Reviewing, “Where Did The Towers Go?”

A dozen years ago I was a fan of Dr. Judy Wood.  There, I said it.

To be fair, at one point or another I was a supporter of most of the truther hypotheses, and I assume most serious truth seekers have a similar story, of bouncing around from one camp to another in search of the truth.  After a while I realized that none of the popular hypotheses have a satisfactory explanation for what happened on 9/11, that instead of leading me to the truth, they all left me with more unanswered questions.

There is no collaboration of research in the misnamed movement, no sharing of notes to eliminate those hypotheses that don’t fit the evidence, no open debates or peer reviews.  The 9/11 Truth Movement is an ironic name for an online popularity contest.  It is not a peace movement, or even a truth movement; it is a place to keep the unwashed masses busy, while the war machine marches on.  I was a much younger man than I am today, when I realized that if I was ever going to learn the truth, I would have to do the work for myself.

From what I know about forensic investigations, the first step ought to be to examine the scene of the crime for clues, but this is evidence the truth movement won’t touch.  To ignore such critical evidence seemed strange to me, because at the time I was still under the naive impression the truth movement was started to expose the truth about 9/11.  Now however, I am under no such illusions.  After 17 years of war, war and more war, it goes without saying that exposing the truth was never the goal; all along the intent was to divide and conquer us.  For more than a decade and a half the leaders of the opposition have been leading us in circles, transparently attempting to cover-up the evidence that can lead to the truth, while misdirecting us with half-truths and false-leads.  This is what controlled opposition looks like, but to convince the average “truther” of this has been a challenge.  You know what they say; it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

We in the 9/11 Truth Community are often myopically focused on the details of the event; the collapses, the planes, the jumpers, etc., but a sometimes overlooked line of investigation is the history of propaganda, propaganda techniques and the methods used in perception management.  So if you haven’t already done so, take a detour from your 9/11 studies to learn about how easily the “powers that be” control opposition movements; and that they do so by leading them; which brings me to Dr. Judy Wood.

I have resisted reading Dr. Wood’s book, “Where Did the Towers Go?” for more than a decade because the evidence I’ve seen leads me to the conclusion the World Trade Center was gutted of all infrastructure, and planted with explosives, just as all controlled demolitions are.  There is no evidence to support the conclusion the steel was turned to dust by exotic, top secret weapons, and to read what I already know to be irrelevant seemed like a colossal waste of time.  Besides, the thought of supporting (with my money), what I consider to be full-blown propaganda, was distasteful to me.

What’s changed is that lately I have been targeted by Dr. Judy Wood’s followers as an agent of “disinformation,” something that amuses my friends, co-workers, and family.  Dr. Wood’s fans behave like cult members; they treat their mystical leader with awe and reverence while they cling to her book like some sort of Bible, and they won’t listen to anyone who hasn’t read it.  So to show my heart is in the right place, I held my nose, paid my money, and set aside the time to review “Where Did the Towers Go?”.  I admit I am biased against Dr. Wood and her followers, but that’s only from personal experience.

Here is the exchange I had with Dr. Wood from about six years ago, when I started the 9/11 Crash Test project:

At 12:58 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De’ak wrote:
Greetings Dr. Wood,

As I’m sure you already know, Dr. Reynolds and I are embarking on a publicity-stunt/laboratory-experiment designed to help raise awareness in the slumbering masses. We disagree on much but we have put aside our differences for this project, and in the same spirit of peace, solidarity and fellowship I invite you to join us with a public endorsement. The goal is to have the truth movement put aside their differences and join forces with more mainstream organizations who share our common goal of peace.

Please let me know your thoughts, and thank you.

Sincerely,

Steve De’ak
http://911crashtest.org

From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 7:04 PM
To: Stephen De’ak
Subject: Re: 9/11 Crash Test
Importance: High

Dear Steve De’ak,

I am not part of a “Truth Movement” so I must decline being a part of whatever it is you are seeking to advance.

The truth is known. Why seek to cover it up and distract away from it?

As a forensic scientist and engineer, I have no interest in participating in a “publicity stunt” nor do I wish to be a part of it.

You say your group wishes to “join forces with more mainstream organizations,” but it is not clear if you are referring to organizations related to the entertainment industry or if you are referring to organizations related to professional engineering disciplines.

If you are seeking to join forces with the entertainment industry, you may be on the right path. But that is not my area of expertise.

If you are seeking to join forces with the engineering profession, you are not on the right path. But this is my area of expertise. As an engineer, I have conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation and have published the report in a way that anyone can understand if they truly want to know what happened.

The truth is known, so why spend yet more energy and expense to divert attention away from it and create yet another “opinion movement” or a “distraction movement” …unless it is your intention to cover up the truth?

So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?

With sincerity,

Dr. Wood

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)
M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics)
Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science

At 08:46 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De’ak wrote:
Dear Judy Wood,

Perhaps “publicity stunt” was a poor choice of words, but I was being sincere. The point is to raise awareness. I will be surprised if a scientific test that could prove the government lied will be allowed, but every step of the project will help raise awareness with the public, so if we’re being honest, and I am, then it is a publicity stunt/scientific experiment.

The truth may be known to you as a forensic scientist, but I am trying to reach everyone else.

My “group” is me, and me alone; I am trying to do what I can and I’m sorry you don’t want to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Steve De’ak

From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Stephen De’ak
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Mr. De’ak,

(I do not believe we are on a first-name basis.)

You say you want to “help raise awareness with the public.” Do you think the public is unaware that something happened on 9/11/01?

I will ask again,

So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?

If it is to “raise awareness,” why not wear a sandwich board and walk around the streets where people are.

If you want to prove that the official story is not what we were told, well…that’s already been done, submitted to a government agency, and taken to court. Why cover that up? Why reinvent the wheel? To distract away from what has been done and start all over again to run out the clock?

But your “test” will not prove the official story is incorrect. At best, you will only demonstrate that you were unable to replicate it. That will not prove anything, but just confuse and muddle things up. That’s what keeps a cover up in place. Perhaps that is your objective.

Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve?
You need not tell me your answer, but it might help if you asked yourself this question, first, before proceeding.

With sincerity,

Dr. Wood

To: ‘Dr. Judy Wood’
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Dr. Wood,

Please call me Steve. I’m surprised that someone with your credentials would recommend a sandwich board as a way to raise awareness.

Good luck,

Steve

So with that, here is a draft of a review of the first three chapters of “Where Did the Towers Go?”  More to follow.

Author’s preface:

She writes, quite correctly,

“This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.  Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined, what was done, and how it was done. “

She then lists the order of importance of the investigation:

“The order of crime solving is to determine

WHAT then

HOW it happened (e.g. by what weapon), then

WHO did it. And only then can we address

WHY they did it (i.e. motive).”

She’s basically paraphrasing the familiar, “means, motive and opportunity” theme, we’re all accustomed to seeing played-out on every detective movie ever made. The first steps should be to figure out what happened, and how it happened, and the next step should be to conclude who had the means, motive and opportunity to accomplish it.  It sounds good right off the bat, but she skips the evidence that explains what happened, and how it happened, and leads the reader down a rabbit hole that would make the Mad Hatter blush.

She refers to the court case she filed, and claims that only SHE – Dr. Judy Wood – has conducted a comprehensive investigation into what had been done.  She claims she is uniquely qualified to conduct this investigation.  In propaganda terms this is called appealing to authority; her own authority, as well as to the court’s authority, and she does so while challenging the NIST’s authority.  But she skips to the END of the event, (the collapses), and completely ignores the beginning of the event (“the crashes”), which is where the evidence is that can explain what happened, and how it happened.  This doesn’t bode well for the investigation.

Introduction:

She briefly compares the impact holes to “Wiley Coyote” cutouts from the Roadrunner cartoon, so for a moment there I thought she would address the evidence at the scene of the crime, but I was soon disappointed.  She wrote that based on her understanding of material science, she thought the holes were laughable, but that’s as far as she goes.  She then skips right to the collapses, not offering any explanation at all about the impact holes.  Perhaps she’ll revisit the subject later.

On Page 4, she admits she does not know how the towers were built, so she didn’t try to model that.  This means that everything in this book is based on assumptions.  She states as fact, on page 6, “we know that 9 out of 10 floors were not missing…”  How can she know that?  She doesn’t even know how the towers were built, and now she’s assuming every floor was there at the time of demolition.  That’s quite an assumption, but then she goes right into calculating how much time it would take for 110 floors to fall to the ground – all without even knowing how they were built or verifying whether or not all the floors and contents were there at the time.  One assumption built on another, and I’m still on the Introduction.

On Page 7 she wrote:

“It is tempting to jump to the question of how this was done, based on the knowledge of possibilities…”

Why then does she not seriously consider the very real possibility that the towers were gutted and prepared for demolition by removing non load-bearing walls and floors, as is standard practice with all controlled demolitions?

From page 8:

“We cannot determine who did it until we determine what was even done and how it was done…Doing such a thing, going after who did it before establishing what happened and how it happened, is a way of ensuring that the truth will be hidden for a very long time, if not forever.  It is called a cover-up, and I will not be part of a cover-up. “

We’ll see about that.

The Billiard Ball Example

In this chapter she discusses whether or not the “apparent” airstrikes could have brought down the building, again missing the evidence at the point of impact; evidence that should make it obvious to a forensic scientist like Dr. Judy Wood, that it couldn’t have been caused by airstrikes.  She then goes into an analogy of calculating how long it would take a billiard ball to free fall to the ground.  She writes about how unbelievable the official estimate is, of 10-seconds for a quarter mile high building to fall to the ground, which in propaganda terms this is called an argument from incredulity.

She wants the reader to be amazed by the shallow depth of the debris field, and includes a couple of photos of the dust and paper, like this one:

The thing is, had she started her investigation from the beginning of the event, rather than from the end of the event, she would have noticed the same dust and paper were present from time of the first shock and awe explosions:

Paper and dust in the fireball:

Evan Fairbanks’ footage after the first impacts; notice all the dust and paper in the air and on the ground?

More footage from the base of the towers; dust and paper:

And still more footage of dust and paper pouring out of a wall panel, long before the towers were “dustified:”

Given the fact that dust and paper were already pouring out of the towers after an alleged plane crash and subsequent kerosene ignition, but before the demolition, I don’t understand why Dr. Wood and her followers continue to be baffled by the amount of dust and paper that littered the streets after the collapses.  The same goes for that faction of the truth movement that insists the buildings were vaporized by nuclear weapons. I mean come on people; the dust was already there!

But I do understand the power of propaganda, and the herd mentality.  The fact that truthers continue to reject this information is a great example as to why it is so important to the establishment to control the opposition by leading it, and what happens when they do.

She then addresses the “Pancake Theory,” noting that the rubble had no signs of pancaked floors, as compared to other collapses.  As an example, she provides a photo of a building collapse in Pakistan, to demonstrate what pancaked floors should look like, but this is an apples to oranges comparison.   To discover how the towers were demolished requires knowing how the towers were constructed.  The idea of a pancake collapse is not consistent with the photographic and video record, or with the manner in which the place was built.

According to the video and photographic evidence of the collapses, and of the debris field after the collapses, most of the floors weren’t even there at the time.  But she never considers that option, instead arriving at the conclusion that the 220 acres of concrete floors that the authorities need us to believe were there, and which she admittedly assumes were there, must have been pulverized into dust!

Never once does she consider the possibility that the towers might well have been built to be destroyed, nor the possibility that the surreptitious preparation for controlled demolition must have taken many years to complete, and would require a massive amount of publicity to prop-up the belief that the WTC was a “city within the city,” of 50,000.  To go down that path would be to admit that such a conspiracy would have required the collaboration of the media, and the Port Authority (which only answers to the Governors of New York and New Jersey), not to mention the alleged tenants.  Very quickly the list of conspirators grows exponentially, but only when all the evidence is addressed, and only when all the possibilities are considered.  But she doesn’t do that.

On page 15 she provides images of the destruction of the towers, with what she claims is material that has been ejected upward and outward.

But this is obviously not true, as can be seen in the collapse videos.

What’s happening is the exterior walls are being blown outward and downward, trailing dust behind them as they fall. Their arch-like trajectories can be seen in the trailing dust clouds, and make perfect sense considering the construction of the towers as a “tube within a tube.”  The outside curtain wall panels (measuring somewhere around 36×10 feet), are being blown apart at the seams and pushed away from the core.  Given the scale of this ruse (global media, State, and Federal government, etc.), it should go without saying that if the perpetrators really were conducting a massive hoax as a way to drum-up public outrage and support for long-planned aggressive wars, then the act of packing their prop-buildings with dust and paper would be child’s play.  But this option is never considered.

Rather than arrive at a real world explanation that the corrupt leaders of the media/government/military/industrial complex have perpetrated fraud on the world, she does what military propagandists have been doing since before Hammurabi, and concludes that the military has godlike prowess.  According to Dr. Wood, the military is capable of turning large parts of major cities into dust, but for some reason it can’t tame Afghanistan.

On page 18 Dr. Wood lays out her case for her incredulity that the towers were demolished by “progressive” collapse, which is a major plank in the platform of the official story. She writes,

“…for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, each lower floor would have to start moving before the higher floor could reach it…”

Sure, that sounds right, but then, if most of the floors were removed, or were never installed to begin with, that can explain the collapse even better than assuming top secret weaponry was used.  Apparently she assumes quite a bit, and wonders why the ground only rumbled for 8 seconds while WTC1 collapsed.  This isn’t a mystery when standard demolition practices such as dismantling and removing building contents and infrastructure are considered.  Furthermore, taking into consideration the involvement of the authorities, none of the information provided by them should be taken at face value either; such as the seismic data, for example.  How do we know they weren’t salting the well of information, to give their controlled opposition something to talk about, as part of the plan of their “Big Lie?”

On page 20 she asks the below questions:

“How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fall at exactly the same time?

If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would the portion of the building tip over, or would it fall straight down into its own footprint?

What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?”

Her questions expose her ignorance about the construction of the towers, illustrating what happens when we “assume:”  Answers below:

What supporting structures? One of the reasons the towers were advertised as modern marvels is because the floors were truss-supported, and spanned from the inside of the exterior walls, to the core, and on out to the opposite exterior walls.  This is what gave each floor an acre of space, not cluttered by support columns.  The only way to remove the “supporting structures” for the floors was to remove their connections to the exterior walls and to the core columns, or to remove the walls and core columns themselves.

This hypothetical question is irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the way the towers were constructed; the floor trusses were bolted to the walls.

The supporting structures were the core columns and the exterior walls. If she knew how the towers were constructed she wouldn’t need to assume so much.

For the official story of progressive/pancake collapse to have been possible requires the existence of floors to pancake.  Dr. Wood starts with the same assumption, that there were 220 floors there at the time.  What she’s doing is supporting the official story by arguing against it, but neither explanation (hers or theirs), fits the observable evidence.  In the collapse videos the walls are blown outward and arch-down to the ground as they fall, trailing dust behind them.  The video evidence shows the walls being blown-apart, an action she refers to as “removing the supporting structures.”  She is laying the ground work to direct the reader’s attention away from the most obvious conclusion; that the reason there was little or no resistance from the floors, is that most of them weren’t there.

Chapter 2 ends with calculations and comments about conservation of energy and elastic collisions, which are irrelevant because she doesn’t understand the construction of the floors.

The “Jumpers”
‘It Was Like Raining People’

On page 25 she does what all propagandists do, and digs back into our emotions,

“Among the most horrific images from 9/11 is that of “The Falling Man…”

and provides this is an iconic photo from Richard Drew:

However this image appears to have been tampered with, as can be seen in the pixelation around the image of the man.  His image was apparently inserted on top of the background image of the towers.

The same goes for the next image, listed under the “A.  Energized Launch” section.  She refers to the “fellow in the orange shirt,” who was actually a shirtless fellow.  What I see is a guy reclining on a park bench, pointing at something in the distance.

This is not only a transparently fraudulent image; it is also used as part of the ongoing indoctrination efforts.  The image below is from the WTC museum.  The claim is these wall columns were the same ones from the impact hole,

http://www.tribecatrib.com/content/september-11-memorial-museum-first-look-inside

This is obviously not true; it is clearly not the same panel, as anyone can see who compares the images:

So in just one photo we have evidence of tampering, as well as evidence of official collusion, with the tampered image being used as the basis for a museum exhibit, which is designed to indoctrinate school children (and the unwary adult), into believing impossible things.

On page 26 Dr. Wood then channels the fellow’s thoughts, writing,

“He did not expect to be here.”

This is an odd comment coming from a forensic scientist, but not so odd coming from an official propagandist.   She then asks,

“Where did he come from and why is he here?”

For Dr. Wood to not even question the veracity of an obviously fraudulent photo would make me question her sincerity, if I didn’t already do so.

She continues to write about the shirtless fellow, again referring to him as wearing an orange shirt, and then speculates,

“Someone choosing to jump to their death would likely choose to carry something special with them, perhaps a photo of their loved ones, or even a briefcase or backpack.”

Honestly?  I’m pretty sure if I was in a panic and choosing to jump to my death, I wouldn’t stop to grab my briefcase.  All good propaganda targets emotion, and she just reeks of the stuff.

She carries on, wanting the reader to be amazed by the distance from the towers some of the jumpers traveled, and I am pretty sure she did this because anyone who paused to think about it would know that such distances would be impossible, and to have photos of impossible things, is only proof of fraudulent photos.  She is directing the attention of the reader away from the most logical conclusion, that the images were tampered with; a conclusion that only benefits the media that provided the images.

The role of the media must be protected, because if people lose faith in their favored media, all bets are off.  Before you know it they’ll start thinking for themselves.

But not all the images were tampered with, and not all of the videos are fraudulent, as seen in this footage of a man who was apparently trying to climb down from the tower, but slipped and fell.  He was not being hit with an energy field; judging by his actions, he was trying to escape:

For all we know the people hanging in the windows were prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, or acrobats from a circus troupe.  When looking at the footage of the jumpers, many of them appear to just “let go,” and many of them go one after another, like a string of base jumpers.  It does appear to be some sort of macabre show that was being played out for the local crowd; it is called the “big lie” for a reason, after all, and the whole idea would be to terrorize the world into supporting War, War and more War.  The outrage and horror over the human loss would be of paramount importance to the perpetrators, so apparently they used creative editing to increase the impact.

She goes on about the people in the window, and highlights one person who she assumes by his stance, is removing his pants.

She writes:

“At this juncture we must introduce a hypothesis in an attempt to explain the strange behavior.  Consider what might be expected if some sort of energy field, such as a microwave field, had been affecting that area just inside the building.  Such a filed might be part of what comprises the Active Denial Systems (ADS) that are now being used for crowd control.  It is equally possible that such a field was part of whatever was destroying the building.  In either case, wet clothing intensifies the pain caused by such microwaves, as is acknowledged in an article about ADS: “Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.”

Thus, the actions of people appearing to disrobe while hanging outside of a building are consistent with their being an energy field contained within the walls of the building.”

Well that sounds pretty impressive until the countermeasures for ADS are considered:

“Countermeasures against the weapon could be quite straightforward – for example covering up the body with thick clothes or carrying a metallic sheet – or even a trash can lid – as a shield or reflector.”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

The people were standing in a metal building.  How effective would such a weapon be against a building that reflects the beam?  Could the beam be contained within the walls of the building, if it was fired from outside of the building?  How could the parallel columns with windows between them contain such a beam?  Is she guessing?

With the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that these fancy weapons she assumed were used on 9/11, were only just being researched at the time, and have since proved to be fantastic duds which are still not in use anywhere:

“Almost all of this program has been a waste of money,”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-power-microwave-weapons-start-to-look-like-dead-end/

Furthermore, the guy she assumes is taking off his wet pants still has his pants on.  Is he attempting to pull off wet pants by grabbing one of his pant legs? Has Dr. Wood ever tried to peel off wet pants before?  In my experience it is next to impossible even by pulling on both pant legs.  How does she know he’s not just scratching his ankle, or rubbing an injured foot, or holding on to the person below him?  Her assumptions know no bounds.

On page 33 she continues her speculation by digging back into the emotions of the people she sees in the images.

“Briley looks relaxed and at peace, as though he just solved the worst problem of his life – and just before he realized the next one, one that he would not be able to solve….

But it is quite clear that with the people hanging from the building and taking off their wet clothes, we have an indicator of some other factor at play besides just extreme heat and/or smoke.  In the area where these people are hanging outside of the building there is no apparent fire or smoke emerging from the windows.  There is however a stream of hazy fumes flowing from we know not were.”

Hazy fumes from we know not were, eh?  Well, “we” can speculate just as well as Dr. Wood can.  If, as the evidence suggests, the towers were glorified props in a 30-year plan to dupe the world into accepting a Machiavellian new world order of diminished liberty and endless aggressive war, the perpetrators would deploy their propaganda organs, and their military, and whatever other means they had at their disposal to accomplish it.  There would be no need to resort to top-secret weapons to destroy a complex they already had complete access to, and “we” also need to remember that 9/11 wasn’t only about the World Trade Center.  Unfortunately, though, Dr. Wood doesn’t address the other two sites.  Perhaps this is why; taking a quick detour to the Pentagon “we” can see that at least there, they embellished the carnage with a low-tech, military-grade smoke machine:

So “we” have the precedent of the use of smoke machines on 9/11; a clue as to the depth of this conspiracy, but how about at Shanksville?

Notice that in this footage of the Shankville crater taken apparently before the “first responders” arrived, there is no plume of white smoke emanating from the crater:

And yet later, after the first responders arrive, voila; white smoke consistent with a portable smoke machine:

Considering the precedent of smoke machine use at the Pentagon, it stands to reason a small, hand-held version was also used at Shanksville.   The below image was captured before the second pickup truck arrived, which can be seen parked in front of the fire truck in the second image.  Apparently the guys were walking around with a portable smoke machine at the time this image was captured.  Smoke can be seen hanging in the air around the crater, and the plume is off to the left, outside of the crater…

…but a little later (after the pickup truck pulled up and parked beside the fire truck), the plume moved to inside the crater:

Given that smoke machines were likely used at two of the three 9/11 sites, Dr. Wood’s statement about not knowing where the hazy fumes might have been coming from is disingenuous, but since her agenda appears to be to inflate the prowess of the military while directing energy and our attention away from these important clues, “we” never hear about Shanksville or the Pentagon, but I’m still reading.  Maybe she investigates these sites later in the book.

In section C., Stepping Around the Bodies, she dives back into the star wars stuff:

“As we evaluate this possibility of an energy field, another important question occurs:  What did eyewitnesses observe that day?  Did they see an airplane hit the tower?  Did they hear an airplane?”

Actually, the first eyewitnesses reported anything but a large plane. (no planes (bombs), small planes, missiles), but It was the media and the authorities (police, fire, etc.) that reported a large plane.  The clues point to the media and the government as the most likely suspects for 9/11, therefore it should be assumed that whatever information the media and government provide, is intended to cover their tracks.  Had Dr. Wood investigated Shanksville and the Pentagon, she would have seen evidence that indicates no planes crashed at either of those sites, setting another precedent for the whole event ( i.e., if no planes crashed and they used smoke machines at two of the three sites; what did they use at the WTC?), which would lead an investigator down a path that is much more down to earth than the one Dr. Wood is taking us.

She continues:

“After 9/11, along with a number of my colleagues, I began to look at some of the first-responder-transcripts (discussed elsewhere in this book).  Reading through them gave me a sense of seeing through the eyes of the first responders.  I began to feel that I was able to see what they had seen, and go where they had gone. Throughout my reading, I kept looking for evidence that an airplane had crashed into the building.  Many first responders did not even realize that anything had happened to WTC2 until they were told an airplane had hit it…”

Again, more clues that the plane impacts were fabricated by the media and the authorities.

She then writes about how horrific it must have been for the first responders, and lists quotes from some of them.  Remember, it wasn’t until the “first responders” arrived at Shanksville that the smoke machine can be seen.

The jumpers are a disturbing chapter for 9/11 researchers, by design.  It is an emotional tale, but all she’s doing is continuing to appeal to the authorities.  The carnage they describe on the ground is not supported by the photographic evidence. There is still no photographic evidence of bodies on the ground; therefore we are reduced to taking the word of the authorities about it. The official reason for this is due to respect for the families of the dead, but there aren’t even any amateur images of any of them, which is hard to believe, considering our war-porn addicted society.

But what if the leaders of the police and fire departments were already neck-deep in the operation?  What if they are included in the list of conspirators?

Many years ago, the late Leslie Raphael exposed just that; that the authorities are involved, and he named names.  In his magnificent investigative article, “Jules Naudet’s First Plane Shot Was Staged,” Raphael exposed the Naudet brothers, members of the Mayor’s office, the Port Authority, the NYPD, the FDNY, OEM, etc., as being part of the conspiracy.  He exposes the Naudet film itself as a propaganda piece that would make “Triumph of the Will,” pale in comparison.

Raphael passed away a few years ago, and his work has since been scrubbed from the web, but I have an archived copy saved to PDF, linked below:

http://yankee451.com/?p=3752

I bring up the Naudets because in their movie, “9/11,” at the 1:17 mark, one can see James Grillo, who was a real member of the FDNY, and was allegedly injured in an explosion, screenshot below:

Grillo, like many of the other firefighters Dr. Wood lists on pages 35-37, talks about the horror of the jumpers, and also said the whole place could be rigged with explosives.  The fact that the he is included in a video that has been exposed as propaganda, should be a clue as to whether or not his claims have merit, but beyond that, he was also featured by CBS:

And then on the very next day, “Hamburger Nose Grillo” was featured on Larry King live, where he sported his remarkable healing abilities.

Now I know from personal experience that after an injury like that, the swelling is always worse the next day, and usually takes several days to fade, and yet Grillo only had a bandage over his nose, hints of black eyes, and no swelling.  I am also very familiar with stage makeup, being a huge fan of Halloween:

And I can recognize the “spirit gum itch” scratch reflex when I see it:

So we have evidence of conspiracy that includes the leaders of the media, the leaders of local and federal governments, and members of the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, and the list goes on.  But the corruption doesn’t stop there!

Even the rank and file of the first responders has been exposed:

NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack

Retired NYPD officers, firefighters and corrections officers claimed they had PTSD and depression because of the Ground Zero clean up

Received thousands in annual disability compensation from 9/11 disability fund as a result, promising that they retired

Investigators found that they had second careers and did things that their supposed disabilities wouldn’t have allowed them to do

Cost taxpayers $21.4million dollars

Lawyers coached fraudsters on how they should talk about leaving the TV on all day and constantly napping, having trouble grooming themselves

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535352/NYPD-officers-firefighters-arrested-9-11-disability-fraud-crackdown.html#ixzz2q2aMYNmj

I will comment more on the rest of the chapters as time permits.

Thanks for reading,

Steve De’ak

Comments

  1. H J Peters

    WOW what a shite review Steve… biased from the start.

    Never once does she consider the possibility that he towers might well have been built to be destroyed, did you ever prove how anyone involved in the structure thought the towers were undesigned or poorly constructed.

    A fan 12 years ago were you, the resisted for 10 years till you decided to look.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Excerpt from the post:

      “But I do understand the power of propaganda, and the herd mentality. The fact that truthers continue to reject this information is a great example as to why it is so important to the establishment to control the opposition by leading it, and what happens when they do.”

    1. Post
      Author
  2. Tony Powell

    Hi Steve, great to hear from you once again. Interesting letters to read once time and facts have been allowed to bear on the matter. Very interesting.

    I have finished reading my book by Susan Lindauer, good stuff, she is crazy but I think that protected her from death where many other were not so fortunate. Any way she mentions in her speeches… “Robert Mueller was never involved in a case he never threw”. 911 was one of those cases and Pan Am 103, Lockerbie was another. Well… the Lockerbie has been get a lot of heat recently… it’s getting blown wide open. Everyone is getting to know now… Read up on it if you need to. The miscarriage of justice and corruption is eye watering… Mueller still meets up with the families of the victims on remembrance days. I got to wonder how much longer that practice will continue. Seem Main Steam Media article on it too.

    https://gosint.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/lockerbie-30th-anniversary-pt-35b-the-most-expensive-forgery-in-history-poll/?fbclid=IwAR38k1OJxNJSkcK2752R6Stsl_wcXcNvOb7hzkpmPtmMXwMOS4AqQw99KnE

    Everyone is hearing it… OK Iran is in the picture… they did it, that has been known for decades. Odd how a CIA design was used for the actual bomb… placed very accurately in the hold too. (revenge attack from the Vincenze) BUT Mueller, British PM Thatcher and everyone since has lied, lied, lied and LIED. Doctored the evidence, mislead the court all under oath. How about that?

    Change is coming inho, and 911 wont be far behind it. This is plastered in all the UK gutter press and elsewhere.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1025002/lockerbie-Pan-Am-flight-103-iran-Abdelbaset-Al-Megrahi-Gadaffi-Basel-Bushnaq

    Take care and keep up the good work.

    1. Post
      Author
  3. Thomas Potter

    You’re only a legend in you own mind attempting to form public opinion that protects the powers-that-be and assists in the ongoing cover-up I’m writing this while taking a crap on the toilet where you belong grandpa

    1. Post
      Author
      1. Thomas Potter

        Happy Halloween to all the spooks that assist the powers-that-be and post disinformation on the Internet to cover-up DEW destruction of the World Trace Center complex on September Eleventh Two-Thousand and One ! Greenhouse gases and nuclear radiation are good for you like leaded gas, asbestos, and nicotine! And if too many people become aware of how free energy was demonstrated on that fateful day, there will be hell to pay.

        Would it be better if I disparaged you on a gold plated toilet?

      2. Post
        Author
      3. Post
        Author
    1. Post
      Author
  4. Post
    Author
    Steve De'ak

    Dear Judy Wood crowd, perhaps you could comment on the evidence of the dust being in dust form prior to the initial shock and awe explosions? Or perhaps just a comment or two about the evidence of smoke machine use at the other two 9/11 sites? I know your feelings are hurt because I dared to discuss information that you would prefer to ignore, but believe it or not, this is not about Judy, nor is it about me, but it is about the evidence.

      1. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Chiodo Libero – you, like all of Judy’s fan club does, are ignoring the evidence that the dust was already there at the time of the first explosions. I understand you’re awestruck by the dust of the collapse, but it’s not much of a mystery when you start your investigation from the beginning of the event, rather than from the end. Do you understand?

  5. Chiodo Libero

    Sorry I don’t understand! I have provided a link showing evidence that the dust was pouring out from the buildings. Where is your evidence Steve that the “dust was already there”, whatever that means!?

    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author
    2. Post
      Author
  6. Chiodo Libero

    I agree the dust was being created before the final destruction/dustification of the Towers. The buildings started the dustification process just after the alleged plane impacts and continued until the final destruction/dustification which took place in roughly 9-11 seconds (aknowledged by NIST). So are we speaking about the same thing Steve? The videos you post show precisely that to my eyes. For WTC 7 the process took many hours before the building was weakened enough to collapse. Practically only the outer shell remained. The woman interviewed in the first video you post does not even realize that a 230,000 ton building is yielding. It’s reading on the Richter scale was just 0.6, barely distinguishable from background noise!

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      You don’t think you’re fixated on super secret weapons you can’t describe or anything, do you? So fixated that you simply cannot (read: will not) imagine something much simpler and more down to earth occurred? Why would the “dustification” process begin with the first fireballs? What do the fireballs have to do with “dustification?” Are you saying the fireballs, and the holes in the towers were due to this weapon that you can’t describe and can’t prove exists? Do you think this top secret weapon that gives the military godlike power, but which you can’t prove exists (and can’t describe), was also used at the Pentagon and Shanksville? If so, why? If not, why not?

    2. Post
      Author
  7. Post
    Author
    Steve De'ak

    I can see Judy’s fanclub crawling all over this post. They descend as a team. Mark Conlon, you’re watching, so tell me; on page 15 Judy provides images of the destruction of the towers, with what she claims is material that has been ejected upward and outward.

    Do you believe this is a correct statement?

  8. Post
    Author
    Steve De'ak

    Judy, Andrew, Mark et al,

    Why are you so reluctant to discuss the evidence of the use of smoke machines at the Pentagon and at Shanksville?

    I look forward to your explanation.

    All the best,

    Steve

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Yep, dumpster fires poured out black smoke, but they also had a military grade smoke machine pouring out white smoke. Neither of which would be needed if it had been a real plane crash.

      1. anthony powell

        Yeah I saw your white smoke generator. Military precision planning by OBL over his mobile phone from Afghanistan in a cave while on dialysis. You gotta admire the guy for his forethought and tenacity. It sure suckered in that priest on my Smithsonian link 🙂

  9. anthony powell

    Yeah the Smithsonian link has your white smoke generator on it too.

    All preserved for prosperity !! Got my copy too.

    Q: how did OBL sneak a smoke generator onto the premises? There must of been an “insider” -lol-

    1. Post
      Author
      1. anthony powell

        One of the “smoke machines” was the tires. Sever dumpsters full. They made 99%+ of all the BLACK smoke and most of the vigorous flames that various news reels (including the “priest” on the Smithsonian) show for dramatic effect. Why was there several dumpsters full of tires at the Pentagon? Was it because Rumsfeld had started a bargain tyre retread service to help pay back the missing Pentagon $$Trillions$$?? ?? I mean really … WTF?? and yes the focused cylinder of WHITE smoke coming out of the BLACK smoke could easily (hard to think of an alternate explanation?) be a smoke machine as you well illustrated. Maybe put in a still frame for all to see. OBL did all that to cause maximum shock, horror and dismay, and our fury in seeing the national centre of defense attacked in this way. It was just like Pearl harbour I suppose. Only it really was Rumsfeld & co who planned and oversaw this horrific crime. Only the USA military can hit pin point targets with that kind of accuracy at those speeds, and that is indeed what we never saw and happen. Apart from the picture of the explosion hitting the Pentagon. I am no expert but that does NOT look like exploding jet fuel to me. Military ordinance yes, jet fuel no. May show the frame of that too (the frame showing the maximum extent of the red/yellow flame front for further illustration.

        MILITARY ORDNANCE, MILITARY PLANNING and EXECUTION (including Pentagon personnel). No space weapons or Space Aliens necessary. Occam’s Razor tells us what happened.

      2. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Yeah…I’m not so sure about how valid that security camera footage is, especially that exhaust trail. It’s like they were deliberately steering the truth movement into thinking it was a missile strike.

  10. Mark Conlon

    Hi Steve,

    You ask – “Why are you so reluctant to discuss the evidence of the use of smoke machines at the Pentagon and at Shanksville?”

    I can only speak for myself in this reply, not for Andrew or Judy.

    You know very well I have done far more than talk about the non-existent “smoke machines” at Shanksville and the Pentagon. So why ask, as most of the research myself and Chris Hampton did was included the evidence presented in his film – 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality”. He posted a link on your website, however you choose to deleted it?

    Regarding Shanksville there is a lot of evidence such as seismic data, magnetometer data, eyewitness accounts, including levitational effects and also electrical disturbances. Even the tree-line damage is inconsistent with conventional fires or heat. You have already bias your observations saying it is “smoke” implying fire and heat. No eyewitnesses or visual evidence shows use of “smoke machines” at the site, neither do the firemen who attended the scene and also who discovered fuming spots in the crater the day after on 12th describe a “smoke machine” suddenly erupting with smoke in the crater. This is all covered in the film, including the disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field at 10:03am to 10:06am correlating with the seismic reading showing a “small” trace at 10:06am, not 10:03am like the “official” narrative says. Explosions don’t cause the Earth’s magnetic field to fluctuate in that fashion, neither do plane crashes or missiles, especially NOT JASSM.

    Note: NO jet fuel was found in the ground crater at Shanksville, which rules out his JASSM missiles theory because they carry fuel tanks aboard the missiles, and it would have been in the interests of the perps to make the geological ground investigation samples find jet fuel, and say there was fuel found in the plane crater to reinforce and prove the “official” plane story that the plane impacted the ground.

    Also please explain how the impression of the plane’s tail section was made in the ground? You do NOT account for this in your “multiple missile” theory? Same can be said at the WTC North Tower and South Tower, how was that tail section made in the buildings, which is pointing upwards on an angle?

    Also the JASSM Missile: The AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) had a number of problems during testing and which delayed its introduction into service until 2009.So this technology which you claim was off the shelf ready is inaccurate, as there were major failures with these missiles in its testing stages.

    Also you say eyewitnesses in Shanksville “seen” and heard missiles, however under closer analysis no witnesses say they saw any missile or missiles? People say they “heard” what they interpreted in their own minds to be a missile, however this still doesn’t equate to any sightings of missiles in the area of Shanksville, before or during the “alleged” plane crash, only eyewitness accounts from people claiming to have seen a “small” or “large” plane, and a plane fly-over.

    Regarding the Pentagon, NO eyewitnesses talk about a “smoke machine” there either, and there is no visual evidence to back-up or support there were any at the site, only what YOU interpret to be a “smoke machine”. Perhaps send me a photo with a smoke machine in it? Then I will accept this as fact. Up-to-now I have seen one. Again, you are biasing your observations by saying it is “smoke”. There is plenty of evidence of extensive “fuming” at the Pentagon, especially on the roof. Which cannot be explained away as “smoke machines”. Also people appear to look burnt, yet their clothes were NOT burnt? This needs to be explained, conventional heat or fire doesn’t account for this evidence. Also the seismic data for this event is telling a long with the magnetometer data at 9:37am shows fluctuations, yet you don’t address this evidence? Again conventional explosives or smoke machines don’t cause the Earth’s magnetic to fluctuate in this fashion. Your best buddy Fetzer will NOT address this evidence, and has done all he can to avoid it, and the film.

    I hope this explains my own position regarding the “smoke machines” at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

    Finally, I would say watch the film if you want to know what really happened at the other sites including the airplanes. Then you can make of it what you will, or even review it.

    I haven’t really got much more to say on the matter, hopefully this will enlighten you of where “I” sit with it, and in all honesty Steve we will never see eye-to-eye on this matter, but at least you know where I stand.

    Have a good day!

    Regards
    Mark Conlon.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Hi Mark,

      I haven’t seen the video. I deleted the link because I don’t like spammers, but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I think this sentence says it all:

      “Regarding Shanksville there is a lot of evidence such as seismic data, magnetometer data, eyewitness accounts, including levitational effects and also electrical disturbances.”

      Why would you think that? The crater is reproducible with two projectiles and an explosive, missiles in other words. It is predictable by any police ballistics department, and it is reproducible by anyone who cares to give it a try. It seems to me that you fellas are fixated on fantastical conclusions for phenomena that are easily explained by conventional science.

      Steve

    2. Post
      Author
    3. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      So they used these top secret weapons to create a hole in the ground that can be reproduced by cruise missiles, okay, and the “fuming” didn’t occur until after the “first responders” arrived, right. Why wouldn’t the fuming occur before the first responders arrived?

      You say I’m biased about the smoke? What are you biased about, pray tell?

  11. Mark Conlon

    Hello again Steve,

    You say – “So they used these top secret weapons to create a hole in the ground that can be reproduced by cruise missiles, okay, and the “fuming” didn’t occur until after the “first responders” arrived, right. Why wouldn’t the fuming occur before the first responders arrived?”

    “You say I’m biased about the smoke? What are you biased about, pray tell?”

    I am not saying they used “top secret weapons”, I am merely pointing-out the observable evidence regarding from the sources I alluded to in my previous post, such as eyewitness accounts, video evidence, photographic, magnetometer data and the seismic data. There are issues with the timing also of the “alleged” crash time, which correlates with the magnetometer readings at 10:06am. The fluctuations could not be caused by conventional explosions, missiles or planes. This is easily verified! All four events show correlations and fluctuations with Earth’s magnetic field at the precise times of all the events on the east coast. This isn’t speculation, this is the facts of the matter and easily verified. So this evidence has to be taken into account and its significance.

    Also, there is no fuel contaminate found in the plane crater, and missiles, especially those you cite were fuel based missiles, and it would be in the interest of the perps to have lent on the geological evidence to reinforce the “official” plane story. They could have if missiles were used as they would at least found fuel contaminate in the crater.

    No witnesses report “seeing” missiles, they only describe either a “small” plane or “large” plane. Some also report a fly-over after the “alleged” plane crash. What they hear and what they interpret are two different things from actually seeing a missile. I think you actually was quite leading in your witness paragraph heading saying “seeing and hearing” a missile.
    The crater was contaminated though with iron, and there is a water feature installed to remove the iron rich contaminate from the water. Similar to the rich iron microspheres found at the WTC.

    I don’t believe I am being biased when I say “fuming” because this is a neutral way of being unbiased in observations, and in all honesty neither of us can know for sure whether that was smoke, however the evidence indicates not in my opinion, but to refer to it as smoke immediately biases observations.
    Regarding the cruise missiles, I have said in my previous post, it wasn’t reproducible to the degree that an impression of the “alleged” plane’s tail section is present in your reproduction experiment, plus neither were the engine impressions. As much as your reproduction was quite similar in nature, it still didn’t fully reproduce the two elements I allude to above of the plane shaped hole. This is also applied at the World Trade Center – plane shaped holes. We can see observable tail sections in the damaged area, which are angled. The “multiple missiles” theory you propose cannot account for this damage, especially the nature of it and angled damage. I have spoken with Jim Huibregste, he observed a large plane hitting the North Tower.

    Regarding the “fuming” not occurring until after the “first responders” arrived, this isn’t quite correct. There was rising fumes which people took for an explosion did they not? This is shown in a photograph and video. That was NOT indicative of a fuel based explosion.

    Again there is an absence of evidence between the time of the video footage was taken and the arrival of first responders, and we rely on the witnesses’ accounts some report fuming before the fist responders arrived. As I said in my previous post/comment, pockets of fumes or “alleged” “hot-spot” were erupting on 12th Sept well after the site was contained. Firemen report digging in the crater when this was occurring.

    Plus, if you look closely at the Pentagon the whole roof area has unrelated fuming. How was this achieved, as there is no sign of smoke machines on the roof? Plus why were those bodies burnt looking, yet their clothes NOT?

    There is nothing very secret about Directed Energy, or the connection to SAIC who were connected closely to 9/11, and the investigation and clean-up of the sites. SAIC are involved in this area along with many other technologies, so it is a myth that it is secret.

    I would recommend watching the film when you can find time, a lot of the evidence is compiled and presented in it, rather than me trying to explain it all here. I don’t expect you to agree with me, and I am not trying to get you to Steve, perhaps you have expectations of me agreeing with you or none, although we both agree that the official version is a lie, and everything that followed was horrendous regarding the wars. I only speak for myself in this conversation!

    Anyway, I know it is another long comment, but hopefully I have explained a few things of how I see it, and in all honesty Steve I see where you are coming from, however we differ though on our own frame of references on this.

    For now, have a good day!

    Regards,
    Mark.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark,

      You didn’t elaborate on the fact that the “observable evidence” (your words), is predictable and reproducible. The gash and crater can be easily recreated with two projectiles striking from opposite directions at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and an explosive. You can do it, I can do it, anyone can do it. The bigger the projectile, the bigger the gash.

      I appreciate your reverence for mysticism, but please try to focus on the observable evidence.

      Steve

      1. Mark Conlon

        Hi Steve,

        I disagree (as you would know) the plane shaped hole which you attempted to reproduce is missing the “tail section”, and also the “two engines” impressions in the plane crater, so you haven’t reproduced it.

        Question: How do you account for the tail section impressions? Plus, there is no fuel contaminate from the missiles and there should be?

        Also, the same applies at the WTC. Your “multiple missiles” do not account for the tail section damage in the buildings?

        Please discuss the magnetometer data and seismic evidence traces.

        You have also claimed in your article that the video of the Shanksville plane crater was before the first responders arrived? How did you arrive at this conclusion? The yellow tape is shown in the video which was the crime scene tape? Rick King describes the crime scene which contradicts your claims also regarding fuming.

        Just to ask Steve, as I know you support “video fakery”. Have you ever heard of Scott Loughery? I think he wrote an article called – Was 9/11 A Movie?

        Just thought I’d pass that on if you hadn’t heard of him.

        Take care!

        Mark.

      2. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Mark,

        If you disagree, then you must have tried to recreate the gashes, and failed. Or did you even try?

        The tail section is easily recreated by a projectile, albeit smaller than the other two, but still reproducible at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal; meaning a smaller missile or rocket, such as a Hydra, which are carried by jets such as the “Warthog,” that witnesses reported being seen in the area.

        Multiple missiles at the WTC do account for the lightly damaged aluminum cladding, and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns that are visible in both impact holes. The “tail section” damage you describe is explained by the removal of strategic bolts and floors, explained in detail in this post:
        http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

        You wrote,

        “Please discuss the magnetometer data and seismic evidence traces.”

        Why do I need to? I have recreated smaller versions of that crater many times over. How does magnetometer data have anything to do with the fact that the crater is reproducible with multiple projectiles and an explosive?

        You wrote,

        “You have also claimed in your article that the video of the Shanksville plane crater was before the first responders arrived? How did you arrive at this conclusion?”

        Why do I have to keep repeating this stuff? In my post I linked to a video taken of the crater by a news helicopter that was on the scene prior to the arrival of the first responders. In that video there is no sign of the first responders and no sign of the bouncing white smoke plume. I then linked to a photograph of the site taken from ground level, captured shortly after the first firetruck pulled up. In that photograph the white smoke plume is visible outside the crater. The next photograph shows close to the same perspective, after the second pickup truck pulled up; in that photograph the white smoke plume is inside the crater.

        Now, to an observer who is not already invested in science magic, the absence of a smoke plume prior to the arrival of the first responders would be a clue at least to the possibility that the first responders were responsible for it. I think your reluctance to consider such a possibility is a clue as to where your bias stands, and anyone who claims they aren’t biased is lying. I admitted I’m biased against Judy and her followers, for exactly the reasons you’re demonstrating right now.

        You wrote:

        “Just to ask Steve, as I know you support “video fakery”.

        Mark, I follow the evidence where it leads, and it has led me to the conclusion that the impact damage could not have been caused by the planes we were shown on television. You support “science magic,” but ignore the evidence that indicates none of the videos depicted a real event. The damage evidence is what proves “video fakery” was used. When it comes to the left-right damage visible in both impact holes, I still don’t know your position. I assume you think the holes were cut with some sort of advanced weaponry (because you seem to be predisposed to that conclusion), but considering the perpetrators were broadcasting the head-on impact of a jet, how do you explain the laterally-bent steel? Why would they use advanced weaponry to mimic the impact of small projectiles?

        “Have you ever heard of Scott Loughery? I think he wrote an article called – Was 9/11 A Movie?”

        No. Does he address the lightly damaged cladding and the left-right bends to the columns?

        All the best,

        Steve

      3. Mark Conlon

        Hi Steve,

        You still haven’t accounted for the engines in the plane crater at Shansville?

        Anyway, I didn’t come here to convince you of what I am looking into, you asked for a comment in your original comment, and I commented.

        As I have said previously we will never agree on our interpretations of evidence.

        Just out of hand, how many missiles now do you think were used in Shanksville to create the plane shaped hole?

        Regarding Scott Loughrey, he didn’t discuss the plane holes, however I know Rosalee Grable spoke very highly of him. She said he was a pioneer in fact.

        Anyway, let’s not waste anymore time back and to.

        Have a good weekend!

        Regards,
        Mark.

      4. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Mark,

        You wrote:

        You still haven’t accounted for the engines in the plane crater at Shansville?

        What engines? The ones the authorities planted? What does that have to do with the fact the crater is reproducible and predictable with a few precision warheads? You seem to think the military are omnipotent, so why do you continue to brush off this evidence? Why do you continue to defer to the authorities’ claims, as if they are to be taken at face value? If, as the evidence indicates, cruise missiles were launched in US airspace into US soil, wouldn’t the most likely suspects be the same authorities that you think are all powerful?

        As I have said previously we will never agree on our interpretations of evidence.

        I’d be bowled-over if you would so much as address the evidence and answer my questions, forgetabout trying to convince you of anything.

        “Just out of hand, how many missiles now do you think were used in Shanksville to create the plane shaped hole? “

        See? All you lot ever do is evade my direct questions about the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. I will answer your questions when you do me the same solid. Until then, I do grow tired of the same evasive dance I have come to expect from Judy’s followers, so please peruse the below posts for the answer to your question.

        Written about here: http://yankee451.com/?p=4343

        And here:http://yankee451.com/?p=4712

        Regarding Scott Loughrey, he didn’t discuss the plane holes, however I know Rosalee Grable spoke very highly of him. She said he was a pioneer in fact.

        I am not Rosalee Grable. Although I respect her contributions to 9/11 Truth, and lamented her passing, as I do the passing of anyone, I do not automagically agree with what she agreed with, in fact, when she passed she and I weren’t even on speaking terms anymore. Thanks, but if Loughrey continues to avoid the first step in the investigation, I’ll pass. I can get that sort of speculation anywhere. If you find anyone who DOES address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions, please send them my way, but I’m not holding my breath.

        Cheers,

        Steve

      5. Mark Conlon

        Steve,

        Not the physical engines, the impressions of engines in holes in the Shanksville plane crater.

        If anything you haven’t addressed all my points raised in my original comments.

        I have come an engaged with you. You asked me along with Andrew and Judy to comment, so I have, there you go. There nothing more to say.

        Watch the film if you want to know where I stand on the evidence if you want to. Your choice! My contributions are in it.

        Good luck with your research..

        Mark.

      6. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Mark,

        You mean this post?

        You ask – “Why are you so reluctant to discuss the evidence of the use of smoke machines at the Pentagon and at Shanksville?”

        I can only speak for myself in this reply, not for Andrew or Judy. You know very well I have done far more than talk about the non-existent “smoke machines” at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

        No I don’t. I am pretty busy and don’t follow your work.

        So why ask, as most of the research myself and Chris Hampton did was included the evidence presented in his film – 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality”. He posted a link on your website, however you choose to deleted it?

        I have limited Internet access, and from the sounds of it your movie is very long, but if you put it in a movie, surely you can provide a few sentences to explain it here.

        Regarding Shanksville there is a lot of evidence such as seismic data, magnetometer data, eyewitness accounts, including levitational effects and also electrical disturbances. Even the tree-line damage is inconsistent with conventional fires or heat.

        Why do you say that? How much experience do you have with broken and burning tree branches? What does non-conventional fire look like, and how is the observable evidence consistent with it? The broken and smoking branches look like regular burning trees to me, a regular burner of large slash piles. From my experience, conventional fires and heat can very easily account for the smoking, and broken branches. Does this make me biased?

        You have already bias your observations saying it is “smoke” implying fire and heat.

        Right, and your bias is exposed as leaning towards any explanation other than that which can be experienced by anyone who has ever used a smoke generator, or blown up something with TNT, or burnt a tree. At least I have the balls to admit it.

        No eyewitnesses or visual evidence shows use of “smoke machines” at the site, neither do the firemen who attended the scene and also who discovered fuming spots in the crater the day after on 12th describe a “smoke machine” suddenly erupting with smoke in the crater.

        Why would you expect the media and the authorities, who provided us with the story of planes, to tell you that smoke machines were used? Why do you assume the media aren’t involved?

        This is all covered in the film, including the disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field at 10:03am to 10:06am correlating with the seismic reading showing a “small” trace at 10:06am, not 10:03am like the “official” narrative says. Explosions don’t cause the Earth’s magnetic field to fluctuate in that fashion, neither do plane crashes or missiles, especially NOT JASSM.

        What does any of this have to do with how the crater is reproducible with projectiles impacting at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, and an explosive? Ultimately, all you’re doing is appealing to the same authorities that launched missiles into the ground, and called it a plane crash, and until you address the physical evidence, and explain how it is consistent with whatever it is you believe happened, then you could claim anything you want. Which is what you do. The magnetometer data doesn’t change the impact evidence.

        Note: NO jet fuel was found in the ground crater at Shanksville, which rules out his JASSM missiles theory because they carry fuel tanks aboard the missiles, and it would have been in the interests of the perps to make the geological ground investigation samples find jet fuel, and say there was fuel found in the plane crater to reinforce and prove the “official” plane story that the plane impacted the ground.

        Again assuming the authorities weren’t involved in the cover up. How have you verified this assumption, and how does it change the fact that the crater can be recreated with projectiles impacting at less than 10 degrees of horizontal, and an explosive? How is the physical evidence consistent with what you think happened?

        Also please explain how the impression of the plane’s tail section was made in the ground? You do NOT account for this in your “multiple missile” theory?

        Smaller gash means a smaller missile, such as a Hydra. Its not rocket science. You still won’t even explain how the damage is consistent with whatever it is you believe – can you explain it, or are you just trying to get me to watch your movie?

        Same can be said at the WTC North Tower and South Tower, how was that tail section made in the buildings, which is pointing upwards on an angle?

        Removed bolts and floors. The perpetrators had full access to the buildings, explained in detail in these posts:
        http://yankee451.com/?p=4008
        http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

        Also the JASSM Missile: The AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) had a number of problems during testing and which delayed its introduction into service until 2009.So this technology which you claim was off the shelf ready is inaccurate, as there were major failures with these missiles in its testing stages.

        If you believe what you’re told by the most likely suspects. On the one hand you believe the military is so all powerful that they have technology so advanced, that they can dustify buildings from space, but somehow forget that in the 80s they used to brag about how they can drop a smart bomb down a chimney. Ever heard of plausible deniability? The JASSM was provided as an example of what was available using tried and true technology the USA has been using for years; if it wasn’t a JASSM it was something very much like it, with a dense-metal warhead that is capable of hard-target penetration with or without detonating. This conclusion is of course based on the fact that the crater is reproducible with projectiles impacting at less than ten degrees from horizontal, and an explosive.

        Also you say eyewitnesses in Shanksville “seen” and heard missiles, however under closer analysis no witnesses say they saw any missile or missiles? People say they “heard” what they interpreted in their own minds to be a missile, however this still doesn’t equate to any sightings of missiles in the area of Shanksville, before or during the “alleged” plane crash, only eyewitness accounts from people claiming to have seen a “small” or “large” plane, and a plane fly-over.

        • Several local people believe they hear a missile overhead just before Flight 93 goes down. Barry Lichty, a US Navy veteran and mayor of Indian Lake Borough (just to the east of where Flight 93 crashes), is watching television with his wife. He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile.… Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor. My first reaction, as a former utility employee, was that maybe someone shot a missile into the substation.” He says Flight 93 “did not come over my house. I don’t know what we heard.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 158-159]

        Joe Wilt, who lives a quarter-mile from the crash site, hears a “whistling like a missile, then a loud boom.” He says, “The first thing I thought it was, was a missile.” [Boston Globe, 9/12/2001; Washington Post, 9/12/2001]

        And Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville, later says, “I know of two people – I will not mention names – that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards.… This one fellow’s served in Vietnam and he says he’s heard them, and he heard one that day.” [Philadelphia Daily News, 11/18/2001]

        Officials will emphatically deny that Flight 93 was shot down, as some people later suggest (see September 14, 2001). [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/14/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 264]

        However, a number of witnesses report seeing a small, white jet plane near the crash site, around the time Flight 93 reportedly goes down (see (Before and After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

        • Looking straight down onto the Flight 93 crash site. North is to the top. Note the impact point north of the road, and the burned trees to the south of it. [Source: FBI]A second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least ten witnesses flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of United Flight 93 crashing. [Independent, 8/13/2002]

        Lee Purbaugh: “I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Susan Mcelwain: Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside, she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. [Bergen Record, 9/14/2001]

        She later adds, “There’s no way I imagined this plane—it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.… But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head. They did not want my story—nobody here did.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002]

        Source
        How many witnesses reported seeing directed energy weapons?

        Regarding the Pentagon, NO eyewitnesses talk about a “smoke machine” there either, and there is no visual evidence to back-up or support there were any at the site, only what YOU interpret to be a “smoke machine”.

        Again, why do you expect the media, that were selling you a plane crash, would report witness reports that contradict a) their official story, or b) their officially supported opposition groups?

        Perhaps send me a photo with a smoke machine in it? Then I will accept this as fact. Up-to-now I have seen one.

        How many photos of the DEW machine, that you accept as fact, have you seen?

        Again, you are biasing your observations by saying it is “smoke”. There is plenty of evidence of extensive “fuming” at the Pentagon, especially on the roof. Which cannot be explained away as “smoke machines”.

        Yeah, I am the biased one.

        Also people appear to look burnt, yet their clothes were NOT burnt? This needs to be explained, conventional heat or fire doesn’t account for this evidence.

        Stage makeup and props, maybe? Nah. It was obviously a top secret weapon using advanced technology that we unwashed masses are simply no match for.

        Also the seismic data for this event is telling a long with the magnetometer data at 9:37am shows fluctuations, yet you don’t address this evidence?

        How does that change the impact evidence, that you, Judy, Andrew, etc. ignore?

        Again conventional explosives or smoke machines don’t cause the Earth’s magnetic to fluctuate in this fashion. Your best buddy Fetzer will NOT address this evidence, and has done all he can to avoid it, and the film.

        How do you know the information provided is reliable, and not a red-herring designed to distract those among us who have their heads in the clouds, and how does that claim change the fact that the crater is reproducible with projectiles impacting at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and an explosive? Jim Fetzer is hardly my best buddy, but maybe he doesn’t address the magnetic fluctuations because he finds them just as irrelevant as I do.

        I hope this explains my own position regarding the “smoke machines” at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

        Not at all. Science magic, fuming, and levitation, or something to that effect.

        Finally, I would say watch the film if you want to know what really happened at the other sites including the airplanes. Then you can make of it what you will, or even review it.

        What time stamp do you address the fact that the Shanksville crater can be recreated with projectiles striking at ten degrees from horizontal, and an explosive?

        I haven’t really got much more to say on the matter, hopefully this will enlighten you of where “I” sit with it, and in all honesty Steve we will never see eye-to-eye on this matter, but at least you know where I stand.

        Exactly where I thought you stood before; ignoring the evidence at the scene of the crime.

        Have a good day!

        Regards
        Mark Conlon.

        Thanks! You too!

        Steve De’ak

      7. Post
        Author
  12. anthony powell

    Hi Mark,
    Thank you for the in depth answer to Steve Deak’s questions.

    Just so we all know, where are the verifiable sources for the magnetometer and Seismic data?

    Just so we can all be looking at the same place(s).

    Thanks.

  13. Mark Conlon

    Steve,

    You say:

    Smaller gash means a smaller missile, such as a Hydra. Its not rocket science. You still won’t even explain how the damage is consistent with whatever it is you believe – can you explain it, or are you just trying to get me to watch your movie?

    Sorry to hear you have limited internet use, however like I said, it is up to you if you watch the film or not, I am not saying you have to, it was a suggestion. But your choice no to!
    Regarding the plane engines impressions at the Shanksville plane crater. There are two impressions where the engines would’ve impacted. This is shown in your own video graphic of the plane crashing into the plane hole, along with the tail section.If your “multiple missile” theory has reproduced the plane shaped hole, then it should account for the tail section and two engines. it does NOT! There are impressions in the hole of two engines and a tail section. Your experiment to reproduce looks nothing like that, certainly doesn’t show a tail section, or two engine impressions.

    Please tell what angle you would need for the engine impressions to be made of the engines, and also the tail section of the plane?

    You also claim those crater comparisons were on the moon? They were made in a lab, NOT on the moon. Also the one you refer to is at 4.75 degrees to be precise, and you didn’t show this in your graphic either in your video or in Jim Fetzer’s interview. Again this manufactured craters in the lab do not have a tail section or engines, so this is NOT evidence of a reproduction of the Shankville crater. The angle of 4.75 degrees on the wings is revealing as there’s no way it would’ve cleared the trees either. And it would be even less of an angle to create the tail section, without causing other damage in the crater, and that isn’t evident.

    You ask:

    How much experience do you have with broken and burning tree branches? What does non-conventional fire look like, and how is the observable evidence consistent with it? The broken and smoking branches look like regular burning trees to me, a regular burner of large slash piles. From my experience, conventional fires and heat can very easily account for the smoking, and broken branches. Does this make me biased?

    Yes I do actually Steve, I have experience burning wood and trees, and when a tree burns it displays such, although that’s not what is observed in the trees at Shanksville, if you look closely neither afterwards in the remains. They are NOT burnt looking, even though they were fuming. This could be thermal blooming effects, which is a signature of directed energy. Go see they explain this type of behaviour, nothing secret about directed energy, SAIC have been developing this, and explain all about it, so it is not so mystical as you keep maintaining. Of course, this is all in the film to back-up what I am saying.
    You say no fuming was happening before first responders arrived? Fuming of the trees were witnessed straight away as people were arriving at the scene. Yet you said in your video in your article that, that video was before the first responders arrived? Yet the yellow tape can be observed on the ground in the video indicating that that video was afterwards not before.

    Also you have said witnesses “seen” missiles? When they only “heard” what they took to be missiles. Perhaps you could clarify this point, as it is misleading of you to say this and out of context when you read their accounts, as no witnesses observed a missile, or missiles, mainly they speak of a large or small plane only.

    Please post me a link of a witness in
    Shanksville “SEEING” a missile. I read through all the links you keep posting in relation to this, and no one does say they “seen” a missile. So really you should remove this word from your article as it is misleading really.

    Even Susan McElwain doesn’t say she seen a missile, and you have edited her interview and it is you who interprets this in your video not her. (None of those links provide a witness who actually “sees” a missile). Susan McElwain said, it had a fin on the back-end of it. Well that doesn’t fit the description of a JASSM. Whatever it was didn’t disturb the trees either as it flew past them. And she never heard an explosion as it crashed?

    Also, JASSMs weren’t in use back in 2001, the tests failed. So why are you promoting apparent missiles which weren’t “off-the-shelf” as you put it, when they weren’t even in use at that time due to failures.

    You say:
    Why would you expect the media and the authorities, who provided us with the story of planes, to tell you that smoke machines were used? Why do you assume the media aren’t involved?

    I have never assumed the media wasn’t involved, however if that’s the case it was in the interests of perps who control the agencies who investigated the scene to lie then (if this is your logic) and produce a report saying jet fuel was found in the crater? Why didn’t they lie to support their official story then, if this is your logic?

    It isn’t just a matter of authorites and media, there were witnesses also, and they describe things differently. And while we are talking logic, if you don’t trust the authorities why did you get involved in writing a letter to the President? This is the very puppets who you point-out in your videos, who turn-up at these events to re-inforce the “falsehoods” of the official story. I don’t mean to mock-you, but how many times did you say long before you wrote your letter about the authorities and the courts, especially mocking Dr. Wood, when you write to the President? This doesn’t add-up to me, and if I don’t say so, is it double standards?

    Magnetometer data:
    The magnetometer data correlates with every event on 9/11, so it is very relevant, and implies something other than convention explosives, as I have said, explosives or planes or even missiles can cause the Earth’s magnetic field to fluctuate and spike like that at the precise times of all the events on 9/11, something else does. I have post a link, go and check the history for yourself. Field interference does.

    You say:

    Again assuming the authorities weren’t involved in the cover up. How have you verified this assumption, and how does it change the fact that the crater can be recreated with projectiles impacting at less than 10 degrees of horizontal, and an explosive? How is the physical evidence consistent with what you think happened?

    You can read the “official” ground crater contamination report. Verifiable and Official! As you said they lie, why didn’t they lie to support the official story and say jet fuel was found, even a small amount of fuel from a missiles? They could’ve passed this off to support their plane story instead of causing a problem reporting no jet fuel contaminate in the crater. So again your logic doesn’t add up here.

    Warm wishes,

    Mark.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      I see you pointed out a mistake I made, but have since corrected, but I missed the part where you explained how the physical evidence is not consistent with my conclusions, but is consistent with yours. I appreciate that you don’t make mistakes, and aren’t biased, so you must find it amusing that I don’t understand how the evidence supports your belief.

    2. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Please post your video link with the timestamp of where you discuss how the observable physical evidence at Shanksville is not consistent with my conclusions, but is consistent with yours. I promise not to delete it.

      Since you demand eyewitness accounts for smoke machines and missiles, please provide the same. Where are your eyewitness accounts that named the directed energy weapon you think was responsible for the gash? This gash by the way, can be reproduced with two projectiles striking at opposite directions, and an explosive, and a third, smaller projectile, for the “tail” imprint, so why do you suppose these people used their directed energy weapons to create a crater that can be reproduced with conventional means, means known to exist?

  14. Mark Conlon

    Hi Steve,

    Why aren’t you addressing my points regarding your statements you made in your article saying the witnesses in Shanksville “SEEN” missiles? You know very well, NOT one witness observed a missile, and the overwhelming statements speak of a “large” plane or “small” plane crashing.
    This very misleading that you write what you have in your article. You won’t address this, and if you believe you are by re-posting links which I have read through many times before then you are just avoiding to answer my point. Surely you should change or remove the word “SEEN”…

    Again you say you have recreated the crater and it is reproducible. This is factually incorrect so far. Even the NASA lab recreations do not contain tails sections or engine crater impressions. They are also produced on an angle trajectory of 4.75 degrees. So in this case you have to explain how the 4.75 degree trajectory entered the ground into the crater in Shanksville, as the trees were obscuring this angle on the one-side and none of the trees are disturbed in anyway or show that a missile passed through them on that trajectory. Also your recreations are not done at 4.75 degrees are they? 9.5 & 6.6. So again it is an inaccurate recreation, and neither contain the engine impressions. Also why did you omit this information in your images of the NASA images, and only mention the 10 degrees under of horizontal. Moreover you are not accounting for the tail section or the two engine impressions. What angle did the tail missile come-in at to create this slight impression and why didn’t it elongate the crater? Plus are you now admitting there is a tail section impression?

    Plus, are going to correct the inaccurate claim that the video you cite saying the first responders hadn’t arrived yet was incorrect, because of the yellow tape being present on the floor which shows they were already there on the scene.

    Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road. Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud.”

    No mention of a missile or missiles in his account? So why do you say it matches the eyewitness testimonies when it doesn’t?
    Well directed energy isn’t something which would be seen by an eyewitness, a bit like an active denial system you can’t see but feel. Unlike missiles they could be observed if they were present. But we do have plenty of eyewitness testimony to show the effects and signature of directed energy involvement such as. Paper surviving the “alleged” high heat, along with people being levitated, Electrical disturbances, the cottage that was ruined, along with other properties which were damaged. We also have trees which were NOT burnt and usual damage, along with the fuming in different locations and a haze hanging around the area. We also have crystallised iron contaminate in the ground, similar to the iron microspheres at the WTC, which is why on-going effects were present at the WTC and also Shanksville for the water cleaning system to remove the iron from the water. What activated the iron to crystallise it, which if it was high heat would’ve killed anything organic, so this alone rules out high heat.

    Similar effects of levitation and increased iron was found in crop circles, not the man made ones however the more detail elaborate ones, where energy effects have been recorded.
    So the electrical magnetic field interference which is also picked up and recorded in the Erath’s magnetic field data readings proves this was happening at the precise time in Shanksville.

    So for all the eyewitnesses to report seeing a plane would fit the image projection, not missiles which weren’t in use. Interestingly, SAIC who were one of the contractors who deal in 3D image projection and also directed energy have direct connections to 9/11. There’s nothing mystical about this technology, and to suggest so shows you haven’t researched this area or the connections to the contractors involved in 9/11. SAIC are also involved in what they call “perception management”. So the witnesses accounts in themselves support the evidence we show in the film, and not “multiple missiles”.

    It is difficult to put a time-stamp on areas of the film as it runs as a play through, so posting times-tamp omits all the other evidence running alongside it which supports the themes.
    I can post the link if you like, and maybe you could slowly make your way through it in your own time without using all your internet useage. Up do you! But I am not going to spam your website and post it.

    Regards,

    Mark.

  15. Steve De'ak

    Please let me know if any of Judy’s water carriers explain how the physical evidence at the scene of the crime is not conistent with the impact of projectiles impacting at trajectories of less than 10 degrees from horizontal, and an explosive, but is consistent with the means they think were used. Also of interest is the answer to my repeated question regarding why, if the masters of the universe could use their fancy weapon (what is it, exactly?), to create any gash they wished, they chose a crater that can be reproduced with a couple projectiles and an explosive. By ignoring this evidence, it allows them to make any claim they wish. Love, Steve

    1. Mark Conlon

      Steve,

      You know that the crater has not been reproduced, how do you get a 4.75 degree angle trajectory without damaging the trees to create the wing in the ground by tree-line? Impossible!

      No engines or tail section in your reproduction? Plus you did your with 9.6 and 6.6 degree angle trajectories, which isnt the same as the NASA lab experiments.

      Plus, are you going to amend your article saying witnesses “SEEN” missiles? NOT one seen any missiles and you know this. They only heard what they interpreted to be a missile. You should make that clear really because your heading is misleading, or is this your intention, I hope not.

      What do you think of Rick King’s accounts of when he arrived at the scene?

      Plus, it’s a shame you didn’t play Chris Chaniki’s observations in full in your latest video, as he arrived down there when people were already there on the scene which he said were NTSB crew. WHY edit this out? Quite misleading really to edit that part of his account out.

      Plus you do realise there are fuming trees next to the cottage garages in that video you are using? It also has the yellow crime scene tape down on the floor in it? So it was not before anyone arrived.

      Anyway I will leave you to it as you are getting all rude and childish again. I won’t bother you again.

      Have a good day!

      Mark.

  16. Steve De'ak

    Mark

    The fact that you haven’t tried to recreate a smaller version of the gash is only proof that you haven’t tried to prove or disprove something. Anything. I have provided photos of my humble experiments, where I did recreate it. Please explain how the gash is consistent with the damage created by. ..what weapon is it?

    1. Mark Conlon

      Hi Steve,

      I have explained it all in my comments and the correlating signatures of “directed energy” and it is even better explained more thoroughly in the film in detail. I gave you a whole list several times of effects which are contained in eyewitness accounts. In fact if you watched the film it would become apparent why the iron in the crater crystalised and why they had a contamination issue there and the connections to the World Trade Center issues of iron micro spheres in the dust.

      The technology is well documented in the film and who developed it and their connections to 9/11 directly. Also even with connnections to non-man-made “crop circles” and the effects with those. You have seen the formations created with those. “D notices” (UK law) were put on informaton to play-down the directed energy connection to them.. Quote Nick Pope.

      Many people seen a plane crash into the ground. What do you think they were witnessing? None say they seen missiles hitting the ground? NOT one!

      Anyway, I know I wasting my time with you, as you avoid my questions of your theories, and what you say about the witness accounts.

      Anyway, nothing personal however we differ greatly in our research perspectives. Like I said I thought I’d take an opportunity being as you mentioned my name in your original comment. I have all I have, so you know where I am at, and I very much know your position and perspective.

      We agree on one thing, that 9/11 is a lie and has been used to create wars.

      Good with your research.

      Best wishes,

      Mark.

      However, I am disappointed that you keep ignoring the “falsehoods” you have said about the Shanksville witnesses “SEEING” a missile. I have mentioned this all through my comments, and you won’t address this point.

      I am not knocking you personally, or your humble recreation efforts, however it is NOT a recreation in the sense of the tail section or two engine impressions.

  17. Mark Conlon

    Steve,

    I am not going to keep repeating myself, you know exactly what I am talking about with those engine impressions and tail section. Please don’t used this to ignore my other points also
    regarding the “falsehoods” you have said about the Shanksville witnesses “SEEING” a missile. I have mentioned this all through my comments and you won’t address this point especially, only to post links which proves NO one seen any missiles in Shanksville.

    Mark.

  18. Pablo Novi

    20181025 9-11, 5 Proofs Vs DEWs & Nukes
    Here’s a number of PROOFS that neither (Judy Wood’s) DEWs (nor any type of nukes) were what brought the 3 Towers down:

    N.B. Seeing as both Twin Towers came down “Top-to-bottom” any would-be DEW device would have to have been used FROM ABOVE. I assume this obvious-to-me idea in what follows:

    1) THE N. TOWER ANTENNA MOVED FIRST & WAS NEVER DUSTIFIED AT ALL: The first thing to move on the North Tower was the Antenna. Given a DEW from above, it should have been the very first thing hit and dustified – yet, It was never dustified – it made it to the ground mostly in tact.

    2) The N. TOWER ROOF DID NOT START DISINTEGRATING UNTIL A-F-T-E-R THE ANTENNA BEGAN TO MOVE FIRST: With a DEW from above, the N. Tower roof should have started disintegrating and turning to dust at the very start, even before the Antenna began to move. For the Antenna to move FIRST, the core underneath it must have been moving down, pulling it down with it. But to “dustify” the core, the roof had to have been dustified first.

    3) The N. TOWER “SPIRE’s” EXISTENCE: ALL of: DEWs from above and regular nukes and mini-nukes (every 10 stories or so) rely on the destruction of the CORES of the buildings FIRST; yet the “Spire” still standing post-destruction, AFTER the rest of the building had been brought down around it, means that neither DEWs nor any kinds of nukes were what brought the buildings down.

    4) The N. TOWER “SPIRE’s” DESTRUCTION: Close examination of the clearest of the available videos show that the “Spire” was not dustified, but, instead, went straight downwards TRAILING dust – which, by then, covered everything – so this is exactly what we should expect.

    5) BOTH TWIN TOWERS’ FACADES WERE VIRTUALLY INTACT IN PIECES ON THE GROUND: No DEW or nuke could completely destroy all the floors yet leave the external facade virtually undamaged. Sure it was broken into pieces (the 3-column panel “Chex”); but both DEWs and nukes should have shredded those “Chex” – not leaving them virtually completely as they were.

    The best site I’ve ever found, in 17 years of searching, for documenting what became of the Twin Tower facades is: Major Tom’s synthesis (of what “the911forum” ( https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the911forum/index.php ) discovered) at: “9-11-01 History Archive: World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research: 9-11-01 Visual Evidence Archive” http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=104

    Any one of the above five FACTS is enough to falsify both the DEW and the Nuke/Mini-Nuke hypotheses. ALL 5 taken together, “dustify” / “irradiate” to nothingness both these hypotheses. —–
    Does the above line of reasoning rule out that there WAS EVIDENCE of either DEWs or Nukes at the WTC on 9/11? These would seem to be completely ruled out. But let’s look into this just a bit more.

    The 9/11 perps KNEW (HAD TO KNOW) that a 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) was going to arise.
    Therefore, they HAD to have done anything and everything necessary BEFORE / ON 9/11 to mislead the 911TM.

    One such tactic could have been to “seed” the WTC site with planted “evidence” of the use of any number of destructive weapons and devices. Such did not actually bring down the 3 Towers – instead, in this scenario, they were merely DUMPED there – i.e., the WTC site was used, by the 9/11 perps, as a free TOXIC WASTE DUMP. And with the purpose of misleading the 911TM and terribly divide us (as each group discovered one of the various destructive agents to be found there – thinking THEY had “solved” the WTC part of the 9/11 Inside Job).

    N.B. fyi, This is a slightly up-dated version of a post I originally made some months ago.
    —–
    Imo, THE BEST exposure of the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is “my” Leaflet:
    “End ALL The Wars & Police States, NOW!” (aka “The 911 Truth UNITY Manifesto”).

    [Which was unanimously adopted, in September 2016, by the 9/11 Truth Leaders … Teleconference – at a meeting of some 40 9/11 Truth leaders – this group virtually never agrees unanimously about any important aspect of 9/11. That it did unite unanimously around the “911 Truth UNITY Manifesto” is a clear testament to its power to UNITE us all.]

    It can be found at: Facebook page: International 9/11 Fraud Awareness Week:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/457414874603327/

    PLEASE: Study it, UNITE behind it, and USE it to rally the masses of non-rich people around the world so that they will GET ANGRY ENOUGH, to RISE UP ENOUGH to:
    End ALL The Wars & Police States, NOW!

    1. Post
      Author
  19. Steve De'ak

    Your imagination is only exceeded by your dishonesty, Mark. There were no engine impressions, as anyone can see for themselves. Back up your tripe with a link to photos of the engine impressions, please. Back up anything you say. If you continue with more of the same you will be ignored. I’m moving onto the next chapter, which is all about the power of suggestion, which you are apparently very susceptible to.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  20. Mark Conlon

    Steve,

    I see you won’t discuss the point that you say witnesses seen missiles in Shanksville? No witnesses seen a missiles or missiles as you have suggested, and it is you who is being dishonest and misleading here, NOT me. The can be said regarding the way you have edited your recent video. Explain the yellow crime scene tape, how did that get there?

    Regarding the Shanksville crater, you are sadly mistaken and if believe it is tripe then more fool you. Just an easy way to avoid the evidence as per usual. Never mind saying you will ignore me, that’s fine because up-to-now you have ignored every point anyway, so no loss to me. At least I won’t have to waste anymore time here. Just to note: I have polite with you, however the same cannot be said back.

    Please don’t bother mentioning me again to comment at your website when you have no intentions of engaging in the evidence that doesn’t fit your theories.

    Regards,
    Mark.

  21. Mark Conlon

    Steve,

    Your personal insults show your “inner-child” at work here. Grow-up and be an adult for once.

    Regards,

    Mark

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark,

      Get over yourself. Did you expect me to thank you for insulting my intelligence and treating me with disdain? Like all of Judy’s water carriers you ignore direct questions, outright lie (e.g. “engine imprints”) and refuse to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others. Besides, from what I’ve been told in your video I am called far worse than a useful idiot, so spare me your supercilious sanctimony. I have met a few folks in the truth movement I would consider to be controlled opposition; Judy and Andrew are on the list, but you aren’t. In controlled opposition terms, that makes you a useful idiot. It’s nothing personal.

      Sincerely,

      Steve De’ak

  22. Mark Conlon

    Firstly, I have nothing to get over Steve, your personal insults say more about yourself than me.

    You say,
    Did you expect me to thank you for insulting my intelligence and treating me with disdain?

    MC – What distain? You mean because I actually look at what you propose and show most of it to be incorrect. Example: Hezarkhani Frozen Smoke claims and more.

    You say,
    Like all of Judy’s water carriers you ignore direct questions, outright lie (e.g. “engine imprints”) and refuse to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.

    MC – Again, as you have been doing from the outset when I first spoke with you on YouTube, you refer to me as Judy’s water carrier. I am not even connected to Dr Wood, and my research is nothing to do with Dr Wood’s as I am interested in the airplanes not the destruction of the WTC buildings. I have a 136 page PDF outlining how you conducted yourself towards myself and ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ were you avoided just about every question we asked you regarding what you were promoting about the Hezarkhani video. All documented accurately in your own words in the PDF! The PDF which you didn’t want when offered to you. Perhaps you could’ve accurately referred to the comments between us. It was also a shame you told outright lies about this interaction which I had to respond to twice, with your usual name calling which is what you always revert to when faced with tough questions about your theories.

    You say,
    Besides, from what I’ve been told in your video I am called far worse than a useful idiot.

    MC – WOW Really! Which video are these Steve? Anyway video analysis I make about your theories will discuss your theories and not revert to name calling. Please cite my videos, or perhaps check with your third party who is informing you of such BS. However I am glad you have made this accusation about me, because it is easily proved wrong and showing you will revert to absolute lies again. If anything I seen to recall you publically calling me a “CON” as in my name in a public Facebook group regarding an apparent “Frauds list”. Again you were fed false information about that list being called a “frauds list”. So again you were fed wrong information by a third party which you responded to. How about you actually check things out first, it might help before you go around personally attacking people.

    You say,
    I have met a few folks in the truth movement I would consider to be controlled opposition; Judy and Andrew are on the list, but you aren’t. In controlled opposition terms, that makes you a useful idiot. It’s nothing personal.

    MC – So I am not “controlled opposition” now? Jeez make your mind up Steve. First I am, not I am not. You flip flop a lot with things don’t you? No use attacking me with person insults because this reinforces the fact that you have no arguments to defend what you are putting is “falsehoods” and it far easier to attack me personally for exposing the disinformation you have been putting out over the years than address my points I make. This is what you Steve, you want to create drama and division, by attacking Dr. Wood and others. You attribute traits of your own onto others. This is classic “projection” in psychology terms. Example; you call the eyewitnesses and videographers liars, yet have completely failed to even show or proved any evidence of this. Perhaps the liar is in fact you Steve. This has been shown many times by myself in my analysis of what you say and put out. At best it could be considered errors however could also be considered you are working on behave of your masters to put out disinformation and muddle-up evidence. You certainly show how contradictory you are in your dealings with me and others, again well documented on my website and Conspiracy Cuber’s video he made about you.

    Regarding the engine holes, (notice you didn’t mention tail section). For your information there’s a small “crater” next to the large middle crater which can be clearly observed. Also there is a clear “impression” of a tail section. You have neither explained these in your theory because you are totally unaware they even exist. The tail section impression is an impression, not a crater, and you have some explaining how this was produced, because the trajectory would be extremely low, possibly 1.5 degrees according a projectile strike, and even that isn’t replicated in the NASA lab tests. Perhaps you can try and video it, rather than show with images which don’t show much between shots.

    Also for information, the crater next to the large middle crater is towards the bottom of the wing area, which is consistent with where the engine would be located. See for yourself, don’t take my word for it. What I suggest is going on here is, you have been fixed on a theory which regarding the crater that you are not seeing the plane crater for what it really is, because you want it to fit you theory, and I have proved it does NOT.

    However I think your pathetic childish behaviour of name calling is your way of distracting away from these points I am making. I have nothing but polite with you, yet you cannot afford the same back, and this is well documented. Perhaps this is more about you than blaming others and pointing fingers, take a good at yourself and stop projecting your own traits on to other people.

    Finally, sinking to these levels when faced with serious questions about your theories you promulgate, it could be seen as proof you have NO intentions for finding the truth about 9/11. I would ask, are you a force for good, or quite the opposite? Perhaps this is why people will not engage with you, as you blame everyone else and insult them.

    “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
    Albert Einstein.

    Mark.

    1. Post
      Author
    2. Post
      Author
    3. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark,

      You refuse to answer even one of my questions. When I am treated with respect, I respond in kind, but when I am treated as poorly as I have been treated by you (and your ilk), I also respond in kind. Piss off.

      Sincerely, Steve De’ak.

      1. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        You see this is why I have so little patience for Mark, and for all of Judy’s water carriers. They hold themselves to a double standard, and they ignore direct questions. I have been asking these same questions of that lot for YEARS, and I would be delighted to hear their answers.

      2. Why do you demand witness accounts for the use of missiles (which I have provided), but you don’t provide witness accounts for the use of Directed Energy Weapons?
      3. Missiles are known to exist in the real world, and can account for the damage as found, but if there is another weapon that can better account for the damage, can you describe what weapon that is?
      4. What cut the plane shaped hole (explosives, directed energy weapons, or…)?
      5. Why mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles, rather than the head on impact of a large one?
      6. If the towers were gutted and empty, and prepared with demolition charges, that would mean the dust and paper would have had to have been added as “props” for the big show. Does not this video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column, seem to support that conclusion? If not, what conclusion does it support? https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
      7. Why would there be so much evidence of missing bolts, but no evidence of partially “dustified” steel?
    4. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark wrote:

      Regarding the engine holes, (notice you didn’t mention tail section). For your information there’s a small “crater” next to the large middle crater which can be clearly observed. Also there is a clear “impression” of a tail section. You have neither explained these in your theory because you are totally unaware they even exist. The tail section impression is an impression, not a crater, and you have some explaining how this was produced, because the trajectory would be extremely low, possibly 1.5 degrees according a projectile strike, and even that isn’t replicated in the NASA lab tests. Perhaps you can try and video it, rather than show with images which don’t show much between shots.

      I do have video, from which I took the screen captures in my posts. Do you think I made up the claim that I can recreate that crater with various projectiles? Is that what you would do? The tail section is what it is, and yes I was well aware of it, but my experiment was first to replicate the wing gashes, because that’s easier to do. However it is the same principle for the tail gash. 1.5 degrees? Fine. Its a ricochet from a small air to ground missile. Please forgive my bitchiness, but for fuck’s sake man, what else could it be? The gashes are reproducible by anyone who cares to give it a try. Haven’t you ever shot a gun into the ground? Or hit it with a stick? Ever blow something up with a firecracker? This is predictable behavior for projectiles and explosives, so PAHLEASE tell me, if the damage evidence is better supported by another weapon, what that would be, and why would they choose to mimic the damage left by projectiles and explosives?

      I do not have a slow motion video camera, but I will have eventually, at which point I will demonstrate that the hole you describe supports my conclusion nicely. These missiles are very accurate, but not precise. What you never do is explain what weapon better accounts for the damage than missiles. From my article, “A different take on Shanksville:”

      I don’t have a rocket sled test center handy, nor do I have a hypervelocity gun, but anyone who has ever seen a hole made by a bullet ricochet should recognize the same gash in those ‘wing’ imprints, and it didn’t take me long to reproduce smaller versions using sling shots, air guns, bullets and fireworks.[vi] The fact is anyone with two projectiles and an explosive can reproduce the Shanksville crater on a smaller scale anytime they wish. The same shape will be produced regardless of the size of the projectiles. It is easier to produce with the projectile striking in the center and then ricocheting out than it is to produce with the projectile striking from the outside and burrowing into the middle, but it works either way, outside-in or inside-out. All that’s needed after creating the gashes is to detonate an explosive to create the central crater. Predictable and reproducible are hallmarks of the scientific method but don’t take my word for it, anyone who doesn’t believe me can try it for themselves (but be careful!)

      http://yankee451.com/?p=4712

      If the hole you describe was from one of the jet engines, why wasn’t there another one on the other side? Are you maintaining the Shanksville crater was caused by a jet? Why wouldn’t it be caused by ricocheting missile warheads?

    5. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark wrote:
      “What distain? You mean because I actually look at what you propose and show most of it to be incorrect. Example: Hezarkhani Frozen Smoke claims and more. ”

      Yeah, the frozen smoke gaffe, which I admitted I was wrong about the day after that video was released. The first time I met you and your merry men, you were flogging me with that error. How many years ago was that? You know full well I no longer make that claim, so why do you still maintain I do?

    6. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      I have a 136 page PDF outlining how you conducted yourself towards myself and ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ were you avoided just about every question we asked you regarding what you were promoting about the Hezarkhani video. All documented accurately in your own words in the PDF! The PDF which you didn’t want when offered to you. Perhaps you could’ve accurately referred to the comments between us. It was also a shame you told outright lies about this interaction which I had to respond to twice, with your usual name calling which is what you always revert to when faced with tough questions about your theories.

      Yay. Isn’t that the one where I admitted being wrong about the frozen smoke?
      Speaking of Conspiracy Cuber, he made a few errors in his video rant about me. Have they been corrected yet?
      http://yankee451.com/?p=4507

      1. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Mark wrote:

        “It was also a shame you told outright lies about this interaction which I had to respond to twice, with your usual name calling which is what you always revert to when faced with tough questions about your theories.”

        I can’t help the revulsion I feel when confronted by witch hunters for Judy. I make mistakes and admit them when I do, and you know it. If you admit your mistakes, I must have missed it, but then I don’t follow anyone who carries a candle for Judy, so I wouldn’t know anyway. Or perhaps you don’t make mistakes, just as you aren’t biased?

    7. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark,

      I’ve been unfair, and rude to you, and I apologize. As soon as I read “levitation effects,” my open mind snapped closed like the mouth of a turtle. I hate having my intelligence insulted, but that’s no excuse for my behavior, and I am sorry.

      I don’t expect forgiveness (I’ll do it again, I’m sure), but the reason this happens is I’m certain you have never seen a levitation effect beyond the ones Hutchinson used wires to achieve. I’m also certain there were no eyewitnesses to a levitation effect. The yellow tape at Shanksville was not news to me, but the “engine imprint” you described was, and I’d like to thank you for pointing it out! In my experiments I found it easier to reproduce the crater by ricocheting the projectiles from the center-out, rather than outside-in, as depicted in my video of six years ago. In that video I made many errors, one of which was to refer to NASA’s impact craters as being on the moon (they used a hypervelocity gun to create their gashes), and in their experiments their projectiles were also ricochets. Note how the impact crater, followed by the gash of the ricochet, is so similar to the “engine imprint” you described. These gashes are predictable and reproducible, and match the evidence at the scene of the crime nicely, so once again, I am sorry for my attitude, perhaps I was hasty in dissing your work.

      Sincerely,

      Steve De’ak

    1. Post
      Author
    2. Mark Conlon

      Anthony,

      Yes I do have a lot of time on my hands, and no it isn’t my job, however I am self-employed and do voluntary work to support people who fall on hard times, so my job allows me to spend time on doing things in life, and researching 9/11 is one of them. We don’t all have the same time constraints in life you know.

      Does this answer you question about my time?

      Regards,

      Mark.

  23. anthony powell

    My question was for Mark really. I know where you are on this. Basically there is something wrong with the explanation of 911 after all these years. Very wrong. The only way to break the silence of the establishment is to use the most likely cause(s) from the facts we know. As a kid I remember the bullchitter scientists who said there was no proof that smoking cigarettes was bad for you. They went on and on no matter whst. Mark sounds like one of those guys. Controlled opposition is the only explanation of why there has been no progress to date. There needs to be an investigation as the facts plainly show. Why doesnt Mark just say that? I gotta wonder.

    1. Post
      Author
      1. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        I’m sorry, Anthony – I shouldn’t try to answer these posts from my cell phone, when I do, I make an ass out of myself (more than I usually do). I thought you were one of Judy’s minions.

        Steve

    2. Mark Conlon

      Anthony,

      Did you take the time to read and research the links I sent to, which you asked me for?

      You say the fact we know? What facts are you alluding to which we know?

      So the only way to break the silence of the establishment is to use the most likely causes? So why not use the truth and evidence? Surely this is better than peddling theories just becauise they are comfortable for people to handle. What tyoe of truth are you looking for?

      It is easy to imply I am “controlled opposition”, however this could be seen that you yourself are part of the very problem by going around saying this type of thing, may I add without any factual basis to base this implied comment on about me.

      Whatever smoking has to do with this subject as a comparison, I have never been a smoker myself, however I am doing research and publish it all at my blog. Have you read any of my published material? If not, then what exactly are you basing your implications about me on being “controlled opposition”? Sounds like you are just jumping on a band wagon to me.

      At least with Steve and myself we may not see eye-to-eye on this and we are very passionate about the subject, but I know what he is putting-out and I inform myself so I can at least challenge what he is saying, even though it sometimes winds him up or gets on his nerves. That doesn’t make either of us “controlled opposition” just very different in our position on the subject.

      As for a new investigation, what use will that do? Do you really believe the “powers-that-be” would come clean and investigate themselves? I mean honestly, that will never happen! So I won’t just say – we need a new investigation, so nothing to wonder about.

      People like myself and Steve are doing our own investigation and research. Don’t rely on me or someone else to find the answers, do your own research. I am not telling you how to think or what happened on 9/11.

      I’d be interested in your opinions about those links I sent to you which you asked for. Also what have you read of my research? I’d be interested to know. Thanks!

      Mark.

  24. Mark Conlon

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for your apology and I accept it. Likewise I am sorry also if I reacted in anyway back to you. In all honesty I am not attacking you personally and I accept we differ greatly on our perspectives of 9/11 evidence. I am glad you at least looked for yourself of what I was pointing out, at least now you can update or adjust your perspective on how the holes were recreated. I am not knocking your reproductions and tests to recreate how it was done. I am pleased to hear you could add to further tests you may do with what bit of info or observations I have made.

    To answer your questions:

    I am a human being, so “yes” I can be biased.

    I have no witnesses accounts who say a directed energy weapon was used in Shankville. Obviously effects which I noted and the witness accounts I would consider are a signature of directed energy and use of 3D volumetric image projection to account for plane witnesses. Obviously for you, you could consider I am being bias in my observations, and I get that.

    Just to be also be honest and up front. I have never had contact with Dr. Wood, or communicated with her. I have met her once when she presented a talk in my hometown. I own a copy of her book which I had her sign it, as I would with anyone who writes a book who I meet. I had a brief conversation with her after the presentation where I asked her some questions. I don’t really speak about the destruction of the towers on my blog, I mainly look into the planes and video evidence etc along those lines.

    Anyway, if there’s any other questions I haven’t answered, let me know I will be happy to answer them for you.

    Do you have an email I can contact you on, so if I need to send any images or anything as it was difficult trying to explain my observations in a text form, may avoid any confusion in furture.

    Oh yeah, I get that you closed down when I mentioned “levitation”. I have some witnesses who speak of being lifted up and they were not at the crash site, and one elderly lady was lifted from her bed and ended up on the floor, while she slept. Anyway, strange stuff.

    Thanks for the apology!

    Regards,

    Mark.

    1. Post
      Author
    2. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Mark,

      I admit I have a really hard time taking you seriously. My perspective about the Shanksville crater hasn’t changed, in fact, the smaller crater you describe as an “engine imprint” fits the conclusion that it was created by multiple cruise missiles nicely. When you say that you accept we differ greatly on our perspectives of the evidence, I agree. You seem intent on reaching for fantastical explanations for phenomena that can be easily explained by real science. The gashes can be recreated by ricocheting projectiles, and the central crater can be recreated by an explosive. The “tail gash” was created by a smaller projectile, striking at a shallower trajectory, than the ones that created the “wings.” Anyone can verify this conclusion for themselves, but no one can verify “levitation effects.”

      I’m glad you admit you “can be” biased, but I think it is more accurate to say you are biased, and biased against down to earth explanations that can be recreated by anyone who cares to give them a try, in favor of more creative explanations which require a leap of faith, and a healthy dose of imagination.

      The effects you say you noted, are what, exactly? “Levitation effects?” “3D volumetric image projection?” I appreciate your answering my questions, so please answer these:

      How have you verified this technology exists?
      How exactly do these effects account for the evidence in the ground, evidence that can be recreated by the impact of small projectiles, and an explosive?
      Why would the perpetrators use such advanced technology to produce a gash and crater that can be recreated with the impact of small projectiles, and an explosive? Why not just use small projectiles and an explosive, considering they produce the same result?

      You mention witnesses who claim to have been levitated. I am aware that there are witnesses who claim to have seen Bigfoot, and who have been abducted by aliens, and who claim to have been possessed, and who claim to have channeled dead people, etc., etc. Strange stuff indeed, but anyone can claim anything they want, about anything they want, but that’s not the same as proving it.

      I can be reached at steve@911crashtest.org.

      Steve

      1. Chiodo Libero

        Steve,

        After years of careful study of the evidence I have come up with a new theory! All the craters and gashes at Shanksville were created overnight by a CIA team of volunteers with shovels, possibly excavated with diggers. You know, it’s quite a big crater to dig with shovels. I pity those dedicated agents. They must have sweat like drainpipes. Do you know if human sweat was found in the crater? It would definitely prove this theory based on evidence. And it is much simpler than the cruise missiles theory and no advanced technology is required at all!! Occam’s razor always comes handy when deciding between competing theories…

        What do you think? 🙂

      2. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        So they used shovels to create a crater that matches those made by a couple projectiles and an explosive? I wonder why they chose to make a crater like that, instead of one that was more consistent with what they were selling?

  25. Mark Conlon

    Steve,

    No worries. Life gets busy I get that. I am just glad you took a look for yourself and seen what I meant with that other crater, as you can factor-in now to your ideas regarding how the plane hole was made. I meant it in good faith.

    Take care.
    Mark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *