Distorted Tilt Confirmed

To explain the constant acceleration of the upper block of WTC 1, Ryan Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the Tower misaligned the columns to a point where the impacts were not square enough to produce sufficient deceleration. He demonstrated this in a Hardfire debate with Tony Szamboti, using this graphic.

However, Scootle Royale demonstrated that Mackey was incorrect in his analysis, pointing out that the upper block did not rotate about a fixed point as Mackey's slide states. Here, I will expand on Scootle's rebutal to Mackey by using another debunker's analysis. Shortly after the Hardfire debate aired, debunker AlienEntity posted the following video in support of Mackey's theory.


The video basically confirms that the tilt was instant in the collapse. But after I watched it a few times, I realized that it may also confirm exactly what Scootle pointed out. To test this, I first took Mackey's original graphic and straightened it out to illustrate the Tower prior to tilting. Then, I set it next to Mackey's graphic of the tilted Tower with markers added.

I've numbered the floors for both graphics so that debunkers will not accuse me of incorrectly adjusting Mackey's original graphic.

What this comparison shows is that, if the upper block truly "rotated before falling" as Mackey's slide states, then the north side of the Tower would have remained fixed relative to the original height of the building. Here, I've taken AlienEntity's original video and added my own marker to the roofline of the building. And it clearly shows that the north side does not remain fixed. It falls at the same time the tilt begins.



Mackey's analysis is clearly incorrect, and does not adequately explain the lack of a jolt in the North Tower's collapse. Until proven otherwise, the acceleration of WTC 1 clearly violates the laws of physics.

Side note: I would like to take this opportunity to thank AlienEntity, as his work has been very useful to me recently.

Annoying Religions and Torture

So I have recently had a number of conversations with some old friends of mine who are atheists and I've come to the conclusion that atheists are really difficult to wake up. Due to my simple, comedic way of highlighting the absurdities in the norms of modern day society, most of the people I talk to about things like 9/11, central banking, climate change, vaccines, the new world order etc tend to agree with me. But my atheist friends always seem to disagree. Must be the "skeptic" influence. Most so-called skeptics are atheists, and most atheists are skeptics. They practically read from the same playbook - they both use ad-hominem, they both take scientific authority and questionable computer simulations as gospel, they both have that same dislikable, condescending arrogance and they both have no concept of probability.

I’ve always enjoyed probability. When I was only thirteen, I figured out that I could use that exclamation mark button on my calculator to calculate the probability of winning the lottery. And the main reason I know there’s more to 9/11 than what the official story tells us, aside from all the hard evidence, is because of all the improbable coincidences. While I'm no fan of religion, and I somewhat agree with Part 1 of Zeitgeist, I do, like many great minds, including Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, acknowledge the physical improbability of life without a creator. My views on atheism, like my views on most things (even 9/11 truth to some extent), can basically be summed up in an episode of South Park. Atheists tend to sit on their high horse and claim not to follow any religion, when in reality, atheism is a religion. There are numerous points in the evolutionary timeline which have not, as of yet, been satisfactorily explained by science and currently require huge leaps of FAITH to fully support without question. And with numerous unexplained mysteries in this world such as crop circles (the atheist explanation for such phenomena amounts to little more than a baseless conspiracy theory involving thousands of artistic pranksters creeping around at night with sticks!), how anyone can flat out say that there is no chance of a higher power is beyond me!



If you want to believe in enormous improbabilities go ahead. It’s your right to believe whatever you want. But for the love of Dawkins, at least admit that it’s a religion!

I think it was summed up best by Ryan Mackey in the recently uploaded Hardfire debate when he was accusing truthers of having an "irreducible delusion". His exact words can be thrown right back at him.

Speaking of 9/11 truth and annoying religions... no-planers! It seems UK's Channel 4 plans to smash a plane into the desert. The Pentagon no-planers seem pretty confident it will prove the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757. They're going to crash it into the desert sand at an unspecified angle ... hardly a concrete wall! It may however, assuming it crashes at an angle perpendicular to the ground, shed some light on what happened to Flight 93. I look forward to watching the engines roll half a kilometer!

Why are we still asking questions? ... As CNN said today, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is "the confessed organizer of the September 11, 2001, attacks". That's right, after being waterboarded a mere 183 times, KSM confessed! ... Well I'm convinced! ... He's going to be defending himself in court. I'd be amazed if he has any free thought left. Talk about trauma-based mind control.



And I really wish they'd stop saying it "simulates drowning". It isn't simulated drowning, it IS drowning! ... At least from your brains point of view... People think it's just having your head submerged in water and you can hold your breathe and whatever ... No ... It doesnt trick ur brain into thinking you're submersed in water, it tricks your brain into thinking you are at the point when you run out of air and you actually are drowning. Your body's reflexes kick in and your heart goes nuts exactly as it would if you actually are drowning. It's drowning without the relief of death. No living thing should have to go through that, I wouldn't even wish it on Henry Kissinger.