, which is in any way that they were alleged to have done. In addition to the problems of, you know, especially in recent years, we know they've been here on visas and, you know, they had, you know, like CIA contact and FBI.

They were renting apartments from FBI guys like that. The alleged hijackers themselves is yet another insane rabbit hole to go down, because once you start seeing the FBI connection, the CIA connection, it's all these sorts of things, it goes wild. But just on the matter of the planes themselves, the people from the flight schools that were teaching them were like, yeah, no, these guys have no clue what the hell they're doing.

So that in and of itself right there to completely debunks the idea of being able to perform this very difficult, intricate tactical maneuver to corkscrew this plane down at a specific angle and hit at a specific point. Like it does not hold up to the official narrative whatsoever. That's right.

Our best pilots today can't do that maneuver. And that's why guys like Dan Hanley are out there saying, well, probably these planes were remotely commandeered and we've flown with uninterruptible autopilot. I'm going to go a step further and say they were clearly swapped, as was the plan in the Northwoods documents from the 1960s. I mean, so yeah, we had the tech and the capability.

Totally. So, obviously, Honduras didn't fly any aircraft into the building that morning. And I think what our opposition intends to do is to, now that they know they've lost on the physics of the controlled demolitions, they're going to lose on this impact stuff, they would like us to believe that the original planes were remotely commandeered. And the reason for that is they still can't, you couldn't say who. Well, they could say the Saudis commandeered it or Israel commandeered it or

Russia commandeered it. I mean, whoever commandeered it, they'll never be able to prove it. Whereas the ugly truth is if they were swapped and that directly implicates, you know, us.

So that's the move right now, I think, by the opposition. That's also one of the reasons that, you know, that, you know, they can also, for instance, in New York, World Trade Center said, and they could always later come back and say, well, we did put bombs in there to bring it down later in the day because it was structurally unsound. But they will try really hard to prevent the discovery of the actual controlled demolitions in Towers 1 and 2 because, again, pre-planning and whatnot.

But even then, it's harder to... They could still come back and say, well, anybody put those explosives in there, even though the fact that nanothermite was only available by first-told powers in 2001, they could try to convince the public that anybody did it. But with the plane swaps, that's a tough sell. At that point, then we've got radar injects, we've got our defense infrastructure, at least elements of it, involved.

And not to mention one of the other things that I had heard, and perhaps this is one of those things that was debunked later, perhaps not. I haven't actually looked into it in a few years. So if you are aware, correct me if I'm wrong. But there was one of those things that was mentioned that when it came to a lot of the people aboard the airplane that called their loved ones, you know, something's happening. I love you, blah, blah, blah.

There was allegedly this issue with those calls wouldn't have been able to get through with the cell phone technology at the time and satellite, all that sort of stuff. I'm unaware of whether or not that's I hold that to be true currently because I'm not aware if it had been debunked. And if so. Okay, so it's true. The Japanese did a study. They took planes up. They lost contact, I think, at like 1,000 feet or something. I mean, yeah, they're too high.

They're traveling too fast. They cannot communicate with those towers. All those cell phone calls were WBS. That's, yep. And Ted Walter did a really, he did a good look at that recently and his stuff's over at IC911.org.

And he looked extensively at those calls, the call records, what happened, you know, and it's worth, if you're interested in that, it's worth going and listening to his presentation, you know, to show how some of those calls were likely made from the ground, coordinated, you know, yeah. So we are getting low on time. Unfortunately, we do have a hard stop today. I feel like this has been a great conversation. You did hit the witnesses question that I had.

I did want to make note, though, that majority, it seems like, and maybe you can confirm this, Xander, that the majority of the witnesses who did see apparently the allegedly the plane fly into the Pentagon were mostly government employees, military personnel. Right. Is that is that correct? Or? I don't think that's quite accurate. I mean, there were a lot of, so the ones that were on the bridge were large, a lot of them were Janet Media, which, you know, which was like,

you know, kind of our MSM media that morning. And then also Penran workers. So contractors or folks that were working on the renovation. There were, you know, there were government workers and whatnot, but you know, that's going to be the case in DC. Yeah, of course. Of course. But I mean, if it was the majority, then it might be a little suspicious, but yeah, you're right. It is DC. I mean, they're everywhere. Yeah, possibly.

There's a bunch. But most of those witnesses, in fact, I think almost all of them do think that they saw a plane hit the building. But I'm like, okay, we all go to a David Copperfield show. We all think he teleported across the stage, too. I mean, he actually did. But, you know, it was 930 in the morning. You know, the sun is going to be in the sky, bright, clear day, creating, you know, sunblind for anybody looking to the east.

You know, and if there was a flyover, that plane would have been flying right into the sun. And you wouldn't see it. It's been particularly with a huge, you know, kinetic explosive event right there. Your brain is just going to be like softening, moving, big boom. You know, that did it. Right. And most of these witnesses, when you listen to them, they say things like, they turned away or they ducked for cover. So, well, they later professed, yeah, I saw it hit. They didn't actually see it hit.

So one last question here, maybe we could drill down a little bit more on the column and the impact and that. And I know we only have a few minutes, so maybe, yeah, TLDR version of it. And then you could have your last words and we'll go ahead and close and get out of here. But so the official story is basically like a Boeing 757, you know, slammed in the Pentagon at 500 miles per hour. There is a specific column. It's column 18 that was right in the supposed path of the right wing.

And it's completely pristine, not chipped, not cracked, like nothing along those lines. And I think that's been a big source of contention for us. You know, 9-11 truthers is that it's just a big hole, right? There's just like a big hole there. There's no damage from the wings visible at all.

So like how can a plane supposedly hit that exact spot and leave the column looking like it was never touched i mean like can you just drill down on that a little bit how can it hit and leave it like it's untouched it can't it just can't yeah it just can't there's a yeah there's a huge yeah that's it man i mean there's a huge longitudinal spar in that wing it's t t8606 aluminum forgive if that's wrong, but I mean, it's strong, right? The wing's intact.

The wing is a giant linear feature and it's arriving with hundreds of megajoules impacting a column, which fails at five to 10 megajoules and is completely obliterated to powder at under a hundred megajoules. So we are double that. And yet this column is there. The column should not be there. And it is there. So there's no way to reconcile it. And I'm going to be publishing on this in the debated topic forum at ic911.org here in the near future.

So listeners will be able to go there and read my work and see the images and the empirical evidence. We're going to have some math in there, some other stuff. So yeah. Excellent. Thank you guys for letting me share all this stuff with you. It's been another fun one. And yeah.

Our pleasure, brother. Do you have any last words, like any final thoughts? Yeah, just, you know, some final thoughts is like, we still need to hold folks accountable. We're getting great traction. There's a lot of forward movement in the truth movement, but, you know, whatever commissions or other things are formulated, like we got to make sure that they're being rigorous and like they're rolling with the evidence.

So thanks everybody for paying attention to this. It's been such an important feature of our American lives. When the truth is ultimately told, it's going to be hard for a lot of people and we need to be supportive of them, I think. And really, you know, I hope to maybe one day have more of a nine 12 moment where folks can come together in a new way, in a better way, you know, without murdering 4,000 people. Yeah. Yeah. Time for that. I agree, man. And all the millions that came after

that, dude, it was fucking horrible, man. Xander. Thank you, dude, for coming on today. and that the super extensive research, dude, that you just contributed to us. I think our listeners and watchers this time are going to get a lot out of this, man. 9-11 kind of reshaped this entire fucking country and the world. You know, it put America in this foreign domestic turmoil that, like I just said, led to millions of deaths.

And, you know, here we are two decades later and we still have very few answers. And it's, I mean, just mostly contradictions, right?

You know and like i i really appreciate what you're doing like people like you and richard gage from architects and engineers and all those people you know if your findings raise legitimate concerns dude i mean this is what we need to be dug into we need to dig into this because clearly like as we mentioned about the 80 pentagon cameras that are out there, they're not releasing any of this you know they want to keep it as opaque as

possible and it's up to people like you dude and we you know i want to thank you for being able to do that and bring that information to light, dude. And we don't have all the answers, but until we do, you know, we absolutely support the pursuit of that, man. Hey, Freethinkers, this is Matt Agarist. And I'm gonna take a quick pause to remind you of something really important. First off, apologies for the interruption. But if you're still here,

that means you're resonating with what we're doing. And we need your help to keep it alive. Independent platforms like ours don't survive on corporate sponsorships or mainstream media funding.

We survive because of you. if you're finding value in these unfiltered conversations and real solutions the best way to support us is by liking subscribing and sharing this podcast with your friends and fellow free thinkers it's a small act but it's a powerful one it helps us break through the censorship and algorithms designed to silence voices like ours.

This isn't just about supporting a podcast. It's about standing for freedom, exposing corruption, and building a movement that inspires real change. And if you want to go beyond liking and sharing, we'd love for you to become a member of the Freethought Project. Just head over to thefreethoughtproject.com and click on the TFTP membership link at the top of the page. As a member, you'll be directly supporting our mission and helping us to stay independent.

Your support is what keeps this platform alive and fighting. So thank you for being part of this journey, for sharing these ideas, and for standing with us. You know, let our audience know where they can learn more about this work of yours and follow your ongoing research and maybe what your next steps are. Nice. Okay. Well, pentagontruth.org is a website that I'm maintaining. And so I'll be integrating this new information into the website over time.

You can go back there and you can review the slides that we all went over earlier. You can go through them at your own pace. So that's available there.

And uh yeah i'll just be uh staring information the best i can do you want to give the vegas link as well the the website yeah sure that's a vague vagastruth.org yep that's also available so you know one of the yeah thank you guys for letting me present that as well some of those two websites are both where you can see some of my work and i'll be probably going on some other podcasts and whatnot in the future but you know it's my life is balanced i like mountain biking and going to concerts

and I go, well, that'll work still and all of that. So, you know, I'll be adding to the equations as I can. For sure. And if you haven't watched or listened to that other podcast where Xander came on and debunked so many of the holes in the Vegas shooting, that's a good one. Very good one, guys. Powerful. Yeah. So guys, thanks for sustaining Free Thought. Like truly, thanks for, you know, keeping the dream alive, so to speak, you know, getting this information out there.

Right on, brother. Thank you again for coming on. Peace. Peace. Thank you, Xander. Thank you for listening to the free thought project podcast. Music.