Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Hank Missenheim Jr.

The 9/11 Atrocity


  1. Great interview, Jim. I especially liked Hanks remark to you at 1:46:54

    "If what I saw was a hologram, then we're all screwed. We're basically living in the matrix then.. you can't trust your eyes or your ears at all.."

    I think that pretty much sums up our current state of affairs from JFK to Apollo, to 911, to Sandy Hook, to the Boston marathon bombings etc.

  2. These are the best videos I've seen on the planes of 9/11.
    After hearing this interview, I would like to hear an expert explain how holograms are created and if one could have been projected in the daytime and from what sorce?
    Collin Alexander (aka "Ace Baker") conducts an in-depth analysis of how the planes (AA11 and UA175) were CGI insertions.

    ? 06 - What Planes? - YouTube#t=1790

    ? 07 - The Key - YouTube
    Ending shows Fetzer, Jones, Wood. 911 movement such a failure, why?

    ? 08 - The Psy-Opera - YouTube

  3. By coincidence, I happened to be watching this old video earlier and noticed how phony it looks. I wish we could have asked Hank about it since he is from New Jersey. Maybe he might comment if he sees this site.

    ? BOATLIFT, An Untold Tale of 9/11 Resilience - YouTube

  4. I do not know if the technology exists for the holograms, though the possibility seems a plausible explanation for what happened, but I am convinced that the maniacs who run this show want us to believe that they have incredible technologies that they do not in fact have. The want to make us think they are far more powerful than they really are. They use Alex Jones and many other liars for this purpose.

  5. I just heard about 3 weeks ago, that after all that Insurance money Silverstein got....he's trying to get more. He's suing the airlines that owned the planes...even though there's evidence indicating those planes were still flying after 911.
    Another $3 billion?
    Since insurance companies are owned by huge banks and/or share board members, they don't really care about losing a case like this. Because, the banks don't even need to write the loss off on taxes....which they don't pay...they just get the tax payer to bail them out. They never lose.
    Maybe it's just another psyop to piss us off.
    I can see Chaney in his crypt...or where ever he hangs by his feet when he sleeps" saying, "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you damn truthers".
    But, he'll get away with it anyway...unless there's a Hell. Too late for any of us to enjoy.
    Because even if we knew who all the controlled opposition was and could identify the real perps - what the Hell would we do with the info. We can't even get a judge to hear a case on the President's SS#. Or prosecute for war crimes of the lies used to propagandize us into Iraq.
    And we are the most propagandized country of all time.
    In the 1930's, an experiment was created to test the effectiveness of the new mass media of the day, by broadcasting a fake terror story as a real news broadcast. It was funded, in part, by Rockefeller - who was interested in propaganda for social control. The name of the broadcast was "War of the Worlds by HG Wells". People need to understand that radio and TV were not created for the purpose of entertainment or enlightenment. That's why it's called "programming".
    The study was funded by Rockefeller and conducted at Princeton. There is a pdf available on line of the book written by Cantril and various summaries. It lays out what the media has been doing to us for years.
    And don't think for one minute that Rockefellers are not still involved. We saw her heckling Obama about Gitmo at his first major counter terrorism address back in May. They let her go on and on....three times! Then gently escorted her out.
    She's an actress. Her name is Susan Rockefeller.
    Wait...before you go calling me a Chiarini-ist, let me address the anti-zionists...Her real name is Susan COHN Rockefeller.
    How do you think she got into the National Defense University to fo the heckling? Amy Goodman asked her. She said it was a secret. She knows it's a huge secret.
    Anymore Jewish-Rockefeller connections?
    Google Eileen Rockefeller Growald. And keep googling.
    We have plenty of pictures of Rockefellers with Greenbergs. And more than one Greenberg - one of whom is a suspected Mossad agent- were seen at Sandy Hook.
    We know Obama is in on the sandy Hoax because we have a picture of him with Emily Parker on his lap - supposedly a day after she died. But does it matter - a day after or a day before?
    From the helicopter footage, we see the actor playing Sandy Hook father Ed Haslam, trying to prevent an independent photographer from taking pictures of M. Greenberg getting out of a car with what appears to be two body guards.
    And we know Rockefeller helped finance Obama's campaign.
    And we know Greenberg's company AIG got billions in bailouts.
    There's that word again...Bailouts.
    Trillions in bailouts have flown out of the Federal Reserve to bankers to cover loans made to everybody. From foreclosures to foreign countries. All covered by the American taxpayer since 1913.

    1. I agree with your suggestion as to why radio and television were created. The internet is, of course, no different.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. And for those who say they don't care because they don't pay taxes I'm telling you that you do. While you sleep they stole it from your wallet by devaluing the dollar more than 90% in the last hundred years.
    Now the slavery we exported to places like China with NAFTA is coming home with the TPP. Negotiated in secret, this "agreement" between criminals will allow foreign corporations to write our laws and complete what NAFTA started. And intentionally unreported in our media. But we got weeks of the Trayvon Martin Hoax and the Jodi Arias Hoax. And Aurora....and the Caylee Anthony Hoax.. and the Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook Hoax/multi-billion dollar IPO con - Gee, I wonder why Zuckerberg did a no show at the SEC hearings? And why they sealed all the files for three years? And why Holder won't go after financial institutions?
    Because our government is a hoax. Created by media - the same media that shot loads all over their Dear Leader Obama - that announced his election with less than 1% of the ballots counted.
    Do you get it yet?
    So, I ask you again. Not because I think 911 research is a waste of time. Or because I'm CIA trying to derail 911 research. It's not on any rails now.
    What or how can the info be used, even if we had signed confessions, to hold anyone accountable or correct the course of the agenda that was catching up to us one minute - and the next minute it's now way ahead. With it's controlled media and it's corrupt judges. And Dianne "Bride of" Frankenfeinstein - enemy of freedom. And Nancy "Sign Before You Read What You Never Will Bother to Anyway" Pelosi -insider trader and overt traitor and inside trader. Hmm. Who really was betting against the airline stocks before 911? Why did they do it knowing it would look bad when they came to cash out? Or maybe it never happened? Disinfo the throw us of the path of the huge profits Carlyle Group is making?
    Who the Hell knows? We're being fucked by so many dicks....we don't have anymore holes!
    So, the next step will be to tear us some new holes...
    while we argue with people paid to keep the train from ever leaving the Roundhouse.

  8. is Collin Alexander (aka "Ace Baker") a jew?

    I do believe that some of you 'no planers' have been BAMBOoZLED.

    Listen to what the guest have to say, even if the audio is horrible and that Fetzer rudely interrupted him many time, raising his tone to force his flawed logic on him and the listeners.

    Clue--> there were planes hitting the towers.

    Listen to the guest.

  9. He could have seen a real plane that "cloaked" itself (turned sky-blue) as it flew by the towers, timed with the explosion.

    1. No Jim, there would have been eye witnesses reporting seeing the plane fade out. There was many looking up that morning..

      Could you reconsider, what many people have tried to explain to you, that the planes were real airplanes but were not passenger airliner but military and that they did enter the building in pieces, leaving a hole in the form of an airplane? There is more than enough room in between the floors and vertical structure to allow for a plane coming full speed to penetrate these buildings. If they were monoliths/solid facade blocks, then I would expect a different outcome that what the videos/pictures/witness are telling us.

    2. Planes cannot hit buildings and then disappear. Therefore no planes hit the buildings.

    3. ironically, if the planes would have been more solid, like a flying tank, some parts might not have entered the building and deceleration could have been observed. Planes being made the way they are, I would not expect to see anything after impact at those speeds, or observable deceleration. The whole thing came apart as it entered.

      The explosion after entry though, that is a little suspect. I wonder if the pod under the plane, as seen on some videos/picture was not what really exploded.

    4. ok, I knew that it was a matter of hours before some fucking idiot come up with..

      how in the hell did the planes cut the core columns if..................

      "The whole thing came apart as it entered." argument.

      The plane did not:
      - cut the core columns or
      - bring the building down or
      - cause a flooding northern Africa. oK?

      The plane did:
      - enter the building and
      - shredded itself upon entry.

      Buildings are mostly empty. They are not solid blocks. There is plenty of room to allow a plane coming fast to enter the building in pieces, and yes, it will leave a hole in the facade.

      Yes you can have both. Like a bullet, it can penetrate and distort/break apart upon impact.

      Now if some of you cannot understand that, I do not have the written habitabilities or the patience required to explain things that are that obvious. I wouldn't know how to explain it further.

      *now waiting for the "bullets are not made of aluminum" argument ffs*

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I agree that if half of the energy used on arguing over the fine details was used to convince as many people as possible of the complete falsehood of the 'official' Report...

  11. - Going in Search of Planes in NYC

    “I Saw The Plane… I Heard The Plane…”
    The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.

    16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 Witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.

    I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact.

    Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.

    Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

    Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.

    Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.

    There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.

    There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.

    There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

  12. Hank said, the plane was dark, grey.
    A dark plane against at bright sky can not be a holographic projection, bacause a hologram is just light - added to the light already shining from the sky.
    Please, please, please understand why this is impossible, please...........
    Not difficult, not complex, impossible.
    A thought experiment to explain.
    Imagine you have a movie theater with two projectors.
    You turn out the lights out start the first projector that shines a blue bright light on the screen, it is so intense it looks like the sky.
    Now, with the other projector you will project a dark plane on the screen, on top of the bright lit screen. GOOD LUCK!
    It is impossible.

    Now, cgi plane? Very possible.
    Tampered with plane?
    Very possible.
    Hollowed out towers with crash zones in them?
    Why not.
    Hell, for all we know the plane was made of wood, who knows. I wouldnt trust Richard Hall any longer than I could throw him, which is not far. Has someone else produced those flight data records?
    I think he is part of the Judy Wood (dummy) controlled opposition sent in to derail the 911 truth investigation. I dont know that for a fact, it is a hunch, a semi strong one. Dallas Goldbug, Celtic Rebel, Pete Santilli are also, in my opinion, feds, maybe they even weare badges who knows. But let us look at the evidence, like Judy says, how, how, how, how could you project a dark plane against a bright sky by shining lights? How? It is very unscientific to disregard the properties of light just because you have a pet theory, light does not go away when you project a hologram. The TED demonstration was not holograms, it was cgi. The idiot who uploaded it thought it was holograms, but it is not, it is cgi, real time animation on top of live video feed. It is brilliant and very complex but not holographs. If it had been the images would have been transparent-because holograms are transparent. If an image is not transparent then it is not a hologram, then it is something else. A minimal effort of research will make these points evident to anyone who wishes to understand what a holographic image is.
    Time to do the reaserch, it is not enough that you know someone who says it is so and so, you must check the evidence yourselves, we are bombarded with disinfo and Ill be damned if I will let dr Fetzer be derailed by som holograph clowns. He is to an important man for the truth movement and his mind has been hijacked.

  13. Wow, this interview ranks with the Scott Forbes shillery. Like using obscured or fuzzy photos as part of the 9/11 imagery, I am quite convinced that horrible audio like this broadcast is quite deliberate. Not only does it sully the message, but it also makes it impossible to detect voice intonation that may betray deception. Add to that the poor photos the guest linked to, and you have a totally unconvincing account of what didn't happen that day.


    Did you look at Hank's pictures? Check them out at the above link. They are composites and not very good ones. Copy them to your files and enlarge them. 'Hank' sure is a windbag. He's a fast talker and he's saying a lot without saying anything.


    Live feeds (ten second delays) from three stations on 9/11 had no images of a plane. They were: ABC, FOX and WPIX. All the other stations had an computer generated plane image. (You should be able to see them in the television archives.)

  16. There were airplanes, not the passenger planes though and I have a friend who saw the second plane too and he said that hundreds of people saw the plane. No CGI, no composite video.

    And it was done this way.
    Just prior to impact the plane. . The steel was cut by a pulse of energy and this technology exists and that combined with the momentum of the plane would allow the plane to bend the steel outer support beams which were 4" thick and cut by the pulse. The plane was guided in by a guidance system installed in the tower and the floors where the planes hit were for the most part empty. As far as analyzing video frames since the plane at 510 mph was traveling at 748 feet per second which at 30 frames per second means that the plane was traveling 25 feet per frame which would not allow for precise analysis of the frames and appear as a delay.

    1. No. The outside structure was 2,5 inches thick at the bottom and 1/4 of an inch thick at the top, covered with aluminum.

      So the outside columns were more like 1/4 of an inch thick at the point of impact.

      3'-4" (three feet four inches) center to center, leaving a 3 feet space between the column where there was glass (windows).

      The floors were made of trusses (or bar joist as we call them in construction) with 4" thick of concrete on top.

      That is not enough to stop a plane coming in at 404 knots (465 mph or 748 km/h). It will penetrate that without any "pulse of energy" and both, the outside structure at the point of impact and the plane will be destroyed. Just like the videos/pictures/witnesses are telling us.

    2. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. [ i.e. 7800 miles per hour]. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm. [20mm = less than one inch thick. The columns were known to be 4 inches thick.] "

      ©2005 ASCE

    3. so much for me posting a link so you can see with your eyes.

      You got you columns mixedup Joseph. The outside columns were not 4" thick. The core ones were.

      If you want believe a computer model based on reality rather than photographic evidence of reality, then heh, I give up. I did try though.

    4. I did not write the article freeride so I have nothing mixed up, talk to the engineers who wrote the article hehe

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. "Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center"

    J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 131, Issue 10, pp. 1066-1072 (October 2005)

  19. Operation Northwoods 9/11 Witness #10 Hank Missenheim 2019

    I need to talk with Hank Jim about the flight path. Can you get him to draw on a map like CIT people did for their project. thanks