Andrew Mason

Debunking 9/11. A reminder of how this all started. I've now opened a Substack account to more widely publish my work. It seems that 'X' only gives you a small audience. Even pinned 'Articles' do little better. Either I'm not good at what I'm doing, no one is really interested, or something in the algorithm here prevents wider readership. Anyway, my work (and Grok's) can now also be seen at @andrewsimonmason" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@andrewsimonma…. An index of the pieces so far published is as follows: Introduction: Debunking 9/11. A necessary task. Fact has become fiction, and fiction has become fact. May 10, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/debunking-91… Part 1: WTC1 PERIMETER EJECTION: AXE-WEDGE ANALOGY - Part 1 May 10, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc1-perimet… Part 2: WTC1 PERIMETER EJECTION: AXE-WEDGE ANALOGY - Part 2 May 10, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc1-perimet… Part 3: WTC1 PERIMETER EJECTION: AXE-WEDGE ANALOGY - Part 3 May 10, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc1-perimet… Part 4: WTC CONSPIRACY THEORY - Part 1 May 11, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc-conspira… Part 5: WTC CONSPIRACY THEORY - Part 2 May 11, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc-conspira… Part 6: WTC COLLAPSES: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION - Part 1 May 14, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc-collapse… Part 7: WTC COLLAPSES: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION - Part 2 May 14, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc-collapse… Part 8: WTC7 CATASTROPHIC FAILURE - Part 1 May 15, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc7-catastr… Part 9: WTC7 CATASTROPHIC FAILURE - Part 2 May 15, 2026 andrewsimonmason.substack.com/p/wtc7-catastr… There will be more work coming soon. Comments are welcome either here or there. ASM.

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene And Flight 77 is a whole different topic. Good night.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene Stutt was left wanting, and he wasn't shouted down either. It was civil discussion. The same as I do not trust Stutt's work on FDR on AA77.

This is Jeff Hill's phone call to Lesley Hazzard at Boeing, to enquire regarding a Boeing 767 aircraft's speed at sea level, and whether or not it could fly at that speed without breaking apart. youtu.be/6QEKKlBt9Yg?si…

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene You obviously haven't got them then, have you?

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene Then send me the actual ARINC protocols?

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene Last thing then. Can you at least show us your claimed downlink messages? After all, it is you trying to prove your case, not me.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene I have explained it, and I am not spending my night explaining it over and over again to you.

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene And was it him being debunked or was he simply shouted down by too many others who didn't want to understand properly?

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene We'll have to disagree on that one. I think Woody Box packed it in because he could no longer maintain his case. Someone dug out (paid for) the actual ARINC protocols and it was gave over after that.

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene Enough to debate with you I think. I've seen Warren Stutt's work, that is a good guide. Also the UM thread. How do you think the routing went then?

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene It was not routed through the expected flight plan route. Not being rude, but I thought you knew about the ACARS system? (especially in 2001).

There is a distinction between sent to an aircraft and received by an aircraft. The aircraft was by then a long way from where it was supposed to be, and was simply out of range to receive them? The messages were still being routed along the expected route. How can you tell it has been received if there is no corresponding 'thanks, I got that'?

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene Lets get this straight. A DLBLK is an entirely different process in the ACARS network. It indicates a segment of data originating from the aircraft, sent to the ground station. It has nothing to do with whether an uplink (ground-to-air) message was received by the aircraft. OK!

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene I'm not saying there are errors in the logs, I'm simply saying that the aircraft was not responding. Not everyone was in the same loop at exactly the same time. And it's perfectly feasible that messages were route along the previous expected track.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene There's no errors with ACARS logs. Go and read it all, and all the other accompanying documents. I've spent years studying all the declassified documents.

Manually sending messages is different from the automatic resends after not getting return downlinks. Possibly because he was still hopeful that it was still in the air and just kept trying? Maybe because the aircraft had gone silent (no DLBLK acknowledgments), the network was still in retry mode. Dispatchers like Ballinger are trained to keep sending important messages (especially “land immediately” safety alerts) until they received clear confirmation that the aircraft was down or the system formally flagged up it as failed.

@_andrewsimon_ Why did Ballinger send another ACARS message uplink to UAL 175 at 9:51 a.m. 48 minutes after the alleged crash, and 28 minutes after sending the previous ACARS message uplink which ostensibly did not produced any “Failure Report” 27 minutes after being notified about the crash?

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene Because it was most chaotic day any of them had ever seen, the situation wasn't clear, aircraft were being rerouted or brought in to land and a few errors were made along the way?

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene If UAL 175 had crashed at 9:03a.m. why did the airplane still appear as "confirmed" in Barber's log at 9:20 a.m.?

@MarkConlonUK These messages were routed based on where the ARINC network thought the plane was (or where it was predicted to be based on the original flight plan and last contact). Still no DLBLK returns though?

@_andrewsimon_ ACARS data messages show UAL 175 registering two “received” ACARS messages by the plane at 8:59 a.m. and 9:03 a.m.

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene Yes, re the audible sound it alerts the crew to the message being received. But how could this happen after the time of the crash??? The system automatically resends after a period of no response. Receipt is only acknowledged by the following downlink but there wasn't one.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene If the aircraft cannot receive the message, it cannot send an acknowledgment back to the ground dispatch. The ground dispatcher would simply receive a delivery failure notice, timeout, or no acknowledgment, which is what happened at 10:11 a.m. with United 93.

@MarkConlonUK Yes, for United 93. The others are irrelevant to this. Can you show me a relevant DLBLK response from UA175. This is not insulting you, this is asking you a straightforward yes or no question.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene Don't insult me. I think I do understand, and I know for a FACT on 9/11 it sounded an audible sound that the aircraft received the message on the aircraft. I know very well how and they routed, and down and up links. Have you studied the ACARS data for the 4 planes?

To Mark - I'm sorry but I don't think you quite know how the ACARS routing system works. Do you have one single DLBLK return acknowledgement after the crash time? To any ground station along the previously expected route? Yes, there other uplink attempts but no downlinks it seems.

@MarkConlonUK @_andrewsimon_ But if it wasn't manually disabled, but the plane doesn't exist, would an unplink still show as sent? That's my question. Can you verify if your answer is no?

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene I studied it intently. The engine shear pins broke in the way they were intended to. UA175 maintained aerodynamic stability all the way in.

@_andrewsimon_ @911Gene Go and study why it lost its engines on the way down before it hit the ground. And then compare it with United 175.

@MarkConlonUK @911Gene AA587 proves nothing. It broke apart on November 12, 2001 because of excessive and repeated rudder inputs causing massive sideslip forces. It then entered a flat spin. Besides which, it was an Airbus A300B4, and not a Boeing.

@911Gene Well he was wrong, we got an answer from Boeing in the phone call. American 587 is the best example to prove that 767-200 could not travel at 586 mph at sea level. The impossible physics in the videos shows it was not a real plane. The telemetry data proves this also.

@911Gene Two great forces collided on that day. You can think of David vs Goliath as a close comparison. Both had different ways of life. Both dealt with matters in different ways. For better or for worse, push had come to shove back in return.

There were hijackers on 9/11, but instead of hijacking planes, they were hijacking the United States of America. There is a great evil hiding behind and using a people, place, and religion. Oy vey.

I'll add here - there's enough in all of this for a double-double cross to have taken place. Or even two double-crosses with a few frills and thrills being thrown in, There was the producer of the A. There was the purveyor of the A. There was the packager of the A, who likely also wrote on the envelopes and posted them. And then there was the poor bloke (Ivins) who ended up dead, and could tell no tales. Try unpacking this lot!

@Fidel_7771 @Hmm00749384 People often muddle Israel and the zios/neos who had a lot of power in Washington and the Pentagon. Not exactly one and the same thing. The 'Office of Special Plans'. Now, there's a name to be conjured with!

I regard the following as low-IQ slop: -Bolshevism was religiously Jewish -Ashkenazis = Khazar descendants -Most Jews in Israel = Ashkenazi settlers -The Talmud = only secondary book Jews believe in -Jews did 9/11 -Al-Qaeda and ISIS are Jewish -Israel killed Charlie Kirk