Dear Editor,

The evidence that leads me to my conclusions has been provided. Please try to use the same to support your conclusions. I understand that the implications of my conclusions are difficult to swallow, but the clues provided don’t change, even if my conclusions are wrong. I am open for a better interpretation for the evidence, but ignoring it, and questioning the sanity of those who address it, isn’t the act of a genuine truth seeker.

Steve

Dear Editor

You asked for solid evidence.

Solid evidence of fakery please, or nothing.

You ignore it when it is provided.

Links that point to taboo clues the Guardian won’t touch:

How they faked the plane crash videos:
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/

How they cut the holes:
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

How they destroyed the towers:
https://911crashtest.org/taboo-truths-clues-avoided-by-the-truth-movement/

Of course Zimmerman thought it was smoke. Like you (and most of the world) he thought he was looking at an office building, and won’t consider that the authorities would lie so blatantly.

Smoke doesn’t pour out and down like that.

smoke noun
Save Word
To save this word, you’ll need to log in.

Log In
\ ˈsmōk \
Definition of smoke (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon

Whatever was burning at the time was what was responsible for the rising smoke. Heat rises. The gaseous products of burning materials don’t settle to the ground until after they have cooled. The paper was not burning as it poured out of the column, and the dust was not a gaseous product of combustible materials as evidenced by the way it pours out and down from the towers before it is scattered by the wind.

I understand how badly most people want to believe otherwise, but 9/11 was a simple con trick.

Why do you expect the thermite cutter charge detonations would be visible externally? They’re severing support structures deep in the core. People heard them and white dust is exactly what you would see as an aftermath. QED

Then why do you assume they were used? Unicorns weren’t seen either. How can you be sure they weren’t to blame?

Exactly! But most of your hypothesis appears to be based on forgetting that rather crucial fact.

Except for the fact that this video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall panel was not accompanied by an explosion. Oops.

It was an alleged plane crash into an office building. I understand from experts that offices quite often have paper in them.

Lets consider this. Here is a video of a large volume of paper suddenly flying out of the tower. Like the video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column above, the paper being catapulted out of the tower by the ream, did not correspond with an explosion.

But all you can say is that it was an office building.

Let’s say it again – it was an office building!

And?

And? You’re still avoiding direct questions.

Dust and paper was all that was seen. Most office buildings also include desks, chairs, phones, computers, cubicles, elevator doors, toilets, plumbing pipes and the water therein, and miles and miles of electrical conduit. This particular office building also had restaurants, which include stainless steel steam kettles, stoves, walk in coolers, tile floors, stainless steel work tables, etc. None of that stuff was found in the debris. Oops.

Why wouldn’t it? An office building just had a plane flown through it

So a large collection of dust and paper collected near the window after the plane crash? I’m trying to envision how this works. Can you please explain it?

Yes, the white dust is consistent with aluminium oxide being released as thermite reacts. Nanothermite cutter charges would start going off immediately after the plane impacts

It is more consistent with planted dust, which is supported by the photographic and video evidence and doesn’t rely on imaginary charges.

Huh?! If the commentator in that video said it was smoke and he could smell the smoke because the wind was coming in his direction, why does anyone insist on calling it dust?

Of course the commentator’s opinion doesn’t change the evidence of dust and paper pouring out of an office building that would moments later disappear into a cloud of dust and paper.

It’s not difficult Steve, pay attention.

The white dust pre-implosion is aluminum oxide from reacted thermite charges, the black smoke is poorly oxygenated fires on the impact floors, the paper is office debris blown out the busted windows, the gray dust post-implosion is exploded concrete, gypsum and furnishings.

If all you have to defend your bullshit fake dust hypothesis is pretending to not understand the simple facts that prove you 100% wrong, maybe it’s time to give up or go find a more gullible set of people who may buy your snake oil

Irony.

Please note the small amount of gypsum that was there to “turn to dust.” Are you sure you don’t want to revise your assumption?

https://youtu.be/6KWY1Ct4xg4

https://youtu.be/GoECfeX-36U

That’s what that other purveyor of bullshit distraction, Judy Wood, says. She says ‘the evidence’ takes her to Hutchinson and his stop motion videos, you say ‘ the evidence’ takes you to witless ideas about fake dust. In reality you’re both a couple of sideshow hucksters selling bullshit to the gullible.

Unlike Judy Wood (and you for that matter), I address the evidence in the impact holes. It is just evidence. If you and Judy had a leg to stand on you wouldn’t avoid the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.

This is not about interpretation, this is about basic sanity and a grasp of simple science realities.

Sure it is. You are basing your conclusions on the television show, and I am basing mine on the evidence in the impact hoes at all three sites. Again, if my interpretation of this evidence is wrong, then you should be able to explain how it better suits your conclusion. Attacking the messenger doesn’t cut it.

I thought of another reason for the dust, PSJ. I knew there’d be at least one more. Makes it easier to get all those poor traumatised people looking as if they were there at the time, doesn’t it? They could film all these people covered in flour or whatever at some other time (a bit inconvenient on the day) so the dust works its magic by making the people look like they fit right in to the WTC-covered-in-dust scene.

Remember this woman? She had me totally fooled – not saying she was in on it. For all I know, she may have believed she was participating in some random drill but no doubt she had signed a tight confidentiality clause. It’s pretty hilarious watching the witness testimony now that I know better. Pretty hilarious.

I do owe you some thanks, PSJ. I think your challenging me on the planes helped refine my thoughts to realise that the planes are where truthers should focus. It’s a much more direct line to the key truth of staged death and injury.

Start with planes:
Fake planes ergo no building collapses by fire and ergo 265 faked deaths … not so far to go to complete staged death and injury, no?

Start with buildings:
Planes might still be real, death and injury might still be real … for those who have no clue about how psyops are conducted and think the US government would use real planes and kill all those people in such a cold-blooded and callous way when controlled demolition is so obvious.

They’ve got us all running round like headless chickens, haven’t they, over the buildings? Hats off!

Muchas gracias!

Editor, I have not looked closely at the claims of any gutting of the buildings, however, I think the evidence shows clearly that dust was stored in the buildings regardless and used for a multiplicity of purposes. As I say, the cubic volume of WTC-7 was about 20% of that of the combined twin towers and it doesn’t look as if 20% of the dust was produced in its demolition. As I also say, demolition is about cutting supports not pulverising concrete – that is wasted energy.

Regardless of the size of the towers why would we see so much dust of a powder-type nature covering the surrounding area?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html

The dust settled to a depth of 3 inches in locations as far as six blocks from the World Trade Center.

Can you point to a single other demolition where you see a layer of dust of any depth let alone two or three inches of dust stretching as far as six blocks?

If you watch these demolitions you will see the clouds emanating as the buildings come down do not go very far. Also, while it may seem that the clouds are dust clouds I believe the cauliflower shape of the clouds indicates that they are pyroclastic clouds of gases from the explosives similar to those from volcanic eruptions. They may not contain as much dust as they seem to but in any case there is no sense of any kind of inches-thick layer of dust settling to extend far and wide.

Please try to think in terms of logic and reason as well as evidence. We can see that there would be a number of reasons the perps might want to use planted dust – a motive does not prove anything, of course, but it helps support what seems to be compelling evidence.