Wednesday, May 13, 2009


I've been looking at the comments on some of the videos about the red chips and I've found that a lot of truthers are having the same old pointless arguments about freefall speed, modest fires, bombs in the buildings, etc. What is this 2006? You're commenting on a video that PROVES there was high-tech explosive nano-thermite in those buildings and you still consider those things important?

We have proof people. We don't need to keep rehashing speculative topics anymore. It just feeds the debunkers and distract people from the stronger evidence.

Even now I still read YouTube comments saying the Twin Towers came down in only 10 seconds. They didn't. It was more like 15 - which is possible. When you say 15 floors crushed 95 in only 15 seconds it does sound a bit far-fetched but in truth it wouldn't have been 15 floors crushing 95. It would have been 15 floors crushing the 16th, then 16 floors crushing the 17th, then 17 floors crushing the 18 etc. - in a kind of domino effect. As the collapse progresses, the mass and velocity of the so-called "piledriver" would have increased and the kinetic energy would have increased exponentially. And half way down when 55 floors of the building are crashing down at 50mph, the lower floors wouldn't slow it down much. Meaning that as long as the piledriver breaks through the first floor, a global collapse in under 15 seconds is inevitable.

There are alternative explanations for almost everything, take William Rodriguez's story for example. The release of the 9/11 Commission documents vindicated him from claims of debunkers that his story has changed over the years, but there is a simpler explanation for his story. The speed of sound in air is about 340 meters per second. The height of the 95th floor of the north tower was about 360 meters. That means that it would have taken a whole second for people on the ground to hear the enormous explosion of the fireball. But since vibrations travel much faster in solids, the impact of the plane would have been felt instantly. Down in the low levels of the building, the plane crash would have probably seemed like two different events because of the time delays. And when you consider the fact that elevators, debris and even bodies were falling, it's not surprising that people would hear multiple sounds.

Then there's all the witness testimony of explosions and bombs which seems convincing on the surface but in actual fact most of them were being interviewed after the south tower's collapse and before the North Tower's collapse. Debunkers will argue that at the time they simply thought the collapse of the South Tower was just one huge explosion. Now of course there are some more interesting quotes such as I, uh, got a witness who said there was an explosion on floors 7-8, 7-8" and It sounded like gunfire - bang, bang, bang, bang - and then three big explosionsalong with talk of a strange van with a bomb and the testimonies of McPadden, Shroeder, Bartmer and Jennings, but let's be honest, it was a chaotic and traumatic day and none of this is really relevant to the demolitions anyway.

James Meigs has said many times that "conspiracy theorists love a vacuum". In truth, it's the debunkers that love a vacuum because we speculate too much. In the BBC hitpiece Richard Gage speculates that WTC7 was rigged for demolition when it was built and they immediately cut to Mark Loizeux patronizing him. This is what happens when we speculate.

Certain things about that day such as the Pentagon attack and the Flight 93 crash were deliberately left vague to promote speculation about missiles and things. Have you ever wondered why they even bothered attacking the Pentagon and crashing Flight 93? I mean, what happened in New York would have been enough to justify war on its own, right? So why bother going through the trouble of crashing two more planes? I believe they did it to promote speculation. These are the same people that killed John F Kennedy and Princess Diana and carried out the 1993 bombing, OKC and loads of other false flags. Because of the "conspiracy theories" surrounding those events they must have known some people would see through the illusion. So they attacked the Pentagon and withheld the evidence to promote "no-plane" theories. The Pentagon and Flight 93 attacks are psy-ops. And I'm starting to think this whole CIT/Pentacon/northern approach stuff is more disinfo. The mainstream media are more than willing to focus on those events, but they ignore the hard science.

We humans seem to have this mental illness where we love speculation and hearsay but ignore the proof. Alex Jones was talking about this a little while ago when Glenn Beck was "debunking" FEMA camps and when a video went viral on YouTube about DHS supposedly transporting bird flu. People seem to love watching videos of someone running up to a stationary train panting heavily or some woman saying "We have some actual proof that a trucker may actually be transporting bird flu" but when it comes to the real proof (often their own documents) no one seems to be interested. Back in February, truthers went crazy over the Beijing fire which "proves" WTC7 was demolished. Paul Watson of PrisonPlanet dedicated 4 front page articles to it. But now that we actually do have proof, the silence is deafening.

So please people, don't feed the debunkers! We have proof! This is all we should be talking about now. Post links to these videos and the paper everywhere, burn them to disc, get this bombshell proof out. If debunkers attack the journal or the peer-review process, tell them to write their own paper. If they say it's just paint and show you a paint spectrum that looks similar to the red chip spectrums, tell them four words: "nanosized particles, extremely explosive!"

Don't get distracted and start talking about things like bombs, squibs, freefall, "pull it" or whatever coz it's completely unnecessary now and you'll just be setting yourself up. Stick to what we can prove.

Addendum: Apparently some have misinterpreted this as me saying "ignore all the other evidence". That's not what I'm saying. The other evidence is still important and should certainly be brought up when we get a real investigation. But when debating debunkers or trying to convince people that the towers were demolished, this is really all we should be talking about.