Sunday, February 27, 2022

REBUTTAL! DEBUNKED: Conspiracy theorists claim video 'proves bombs were planted' in 9/11 attack---I had no idea I was quoted in this horribly inaccurate newspaper article from 2017...

The following piece of scat masquerading as a purveyor of facts is literally the worst duh-bunk-turd attempt at debunking the 9/11 truth movement EVER and we have taken on quite a few around these parts over the years...

Conspiracy theorists claim video 'proves bombs were planted' in 9/11 attack

Does this footage back up conspiracy theories?

The official explanation is that puffs of smoke from the towers was air pressure caused by collapsing floors, the Daily Star reports.

But John-Michael Talboo, from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said of videos of the attacks: “There is no reason, on the ‘dust puff’ theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were." 

The day following the attack, US President Donald Trump gave a TV interview which appeared to suggest the World Trade Center buildings collapsed because of bombs.

He said: “It wasn’t architectural defect. How could a plane, even a 767 or 747 or whatever it might have been; how could it possibly go through that steel?

“I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs – bombs that exploded simultaneously.

“Because I can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall.”

Experts have cast doubt on whether the seeming explosions were caused by bombs, however.

Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'.

This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

Dear Lord, what sleuths these ones are. FFS Where to start... Well, first, thanks for the compliment that kicks of your headline! #ProudConspiracyTheorist

That's where them getting pretty much anything correct stops. Now, a quick and easy point, 9/11 truth has experts in droves too and more than you!

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

So, the video being discussed is this one...

nist-photo-release-explosionVideo evidence has revealed that violent ejections occurred before the North Tower began its descent.
In the article I wrote, that they quoted me from and that they conveniently didn't link to thus omitting all my damning cited evidence, I wasn't talking about this ejection at all in the quote. They make it seem (either intentionally or stupidly) as if I am indeed referencing this squib. They then proceed to miss the significance of this event being mentioned even though they provide a quote that pretty well states why...

Posting below the video, Mike Wayne wrote: "This really s***s on the "dust puffs and air pressure" claim of the official lie."

So, to reiterate the significance from my original article that these Stevie Wonder blunder heads apparently couldn't see even in their own hit piece...

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower's antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See Visible Explosion at World Trade Center and WTC 1 collapse initiation — visible signs.

For those dear readers who have eyes to see, it should be apparent that the pancaking floors "puffs of dust" explanation is directly contradicted by the video they focused on, as well as the other material I mentioned. Which by the way, was kept from the public's prying eyes by the official investigator's at NIST, even after a FOIA request was filed seeking the material. It took an eventual lawsuit to finally obtain the materials, very much akin to the firefighter oral histories, which like the stonewalled videos, are strongly suggestive of explosive demolition being employed on 9/11. In the case of the videos, we would likely not even be discussing them if not for the efforts of the 9/11 truther organization that fought for them and filed suit...

The International Center for 9/11 Studies is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the scientific study of the attacks in New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001. The Center engages in scientific research and educational activities that are international in scope and multidisciplinary in nature, and is committed to promoting and engaging in data-driven empirical research performed to the highest academic standards. Through a network of former and current University professors, as well as professionals in a multitude of science and engineering professions, the Center encourages collaboration, information sharing, dialogue and debate across geographical and disciplinary boundaries. Scientific Papers The Center's Director has authored or co-authored several peer reviewed papers regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers. Government Accountability The Center led an effort by a team of experts to submit public comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology pointing out serious errors and omissions in the NIST report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Nut jobs, obviously!

Here's the pertinent info on those firefighter wackos...

Oral Histories

Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders. The interviews were conducted between October of 2001 and January of 2002 under the order of New York City's fire commissioner at the time of the attack, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve first-hand accounts of the attack. 1  

The New York Times published the oral histories, and provides an index of PDFs of the interviews here2   The Times converted a subset of the interviews into text files. 3   The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.

* This compilation was facilitated by David Ray Griffin, the author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions who in turn credits Matthew Everett, author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before for locating many of the passages excerpted here.

1. City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today, New York Times, 8/12/05 [cached]
2. The Sept. 11 Records, New York Times[cached]
3. Untitled, New York Times[cached]

Pretty lame brained schooling of us conspiracy theorists so far from this purported journalistic mainstream source of (dis?) information. Trump's allegations of fake news from the legacy "mainstream" news just essentially got proved in one fowl and foul swoop via the outrageous wool this so-called paper tried to pull over the eyes of it's readers like you that it obviously takes to be just unsuspecting fools. And quoting me was a mistake also too, because I'm not a UK aristocrat, it's true, but I'm far from a rube. Trump is likely spot on about the explosions on 9/11 as well and those plane impacts also! He's a building construction expert too, but they must have also became absent minded about this, or assume you forgot as they are apparently prone to do and they aren't going to remind you. Only their experts that they fall back on after quoting Trump, they must expect of you, are the only ones worthy of you to look to. Because gain, if you discover that they exist, it will be despite their hard hitting news that fails to mention much of anything regarding the expertise of many of the conspiracy theorizing community that they aim to poo-pooh with the poo they do spew.


Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact

Frank DiMartini (WTC Construction Manager):
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. The jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

The crew could have perhaps better informed the US nation than us here at the tinfoil hat plantation, but that train has left the station. Yes, it's gets worse...

After failing somehow to see the inherent flaw in the pancake theory that they still managed to expose without disclosing for whatever reason, they then immediately pivot to that very same damn THEORY to debunk the info that debunks it, stating...

Powered by Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'. This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

My God, there's a lot of bunk to unpack for such a small statement as that! First off, FEMA was only an initial limited investigation and was preceded by the much larger in volume follow up "official story" final word by NIST in two massive and yet massively lacking in substance reports, but the article authors mustn't have got the word AGAIN. Much like the Government reports, that didn't even model the collapse of the Towers beyond the initiation, because it's just so purportedly painfully obvious that they fell naturally after that, both these similarly feathered birds are patently absurd! NIST did, however, after pestering from truther experts, quit with the weasel words, and said the same thing again, but with the spin undone and reversed regarding their lack of due diligence that left a huge, massive skyscraper sized, stone unturned...

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

In August of 2005, 9-11 Research published Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, Version 0.98, by Jim Hoffman. The essay critiqued the Draft of NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Towers, which actually only treats the Twin Towers, not WTC 7, the third WTC tower to totally collapse. (The Report's detailed title, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), is similarly misleading.) Hoffman's essay noted that NIST went to great lengths to model aspects of the attack that are well understood -- such as the impacts of the jetliners -- while quietly sidestepping the core question of how the Twin Towers totally collapsed. By truncating the timelines of its models before the collapses even began, NIST not only evaded its stated objective of explaining the collapses, it avoided disclosing the many features of controlled demolition exhibited by the collapses.

But let's get back to the start, with FEMA, in regards to WTC 7...

The FEMA experts wrote in their 2003 report that the best scenario they could devise for Building 7’s collapse had only a “low probability” of occurrence. In 2005, Sunder told reporters that the agency’s “working hypothesis” was that Building 7 fell because of fuel fires coupled with structural weakening caused by falling debris from a main tower. NIST retracted that idea in its final draft of the Building 7 report, concluded in August.

The NIST WTC 7 report also included a key correction, once again only brought to light by the diligent efforts of another expert truther, this time a physics instructor...

It was David Chandler’s analysis that forced NIST to admit that during part of Building Seven’s descent, it was falling at free fall speed which is impossible unless the structural support for the the building was being systemically destroyed by a controlled demolition.

This characterization of the implications of NIST's admission was given major credible support in an independent study on Building 7...

Study: Fire Did Not Cause WTC7 To Collapse, Explosives Necessary

The Facts: A study out of the university of Alaska at Fairbanks concluded that World Trade Center 7 definitively could not have fallen from fire. NIST's official explanation that 'thermal expansion' caused the building to fall was proven to be impossible.

The new film Seven, directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.  After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions.  “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

Are there more problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report or the NIST WTC 7 Report? You Decide...

Damn those non-Government investigators! Media solution... ignore them! You should, but the former not the latter. ;)

Back on over to FEMA, who along with blatant distortions of fact such as the literally physical reality of core building columns existing, also found evidence consistent with demolition and recommended further study of the puzzling "mystery" evidence, after which NIST did nothing to resolve their concerns and also admitted to not forensically testing for explosives because they know that they weren't used, so why test for what's not there.

Appendix C of the initial Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study of the collapses in which three Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) professors called the “severe corrosion and subsequent erosion” of the debris a “very unusual event.” They said of the residue on the steel that “no clear explanation of the source of the sulfur has been identified.”

A 2002 WPI press release said the professors, who were hoping NIST would back further research, were also startled by the Swiss-cheese appearance of the shards, having expected bending but not holes.

Investigation History
In the wake of the attack a group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) volunteered to investigate the structural responses of the WTC buildings to the September 11 attack. Eventually FEMA took over the investigation of the ASCE volunteers, dubbing them the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT).

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2 


The Report is illustrated with many colorful cartoon-like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA's postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures.

Despite its distortions, FEMA's Report provides a substantial amount of data about the event not documented elsewhere, and conspicuously absent from NIST's reports. For example, Appendix C describes observations, interesting from a forensic standpoint, that steel members were severely corroded by sulfidative attack.

Forensic Metallurgy

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2   

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Thermite Use as an Explanation

The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

Two other official investigations also found evidence consistent with a controlled demo job and independent follow up expert analysis only furthered this case...

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.

Iron-Rich Spheres

Evidence collected by the US Geological Survey (USGS) showed up in a 2005 report: photographs showing particles with striking spherical symmetry, ranging in diameter from under 100 microns up to about 1.5 millimeters. 1   Another set of reports, prepared for Deutshe Bank in late 2003 also shows micrographs of iron-rich spheres. 2   3  


Jones searched for prosaic explanations for the metallic spherules and ruled out various scenarios...

Residues Consistent With Incendiaries

Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. 6   Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. 7

This is, however, only one of a myriad of possible demolition scenarios/options that have been proposed as the culprit or some combination thereof, but all stand in a united front against the official story and none are refuted via the non-forensic official approach, that has been articulately argued as more than approaching scientific fraud.

Note that some researchers put much more credence into other demo theories than the above linked source...


As a forum commenter called "hiper" so very aptly put it, to famed Joe Rogan guest and self-proclaimed "debunker" Mick West (who this site has taken on in print and during two interviews on his podcast)...

They produce a case based on speculation while ignoring the physical evidence.

So because they are the government institution charged with the investigation they only "have to explain why they don't think there were explosives"... they do that because they have the power.

What grade do you think an applied physics students gets on their exam when they only explain why they think there is no need to a physical test... F is the answer.

The fact you are still refusing to admit NIST was in error here does not do you reputation any good... a real debunker calls every and all bunk including NIST's.

9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests


In fact, in its numerous public pronouncements between 2004 and 2008, NIST cites no forensic evidence gathered by criminal investigators, even though Congress had granted the agency subpoena power. For example, the final report on the collapse of the 47-story Building 7 includes the New York City fire and police departments among “cooperating organizations” that assisted its inquiry but says nothing of the FBI or other federal investigative agency.

A computer search of FBI and Justice Department documents and press releases failed to turn up any record of the FBI’s findings concerning tests for explosives at Ground Zero. The FBI and another Justice Department unit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, routinely do forensic testing of crime scenes where explosives or incendiaries are a possibility.

As pointed out by the group FireFightersFor911Truth, "The National Fire Protection Association very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. (both have been documented in the WTC debris) Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.”

And in NIST's 2006 Q&A paper they stated that they didn't test for any type of explosives, conventional or otherwise.
Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

NIST's final installment was its December 2008 Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation. In it, NIST repeated the same sophism that it had used in its FAQ on its Twin Tower report: implying that thermite/thermate would have been unsuitable as a demolition tool because it acts too slowly, would have been too hard keep pressed against the steelwork, and would have required too much preparation and material quantities to go undetected. NIST goes on to repeat its earlier assertion that testing for evidence of explosives "would not necessarily have been conclusive".

NIST's disingenuity is obvious in both its straw-man argument against aluminothermic-based demolition and its excuse not to look for or at evidence of incendiaries. In obligatory formal correspondence involving requests for correction to its Twin Towers report NIST officials were asked to correct erroneous statements about the conclusiveness of testing.

Nonsensical decisions backed by circular logic are just as dumb when experts do it as when any other commoner or village idiot engages in such a logically fallacious manner of operating. Can't find what's not there. Uh-huh, genius level expert, let me do a conspiracy query because I'm feeling weary... Can you also not find what you don't look for?! Experts abound, but they're out to lunch for sure, it's as palpable as wind from a slumbering bear's snore than their brains are asleep even more!

Let's reexamine the main article I'm addressing by repeating one of the author's statements. This short bit of text is the epitome of a skill I didn't know existed, that of being epically wrong, but not taking too long...

Powered by Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'. This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

Puffs of smoke is bunkum, but again my original article that they just happened to quote, but not provide addressed this and much more in some detail.

Please do check it out, but here also is a hip-hop laced presentation with some video aides that also extinguishes the "puffs of smoke" joke, but a different approach for different folks and easier to copy and/or share in totality. But best of all it covers something that I didn't, which the inexplicably rested their hats on despite the fact that the other major point they focused on demolished the hat rack... The pancaking floors! That said, I will add some more debunker poison to the pancake mix after the video quits just to ensure, as best as I can kids, that their bullshit quits. 


How can pancaked floors cause the squibs if the idea was abandoned by NIST?!?!

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Quoting FEMA instead of NIST seems a bit sus and smells like fish, just like all the other seemingly dumb stuff they did that smells like Grade A Government seal of approval stamped bullshit, that these propagandists tried with us true skeptics willing to question the credibility of more than just anything that goes against the status quo narrative pretending to be the norm and thus worthy of, establishment defending driven pseudo-skeptical scorn. The devoted "skeptic" movement types, I must warn, are skeptical at a level much lower than luke war, in regards to anything that the power structure has sworn is beyond the pale, one can't help but to wonder if some or many are just hired gun mouthpieces for sale to tyrants avoiding jail.

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression...

Of course, not being visually impaired we truthers could always see that the floors didn't pancake, because there was no such stack of floors left on the ground as one would expect from such an event...

Here is a small structure with pancaked floors from an earthquake...

Instead, at Ground Zero, with massive structures we saw images like this...

Ultimately, official story defenders with just say that whatever theory is the current accepted one caused the squibs. They have to unless they want to be decried and treated like little kids.

They so fake woke, used to slavery and scared of bravery and that a much scarier world might exist, that they might just get, a karmic gift, of some pants filled with piss, once they see the light, join the fight and resist. But I digress... The failure of the pancake theory to explain the squibs circles us back to the surrounding supporting evidence, that to put it concisely, is that the Twin Towers quite obviously and inexplicably explosively blew the F up, with no prior or subsequent adequate precedent except controlled demolition, which actually isn't nearly as an explosive of an event with traditional acknowledged demos (7 was a classic demo). Peace out.

North Tower Exploding by David Chandler

Collapse Features

Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show

The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

  • The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
  • The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
  • Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
  • The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
  • Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
  • Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
  • The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
  • Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
  • The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
  • The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
  • The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.