(UPDATED 3/3/18) – Video: 9/11 – World Trade Center; dismantled and hollow vs “micro nukes”
Edit: I refer to the viscoelastic dampers as plastic, but that was a flippant thing to say; they were actually steel with a viscoelastic material included. And to prove I have forgotten more than I can remember, I was also wrong about the truss sizes. The short trusses were 35 feet long, not 40 feet long.
Sometimes I say stupid things and usually I’m hauled onto the carpet for it. I do just that in this two-hour conversation with Don Fox, Joe Olson and Jim Fetzer, both of whom are big nuke advocates. What I said that was so stupid was that the viscoelastic dampers were not steel, but plastic (and would therefore have been vaporized by a nuke before the steel,) an easily disproved statement, and one that I know better than to say. To be honest I have noticed that when I start to feel like a smarty pants, I tend to say dumb stuff. I hate it when I self-destruct like that, and not just because it is embarrassing as hell and shoots down any credibility I might have had; it is made exponentially worse by Jim’s introduction of me as having spent 10 years researching the towers, a statement that has already resulted in well-deserved ridicule from my critics. But what really burns my biscuit is I have spent a fair amount of time and energy criticizing the truth movement in general for never correcting their errors, so I can’t even retire in shame or anything; I am forced into righting my wrongs. Again.
One of the people who pointed out my mistakes has been constructing his own models, only his are architecturally accurate, whereas mine are only useful to the layman. I was humbled by the detail of his work, as well as the knowledge he had of the tower construction as compared to mine, but this very smart man could not explain why the spandrels above the lobby area had no sign of floor material whatsoever, as compared to the lobby ceiling material; instead he would point to the details of the construction, and mock me for even suggesting they were dismantled. He then explained that the jets were real and that it is ludicrous to think that missiles were launched in broad daylight. Like Jim, Joe and Don, this guy could not admit that he might be wrong, which is too bad because as the gentleman reminded me, I should drop my ego and face the facts. That’s easier said than done, but if I am to be truthful, I have to admit it when I’ve got my head up my ass and my foot in my mouth, which is what I’m doing now.
That said, the evidence has nothing to do with my credibility; I may be completely wrong about all of my conclusions but the evidence that leads me there doesn’t change. What I would appreciate from the rest of the truth movement is a little reciprocity. If the truth is the goal then they all need to set aside their egos and admit it when they are in error too. Had they been doing so all along then surely by now through the process of elimination we could have discarded all those theories that don’t fit, leaving us with the one that does fit.
Below is the updated video with my errors highlighted. Towards the end of the video Jim Fetzer loses his temper and accuses me of being arrogant, but in my not-so-humble opinion, one man’s ‘arrogant’ is another man’s ‘cocky’. So goes another episode in the misnamed movement. Not my best work but it is what it is; the truth as it were.
As an aside, YouTube has been deleting my videos so any new video posts will be on Vimeo. New link below:
Some of the source photos used in my presentation were screenshots from this video:
This video is to show the lobby from the courtyard, and the decorative spandrels.
Just for perspective when you look at the construction, the lobbby, and the debris:
This is a temporary work floor in the lobby. The significance of this is that adding and removing floors was all part of the construction. Also note how deep the foundation was compared to the lobby/courtyard level:
Many truthers, like Joe, think the dust came from the core – but the core columns were not framed for concrete.
Work platform on top of floor deck. Bins of materials, planks and fuel.
Above the lobby was the mechanical floor:
IBeams for the lobby ceiling/first mechanical floor level:
Temporary floor now removed:
Finished “modern marvel.”
The straps that blow nukes out of the water:
Wall panel components:
Viscoelastic dampers. I was wrong to call them plastic. They were in fact steel with a small amount of viscoelastic material therein.
Evidence of where the mechanical level concrete floor met the wall. The anchoring straps would be below the green arrows.
Truther Musical · February 21, 2018 at 6:28 am
Thanks for sharing your recent debate on YouTube. Steve, please would you put all your slide information in an article and explain each picture and how it supports your “hollow towers” theory. I’m not sure you had the opportunity to say everything you wished to say during the radio show because of the other two guests needing to speak.
It’s interesting that Larry King had that crisis actor firefighter on his news show, the guy looked nothing like the real, much fatter injured firefighter of the previous day.
That alone highlights the total media complicity on the day. When Larry King interviewed the other dirty Larry – cockroach – vampire – Silverstien you could tell they were both having a laugh about his bullshit cover story – that his wife forced him to see a skin doctor that morning because – as a vampire – he was burning from the sun. He therefore was forced to miss his usual breakfast on the top floor of Windows of the World restaurant.
Prove that dirty Larry never had breakfast at that restaurant because the whole building was due for demolition because it was an asbestos health hazard. Since when does a snowflake cockroach vampire -too afraid of the sun – have the guts to sit , even for a minute, in a known asbestos health hazard restaurant?!! It’s all a lie – to make people believe there was activity in the buildings.
The fact that the media needed to get crisis actors to pretend to be real firefighters, proves that they didn’t want too many real grieving families threatening to sue. Nukes would have been too obvious as everyone would be taking radiation measurements on their own counters – not just the government. Dennis Cimino was so keen to measure the Fukushima radiation with his own counter, many would have been like him on the day – had their been nuke radiation in the air. The fact that it’s called “ground zero” suggests that the nuke theory was part of the cointelpro fake controlled truth movement.
It’s obvious that the false flag was years in the making , with all the subliminal messages over the years in films etc, as their “revelation of the method” technique.
This is a spiritual war run by demonic forces against humanity. We must stick with the evidence at the scene of the crime, and ask who benefits?
It benefits “the powers that be” to have a scapegoat – i.e. to say: we are helpless against the nukes coming in from other countries like Israel, or against flying Arabs from their caves.
Was it Joe who said during the debate that the U.S. drops MOABs on impoverished countries like Afghanistan just because they may soon be past their sell by date, so it’s “Never let a ‘good’ MOAB go to waste!” Perhaps Jim Fetzer, as a military guy, still wants to believe that the military is good -but only taken by surprise by nukes, even when they have zero moral fortitude when dropping their out-of-date MOABs on innocent people!
If you guys don’t see this as a spiritual battle against demonic (jinns) forces who are really pulling the strings, then you will always argue about the details but not fully understanding the bigger picture – that it was a satanic ritual to usher in the New World Order of the antichrist. Pray and be safe. there are unseen demonic forces that wish to cause argument and disunity whenever there is any sign of truther unity.
please don’t let them destroy the abundance of brotherly love achieved between you guys debating together. Keep up the good work and be nice to one another. It’s the truth we all want – no matter how painful it may be to give up one’s hard earned research when new evidence comes to light.
elbuggo · February 21, 2018 at 1:05 pm
Pretty good post there, JT.
When you understand that the 911 live news reports were animated and pre-recorded, we don’t need all these theories on hollow towers, nukes ( energy weapons. Thy also had total control on groud zero, and could Photoshop and distribute the shit they wanted us to see. The magic here is fake & animated videos, Photoshop & actors – that’s all the tools they needed to pull off the trick. Also a totally controlled & complicit media of course, and their to Gov agents to back up the lies.
The official story on nuke is also extremely fishy if you look into it. I recommend this short video on the Trinity test site. Where is the crater?
September 11, 1945: Reporters are taken to the Trinity test site
Steve De'ak · February 21, 2018 at 5:40 pm
I think Hamburger Nose was the same Grillo that was on Larry King and that he looked different because of different video formats. Regardless of whether or not it was the same guy, they presented him as the same guy, so they don’t look good any way you slice it.
Agreed – there’s no way Lucky Larry ate Breakie at the WOW restaurant every day. More smoke and mirrors.
Agreed as well to have a scapegoat, and the CIA is expert at setting up patsies. The truth is ALL nations not calling BS on the war on terror are probably involved, but if you recall from the chat, Joe said he only got involved when a third party nation was identified by the Veterans Today stooges. I wonder what that says about Joe, eh?
I think the New World Order has been around for a long time – the bottom line is slavery.
That brotherly love appears to have been a veneer. It is an insult to the intelligence to hear those guys talk about a sophisticated array of micro nukes that turned ibeams and concrete floors to vapor but left the anchoring straps untouched because the ground absorbed the heat, and to see them squirm to explain how rubber bumpers survived but not the trusses they were attached to. Seriously, there is only so much a guy can take. I held out as long as I could – but you’re right, I didn’t get to speak my whole peace, so I’ll do a follow up post on my blog with all the images. It’ll be next week, cause I’m tapped out on Internet bandwidth for the month.
Thank you for everything,
Conspiracy Cuber · February 26, 2018 at 9:34 am
What happened to the interview on YT? Can I still find it somewhere?
Steve De'ak · February 26, 2018 at 11:41 am
I need to make some corrections and repost it after the first of the month.
Pablo Novi · March 12, 2018 at 10:06 am
How do WTC-Nukes (mini or not) advocates explain the “Spire” (a huge part of the core that remained standing for about 6 seconds after the destruction of the rest of the buiilding)? Mini-nukes placed in the core would have wiped out the Spire; maxi-nukes in the basement would have wiped out the Spire.
Steve De'ak · March 12, 2018 at 10:38 am
Hi Pablo – yes, good point.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:53 am
What is your explanation for the spire? De’ak.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 10:15 am
It can be seen falling (not turning to dust) at the below time stamp.
Have you considered that the spire was deliberately left standing for a few seconds after demolition just so that the truth movement would have something to be baffled about?
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:09 pm
No, it turned to dust. Where did it go then? Was there a 1000 foot hole in the ground? Did it fall over several blocks? Where did it go? Also have you seen my video
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:29 pm
“No, it turned to dust.”
If you say so.
“Where did it go then? Was there a 1000 foot hole in the ground? Did it fall over several blocks? Where did it go?”
Apparently it fell to the ground after the explosives blew out the supports, but it is also apparent you need to believe it turned to dust, so have at it.
“Also have you seen my video.”
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:31 pm
Will you watch my video and read Chris’s article?
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:37 pm
Probably not. Judy Wood’s flock can’t be reasoned with.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:39 pm
So first you scream that we will never address your points, and then when we do you don’t even care????!!?!?!?!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?? Yeah I’m angry…
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:41 pm
For those who can think objectively, here is a great shot of the spire falling (not turning to dust.)
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:46 pm
If you hadn’t already avoided direct questions I might give a shit.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:44 pm
Here is a shot OF it turning to dust https://youtu.be/FqEbSLXNjVw
Dude, just address our points against you!! We finally got around to addressing it, and now you don’t care??
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:48 pm
It is falling straight down, leaving the dust that coated it hanging in the air. Buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world, but people in power lie, and they lie big.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Who do you represent?
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Address what I said in my video and what Chris wrote in his article…you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing! You won’t address anything we say, which you accuse us of doing. Now we have and it’s your turn respond. I’m awaiting your response.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 2:56 pm
Start answering my questions or you’ll be blocked again.
Who do you represent when you say “Just address our points against you?” I have a comment section and an email address, but I don’t know what points you’re referring to, nor who Chris is and why I should care.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Does that really matter right now? You’re deviating away from the topic…address what we have said and then logically respond in full, point for point. And we is me, Chris, Mark, Andrew, and RDH.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:00 pm
News flash, you don’t get the luxury of being the cult’s minion and making me jump. If they have something to say to me, they can say it themselves.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 3:05 pm
Oh okay, “MAIL (WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED)” much? Delete my name, I never said you could use it and you said that you never would.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Mail was not published. How about if I call you John?
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 3:03 pm
“Start answering my questions or you’ll be blocked again.
Who do you represent when you say “Just address our points against you?” I have a comment section and an email address, but I don’t know what points you’re referring to, nor who Chris is and why I should care.”
I already said, I use “we” to refer to me, Mark Conlon, and Christian Hampton aka Wolf Clan Media. It could also include Andrew and Richard. But how is that relevant to 9/11??? We have addressed your points here http://wolfclanmedia-research.blogspot.com/2018/03/911-phantom-warfare.html and here https://youtu.be/asiLaom0gJw so have fun. We did what you asked. Apparently you don’t care.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Not going to watch any videos, sorry, and I don’t need to explain it to you.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:17 pm
Golly, thanks – but why is so hard to read and figure out what is being said.
Do any of you address the laterally bent steel and the lightly damaged cladding? And the still hanging truss-straps, the evidence of the mechanical floor concrete on the spandrels, and the missing material on every spandrel above the mechanical floor? If so, where? I get a headache looking at that site, and like I said, I can’t watch any videos at the moment. Can you paraphrase it for me?
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:34 pm
Mechanical floors had open-air walkways behind the columns, so it is no great mystery how bolts and floors could be removed and still have a means for people to walk around. It was a cheap prop, and certainly not worthy of resorting to exotic means to demolish.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:44 pm
So what DO Judy, Andrew, Chris, Mark, Richard and you, John, have to say happened at Shanksville? Another Tesla Ray? Why do you suppose they used it to mimic the oblique impact of dense projectiles and an explosive, rather than say the impact of a large jet?
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:48 pm
I’m not finding the part where you mention the still hanging anchoring straps of the lobby, as compared to the missing straps on every floor above that level.
Also, you have yet to answer why the holograms were used to mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles, visible on both towers:
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:03 pm
And then on to Programmable Matter to explain how they created the laterally bent steel and the lightly bent cladding, but still no explanation as to why if they could do such a thing, did they choose to mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles? And considering the damage can be produced by the impact of small projectiles, why would you reach for a Tesla Death Ray to produce what a few cruise missiles can do? Can you prove the Tesla Death Ray exists, and what kind of damage it produces? And then, can you please, finally, explain why they didn’t use this fancy and undoubtedly astronomically expensive weapon to mimic what their fantastically expensive hologram was doing? Why use it to mimic the lateral impact of cruise missiles rather than the head on impact of a jet? Surely Judy, Andrew, Richard and the rest of the gang have an answer for that. Please share it.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Oh my, a Tesla Ray is what they used to cause the lateral impacts, eh? I see. One of the questions you have yet to answer is why do you suppose they used these fantastic weapons to mimic the lateral impact of small, heavy objects, rather than to mimic what they were showing on the television? Answer now, please.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:55 pm
So they used a Tesla Ray, if they do exist, to mimic the impact of this wing tip:
By pinching the thin aluminum sheeting here:
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 3:41 pm
Chris might want to stop claiming that I’m deleting your comments. I have only deleted spam comments, but your precious words remain, so if you’re going to be making such claims you might want to prove it.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:14 pm
I addressed the damaged evidence COLUMN FOR COLUMN on tower 1. (Okay, all the columns that I could find something to talk about on—which ended up being most of them 31 of the 44). You need to address everything in there point for point if you expect me to take you seriously. I’ll post the script I used.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:15 pm
Here y’are. 10283 words for this script. It helps to watch the video though because it doesn’t make any sense without images.
Before I begin, I would like to apologize for the length and long-windedness of this video. I feel like I need to get this out there as soon as possible, so I may be flooding and overwhelming your mind with a bunch of ideas all at once. Do not feel like you need to watch this video in its entirety unless you are Steve De’ak. Feel free to skip ahead if you find it boring, or just turn the video playback speed to twice as fast as normal. Okay, let’s begin.
Over the course of the past year, Steve De’ak, also known as yankee451, has once again emerged and presented information that he believes exposes the entire truth movement and everything everyone has ever believed about 9/11. Now he has been circulating information since 2012 when he announced his 9/11 Crash Test project, but in the past year he has made considerable progress in his research, and I use that term with a very negative connotation. All of his points that he brings up in his interviews with Fetzer are either old rehashed lies from a decade ago, or new claims that are equally as fallacious and ludicrous, if not more so. As we all know, or as we all should know, both Fetzer and De’ak have been longtime opponents of Dr. Judy Wood’s work and will now overtly oppose and mock anyone who realizes that steel turned to dust. Read both of Andrew Johnson’s books; that’s 9/11 Finding the Truth from 2011, and 9/11 Holding the Truth from last November. Both of those document the tactics used by Fetzer and De’ak to spread disinformation. Also go to mark-conlon.blogspot.com for refutations of some of De’ak’s specific points. Read the description for the links to all of these and other things that I will reference throughout the video. So, De’ak has put forward more points related to the video fakery debate; some concerning missiles, and some concerning tripods and amateur videos. And by amateur videos I mean the Michael Hezarkhani shot. His only tidbits of evidence that he uses in an attempt to discredit the video, photos, and eyewitnesses, are 15 supposedly motionless frames, 9 alleged witness reports of missiles being fired from the Woolworth building, and a misunderstanding of the formation of the plane shaped holes. Oh, and also he says that the WTC towers were empty for 30 years and that the columns were all filled with dust and paper to mask the controlled demolition of the steel.
So let’s start off with his missile theory. He cites 9 testimonies of missiles, or rather, he copies and pastes these from another website. So you have these 9 statements on this website, and there are also two more floating around out there that I found while preparing for this video. So…we have 9 or 11 alleged witnesses again. Just like how Ace Baker makes 9/11 puns with his features for TV fakery, De’ak and others are doing the same with missile witnesses. And also like Ace Baker, none of the statements are true. When you go to the sources for all of these, you discover that either the statements are taken out of context, simply reports of missiles being fired, or people who were approached by other anonymous people saying they saw a missile. Let’s take a look and I’ll show you what I mean.
Here’s one, “The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They’re shooting at the trade center from the Woolworth Building,” an office yells. Notice here, how this statement is accredited to “an officer”. Also, it says in this article that these were rumors and therefore they have no value of truth to them at all. We can’t verify this statement because we don’t know who said it. So witness account number 1 is excused.
Now in the website De’ak references, this is truncated to show only the second half of the statement without the screams of the Woolworth building. However, the 5th witness account in the list shows some remarkable similarities to the statement I just excused. The source is Portland Inymedia, and the website it takes you to provides no names or source for the exclamation, “Woolworth Building! They’re firing missiles from the Woolworth Building!” It seems to me, that someone took the statement, “The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They’re shooting at the trade center from the Woolworth Building,” and modified to say, “Woolworth Building! They’re firing missiles from the Woolworth Building!” “Shooting at the trade center” was changed to “firing missiles”. And even if this were a separate account, it would have been said by some unnamed person on the “Police Channel.” How vague. So because the Portland Inymedia website provides no insight into who might have said this or where they found it, and because it seems to be a rehashing and paraphrase of a previous statement, witness account number 2 is excused.
Next one, “The first on they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building”. Again, this statement it not only accredited to “Male A”, whoever that could be, it also is a report that some people happened to believe was true. And if you think this guy is infallible, then why don’t you also believe that a plane hit tower 2? These are both conjectural allegations that were unconfirmed. Just like with the first live 9/11 TV coverage from CNN at 8:49am, the reports that a plane hit the building were unconfirmed. No one knew what was happening exactly. “Either a plane or a rocket hit the Trade Center.” The Port Authority and New York Police Department, and Fire Department of New York were still trying to figure out what was going on at the time. So, again the source of this statement is not only anonymous, but also a simple report and conjecture. So witness account number 3 is excused.
This fourth snippet comes from the 9/11 Commission. “…the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the Word Trade Center from the Woolworth building.” Again, the police had a report of a missile being fired, they did not see it themselves. We cannot verify this report because no one is named. And if you read the whole statement in context, you see that Alan Reiss later says, “we realized that this was not a missile.” So why don’t you like that part huh? Mr. Reiss himself did not believe this report, because it was just an unverifiable report. Witness account number 4 is excused.
Now this fifth one is actually documented from the perspective of two different people from Fire Engine 16. I was able to find this document in full on an archive.org page which showed me a capture of some website called Mr. Beller’s Neighborhood. Now I immediately copied everything and saved it so I could access this offline, but now that link does not seem to work for me. So, in the description I’ll post a link to an accessible copy of this document, and I recommend saving it so that if the link ever dies, you still have it for reference. Okay, but in Pete Falluca’s account, he says, “a cop tells us he saw a rocket hit it that came off the Woolworth building.” However, it would help to read the statement in context. I encourage all of you to pause the video and read the full statements whenever they appear even if I do not read them. But I will read key parts of this one. “I remember hearing a plane come overhead real low. I said that sounds low for Manhattan. Two seconds later it comes over the scanner, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. Lieutenant Kross comes in, he says ‘did you hear that?’ Within five minutes we were on our way there. Initially we just thought it was a plane crash.” Skipping ahead a little, “I didn’t think terrorist attack, I just though plane crash. It was odd because it was such a beautiful day. Not a cloud in the sky. As we got closer the second plane hit. We were just trying to get through the streets. They were packed. Like New Year’s Eve on Times Square. We were about a block away when it hit, but I couldn’t see ‘cause I was on the opposite side of the rig. Paul Lee and Tim Marmion could see and they cringed down like holy *crap*. When we got out we saw another gaping hole.” Then Mr. Falluca says, “The first thing we see a cop tells us he saw a rocket hit it that came off the Woolworth building.” So, a few problems with using this as absolute proof of a missile: First, this guy says that he heard the first plane but didn’t see it, and he almost saw the second one but didn’t, but his fellow fire department employees saw it. Then he says that “a cop”, who is anonymous just like with all the other testimonies, a cop told them this. Now, if you read further into the document where Tim Marmion’s testimony is recorded, he includes a key detail about this cop that completely nullifies this statement. He says about the cop, “He thought it was a missile launcher, he saw it out of the corner of his eye, you know he probably saw you know the smoke link of the jet engine and maybe just assumed.” So, the anonymous cop who makes this unverifiable statement didn’t even see a missile, he saw something out of the corner of his eye and interpreted it as missile. Now, Tim didn’t see either plane even though Pete Falluca said he did. Apparently he was wrong. Mr. Marmion also says that Pete Falluca saw the first plane, when he only heard it. He was wrong about that as well. So, why cherry pick these statements as evidence for a missile when the context indicates that there were no missiles? I’ve never seen people use Pete Falluca’s account, only Tim Marmion’s, which is strange because Pete’s is much clearer. But he does leave out the key detail that the unnamed cop actually didn’t see a missile. I think it is very clear that someone copied and pasted this into Word and ran a search for the word “missile”. Otherwise they would have found Pete’s account which uses the word rocket instead of missile. So, these two men both report what a cop says and therefore only counts as one supposed witness statement. After all of this, witness account number 5 is excused.
Now this sixth one is one of the two “stray” statements that are not included in the nine that are most commonly referred to. But it does mention missiles and people have used this as evidence, so it needs to be addressed. So, please read the entire statement in context. I have provided all of the links that I can to each source in the description. It should be very easy for you to follow. Okay, so, “three unidentified white males in business attire ran up to me and started to scream that missile had been fired into Tower Two from the top of the Woolworth building.” Three unidentified white males. Huh. Later when this person tries to go and check the roof, he is told that it was an aircraft not a missile. We also have a NIST FOIA release where a man saw the 2nd “plane” from the top of the Woolworth building. The link is in the description again. The men in this account are unnamed and cannot be contacted to verify whether or not they saw a missile, so witness account number 6 is excused.
The seventh account is the other one of the two “stray” statements that are not circulated as widely. Very short testimony here; it only says, “Detective Sergeant Zika reports possible missile launch”. It is a report of a possible missile launch. ‘Nuff said. Witness account number 7 is excused.
This next one is a quote mine. “It was if someone, one or two floor above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile.” He is not describing seeing a missile, he is describing the sound of the 2nd alleged plane. “It sounded like a missile” does not equate to “I saw a missile” in any way. Again, it helps to read statements in context rather than to take a little phrase and use it as evidence for your position. Because of this, witness account number 8 is excused.
Now I’ve only covered 8 of the 11 total statements, but the other ones are unverifiable because of dead links. The two WNBC sources are linked to the same website, but nothing on that website says anything about missile launches or anything even close to that. If anyone can find these statements, please tell me and I’ll talk about it in a later video. But, until then there is no way to verify these. The same can be said for the one accredited to Mailgate News. The link is dead, and archive.org doesn’t have it saved either. But one thing that all three of these already unverifiable witness statements have in common, the person who saw it is anonymous. The first WNBC source doesn’t even list a person who saw it. Not even their occupation or gender or anything. The Mailgate News source is credited to the all-knowing-and-infallible “Police Officer”, and the other WNBC source that doesn’t exist is also credited to a “Port Authority Police Officer.” Plus, it says the explosion was possibly caused by a missile. Ooh, thank you for telling me exactly who that is by narrowing it down from any police officer in the world to a police officer who is part of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Wow, it’s so helpful when 9/11 researchers use unverifiable, and dare I say fabricated, witness accounts of people who are shadows in the background. None of these people are named, and the ones that are simply cite other people seeing missiles. And they are unnamed as well. So, because of that, witness accounts numbers 9 through 11 are excused.
All 11 of these statements have fallen flat, and I have knocked them down one by one. They don’t count as evidence and would not be acceptable in a court of law. And after all of this, even if missiles were fired from the Woolworth building to create the plane shaped holes, it wouldn’t have impacted at the correct angle. Here’s a rough calculation of how the missiles should have impacted. For the north tower, each missile would have impacted at an angle of 33.6 degrees, relative to the north face of the tower. Well, anywhere between 33.6 and 29.2 degrees relative to the north face of the north tower. Now the Woolworth building is 792 feet tall, and the North Tower was 1368 feet tall. The left wingtip of the plane shaped hole began at 1157 feet above the ground, and the right wingtip ended at 1231 feet above the ground. The distance from the center of the Woolworth Building to the left and right wingtips would have been 1323 feet and 1416 feet, respectively. Now that’s from an aerial view, looking down disregarding the height dimension. With some very simple math, we can determine the absolute distance from the tip of the Woolworth Building to each wingtip, and that works out to be about 1372 feet for the left wingtip and 1482 feet for the right wingtip. You can see what the measure of the angle of the missile trajectory should have relative to a flat level plane, and the smallest number we get is 15.42 degrees. I’ll be generous and round that down to a solid 15 degrees, because my measurements may have not been perfect. When you look at the world trade center wall and realize that the measure of this angle is less than 13 degrees, it further invalidates this theory. “But it’s close!” Yeah, but it would only work if the left wingtip gash was lowered down to the 87th floor. And you also have to consider measure of his angle as well, and I don’t think this would be possible. I mean really people, a missile being fired from the Woolworth building wouldn’t be capable of producing the plane shaped holes on either of the two towers. I don’t even need to address the south tower because the missiles would hit the wrong face of the building. And plus, if you only have statements about missiles being fired from the Woolworth building, which are all false as I have proven, but let’s pretend that everything I’ve said up until this point is wrong…Steve De’ak has said that at least a dozen missiles were fired at each tower. How could they all have been fired from the Woolworth Building? The trajectory wouldn’t work out, you have no credible or verifiable witnesses, and the theory is already dubious at best. Where did the missiles come from then? All from the Woolworth Building but they curved so that they impact at the proper angle? Do you have evidence for that? Are there eyewitnesses or photos or videos that can prove anything about missile being fired from anywhere at anything that day? Can any of you watching this name one person who said they saw a missile? And when I asked that question to Steve De’ak, he replied: Susan McElwain. Wow, just wow. At the WTC???!? The fact that Grandpa De’ak is at such a loss to name a witness at the WTC that he resorts to Shanksville should be very revealing about his character and agenda. And speaking of De’ak’s responses, he’ll probably tell me something like, “Well, you aren’t addressing the formation of the plane shaped holes!” Okay then, let’s do just that. Yeah come to think of it, why don’t I address the plane shaped hole?
Now, by no means with this analysis that I present here be comprehensive, but it should be sufficient to show that De’ak’s theory is false. I’ve already shown how weak his theory is, but let’s talk about the holes. He starts out by saying that the first eight columns are bent to the right which is the opposite of what a plane should to. Absolutely correct, but that doesn’t prove missile use. He frames that argument as if it’s physical 767s vs missiles. Just like how morons like Richard Gage and Steven Jones like to frame the 9/11 debate as terrorists vs bombs and thermite. No, how about look at the evidence first before coming up with an explanation! “Well how does this not prove missile use? It proves that something struck the towers!” No, it proves that the steel and aluminum are bent in the wrong direction. When you examine the beams more closely, you’ll discover that the warping and pinching shows remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect and other strange energy related phenomena. I’m not saying it was the Hutchison Effect that caused this, I’m simply saying there are a lot of resemblances that show it was some form of directed energy technology. Missile don’t account for any of the strange things going on in this picture. Why is this column not damaged when it should have been, be it via a plane wing or a missile? Why is this part of this column punched in from the right? How do missiles explain that? Or how about the next two columns? They’re peeling apart like a banana. Neither of them are severed nor are they cut through, they are simply damaged and bent in the opposite direction of what we should expect if a plane had hit the building. Why are they bent? And not severed in any way? The first two are. The third one isn’t and it should be. Neither is the fourth one as far as we can tell from this photo. The fifth one looks like someone tied a belt around it pulled so hard that it contracted in on itself. Missiles don’t do that. This is an omnidirectional severing. The sixth one isn’t cut through either, it only has this punched in section that is inconsistent with a missile attack. And again, the 7th and 8th columns are bent and mangled in a way that looks like other pieces of steel found in the debris field. This is unexplainable with missiles. How did the plate of steel on the right of each column bend so smoothly? Doesn’t it remind you of this column that was found in the shape of horseshoe which is also on display at the 9/11 museum? The ninth column is gone completely because this was supposed to be where the engine impacted. Notice however that it is bent in the opposite direction of what De’ak would have us believe. Well, actually he says that something exploded on the surface of this one causing it to protrude inward as shown, but that would surely push back this flap of steel on the eight column if the explosion was powerful enough to push the entire column back several feet into the building so that it even rips and bends the spandrel belt and severs the column connection on the floor above. And also how the explosion would rip this part of the column, but bend this part is anyone’s guess. The bottom of the column looks sort of like the top of the 12th, so I’ll talk about that when I get to column 12. The tenth column shows a weird sort of truncation or something, but the bottom part isn’t cut at all. This makes De’ak say the bolts were removed on this wall panel section which would include columns 10, 11, and 12. If they were removed, then there is no reason we should see the aluminum cladding missing on the 10 and 12 columns, but present on the 11th. If the bolts were removed beforehand and missiles struck the upper parts, why the inconsistency? The top of the 10th column shows some more remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect. Why is it peeling apart? If a missile hit it, it should be bent in one direction and show a clear missile indentation. This is splitting apart in all directions, which is exactly the opposite of what we see on column five. Column 11 appears to be a direct cut, but to the right of the column it looks like part of it got stretched down and folded over 90 degrees. Column 12 shows that the front and back plates of the column are missing and the ones that faced directly east and west are bent outward slightly. Again, these show remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect. It looks similar to eht bottom of column nine now doesn’t it? The exact same scenario took place there. Also, the aluminum cladding below that gash is bent in the wrong direction of what De’ak wants. So is the cladding on column 8. Now as for the cladding on the other columns that is bent toward the west, well, not all of them are bent that way. Some have remained vertical, and by that I mean columns 3 and 4, which again, show no visible gash. Columns 8, 9, and 10 don’t have aluminum cladding at all, but Steve will say that the reason for this is the explosion on the surface of column 9. But I could also argue from the standpoint of the average person out on the street who believes that planes hit the building, I could argue that that was caused by the turbulence due to the engine. Of course, planes didn’t hit the buildings, so that means nothing to Steve. But I already went through why it couldn’t have been an explosion when I was talking about this column. Anyways, the cladding is bent in a direction that fits Steve’s theory, but the column damage doesn’t fit his theory. And if his theory doesn’t account for all the evidence it must be rejected. Just because part of his theory seems to be correct doesn’t mean that all of it is indisputably correct. Same thing with the first column with only pinched aluminum cladding. Just because Steve thinks it is evidence of a physical impact doesn’t mean that it was caused by something solid hitting it. And if the source of this damage was a missile, how did the missile hit these two columns only and nothing else? If his 3D animation he always shows is true with the left wing of a JAASM missile pinching the cladding here, where did the missile go? We see these two columns sliced through, and no indication of a missile entering anywhere. And it he argues that it went across all eight column and entered the hole already created on the ninth column, you run into even more problems. How does that single missile account for the damage evidence on the first eight columns which I have already discussed, how did it skip over the 3rd, 4th, and 6th columns, and how was it able to wiggle its way into such an optimal position? By that I mean, each column is only about 14 inches deep. The eight column is indented in by maybe a foot at most. The first one appears to be punched in by about three inches at the very least. Probably more. Either way, how was the missile able to fly nearly parallel to the north face of the tower without damaging any more columns? The distance from the east side of column 1 to the location where column nine should have been is approximately 25 feet. If the missile only traveled 9 inches south for every 300 inches it traveled north, we should see many more columns damaged to the left of column 1. These should all have some sort of indentation where we can see the gash getting deeper and deeper. And if your objection is “well there were multiple missiles”, now you have even more problems. Where did the missiles go? Where did they come from? How do they account for the damage evidence which shows remarkable similarities to strange, yet well documented energy effects? There are way too many problems with grandpa De’ak’s multiple missiles theory for me to seriously consider it.
Back to the damage evidence though. I mean we’re less than a third of the way through here. If this is boring you, I’m sorry but it is extremely difficult, actually it is impossible, to address and adequately answer a baited and loaded question or false statement in the amount of time that is was asked. For example, if I someone said to me, “planes did hit the twin towers”, I could not accurately and thoroughly refute that in the two seconds that it took to say that. It would take hours and hours, and indeed it has been done. A lot of exhaustive research is required to refute statements like this, and as a result, it will take dozens of times longer to debunk these faulty claims. So, bear with here, but Steve should be able to refute everything I’m saying point for point if he is correct. All he’ll do is accuse me of ignoring evidence and appealing to authority and believing in fairy tales and being a “Judy Woodtard”. How creative.
Back to the plane shaped hole for real this time. Column 13 shows more damage on both the top and bottom sections, but we also see that the spandrel belt is oh so suspiciously cut off. If missiles did this, why were they strong enough to cut straight through a spandrel belt and column, but still fragile enough to only pinch the cladding on column one? The damage gets worse the closer you get to the center. Obviously. So were weaker JASSM missiles used on the wingtips and then bunker busters were used on the center? You know, I’ve never seen Steve De’ak talk about anything other than the supposed formation of the wingtips when it comes do the damage evidence. Anyways, the top of column 13 is squeezed in a similar fashion to what we saw with column 5, and the bottom of it is bent inwards, not sideways. Column 14 appears to be splitting here at the top, and at the bottom we have this nice circular indentation that looks like Swiss cheese. Remind you of anything, say, maybe the holes in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, and also on Liberty Street? And the Deutsche Bank building? And the great big exotic donut? On the next column, there isn’t much to report, although the top of it has a very clean cut. Keep in mind that this was in the middle of a spandrel belt originally. Something to keep in mind. The bottom of it is bent to the right and inwards. With columns 16, 17, and 18, De’ak says that the bolts were removed on top, but that doesn’t explain how the columns would be severed on the bottom rather than bent. I can’t refute this necessarily, but he can’t verify it. There are other reasons the bolts may appear to be missing, not only on this panel but the other ones he alleges. Perhaps they were turned to dust. I don’t know for sure, but I do know that on the other side of the tower, we have an entire wall panel missing. You can see it in the Luc Courchesne video. In De’ak’s video called St. Nicholas and the Amazing Flying Wall Panel, he suggests that the panel was planted there and the NYPD beat it up with sledgehammers. He doesn’t actually prove that panel was planted there, he just states it like it’s a matter of fact and proceeds forward. No, it is not facing the wrong way, and it is missing from the tower. Now, if you want to claim that the panel was planted there and removed from the tower, you need to prove that somehow or other. I know where I stand on this. I see no invalid reason to believe that the panel did eject outward from the south face of tower 1 with a plane tire in it. In fact, I think the reason the spandrel belt appears to be wilted is because some form of energy was directed at it, dustifying the bolts and weakening the steel. The steel was still in this semi-jellified state when in made contact with the pavement which caused this warping we see. Now that is another topic, but this is the perfect example of how I know that the bolts were not removed. I see no evidence at all that this panel was planted. Steve saying “this was never a part of the World Trade Center, nor was it ever used during its construction” doesn’t cut it. So there’s that.
Now I would like to move more quickly through the rest of the damage seen on tower one, so here we go. Column number 17 doesn’t show much, but it is the start of something that I will get to in a few minutes. Column 18 is the same as 17, but we see this perfectly rectangular punch in or something here. To Mr. concerned grandpa, please tell me exactly how missiles cut a rectangular hole in this column. I am awaiting your response. Thank you. Moving on, the panel that should hold columns 19, 20, and 21 has broken off the upper floors and I think this is due to the collapse of these floors that we see in here. So there is really nothing to report about the tops, but the bottoms show some interesting features. Steve says that the bolts were removed right here, but then why do we see a perfectly clean cut on this aforementioned panel. Only two floors are visible here, what happened to the third one? Unless it turned to dust. Column 22 shows this weird shape on the spandrel belt. We see a diagonal cut and this appears to be a curve that continues eastward until the 17th column where it ends. “OH WELL COLUMN 19 HAS THIS MANGLED PIECE OF ALUMNIUM CLADDING WHICH GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH THE CURVE!” Yes, that is true, how do you suppose it got that way? Missiles? What they can bang up one column yet leave a gash in another? Do you see the double standard? But, while it does break the curve, the stuff behind it continues in this curved pattern. Now I don’t know what this indicates, but I’m pointing it out so that others can provide additional insight into this matter if they have any. Now farther up along the building on this column, we see that this is where the tail of the plane was supposed to have dented. I haven’t seen De’ak explain this. Did a missile get fired from above? In fact, maybe it was fired from the International Space Station which would explain their presence as the north tower went away. They fired a missile at it while going around the earth once and then 102 minutes later they got to see the aftermath and what became of the plot. Oh wait, but the international space station doesn’t exist because the earth is flat and the towers were empty and the north tower served as a flat earth antennae and the complex was built in such a way that reflects pagan sun worship. I’m not actually joking, but some people believe that. How easily can you be deceived that you think all those things? Anyways, I am going to skip columns 23 through 35 because they all look the same. Steve claims that the bolts were removed, but I have already addressed their dustification. It probably has something to do with how the energy was moving around, but it really is just a distraction. We can see one panel that has flipped upside down and there is nothing noteworthy about it that I can find. As for the top parts, they are covered in fumes so there is really no way to address them. However, what are these things? They could just be wires or something, and that’s probably what they are, but I would find it very remarkable that missiles were strong enough to punch through steel and cut aluminum, but it couldn’t cut these wires, if that is what they are. Whatever. Now with these panels bent inward, Steve says that this is evidence of removed floors because if there were floors, they should keep the panels from bending like this. Even from the standpoint of the official story, it really isn’t that difficult to refute this. I could argue that the floors crumpled up inside the building as the plane hit and we just can’t see them. Unfortunately, the official story is not true, so Steve rejects this and screams “removed floors”. No, this shows missing floors, not removed floors. The floors were turned to dust. As Mark Conlon has pointed out, the so called “explosion” or “fireball” is actually just instant dustification. And the more you watch the videos, the more you realize, yes these floor actually turned to dust. They were not removed, nor were they never put in. They were there, they just turned to dust. Got it? Okay. Good.
Column 36 shows noting of our particular interest on the bottom, although that is another clean cut. Not only there, but also four feet higher on the top part of the column. This is another reason why the removed bolts theory doesn’t hold any water. Some of these columns up here show straight, abrupt cuts to them, I use the term cut sarcastically, yet sometimes it occurs when no bolts could have been removed. The cut is in the middle of the column. How do removed bolts account for this? And missiles? You can see on the NIST diagram, this in the middle of a column. Now clearly they didn’t know quite what to do because this area is just left blank. But that aside, this was not a place where bolts could have been removed. Same with a few more columns that we are about to meet. Column number 37 is bent inwards at the bottom with a seemingly clean cut, yet there were no bolts here. With column 38 it’s a bit difficult to draw conclusions from this one because it is masked by the fumes. But its cutoff is again, straight, and there were no bolts here. Column 39 has another clean cut where no bolts were, and the bottom of it is bent to the right. Now if De’ak says missiles came from the east to form the left wing, and west to form the right wing, why are these pieces of aluminum cladding bent in the wrong direction? If he’s saying this indicates directional damage, yet he contradicts himself in his animations and words, why should we trust him? Next column. It shows the same characteristics as column 39 with the clean cut, but the aluminum cladding looks slightly warped. And it’s a smooth warping, nothing that could be caused by a projectile. Jellification maybe? Column 41 shows a clean cut at the spandrel belt where obviously, no bolts were. The aluminum cladding underneath shows a twisting in one direction similar to the last column, and the aluminum cladding up above shows this weird sort of indentation. The damage is son minor that it could not have possible been caused by missiles. Almost done here, and I’m sure you are very glad. 42nd column just has this diagonal gash in the cladding which does not push the cladding to one side or the other. In column 43 though, the top part of the aluminum is bent toward the east, and the bottom part is bent toward the west. And finally, the last column, column 44, shows this straight cut on the cladding above the gash, and a messy cut that almost looks like a double-you in the bottom part. These last there column shed a whole new light on things. If a missile hit these columns, why did it decide to let the cladding remain stationary in one column, to have the cladding move in two different directions in the next column, and then create a double-you shaped cut-out on the last column? What type of missile does this? And you can’t ignore this and pass it off as irrelevant, it needs to be addressed if you think JASSM missiles did this. You have forces working in all directions, not only in these three columns, but also throughout the rest of the plane shaped hole.
Let me ask you something, what direction was this column struck from? Simple answer, it wasn’t struck from any one direction, you have energy directed at it causing it to behave like Jell-O. “Directed energy weapons don’t exist!” Really, would read for me Chapter 17 of Where Did the Towers Go?? That would benefit you a lot. Yes, free energy technology does exist, and this is a proven fact! And De’ak tries to say it isn’t because his missiles and hollow towers theory invalidates directed energy weapons. Well, Steve, I’ve never you seen you address the seismic signature, the bathtub, the dustification and dust cloud rollout and fuzzballs and molecular dissociation, jellification and rolled up carpets, the lack of debris, the holes in other buildings, toasted cars, partly dustified steel, weird fires and unburned paper, lather, Hurricane Erin and weather anomalies and field effects, the magnetometer data, or the similarities with the Hutchison Effect. This is just for starters, please read Where Did the Towers Go? and address everything in there! How does one column supposedly showing dust and paper pouring out of it refute anything in that book? “STEEL DOESN’T TURN TO DUST IN THE REAL WORLD!” Well guess what, APPARENTLY IT DOES! Otherwise the videos wouldn’t show it!! Some videos show it so clearly that if you can’t see it, you are a confirmed disinformationist. And I sent him a video that shows steel turning to dust, and he kept avoiding the question. This was all through comment debates over the summer on his YouTube channel. The thread is still there as of the making of this video, and I actually ended up copying and pasting the comments and taking screenshots of them and saving them. On September 10th, I saved it as a .pdf knowing that it could be useful in the future, and I uploaded this to my blog page. The link is in the description unless I forgot to put it there because of how long this video is and the time it took me to write this out and script this and record and edit it. If any of the links are missing, please tell me and I’ll find them. But yeah, I saved these and uploaded them to my blog page which is only for supplementary material to my videos. I won’t be writing articles like Mark or Christian Hampton do, but if something I do on YouTube requires that, I’ll use the blog site. By the way, if you haven’t already, please go check out their blogs which I have linked on my channel’s home page. So much information was exchanged in those comments that it would utterly ridiculous to go through them all. Read through them for yourself if you want to, but it’s 136 pages in length, so…there’s that. Anywho, I’ve also been going back and forth with him on his website and every time he replies to one of my comments, it saves it to my computer through an email. I just have this archive of emails from these comment debates so no one can accuse me of faking them, not that they would. Now, Steve doesn’t want this .pdf of 136 pages of comment debates for some reason. All he does now is say that Mark deleted his comments, which he did not. I happen to believe that Steve deleted them. You’ll notice this pattern of accusation has happened multiple times. He first accuses Mark of deleting his comments, and I do remember seeing that his comments were missing from that thread when I checked on it on September 10th. His first strike on his channel was the next day, so it can’t be related to that. I’m thinking that Steve deleted them sometime before then, maybe in August, and then remembered this until December when he comes out attacking Mark on his website. Because by that point, Mark’s channel had been long gone, and Steve should have very well known that, or at least privately asked Mark through his blog whether or not he deleted the comments, and why. This same pattern has occurred with Andrew where Steve says that Andrew won’t address his claims, when I really is Steve who hasn’t contacted Andrew since 2012! And even I got mentioned in an article, yay I’m famous! Except I don’t care about fame, I only care about truth.
But, I won’t go through the comments at all, I will leave that option entirely up to the viewer on whether or not you want to read through those and you can make up your own mind on Steve’s genuineness. Go to yankee451.com and read through the comments in the articles, and if they mysteriously disappear, please let me know and I’ll post them to my blog, or maybe I’ll just do that anyways if I have time.
Now I’ve only addressed tower 1! I’m not going through all the columns in tower 2, I promise you, but neither does Steve. So neither will I. All he says is that the damage evidence looks very similar, and it does in some ways, so I’ll leave it at that. It is very difficult to find good photos of the hole in tower 2 also, but I may examine the tower 2 hole in the future, or add more information to the tower 1 hole if it is found, which I’m sure it will be. But for now, I am perfectly content in saying that the holes were created by directed energy, and that the planes were holograms. I am comfortable using the word hologram now that Christian Hampton also known as Wolf Clan Media has made some new breakthroughs with information related to advance holographic technology. The link to his article is in the description, unless it isn’t. Anyways, Steve also won’t talk about anything except for the towers. I don’t mean to sound like the stereotypical Richard Gage worshipper, but what about Building 7? Or Building 6? Or 5? Or 4? Or 3? Or the Deutsche bank building? Or anything else in Where Did the Towers Go?? He has yet to refute that, but he can’t because it has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now to briefly address his removed floors claim, I don’t have to say much. Before I say that though, let me make it clear that he believes that the towers were hollow from the beginning. In his own words, “Prove the floors were there to begin with. Prove every floor had poured concrete on them, and that every floor had HVAC, electrical and plumbing fixtures and water therein.” Umm, whoa! Okay, very simple, there are pictures of it and eyewitness testimonies of people who worked in the World Trade Center. A list of tenants in the complex is available at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html. And from there you can see the tenants of other buildings. “OH, BUT THE LIGHTSWTICHES WEREN’T IN THE OFFICES!” I though you said there were no offices to begin with! He has such a double standard! He’ll say that the 92nd or 93rd floor of tower one was reinforced, but then he says there were no floors ever, and he also says that Edna Cintron was real, but there were still no floors, and he brings up things about the towers not have light switches or what have you, but none of that proves that the towers were hollow. Steve, until you can prove that every single employee never existed, your theory is bull crap. What, were the tourists fake also? This is the same logic that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage use with explosives. When people ask how bombs and thermite could have been planted, they always bring up an example of this 57 story building that was refurbished or something without the knowledge of the general public. Well guess what, that ain’t the same as planting bombs! You know, the hollow towers theory is so ridiculous that it is honestly embarrassing that I have to talk about it. We have footage from the top of tower 2 on September 9th, and from the top of tower 1 on September 10th! Watch the documentary 9/10: The Final Hours and prove to me that all those people were liars. “WELL YOU AREN’T ADDRESSING THE POSTS!” I don’t need to! I can think logically! As Richard D. Hall has said, “you have left your Occam’s Razor rusting in the garden shed.” You can’t have literally tens of millions of people in on it. That includes employees and employers, tourists, their relatives, photographers, business owners, must I continue? Thousands upon thousands of people visited the complex each year. How was such an enormous conspiracy kept secret for over thirty years with anything going wrong? There would have been way to much risk involved. “WELL IF I HAD A BILLION DOLLARS AND WANTED TO PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS OFF–” NO! I don’t care how much money and power you have, it doesn’t enable you to be in complete and total control of what everyone sees, thinks, reports, and does! How would that have any effect on people at all? Are all the videos and photos from inside the towers fake? We have videos from 9/11 of firemen going into the towers, and I don’t just mean Jules Naudet’s footage, there are others as well. Why does Steve think that the Naudet scenes in the lobby were pre-recorded? You can find the entire footage archived elsewhere, although there is an ugly watermark and quality is extremely low.
This logic also applies to the plane issue. Mr. concerned grandpa ignores all aspects of the video fakery debate. All he does is spew this missile garbage as if it’s the key to solving everything wrong with the world and use this as a smokescreen to ignore the video evidence. He says it’s important to start with the scene of the crime, so why wouldn’t he like any videos of it? In his own words, “I shouldn’t need to address any of the video evidence at this point, the damage evidence mentioned above is enough to discredit all of the jet impacts all at once. How they faked them is irrelevant and beside the point of what the impact evidence shows. It doesn’t matter how many “official story” witnesses or how many “amateur” videos they trot out, their claims don’t change the evidence of lateral impacts from small projectiles. Besides, in this day of 3D movies and digital animations it should be understood that the videos of the jets are a piece of cake to fake.” No, as I have shown, the damage evidence is not consistent with lateral impacts from small projectiles. Even if it were true, which it isn’t, I don’t see why that would be a valid reason do discredit ALL videos, photos, and eyewitnesses. He won’t address the video evidence except for his few junk theories on the Hezarkhani video about 15 supposedly motionless frames, which he now admits doesn’t prove anything he says about tripods. And then right after saying that studying the video evidence is irrelevant, he says, “Furthermore, all the videos of the plane impacts show anomalies that indicate they are fraudulent, every one.” He provides no evidence to back up this claim and contradicts his earlier statement about us not needing to focus on the video evidence. His assumption is very much like David Ray Griffin’s with the Pentagon, and that is “physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony”. Dave keeps saying that no matter how many eyewitnesses of a plane at the Pentagon are produced, he still won’t accept their account. Same thing with De’ak, he ignores dozens, actually dozens of thousands in this case; he ignores all eyewitnesses in favor of misinterpreted damage evidence and unverifiable statements that are quoted out of context. What I find disgusting about him is his doublemindedness with videos and eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are all unreliable, except for the ones that side with me, and all the videos are fake except for the ones that aren’t. Okay. I see how this is. You have a pre-determined conclusion and will try to force all the evidence to fit into that tiny little bucket. Now about the Pentagon, he has some theories about that as well, but I cannot address them simply because I have not looked into the Pentagon nearly as much as I have the World Trade Center. I’ve seen all the films the Pilots group has done, and I’ve seen all 12 hours of CIT’s films. They make some excellent points in there, but they lead you to the wrong conclusion of a flyover. As far as I’m concerned, people did see what they believed to be a plane crash into the side of the Pentagon according to the official flight path, at least during the last few minutes. Exact same as in New York. I do think that Thierry Meyssan was wrong with his missile hypothesis, but I do think that his astute observations so early on caused the powers that be to fret a little bit and somehow or other keep this information from being noticed at the other sites as well. Anyways, that is a topic for another day, but that is the position that I hold to very loosely, even though I’m relatively certain that all the evidence shows that. I now have a feel for the pattern of events that day. Whatever. But, De’ak twists so much evidence and ignores the rest, and spends most of his time people bashing.
He put forward a lot of false statements in his articles responding to Mark, and then the other Paparazzi one that I was criticized in. Just to address the Paparazzi article briefly, because I want to defend myself, this shouldn’t take any more than a few minutes. So he accuses me of stalking him, and I don’t stalk him, I just watch him closely because of how suspicious he has become. He says that I purposefully tried to get two frames completely motionless in my video from Battery Park, but I was there on June 13th, and he released that information on June 20, or at least that was when I became aware of it. He says that Michael Hezarkhani was “zoomed in tight on flight 175 as it hit the WTC”, but as Chris has pointed out, he believes that there was no plane actually in the original, so he was zoomed in on nothing? But as for the relationship between zoom and video stability; how far in a camera is zoomed does not affect how stable it is in ANY WAY. The shakiness may become more noticeable when it is zoomed in, but if it is motionless when it is zoomed in, it is motionless when it is zoomed out, and vice versa. The zoom of the camera does not influence how the videographer moves the camera around. But at the end, he concedes to me and admits I was right all along, which I actually didn’t even know he thought until January 12th when I read the article for the first time. He has had all the time since June to tell me that, and he told me indirectly through an article on his website in JANUARY! This is why he is so good at defending himself because he takes doesn’t even let you know when he attacked. He doesn’t take the time to contact you at all to try to resolve any conflicts. About our comment debate over the summer, he later says, “During the conversation with Conspiracy Cuber, Mark Conlon showed up and thanked Conspiracy Cuber for keeping a record of the conversation, so clearly this was a team effort.” It turned into a team effort, but I originally started this by myself without even knowing of Mark’s existence. I had seen his name a few times on checktheevidence.com, but if you asked me who he was I wouldn’t know. What introduced me to him was his No Planes Perception Management Article on checktheevidence from April and I saw De’ak mentioned at the bottom. Then I went to his blog and found the MORE TO THE STORY article which was published in the middle of June. Eventually I came across his YouTube channel on July 4th, and I left a comment and throughout the rest of the day we started exchanging information. So on July 6th, he intervened into the thread that Steve and I were debating on, and things took off from there. This was not a planned trolling or what have you, it was a sincere inquiry in April, and then I realized that something was amiss. He also accuses Mark deleting of all his comments from the thread which he didn’t as I have already said. And now he has said on Facebook, “Mark Conlon is a con, it’s even in his name!” Oh okay, and I suppose I’m a con too because it’s in my YouTube name as well, CONspiracy cuber. HahAhAHa! Right, so he’s resorted to ad hom now that he can’t actually answer Mark’s questions or mine. I won’t comment beyond that at this time, unless I have to.
So, this video has gone on long enough and it’s about time that I stop. But a few questions for Mr. Concerned Grandpa De’ak before I leave:
1. How could a dozen missiles be fired at each tower and no one notices?
2. Don’t you think that after over 16 years some people might report seeing that now?
3. How did the “compositrators” fake the videos so perfectly so that they match 100% in every way?
4. Can you provide any irrefutable proof of video fakery on every video?
5. Can you provide any evidence that all the witnesses were lying?
6. Can you prove to anyone that there were actually very few witnesses rather than the generally accepted number of thousands? I haven’t actually seen anyone refute the claim that thousands of people saw each alleged plane, so the burden of proof of insincerity is on you.
7. How could the trajectory of the missiles be so perfect as to replicate the exact dimensions of a Boeing 767-222 or 223ER for flights 175 and 11 respectively? What is a sudden gust of wind happened to push a missile off its course by three feet, or even three inches?
8. Where were all the missiles fired from? Not all 24 or more could have been fired from the Woolworth building, in fact none of them could have. Especially for the south tower.
9. How were two dozen missiles transported to the roof of the Woolworth building which is almost 60 floors tall?
10. Where is the missile debris?
11. Why are there absolutely ZERO people who saw missiles?
12. Why are there no parts of missiles wrapped around the columns near the holes?
13. Realistically, do you think that you could execute this perfectly and flawlessly first take, and manage the cover-up for decades and decades even after you die?
14. How do missiles account for the damage evidence that resembles energy effects and not missiles?
15. Why do you deny the existence of advance directed energy weapons and LENR?
16. Why do you think that the 1400+ toasted cars were all set ablaze by firemen? How does that account for all the phenomena that Dr. Wood has observed such as the missing engines, instant rusting, instant toasting with that parking lot on West Street, fuming handles, missing handles, weird fires that are attracted to the tires or roof or somewhere else were you wouldn’t expect. And that is barely scratching the surface; these fires also could not be quenched.
17. Why do you so vehemently deny that steel turned to dust?
18. Have you even read Where Did the Towers Go??
19. How do you explain all the other evidence in the book which you ignore?
20. Why did you block me from your website three times? First on January 12th, second on January 25th, and then a third time from posting comments several days later. I found ways to get around it each time because he blocked my IP address, so I could go somewhere else or go off of WiFi, but then he blocked me from posting comments. And then he unblocked me eventually, so why did all of this happen? You even admitted to it in a comment, so why?
21. Are you willing to take this to court?
22. Why do you still believe that the buildings were blown up in a controlled demolition?
23. Were you responsible for the sudden and oh-so-coincidentally-timed release of the BBC article on 9/11 conspiracies? Why is this pattern mirroring last year so marvelously? We have you coming out with new information, then Andrew’s website gets shut down temporarily, then after a little bit of fighting back, we have the mainstream news publishing articles on 9/11 by the dozens. We have the BBC article on 9/11 conspiracies (which is basically controlled demolition) released one day after Chris’ article on video fakery. Then on the 5th of February, the Associated Press comes out talking about Moussaoui saying that he has been psychologically tortured. And there were several more articles of the same nature, and also ones on the death of 9/11 heroes, and some now on 9/11 cancer, and even more stray ones talking about how president Trump implied that another 9/11 could benefit America or other things. Do you see what the powers that be are doing? They keep using the same tactics over and over and over, and if no one takes the time to document any of this and expose their efforts, we will fall for the same trap time and time again. It is often said that learning history is important so that humankind doesn’t keep making the same mistakes, so why not step back for a moment and realize that history is repeating itself in respects to 9/11. Read Mark Conlon’s articles on the “no planes perception management” from last year, and look at these recent events, and you’ll see that the same tricks are being performed, just rehashed and presented as new information. Sickening isn’t it?
So De’ak, you need to address the points I brought up in this extremely long winded and semi-disorganized video. Truly, I apologize for the length and monotony of this video, but I think this response was necessary even if it was a bit rushed. If there is more information that y’all found and I didn’t notice, please tell me, or if I got anything wrong please tell me. Thank you all for watching, have a good day, and please spread awareness of this information and visit Mark and Chris’ blogs. Bye.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Funny, but I swear I answered these questions here:
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:33 pm
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:19 pm
“I addressed the damaged evidence COLUMN FOR COLUMN on tower 1. (Okay, all the columns that I could find something to talk about on—which ended up being most of them 31 of the 44). You need to address everything in there point for point if you expect me to take you seriously. I’ll post the script I used.”
You need to answer any of my questions and stop demanding that I answer to you. Thanks.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Questions to Judy’s minions:
Dust and paper pours out of a wall column
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:30 pm
I address those complaints in my video. Yeah buts from a scribe, still ignoring the meat of the post.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Oh what’s this? You aren’t addressing the meat of my video?
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:39 pm
I wonder, does the meat include answering the questions:
Why mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles when they were showing the impact of a large one?
Why, if the jet was a hologram, didn’t the media show the impact live?
Why are the anchoring straps and evidence of concrete floor material still hanging from the lobby walls, but no similar material on every spandrel above that level?
Why was dust and paper pouring out of a wall column after impact but well before demolition?
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Yes I address all those complaints IN THE VIDEO. Please watch it first and then get back to me.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:47 pm
I just read through most of the text. I think I’ll just let it sit for a while, and speak for itself.
Conspiracy Cuber · March 13, 2018 at 4:21 pm
I answered all your questions IN THE VIDEO. If you can’t watch it right now, that isn’t my problem, you just need to stop accusing me of avoiding your claims because the video has been online for a week now. Gosh.
Steve De'ak · March 13, 2018 at 4:36 pm
You must think I hang on your every word. I don’t. I don’t think truthers give a shit about the truth, and double goes for Judy Wood and her minions.
Pablo Novi · January 3, 2019 at 12:15 pm
PART 1: Pablo’s Critique of the WTC Nuke Hypotheses (copied from my comment on De’ak’s YouTube, “911 – WTC dismantled and hollow vs mini-nukes – edited – HD version”
Please note: Virtually every point I make here to refute any and all versions of nukes bringing down the Twin Towers, also apply to DEWs.
0) Competing Nuke Hypotheses: A. Big Nukes In Basements (Dimitri K.); B. Mini- , Dialable-Nukes Every 10 Floors (Fetzer); C. Nuke-Driven DEWs In Basements (“The Professor”) D. Other versions of Nukes at the WTC
1). THREE FORENSICS PROOFS OF NO TYPES OF NUKES BRINGING DOWN THE WTC TOWERS:
a) The N. Tower “SPIRE” – any kind of nuke, situated within and/or under the core should have utterly destroyed this; yet, post initial destruction – there it was. Ergo, no nukes within and/or under the core.
b) The N. Tower ANTENNA – it has been established that the first VISIBLE movement of WTC #1 was its Antenna moving downwards. It sat on the core; so the core had to have been moving downwards, pulling it down with it. But, the “Spire” (perhaps 60% of the core) was still there – so the lower core did NOT pull down the Antenna.
Ergo, something other than nukes within / under the core caused the Antenna to move first.
c) Both WTC Twin Towers’ FACADES’ “CHEX” (3-column panels) – virtually all of them were to be seen, virtually-intact, on the ground after the Twin Towers came down. So, unless the nukes could somehow produce a SQUARE-SHAPED destruction pattern, nukes were NOT what brought the Twin Towers down.
2) NEVERTHELESS, WAS “EVIDENCE” OF NUKES FOUND AT THE WTC? I THINK IT WAS.
I am no expert and do not have a firm position about this. Do I think it’s possible that there WAS “evidence” of nukes present at the WTC DESPITE them NOT being used to bring the Twins down? Yes.
The 9/11 perps had to KNOW that a 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) would arise and be the #1 threat to the continued effectiveness of the 9/11 Big Lie. Therefore, they would have pre-planned to “outmaneuver” the 911TM; particularly thru calling us “conspiracy theorists” AND thru Divide-And-Conquer tactics.
One such divide-and-conquer tactic would have been to plant / “seed” the WTC site with “evidence” of the use of multiple destructive agents / weapons. The reasoning behind planting such “evidence” would be simply: as each group / segment of the 911TM found evidence of ONE type of destructive agent / weapon – they would THINK that they had solved a major part of the 9/11 puzzle; and would tend to insist that the entire rest of the 911TM accept their discovery as being THE explanation for how the Twin Towers were brought down.
Some found “evidence” of thermitics (various types); other “evidence” of DEWs; others “evidence” of nukes (various kinds); others “evidence” of various other destructive agents / weapons. And, just as the 9/11 perps would have anticipated – this has led to a 911TM splintering into competing and mutually-exclusive “wings”.
I suggest that the 911 perps used the WTC site as a kind of FREE, TOXIC-WASTE DUMP. In addition to almost inevitably confusing / dividing the 911TM it would also have been a big money-saver for the owners of hazardous materials – just dump them at the WTC – and the publicly-funded US Gov would clean them up for free.
3) COULD “EVIDENCE” OF NUKES AT THE WTC BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED BY THEM HAVING BEEN “PLANTED” THERE? I THINK IT CAN.
Supposing that “evidence” of nukes at the WTC was found; could not, would not the 911 perps have prepared that “evidence” in such a way as to indicate both the usage of nukes and match the standard decay pattern that they go thru? I don’t see why not; nor does it seem to me to be all that difficult to pull off.
Basically, dump the residues from either nuclear power plants and/or exploded nuclear bombs (from test sites) – and that covers both the trace amounts claimed to have been found AND the matching of nuclear-decay chain results with what would be expected.
00). PABLO’S MORE GENERALIZED CRITIQUE OF THE PROMOTERS OF NUKE-AT-WTC HYPOTESES: In opposition to the thinking of virtually all parts and components of the 9/11 Truth Movement, my position is that these efforts to try to solve, What Supposedly D-I-D Happen On 9/11? are simply “putting the cart before the horse”; i.e., imo, they are mis-directed.
And could only lead to, and have definitely led to the 911TM being splintered into innumerable pieces – resulting in our overall effectiveness being reduced to a minimum – instead of a maximum all of us honest Truthers desire.
This is EXACTLY what the 9/11 perps hoped and planned for; and we Truthers have fallen, hook, line & sinker, into their trap.
Note, even if it WERE possible for us to eventually solve 9/11; given the massive destruction of evidence, the multiple other roadblocks the 911 perps have put in our way, our own deficiencies in being able to investigate deeply enough AND the sheer amount of time needed … VS how much suffering the world is going thru due to the 9/11 pretext … Insisting on trying to solve What Supposedly D-I-D Happen On 9/11 – is not within our capacity to achieve in any reasonable amount of time – FAR too many lives are at stake – we, the 911TM, MUST do something sooner, as soon as possible.
Imo, our ONLY ONUS is simply to establish beyond a reasonable doubt: What Did N-O-T Happen On 9/11 – i.e. that the U.S. Gov. 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a Big Lie.
But, actually, we did this several years ago. From the moment that we proved the OCT a Big Lie; our #1 task SHOULD HAVE BEEN, and remains, to UNITE as much of the 911TM as is willing-and-able; and TOGETHER, take that UNIFIED message to the millions of non-rich Americans and to the billions of non-rich people around the world; so that they would …
GET ANGRY ENOUGH to
RISE UP ENOUGH to
End ALL The Wars, Police States & World-Wide Poverty, NOW!
N.B. There has been a concrete attempt to summarize all the main points of the OCT; refute each and every one of them; while avoiding all the main 911TM controversies. This is the Leaflet, “End ALL The Wars & Police States, NOW!” (aka, “The 911 Truth UNITY Manifesto”). It can be found as the 1st, pinned, post at Facebook page, “International 9/11 Fraud Awareness Week”,
The effectiveness, utility, of the Leaflet was proven by its UNANIMOUS acceptance (a little over two years ago, in late 2016, by the 9/11 Truth Leaders … Teleconference – attended by some 40 9/11 Truth Leaders. That group has probably never agreed unanimously on any other major 9/11 question.
So its unanimous approval SHOWS that the “9/11 Truth UNITY Manifesto” is our “missing link” – the one tool we didn’t have previously; yet most needed.
What should now happen is that many, most, all “wings” and groupings within the 911TM should UNITE to mass-distribute (with translations in all languages asap) the UNITY Manifesto everywhere. With that being our main focus and activity, naturally, all our other 9/11 work should take a secondary role.
In other words, we are not calling for each 911TM segment to refrain from continuing their other efforts (including continuing to try to investigate What Supposedly D-I-D Happen On 9/11; we are simply calling for, “demanding”, that for the sake of the suffering billions, we treat those tasks as definitely secondary to our MAIN TASK: UNITING around the “9/11 Truth UNITY Manifesto” and together taking it to the masses – because ONLY THEY, in their millions and billions, have the power to: End ALL The Wars, Police-States & World-Wide Poverty, NOW!
end Part 1. Coming: a Critique of Steve De’ak’s “Hollow Towers” hypothesis
Steve De'ak · January 5, 2019 at 8:50 am
You and I have disagreed about this for some time now:
IMO, we (the 911 Truth Community), already agree on that point, in fact, it is because we all agree the official story is a lie that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement to begin with. I can say without a doubt that Judy Wood, Richard Gage, Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Simon Hytten, Barbara Honegger, Phil Jayhan, you and I, are all on the same page when it comes to whether or not the official story is a lie. Now what?
Steve De'ak · January 5, 2019 at 9:09 am
I completely agree, and it was with the goal of uniting the movement under one banner (while simultaneously exposing disingenuous truthers), that I began the 9/11 Crash Test project. It is the “no planes” question that so divides the movement and makes it so ineffectual as an opposition movement. By eliminating the “no planes” contention the truth movement could finally present a unified front. The test proposed by 9/11 Crash Test is an example not of proving what did happen but of proving what didn’t happen. It would be inexpensive to fund (a fraction of what AE911T squanders every year), exciting to watch, and would be impossible for the mainstream media to ignore. And yet it is still ignored by the “mainstream” movement, exposing them as a false front for the powers that be. Uniting with such people is impossible, as is evidenced by the last six years, where they bent over backwards to pretend valid and necessary tests such as “9/11 Crash Test”, don’t exist and aren’t realistic options. After 17 years of inaction (and petitioning the most likely suspects for redress), the proof is in the pudding. We can prove what didn’t happen all right, but the 9/11 Truth Movement isn’t interested. By examining the results of their activism it can be surmised they aren’t interested in anything more than dividing (and conquering) the opposition.
Pablo Novi · January 3, 2019 at 12:20 pm
Hey Steve, my main man,
I’ve just now posted a copy of my critique of the nuke-hypothesis at the WTC. I’m writing THIS comment because I don’t see here on this site what I just posted (this is not the first time this has happened).
Steve De'ak · January 3, 2019 at 12:49 pm
It was awaiting approval by yours truly, which has been given. Thank you for the comments!
front · September 7, 2020 at 8:40 pm
I’d just like one question…. How do body parts end up 1400 feet in a gravitational collapse? That’s 4 football fields in length.
Steve De'ak · September 12, 2020 at 8:05 am
Phil Jayhan · January 20, 2023 at 7:52 pm
I was glad to see this site still up Steve! I have been absent for so long after the site got hacked, because I needed some air and space from 9/11. Give me a call when you get a chance! It would be nice to catch up!
Steve De'ak · January 20, 2023 at 8:28 pm
Woah, hi Phil!