real deal
September 20th in September 11 Attacks Research and Analysis by .

A Slice of Life from the 9/11 Truth Movement

I have been embroiled in one of those infernal and endless email threads with some so called truthers.  This conversation has been going on for quite some time, and as with any group email thread, takes a few tangents, but I tried to keep the comments roughly chronological.  I corrected …


I have been embroiled in one of those infernal and endless email threads with some so called truthers.  This conversation has been going on for quite some time, and as with any group email thread, takes a few tangents, but I tried to keep the comments roughly chronological.  I corrected a few spelling errors (mostly mine) and removed email addresses but left the rest as it was. although I did cut out many months of chatter, picking it up last week:


 

From: WingMan
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 6:46 PM
To: Stephen Phillips
Cc: David Griscom; James Fetzer; JT; Evil Edna; Ken Freeland; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Stephen De’ak; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

paraphrase – sympathy for Stephen Phillips and then more about Jews.

 


 

 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Steve De’ak wrote:

Oy.

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:01 AM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: WingMan; David Griscom; James Fetzer; JT; Evil Edna; Ken Freeland; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Hi Steve,

You’ve achieved a new level (even for you) in pithy, concise replies. But you are you replying to?  Your brevity makes my verbosity feel very self-indulgent…

Cheers,

Stephen.

 

 

 


 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Steve De’ak wrote:

That was for those who see Jews (bogey men) around every corner.

 


 

 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:07 AM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: WingMan; David Griscom; James Fetzer; JT; Evil Edna; Ken Freeland; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Dear all,

Understood.There (around every corner) or not, we have the ineradicable evidence of foul play.  The question, then, becomes: By whom?

[Not playing Silly Buggers – as they say in Australia – but sincerely wanting to know]

Cheers,

Stephen.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:21 AM
To: ‘Stephen Phillips’
Cc: ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘James Fetzer’; JT; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

As I keep saying – before the “who” can be identified the “how” should be identified.   Furthermore when a majority of the leaders in the obviously fully-controlled but ironically-named truth movement agree on the “who”  but still won’t address the “how,” that should be a good sign to the rank and file that to scream “IT WAS THE JEWS!” is more divide-and-conquer perception management.

It seems that unless one is hopping up and down about the bogey man, you will be brushed off as an Israeli sympathizer by the opposition but I really don’t want to be involved with people who are so easily manipulated so I am doing my best to distance myself from truthers in general.   I am compelled to say that I don’t accept the ‘holocaust’ and I don’t accept Israeli Statehood.  I think all religions are bullshit control tools for the uber wealthy and I believe national borders mean something different to the leadership classes than they do to we slave classes.  Israel is nothing more than the same old colonialism that the British have been engaged in for hundreds of years, it has nothing to do with Judaism and nothing to do with Zionism but everything to do with slavery and genocide.  The Israelis are doing to their indigenous population what the US and every other western country has been doing in their colonies for 600 years or more.

It is obvious to a barnyard animal that missiles were launched at Shanksville and at the WTC, so if you really want to know the “who” then perhaps you should start with asking who controls the US Military’s missile arsenal, who is tasked with protecting US Air Space, and who has been invading the world ever since.  It’s not Rocket Science and isn’t it telling that the leaders of the truth movement have spent 14 years avoiding the relevant evidence and focusing on all manner of distractions, with Israel at the top of the list.

If it was my diabolical scheme I would put a Zionist in every place of prominence I could.

 

Steve

 

 


 

From: James Fetzer
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:01 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Stephen Phillips; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Ken Freeland; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Steve,

I have had a bellyful of this HOW before WHO and WHY.  It’s BULLSHIT. If you want to fault my research (with Dennis and others), then do that. But these kinds of obviously false claims about having to nail down HOW before considering WHO and WHY are indefensible. Dennis and I did itall in our recent program, “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, here:

 

 

WE PROVE IT HERE. So if you take exception, then (a) identify what you think we have wrong, (b) explain why we say it and (c) tell us what we have wrong and how you know. I am sick and tired of BULLSHIT.

 

Jim

 

 


 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Steve De’ak wrote:

Jim,

I’m sure you are sick of the bullshit but aren’t you proving my point?

 

How did they cut the holes in the towers, do you guys discuss that or are you going to force me to sit through the whole conversation? Keep in mind that I’m sick of the bullshit too so please cut to the chase.

Steve

 


 

From: James Fetzer

Date:09/17/2015 9:41 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: Steve De’ak

Cc: Stephen Phillips , WingMan , David Griscom , Jahilliya Times , Evil Edna , Ken Freeland , Dean Hartwell , 911 Reynolds Morgan , Kevin Barrett , Richard Gage , Fred Smart , “Dr. Judy Wood” , John Friend , Christopher , Editor

Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

This is embarrassing. If you understand my arguments, all four of the crash sites were faked. You are imposing the standard that, if any details are not resolved completely, then the rest of the arguments are flawed! But that is a ridiculous stance to adopt. You have not faulted any of my arguments, which implies (to me) that you are unable to defeat them. The entry into the South Tower cannot have been done by a real plane; hence, we are witnessing what looks like a real plane performing feats no real plane could perform. I have pointed out before that Ricard Hall has addressed this in his stunning “Flight 175 3-D Radar Study”. So why don’t you check it out. You seem to me to be a nice guy, but you equally appear to be incapable of serious thought. I think you should look into the Gelatin group and their “performance art” on the outside of the Twin Towers, which I believe was prepping them for 9/11.

 

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:34 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I don’t even know your arguments, Jim, I was asking for the nutshell so I didn’t have to sit through a two hour program.

So they were faked?  How?

 

 


 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Ken Freeland wrote:

Jim,

Thanks for the refresher about the Gelatin group’s “performance art.”  Is there a proven correspondence between their “performance” location and the putative impact site?

✌ Ken

 


 

From: James Fetzer
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:05 PM
To: Ken Freeland
Cc: Steve De’ak; Stephen Phillips; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

They had unfettered access to the building and there are photographs of boxes of detonators on the floors they were using. They are the key to the creation of the cut-outs creating cookie-cutter images of planes, I submit.

 


 

 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:39 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists
Importance: High

How did Gelatin fake the Shanksville crash site, Jim?  Seriously thinking over here!

The damage evidence is not consistent with the use of explosives alone.  Something not very dense pinched the cladding at the far left, and something much more dense bent the steel columns to the right.

This is all laid out in this 15 minute video (NOT TWO HOURS) and in numerous emails to you all in the past.  I do tire of repeating myself so can you please explain how explosives alone could have caused the damage, that is if you are capable of serious thought.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:46 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

The damage is almost identical between both towers, Jim.

You saying Gelatin had full and unfettered access to both buildings?  Even if they did, the pinched cladding followed by BENT STEEL is not indicative of an explosive, but it is indicative of a physical impact, albeit from a different direction than the plane was traveling, and by something a lot smaller – something that is more dense in some places than others.  Kinda like a small plane.

Any ideas?

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:55 PM

To: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Here’s a clue.  It is found in the real world – it was in production but not in inventory, providing good plausible deniability, it is extremely accurate, designed for punching through hardened targets and can be configured with 200 lbs of shaped charge explosive that can be detonated as a long rod, aerostable slug or fragmentation.

Not being capable of serious thought enables me to be able to think outside the box.  I simply examined the impact damage and asked what could have caused it.  Serious thought?  Maybe not in your boxed-in mind but it does fit the evidence:

 


 

From: James Fetzer
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:25 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Ken Freeland; Stephen Phillips; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

If you can’t take two hours to go through the evidence in detail, when I am featuring a Major General who was, during his career, in charge of all US military intelligence, then I don’t have much confidence in you. I have laid it out many times in the past, including in articles, such as

 

“Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”

 

 

and one-hour videos, such as

 

“The MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference”, Part 2,

 

I have explained this many times, even right here in this thread (or one of its earlier incarnations). It is absurd and insulting that you don’t know my views about this, when I have probably done more on the planes/no planes issue than any other participant. You have an obligation to “catch up”.


 

 

From: Steve De’ak

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:41 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

You’re continuing to avoid the writing on the wall Jim – and now you’ve brought in a general from US Military Intelligence to support you?  Golly, I don’t have confidence that I’ll ever get a straight answer out of you now!  Why, if we can’t believe US military intelligence, who can we believe,  eh?  Does he yammer on about Israel too?  Does he mention the missile damage?  No?  Big surprise!

I have already taken the time to know that an art troupe couldn’t have done the deed and I have examined the available explosives that could have.  I guarantee you I have researched Gelatin VERY thoroughly and can also guarantee you that you haven’t examined the evidence that makes it plain to a serious thinker, or even a half-assed one, that explosives couldn’t have done it.

 

I have seen your evidence, James – I’ve been following this shit for more than a decade, remember?  Neither you, nor ANY mover or shaker in the “truth movement” has addressed this evidence, evidence that makes their and your imaginative (and lengthy) hypotheses moot.

The pinched cladding, Jim – I don’t even need fifteen minutes to make my case.  Why won’t you explain how the damage is consistent with what you’re saying?


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:58 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Let’s go through it in detail, starting at the beginning:

Whatever it was that caused the damage started here.  A projectile of some kind struck the face of this column hard  enough to pinch the cladding but not hard enough to sever it or bend the steel.  A serious thinker might conclude that whatever it was wasn’t very wide nor very dense, but you say explosives, right?

What explosive could pinch the cladding from the outside in but not blow the cladding off the wall column?

 

 


 

From: James Fetzer
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:11 AM
To: Stephen Phillips
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Very strange. I send a two-hour video in which the former head of all US military intelligence AGREES that all four of the crash sites were faked and suggests the New York “hits” involved holograms

and this guy FAULTS ME for citing A GENERAL? Without watching it, Steve De’ak has concluded that he must be wrong because he was in charge of US intelligence! Am I dealing with a moron here?

I have already explained that Richard Hall put his finger on how the cutout appear to have been done, which I suspect was prepared by the Gelatin group, probably using thermite painted on external to the buildings. But this guy De’ak wants to hold out for exactly how the cutouts were done before acceding to the faking of the crash sites. And he’s not only one who seems to be cognitively impaired.

I present another two-hour study that shows 9/11 was brought to us by the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad. This presentation is documented at every step. But this Stephen Phillips knows WITHOUT REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE that Israel had “clean hands”. That is simply absurd. No wonder this group has gone nowhere. Ignore the proof, remain ignorant

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:03 PM
To: James Fetzer
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Hello James,

I’ve just risen, here on Australia’s east coast, to find your letter addressing several matters raised the day before.

I’m not sure how I managed to give the impression that I considered Israel’s hands ‘clean’ – perhaps my being having been so preoccupied mopping up stern denouncements (of myself and others, often based on some level of misperception) left me exposed and vulnerable to the provoking of further confusion.

Unfortunately, my internet has been extremely uncooperative, making my efforts to listen to your broadcasts a very frustrating exercise. I hope for better results in the coming days. So please bear with me while I am forced to speak in relatively vague generalities.

Firstly, I claim no special expertise in this area of research, and am a certified Newbie. From about the last week of July, last year, I began confronting this whole gigantic mass of data – the towers dropping so fast, in such a manner, the weird plane crashes, the conflicting witness accounts, claims of massive embezzlement, use of some species of thermate, thermonuclear, channeled atmospheric energy, whatever, all of these things.

We did speak ever so briefly, on the occasion of my sending you an apology after a very unkind attack upon yourself in a forum thread on Norma Rae’s Facebook page “9/1 Truth Movement – All Theories Welcome”, where by that time I had been added to the list of administrators of that page (not, I hasten to add, on the basis of any scholarly attainments – it’s just that Norma and others felt I could help manage the traffic and perhaps maintain a degree of decorum). You very courteously replied, offering to contribute to the discussion if it seemed appropriate or helpful.

I think we can all agree that 9/11 was meant to be confusing. WingMan mentions the ‘holohoax’ as a litmus test (I am guessing, of the sincerity of any proclaimed researcher). 9/11 has been raised as a test in its own right – I think with good cause, as it is manifestly not the event the government and Media have sold us.

May I propose – since it exactly fits my own current experience, and likely many others – that there is a whole class of persons who do not know very much, are becoming aware of just how great that ignorance is, and are in no hurry to leap to a conclusion about 9/11, or JFK (another area in which you have made great strides, though I am by no means well acquainted, as yet, with your work in this field), the Apollo project, or alien visitation and technology, or indeed the full truth of the Second World War and all that has resulted from it – even when confronted by a voice of apparent authority. When the podium is crammed with such authorities jostling for attention, and perhaps allegiance, I consider such caution to be very reasonable. So being rejected for not matching up to some litmus test, while still forming (or yet to form) a useful awareness of a subject, upon which to base a conviction one way or another, is surely unfair. I am happy to say “I don’t know” when the label fits. Don’t punish me for not knowing. Not wanting to know is, of course, another animal entirely.

It is an entirely unexpected honour for me, a humble musician, with no special knowledge or skills, to have this direct access to people who have given us so much, as they have given their time, energy, and much of their social respectability into the cause of revealing the ugly truth at the centre of the modern world’s ills.

Since being prodded awake from my profound slumber, I am really interested in keeping my head clear for good, solid substantial things, things I can be satisfied are really defensible. If this takes time, I’m patient enough to allow the process to work at its own pace. Being convinced of something, after all, is not the same thing as knowing something. Please do not think I am presuming to lecture someone of your stature on these things – I am only sharing my personal experience and position. I’ll get there, as fast as my circumstances permit.

So I frankly confess to a large, but hopefully diminishing, ignorance. On the other hand, if I had truly said something that could be correctly characterised as absurd, I would be very troubled.

I have often linked this piece of work (see link below) which, while it soft-pedals on the very subject of 9/11 (absurdly, in my opinion, but no doubt for the author’s own good reasons), shows definite documented proof of efforts on the part of those with interests in Israel to influence (successfully, after all, it would seem) American policy. So I am open to any proposition, if it allows me to ‘hold firm to that which I know’, makes sense and has some provability.

As an example, learning of an explosive substance and means of deployment that could exactly mimic physical impact damage, would be of great help in my accepting an ‘explosives only’ scenario, for the Twin Towers gashes.
Now, I am hoping for more success with my broadband connection; in any case, I have some more emails to read.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-07/most-essential-lesson-history-no-one-wants-admit

All the best,

Stephen.

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:20 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Steve’s most recent email overlapped mine just sent, above.

Don’t harass the witness, Steve. Let your exposition speak for itself, and let the members of the panel speak for themselves.

I really want to hear what everyone has to say! I would hate to see another chance be tossed to the winds.

Cheers,

Stephen.


 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Steve De’ak wrote:

Don’t hold your breath, Stephen.  This is certainly not the first time these witnesses have been exposed to this evidence.

 

Steve


 

 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:44 AM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

 

Hi Steve,

All I am saying, is: Let’s have it, nice and clear, without distractions. You’ve provided the invite – I want to see the opinions. If there can be no claim of harassment, there can be no valid cause for non-participation. Surely.

Cheers,
Stephen.

P.S. What was your ‘Oy’ all about, yesterday? Something I had said?

 


 

 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Steve De’ak wrote:

It was directed at wingman and his jew obsession.  Oy, as in ‘oy gevalt’ – I thought it was ironical 😉

 

oy gevalt

Yiddish phrase. exclamation of surprise, incredulity, or simply used to emphasize a statement. often used when kvetching. alt. spelling: oy gevaldt


 

—–Original Message—–
From: “Stephen Phillips”
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

Good. Progress. I like it.
Have a great day. I’m off to bed for a few quiet hours.
Cheers,
Stephen.



From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Steve De’ak; Stephen Phillips
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists
Importance: High

 

EDIT – Dennis prefers to not have his words published.  Since all he does is foam at the mouth about Jews, I don’t have a problem with deleting his tripe.   Nothing I say in private is any different than what I say in public, but I understand how other people have two faces to show to the world and will respect his wishes.


 


From:
Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:59 AM
To: ‘WingMan’; ‘Stephen Phillips’
Cc: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

The use of cruise missiles is just one reason.  The other is the evidence of removed bolts and floors which can only have been accomplished with an unoccupied complex.  Silverstein surely knew he was buying an empty complex that was about to be demolished so it’s obvious he is a Jewish lightning rod.  All those stories of the Israeli companies who conveniently broke their leases were evidently planted specifically to bring-out those in the truth movement who are predisposed to fear Jews.  It is a very effective tool that the people in power have used for centuries – it’s a pity some folks keep falling for it.

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:21 PM
To: James Fetzer
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I had meant to say:

Steve De’ak definitely does not propose a real airplane hit either the North or South Towers. He is however very concerned to understand the evidence that *something* hard struck from what appears to be a sideways trajectory, judging by the disturbance to the building elements. He sees evidence of the use of a particular class of missile. I see an obvious example of something whacking the building, travelling at speed. He is right, that almost no-one is willing to engage in a calm discussion of what the photos show us of the gash damage, in its entirety. The pictures are telling us much more than many people are willing to admit. Of that, I am quite sure.

Steve himself is more than willing to discuss, but struggles with remaining calm. So we have the stage set for all manner of misunderstanding. Surely we can (all) do better. As I said earlier, I am very keen to see such a discussion finally take place. What’s so difficult?

Cheers,

Stephen.

 


 

From: James Fetzer

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 8:40 PM
To: Stephen Phillips
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Good thoughts, Stephen. Yes, we can certainly consider what may have caused a blow from the side, which might be more easily arranged by the Gelatin group than an apparent blow directly into the buildings. I appreciate your clarification of Steve’s position, which I certainly had not properly understood. Worth closer examination.


 

From: Steve De’ak

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:36 PM
To: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I don’t seem to be the one struggling to remain calm.  But that’s just one man’s opinion.

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Dear Steve,

OK, I was guilty of a generalisation. But you have struggled… admit it…

Anything I might be able to do to help encourage discussion of the damage evidence, I will consider energy well expended. Can we get there? I do hope so.

Cheers,

Stephen.

 

 


 

From: Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:10 PM
To: ‘Stephen Phillips’
Cc: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I admit to being frustrated after years of having the same evidence ignored and ridiculed, and I can be facetious, sarcastic and childish but I do it calmly.


 

From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:stephenphillipsceo@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:20 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I can certainly believe the frustration, Steve. It frustrates me, and I’ve only ‘just landed’.

Hence my efforts to foster productive, progressive discussion.

My internet is still horribly on the blink, by the way. No YouTube for me, until I can get some speed happening.

Cheers,

Stephen.



From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:02 AM
To: ‘James Fetzer’;
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

It’s like this.  The evidence I keep trying to get you to simply acknowledge makes it plain that the most likely suspects are the US Military, so your general of military intelligence is probably not going to be giving you the straight dope.  Does being a marine make you more likely, or less likely to be able to identify the US military as the culprit?  Is it easier to suspect Israel, neo-cons and the CIA?  How about all of the above, and more?

 

If a non-serious thinker like me who was hampered by 14 years of false leads and disinformation from the controlled opposition can figure out that cruise missiles cut the holes, then the serious thinkers in other nations knew immediately.  Certainly the generals of the “enemy nations” can recognize missile damage when they see it.  They wouldn’t have had to learn about all the weapons systems that are available – they would have already known.  They wouldn’t have had to wade through Judy Wood’s camp, Simon Shack’s camp, The Scholars’ camps, or “fill in the blank for 9/11 Truth,” their critical thinkers would have known as soon as they saw the videos.  They would know the US military launched the missiles and that the media of all nations were colluding.  They would know that US government was planning on using 9/11 as a reason to start a global war of aggression, but they said nothing – even the enemy nations.

 

That’s why I started the 9/11 Crash Test project – to expose the real enemy of the people – the leaders of all nations.  Surely the Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis, Chinese, Russians or North Koreans can conduct their own demonstrations, heck they could conduct a much more thorough demonstration of the fraud than l’il ol’ me.  But they don’t – they all play along.  They all pretend the jets did it and like the leaders of the truth movement, bend over backwards to ignore the evidence of what did and by extension who did.

The missiles are the key, Jim.

 


 

From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:44 PM
To: James Fetzer; Stephen Phillips
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

EDIT – original content paraphrased by Steve De’ak at the request of ‘wingman’

Khazars, and Israelis and JEWs, Oh my!  Be afraid of Jews, be very afraid!


 

 

From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:45 PM
To: James Fetzer; Stephen Phillips
Cc: Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Translation by De’ak:

Dennis (don’t call me wingman) thinks that the evidence of lateral impacts to the towers is strong, agrees with De’ak!  No shit, he really wrote that (not verbatum, of course) – and nothing about Jews!


 

From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:01 PM
To: Steve De’ak; Stephen Phillips
Cc: James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

Paraphrase by De’ak:

 

Dennis thinks that the images and videos of the damage evidence has been tampered with.  He doesn’t offer any proof, only his opinion.  He then goes into another anti-Jew tirade, accusing me of protecting the “tribe”

 


 

From: Stephen Phillips
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:12 PM
To: WingMan
Cc: Steve De’ak; James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

OK, so, then, maybe we can have a calm methodical chat about what elements of the visuals can be confirmed from corresponding video footage of the gashes (or not, of course) etc. etc.

Steve says he has had trouble getting anyone to even seriously consider this part of the investigation. I have seen this difficulty play out in real time, on occasion, on Facebook pages where folk scatter and deflect, to an amazing and predictable extent, rather than talking about the subject under consideration. Eventually, someone will say “we can’t trust the videos and photos, anyway” and everyone goes home, exhausted and frustrated. And none the wiser.

Perhaps we can indeed make some progress, here? At least, to stay on target. I have no reason to believe we don’t all want the same thing.

It seems odd to me that retouched pictures would show evidence at fatal variance with the official story. Why plant plane parts – even dodgy ones – and then alter images disproving the strikes as being caused by the broadcast 767s?

There may be an answer to that, to, I guess.

Cheers,

Stephen.

 


 

From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:31 PM
To: Stephen Phillips
Cc: Steve De’ak; James Fetzer; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

Translation – De’ak makes very good points but is a Jew (is not!) and can’t trusted.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:59 PM
To: ‘WingMan’; ‘Stephen Phillips’
Cc: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

“De’ak has made very good points, right up to the time he deflects blame from his tribe “

I am circumcised, if that’s what you mean.

 

What I see are deflections and personal attacks, not to mention behavior that is sure to shut down any serious conversation.  Everything I have ever come to expect from truthers.

 


 

From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Steve De’ak; James Fetzer
Cc: Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: WHOLE CITY MY ASS……………….
Importance: High

 

translation:

Dennis thinks all the photographic evidence is fake –

 


 

From: Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:16 PM
To: ‘WingMan’; ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: WHOLE CITY MY ASS……………….

 

Wingman, I thought I was clearly referring to the folks who insist a hologram was used.  I think it is obvious that a hologram wasn’t used even if such a thing is possible – to project a jet sized image in broad daylight.  The damage evidence makes that whole argument moot anyway, and fully supports a CGI plane.  The people who were there would obviously have seen the explosions and burning towers, as well as jets flying over (captured on video) but anyone who says they saw a jet enter a steel building like a hot knife through butter is either a liar or a fool.  Jets can’t do that, but SOMETHING cut the plane shaped hole, that is, unless you’re taking the stance that everything was fake, explosions, burning towers and the demolitions (ala Simon Shack?)

 

Steve

 


 

 From: James Fetzer [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:45 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: WingMan; Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: WHOLE CITY MY ASS……………….

 

Steve,

There are hundreds of witnesses who claim to have seen “a plane” fly toward the South Tower and perform feats that no real plane could perform. I have MANY TIMES emphasized that selecting between CGI, video compositing and holograms is that no on could have seen the plate approach the building if either CGI or video compositing had been used. I have pointed that out from the beginning. So unless those witnesses are wrong, it cannot have been either CGI or video compositing. Have you bothered to read any of my articles on this? I am more than a little ticked.

 

Jim


 

From: Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:32 AM
To: ‘James Fetzer’; ‘Stephen Phillips’
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

From the fifteen minute video you refuse to watch, which addresses the evidence that you refuse to acknowledge, evidence that ELIMINATES holograms from the equation:

“This directional damage also puts an end to the hologram theory.  For folks who don’t know, some people think all the videos of the jets were not simply computer generated images layered over “live” video, they think the videos are genuine but that the Jet was a hologram – this theory (like the reinforced plane theory) gets the media off the hook for no they weren’t broadcasting fraudulent video as part of a ruse to gain public support for a global war of aggression, they were just innocent bystanders who happened to catch bleeding edge hologram technology in action.  Now, a hologram is just a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source, but what most people think of when they think of a hologram is that which was shown in Star Wars – an image projected into thin air.  Alas this kind of hologram doesn’t exist.

Often referred to as a hologram, this is actually an optical illusion called “Pepper’s Ghost” used in theatres and haunted houses.

But the hologram believers insist they have SECRET technology that CAN project a jet-sized image in broad daylight so convincingly that they fooled a whole city, not to mention the world’s media, 12 years ago!

Compare this rationale to that of people three thousand years ago who were convinced their masters were super-human descendants from the gods, but exchange religious zealotry with science zealotry and we’re still in the same boat today.  The average modern citizens’ view of science can best be described as science-magic, most don’t understand it and thanks to science-fiction movies and television blur the line between fiction and reality, but all it takes is a little research to gain a lot of understanding.  There is no technology that can project a 3D image into thin air in broad daylight, period; but don’t take my word for it, look it up.

But let’s give the hologram theory the benefit of the doubt for a moment and pretend such technology MIGHT exist – it still leaves the question of what cut the plane-shaped hole – and to answer that question the hologram believers point to explosives.  But the evidence of directional damage puts an end to the explosives debate too, only a physical impact can account for it and whatever it was struck from the east” (which means that it would not have been masked by a hologram anyway, and would therefore have been visible in the video.)

 

 


 

 

 

From: James Fetzer
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:31 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

I thought that you were the one who would not watch the videos I have sent. Have you checked out “Richard Hall’s 3-D Flight 175 Radar Study” video? In my two-hours with Major General Stubbelbine, I offer a page from a military manual that shows the hologram projector system, which is the same as the analysis provided by Richard Hall. Your source seems to me to be wrong, but i am willing to watch it. What is the link? And if you deny this was done using holograms, what is your alternative? CGI or video compositing? They are the only alternatives, because what was taken to be a “real plane” was performing feats that no real plane could perform. So take your pick! That this was a real plane is not an option, but that seems to be your preference.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:06 PM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Jim,

 

This is silly.  If you refuse to address the evidence just say so.  I’ll watch your two hour-too long video when I’m not knee deep in building my house when I’m not working fulltime and I don’t have to pay through the nose for Internet access.  I am not made of time or money and I already know it doesn’t address the damage evidence – so why is it so important to you that I watch it?   I already know the damage evidence makes the “hologram” hypothesis moot, whether or not the military actually has such technology.   All the flight paths and radar data don’t change the damage evidence that is outlined in my 15 minute video that you refuse to watch.  Heck you don’t even need to watch any videos – just comment on what explosive could have pinched the cladding without blowing it off the column.

 

I’ll watch your video, Jim, but when it doesn’t address the damage evidence I’m referring to, what then?

Steve

 


 

 

From: Christopher Bollyn
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:50 PM
To: Steve De’ak; ‘WingMan’; ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: Nothing would bounce off the tower – no way.

 

If the planes that struck the Twin Towers were 767 tanker remotely-controlled drones that carried missile pods on their undersides, as they appear to be, then we can agree that these were certainly not Flights 11 and 175 that struck the towers.

The white flash that preceded the entry of each plane into the tower appears to have been the flash of a depleted-uranium tipped missile that opened up a hole into which the fuselage was able to penetrate. We can even see the white-hot warhead flying out the far side of the building.

If the terror masterminds went to all the trouble to fly specially modified 767 tanker drones into the towers, why should we not expect that they not go to the trouble to fortify the leading edges of the aircraft wings with material that would help break through the wall?

Lastly, the exterior walls of the Twin Towers were primarily glass, i.e. 66 per cent glass, 33 per cent steel columns.  Two-thirds of the wall was simply glass windows.  Two-foot wide windows spaced by one-foot perimeter columns, spaced 36 inches on center.

In this way the exterior columns of the building acted like the wires on an egg slicer. Does an egg bounce off an egg slicer?

The exterior columns sliced the plane into pieces, that is certain, but why do you think anything would bounce off the building? It makes no sense to say that. The aluminum body of the plane would go right into the building through the glass window or wrap itself around the steel column as it went in. Nothing would bounce off. It’s ridiculous to say that.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 2:22 PM
To: ‘Christopher Bollyn’; ‘WingMan’; ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Nothing would bounce off the tower – no way.

 

Mr. Bollyn,

 

Whatever struck the towers would be reflected in the damage, which indicates a lateral impact.

The “missile flash” could well simply be added to the video to give the controlled truth movement something to talk about, or it could be the flash of a real missile impacting on the real video layer (the one behind the layer that included the CGI jet,) but nonetheless, the damage indicates a left-to-right impact of multiple small projectiles, therefore to use the video as evidence of what caused the damage seems like a flawed premise to me.

As stated in this video (the one that ticks off Jim Fetzer more than just a little bit) – the evidence indicates it wasn’t caused by a reinforced jet – here, because all of our time is precious I’ve set this link to start at the relevant part of the video which discusses the construction, the evidence of removed bolts and floors, and why a reinforced jet of any kind WAS NOT responsible:

 


And yes, some parts WOULD bounce off, depending on what part of the jet struck (or missed) what part of the column.

 

Steve

 


 

 

From: James
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:51 PM
To: Christopher Bollyn
Cc: Steve De’ak; WingMan; Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Nothing would bounce off the tower – no way.

 

I hate to embarrass Christopher Bollyn, but he is wrong from top to bottom here. I find it embarrassing that he can not even get the ratio of glass-to-facade right, where those windows were made small deliberately to minimize heating up the towers to keep the air conditioning systems from overheating. The glass was less than 25% of surface area. Anyone can check it. He is completely wrong.

As for the planes, no planes–commercial, military, old, new–could have penetrated the towers except in modest parts. His idea is ridiculous and no one with knowledge of aircraft and flight would endorse it. He is so good on the WHO and the WHY that I am dumbfounded that he makes an idiot of himself over HOW. We have looked into the opening and THERE IS NO PLANE THERE.

There is no aircraft debris below the facades, which should have been covered with wings, tail, bodies, seats, luggage. Yes, the engines would have penetrated, but most of the rest would have crumpled against the building and fallen to the ground–did the plane not actually explode because of the intense heat of the friction. It simply could not have entered the building as he maintains.

Moreover, you would think he would know by now that they planted an engine at Church & Murray, where four or five men in FBI vests unloaded something heavy at that intersection. And more recently, a landing gear was found wedged in between two buildings, where a rope used to help guide it into place was still attached. This is an illustration of a man going beyond his limits.

 

 


 

From: WingMan [mailto:wingmann@myway.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:38 PM
To: Christopher Bollyn; James Fetzer
Cc: Steve De’ak; Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Nothing would bounce off the thick khazarian skulls, no way 🙂

paraphrase:

Dennis goes on about how the steel and glass vaporized, and then goes into another bit about the “tribe”



From: WingMan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:58 PM
To: Stephen Phillips; James Fetzer
Cc: Christopher Bollyn; Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LISTINGS, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Importance: High

 

paraphrase – Dennis wants to be taken off the list

 


 

From: David Griscom
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:28 AM
To: WingMan; Stephen Phillips; James Fetzer
Cc: Christopher Bollyn; Steve De’ak; Ken Freeland; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LISTINGS, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Surprisingly, for once I agree with WingMan.  Please remove ME from your list too.

 


 

From: James Fetzer [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:36 AM
To: Stephen Phillips
Cc: Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Ken Freeland; Dean Hartwell; David Griscom; WingMan; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Stephen De’ak; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

It seems to me that Steve’s DENIAL that it could have been holograms is not an argument, where he seems to be oblivious of the evidence that Richard Hall has adduced in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes Since he seems to be oblivious of that research and ignorant of the principle that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence, let me remind him of some of the basics that are presented in that video study:

 

(1) the gash in the facade appears to be artificial and non-authentic:
Jim1

(2) Some of the videos show the image of a plane with a missing left wing:

Jim2
(3) There is one radar path for a plane 1,200′ to the right of the image:

Jim3
(4) His analysis, unlike other accounts, can account for the anomalous data:

Jim4
We also have a military manual displaying an airborne holographic projector, which I featured in my interview with Gen. Stubblebine and in my interview with Dennis Cimino. I will leave tracking it down to the serious members of this discussion thread, of which there appear to be very few. And where I find it very strange neither Judy nor Morgan has been contributing here, since it was they who convinced me that I had to take a serious look at the planes.

 


 

From: Steve De’ak
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:46 AM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘WingMan’; ‘David Griscom’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists
Importance: High

 

Okay  Jim,

 

I sat through your video.  I spent many hours listening and commenting on what I was listening to.  I am about to start my 10.5 hour shift at work.  I am in the middle of building a couple of porches so that I can use some scaffolding to begin installing the siding on my house before winter sets in but instead of working on that I listened to your interview.  I also used valuable bandwidth of my monthly cellular broadband allotment.  I figured I owed it to you, Jim, and for all I knew you might have touched on the damage I have been referring to, but alas you didn’t.  Please understand that I have very good reasons for wanting to have a brief explanation of very long videos before I watch them.  I am still waiting to hear how thermite, or cutter charges, or whatever it is you’re saying could pinch the thin aluminum cladding while bending the steel columns.

 

Steve

Jim’s video:

 

Here are my comments:

Focus on planes and flight paths, and dropping the hint that an Israeli firm ICTS was responsible for security at all the originating airports.

 

Shanksville – more focus on aircraft and how the hole is not consistent with a 757 crash. But no mention of what COULD have caused it – come on guys, the gash is predictable and reproducible with two projectiles and an explosive, as explained in this eight-minute video:

The fact that the coroner nsisted the cockpit is what blew-up like shrapnel into the forest, setting it on fire only reinforces the belief that there WAS a plane with bodies. This is a clue that Wally Miller was written into the script – thought that was obvious.

I don’t know why they’re spending so much time on the planes – if there were no planes then all the details about them must be considered propaganda, so are they reinforcing the propaganda or simply reinforcing the officially approved truth movement? They seem to be wanting to leave the listener doubting the official story but no closer to understanding what really happened. This is similar to watching the “Operation Terror” movie – talk about the passengers, the Dick Cheney Shoot Down, etc.

They don’t really stray from what appears to be the official ‘truth movement’,’ the conspiracies that blame Israel, or the Neo Cons, or the CIA – but never to admit that 9/11 was an international operation that requires the ongoing cooperation between the leaders of most of the worlds’ nations.

Cimino mentions that the American Public “wanted to believe” in certain theories planted by the government. He says, “if you throw up enough garbage and obfuscation that you will eventually lure people away to these alternative theories that are quite outlandish and ridiculous to the point where you completely miss the point that some crash existed in the first place.” Irony.

On to the Pentagon – more of the same information that is bounced around the Internet: debunking the official story but not really providing any answers. This is all we ever get from the truth movement – preaching to the choir, bantering around the same details any serious truth seeker learns by simply scratching the surface. When Jim opened with his saying that he has been working on this since 2005 and that he consequently knows a little something about 9/11, I expected to hear advanced research, not a synopsis of the mainstream truth movement.

I find it remarkable that they traced a vine in a blurry photograph from the Pentagon to a crash in Columbia which was cleaned up by wait for it – an Israeli Company!   Remember, if you throw enough garbage and obfuscation out there, there will be people who want to believe it ;-). This sort of stuff only reinforces the need for the CIA to protect the good American people from the evil Mossad.

They then move on to the lamp posts and all the usual stuff about the Pentagon.   This is the culmination of 14 years of research, to announce that the official story is impossible? I was under the impression that was one of the reasons the truth movement exists to begin with.   They appear to believe that all they need to do is prove that no planes were used. I see this a lot in the forums – “NO PLANES” – okay, okay, we get that but if planes didn’t do it, what did?

Fetzer then goes into another popular myth among truthers, that Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9/11 that the Pentagon was missing a couple trillion dollars, only to have that news scrubbed after 9/11 occurred. Alas, it isn’t so:
“And there’s another important point you’re not being told. The language used in these claims, that Rumsfeld made an “admission” to or “announced” the missing $2.3 trllion on 9/10, along with the claim that the story disappeared as a result of the attacks, is designed to make you think that this information was only made public knowledge on September 10th. And that is utterly false. The report that uncovered the trillions appeared at the end of February 2000, before Bush had even been elected, and Rumsfeld and others had spoken about this before, on more than one occasion, and for months before the attacks:”
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

They then focus on the smoke which Fetzer states was thick and black and emanating from a dumpster.

Hmm – not according to this video showing thick WHITE smoke that periodically bursts into flames. Jim says that it was a classic Hollywood style special effect? Jim! It was a smoke machine!

“”How does a smoke machine work?

 

A smoke machine, in its simplest terms, is a heating element which gets very hot, through which special fluid is pumped and is vapourised, thereby creating smoke vapour which exits the machine through the nozzle. Electronic circuitry ensures that the heating block in the smoke machine is kept between certain temperatures – too hot and the machine turns into a flame thrower – too cold and it shoots out hot liquid. http://www.smokemachines.net/faqs.shtml

Note the burst of flame at about the 20 second mark of this one-minute clip:

Source: FBI_FOIPA_NUMBER_1141552-000_1B-1B647”

I’m surprised you guys carry on about the burning dumpsters considering the smoke machine videos have been in the public domain for years.

On to another General, Wesley Clark who’s talking out of school about the plans to overthrow 7 countries in the Middle East which then takes us back to Israel and Ta TA! Here we go – our noble government was hijacked by Israelis!   The PNAC! Sorry guys, what is this ‘9/11 Truth 101?’ No mention of the Obama administration that has doubled-down on what the Bush administration started.

Moving on to the WTC and right off the bat Fetzer is reinforcing the official story that they were “magnificent buildings.” This is simply not true. They were not needed, not wanted and shoved down the throats of NYC by arrogant men who are beyond the law. They were poorly built, dangerous, snap-together tourist traps.

“You think you could perhaps send someone to talk to us, to let people know that the World Trade Center is a safe place to work?” she asked the fire officer. “I am sorry ma’am, I just don’t think I can help you,” came the reply. “There is not much I can say about those towers you would want to hear.” He surprised her by rapidly ticking off a list of weaknesses: the lightweight floors, the large open spaces across which a fire could quickly spread, the substandard fireproofing on the steel, and, worst of all, no automated sprinklers. “The bottom line is that it is not a place I would want to be in a fire,” he told Juviler.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wglOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT500&lpg=PT500&dq=city+in+the+sky+glanz&source=bl&ots=2r-GCLnY8K&sig=IvR6AFJocpf60RESz72HMq2E4ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8KOpVNHIOsWiNsmrgZAJ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=juviler&f=false
Even the architect had deep ties to the CIA:

“Was Yamasaki groomed to construct props for a thirty-year CIA con-job? Let’s review.

  • During a time when other West-Coast Japanese-Americans were being put in internment camps, with the help of a Detroit-based architectural firm with ties to the defense industry, Yamasaki was able to move his family from Seattle to New York City.
  • Shortly after World War II he designed buildings for the government and for the CIA, among others. Later he even designed a Federal Reserve Bank Building.
  • He had a reputation for designing buildings to the specifications of the client whether or not they made sense; being discreet and compliant where other architects might have balked.
  • The WTC was built to make a patriotic statement rather than to provide office space; the Twin Towers were marketed from the beginning as national icons on par with the Statue of Liberty, when actually they represented international capitalism, elitism and arrogance, everything for which our military and intelligence services stand.”

Ode to Yamasaki – Was the WTC architect a CIA asset?
http://yankee451.com/?p=43

Here’s a little background on the project – why don’t truthers spend more time researching the history of the construction industry, the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and the history of the real estate market? Is it because they’re so feverish about investigating Israel?
“We are told that on 9/11 the Twin Towers were nearly fully-occupied “cities within the city”, resulting in the deaths of thousands when they were destroyed.  But when considering the nature of the people behind the WTC and when viewing the events with the benefit of hindsight, a completely different story emerges.

  • Once the land was purchased and demolition began, there was no turning back, even for the builders.
  • Minoru Yamasaki was selected as the architect more than because he would be compliant and discreet; he was an easy mark for manipulation by intelligence services, and he had a reputation for doing what the client wished whether or not those wishes made sense.  Where other architects might have balked or asked too many questions, Yamasaki would do as he was told.
  • By mid-construction, the commercial real estate market was glutted with office space, providing a very strong incentive to not complete all 10 million square feet, suggesting the real innovation of Twin Towers’ design was they could be the tallest buildings in the world without having to build-out every floor.
  • Preparations for 9/11 began earlier than imagined, at least as far back as the first bombing in 1993.
  • The WTC was never fully-occupied at the advertised numbers, and on 9/11 false-front companies were likely the only tenants left.”

http://yankee451.com/?p=1765

 

Jim then tells us that the truss-supported 4-inch thick concrete floors which were suspended sixty feet or 40 feet depending on which side of the building they were on, could support 20 TIMES their rated loads? I find that very hard to swallow.

Briefly touching on the asbestos.

On to the stories of Ace elevator and Turner construction who could have potentially planted explosives in the cores, but how they could have pulled this off with fully occupied towers isn’t mentioned, nor is the renovation done after the 1993 bombing which allowed the legitimate tenants to break their leases only to be replaced by the big name brokerage and insurance houses that collected all the big money from the business compensation fund.

They go on to discuss the allegedly bogus names of the contractors, saying that New York wouldn’t approve business licenses with seemingly bogus names but they neglect to mention that there are few more corrupt industries than the construction industry, and few more corrupt cities than New York. They neglect to mention that the PANYNJ is a quasi-governmental body that WALLOWS in this corruption, corruption that has been headline news for generations. Of course they license firms with names like “Acme” in New York, the Mob runs that place.

Okay, after the break they wade right into Larry Silverstein, the Jewish lightning rod who is dangled in our faces saying “pull it,” thereby incensing anti Semites into screaming “JEWS DID IT” which simultaneously discredits the truth movement through guilt by association. It’s like pushing buttons. Who wouldn’t sell out to a Jew at the last minute in that case?

Jim then recounts all the usual stuff about Silverstein.

Now is a good time to mention all the evidence of removed bolts and floors in the damage field:
http://yankee451.com/?p=3232

Everywhere you look you’ll find column ends with no bolts – as well as a few sheared bolts – a clue that the towers were dismantled and strategic bolts were removed, as would normally be done with a demolition. This project that MUST have taken MANY years and could clearly not have occurred while occupied. This of course means that the media that broadcast the fake planes were instrumental in spreading the propaganda that the towers were fully occupied, a major clue in the size and scope of this caper. Considering that the PANYNJ has the 26th largest police force in the country, with 42 officers stationed at the WTC, they could ensure no one entered the towers who shouldn’t be there.

All it would take is the lighting system to make it appear that the towers were occupied, and as it turns out, the towers were BUILT with a centrally-controlled lighting system. At a time when the whole country was trying to save energy by turning off their lights, WTC tenants didn’t even have a light switch. They had to pay extra for one of those. Also as it turns out, Ogden Entertainment Services beat out Time Warner for the WTC entertainment contract, just a couple years after the 1993 bombing.

This from
By DANIEL B. SCHNEIDER

Published: September 21, 1997
“The light shows, which started on April 30, are intended to call attention to a $10 million renovation of the observation deck by Ogden Entertainment Services, which leases the deck from the Port Authority.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/21/nyregion/fyi-171069.html
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, June 23, 1995, 12:00 AM

“Ogden, a global entertainment services provider to arenas, sports stadiums (Veteran’s Stadium in Philadelphia), concert halls, amphitheaters and amusement parks (Disney World), was awarded the contract in March after requests for proposals were put out by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Ogden’s proposal won over six other high-powered bidders, including Time Warner and Service America.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/top-retailing-world-wtc-article-1.676885

But Ogden isn’t just into entertainment:

UNTIL 1985, OGDEN CORPORATION was primarily a “smokestack operation” – it built ships and freight cars, manufactured machine tools and processed scrap metal. However, in 1985, Ogden sold these operations to its employees to concentrate on services. “The new Ogden,” company ads proclaimed, is “putting America’s house in order.”
Today, Ogden Corporation is a “service-oriented” company with 40,000 employees and net sales and service revenues in 1992 of over $1.76 billion. Based in New York City, its businesses include Ogden Building Services, which manages and maintains commercial buildings; Ogden Entertainment Services, which promotes concerts; and Ogden Aviation Services, which refuels planes and prepares on-flight meals. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services provides consultation to the nuclear industry and is involved in the cleanup of Defense and Energy Department contaminated sites.”
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/08/mm0893_09.html

Why is it when I research the WTC everywhere I look I find a defense contractor?
I digress – now they’re back to talking about the hijackers and then on to a CIA whistleblowers. Question for the class – when is a CIA agent no longer a CIA agent, when they call him a whistleblower? Of course PTech is an Israeli firm.

 

Now he’s back on the Rumsfeld announcement so I’m back to posting this link:
“And there’s another important point you’re not being told. The language used in these claims, that Rumsfeld made an “admission” to or “announced” the missing $2.3 trllion on 9/10, along with the claim that the story disappeared as a result of the attacks, is designed to make you think that this information was only made public knowledge on September 10th. And that is utterly false. The report that uncovered the trillions appeared at the end of February 2000, before Bush had even been elected, and Rumsfeld and others had spoken about this before, on more than one occasion, and for months before the attacks:”
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

From the above link:

“And there’s another point that you might consider relevant. While most people act like the talk of an unaccounted-for $2.3 trillion is still accurate, that’s not actually true. A February 2002 story reported that more than two thirds of that expenditure had now been reconciled:”

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile ‘Lost’ Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 — As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon’s financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called “lost” expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn’t fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems “don’t talk to one another unless somebody ‘translates,'” he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven’t disappeared, Zakheim said. “Missing” expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department’s “lost” expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

“We’re getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we’ll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50,” he explained.

“That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for,” he concluded.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224193817/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html

 

Now onto Gelatin where Jim apparently has combined the “dancing Israelis” with Gelatin, and also credits them with:

  • Planting Jammers on buildings to block PANYNJ and first responder radios.
  • Planting explosives on George Washington Bridge
  • Explode truck in Lincoln Tunnel
  • Explode truck in Holland Tunnel
  • Park trucks with demolition devices in specific parking areas of the twin towers.
  • Coordinate with Mohammad Atta and his group.

That’s quite a list – I look forward to seeing the evidenced that led to these conclusions, alas, they don’t provide any connection between Gelatin and the dancing Israelis, but boy to paint a Moving Systems van like that, and to have their employees publicly high fiving each other and to be reported to the police like that sure does sound like someone was working hard to have that company noticed.

I would also like to point out that it was they NYPD (who I presume arrested them) that gave us the story that the fires were so intense it melted concrete in its path. They even created a museum exhibit to indoctrinate school children into believing that fantasy, so always consider the source. No one likes Israel, so they would be a perfect scapegoat to deflect attention from the most likely suspects.

http://yankee451.com/?p=963
It was also the NYPD that gave us many of the planted plane parts, so it’s important to always consider the source:

 

Then back more Jews, and finally back to the WTC.

Discussing how the plane disappeared into the building in the same number of frames as it did through the air. Here is where he’ll discuss the impact hole and the lateral bends, I’m sure of it, but then he goes into the popular idea that “drones” were used.

I need to go to work soon so I am going to let the final half hour run without pauses –

 

Can’t believe they don’t know about the missing bolts. They weren’t cut, they were removed.

http://yankee451.com/?p=3232

So these guys are reinforcing the popular myths but aren’t supplying any proof to back it up, they repeat the rumors but don’t supply any evidence.

Ugh – “William Rodriguez” has been exposed as a fraud.
http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-william-rodriguez-t24680.html

 

They list the government’s claims of unclear elements. They then go onto the government’s Richter scales to reinforce their unclear weapons hypothesis.   Still no mention about the impact holes, Jim.

Onto the bathtub.

They then go onto how the building was turned to dust.

HELLOO-OO! Bolts were removed and the DUST WAS ALREADY IN DUST FORM by the time of the first explosions! VERY SHORT VIDEO HERE:

TAP, TAP, TAP, is this thing on? You guys are ignoring all the evidence! The bolts were removed, not blown apart with thermite! Here is evidence that even floors were removed, the truss straps:

The floors were removed, as can be seen by the non-dustified truss straps:

Barry Jennings!?

Back to the garbage being spread to lead people astray – more irony. Now going into how important it is to identify who is behind it rather than how it was done.

Okay Jim, I sat through your video. I spent many hours listening to and commenting on what I was listening to. I am about to start my 10.5 hour shift at work. I am in the middle of building a couple of porches so that I can use some scaffolding to begin installing the siding on my house before winter sets in but instead of working on that I listened to your interview. I figured I owed it to you, Jim, and for all I knew you might have touched on the damage I have been referring to, but alas you didn’t. Please understand that I have very good reasons for wanting to have a brief explanation of very long videos before I watch them. I am still waiting to hear how thermite, or cutter charges, or whatever it is you’re saying could pinch the thin aluminum cladding while bending the steel columns.

 


 

 

From: James Fetzer [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:02 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Stephen Phillips; Ken Freeland; WingMan; David Griscom; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Steve continues to make comments that have no basis. The cut outs were not made by any planes or by any images of planes. Who would suggest that holograms would cut steel? I am sorry, but Steve seems to me to be a lost cause. If he would admit (a) no real planes crashed at any of the four 9/11 sites and (b) that the only debris in New York was planted, then we can (c) consider how it was done, where Richard suggests it was done by “the thousand points of light” that can

be seen beneath the smoke in the North Tower and where neither the smoke at the North Tower nor at the South display any effects of wind (or of wing) turbulence.  I have observed before that the Gelatin group had access to the exterior facades of those buildings and, in my view, were prepping them for 9/11 to create the cut outs. If Steve wants to hang his hat on some other theory of how they came to be created, so be it. But I find his attitude beyond inexcusable. He has been dragging this out for a year or more now. There is no aircraft debris in either of the gashes from the evidence that I have seen (including presentations at The Vancouver Hearings). So why desn’t he just tell us how it all came about (according to his theory) and let us make an appraisal. I have explained my position and laid out my evidence again and again. For those who may have missed it, here is more:

 

(a) Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors (of steel and concrete):

Jim5

 

 

(b) How it was done by projecting the image from a second (real) plane:
Jim6

(c) The Airborne Holographic Projector (page from a military manual):
Jim7

Steve comes across exuding boredom as though he knew all of this before.

 

But if that is the case, then why has he not admitted it was done by using a hologram, where Richard Hall found the same pattern at the North Tower he had discovered at the South. And he attempts to impugn Hall’s ability with smears, which is not the conduct of an honest broker. Hall seems to have the big picture EXACTLY RIGHT. So let Steve demonstrate his own superiority (which he has implied but never actually displayed) by showing what Hall, Cimino, Stubblebine and I have wrong and what he knows that we have missed. Here is your chance, Steve! SHOW US YOUR STUFF!

 

P.S. We KNOW that the gash on the North Tower was extended, which Jack White discovered and I have featured in many of my presentations. Noting alterations like this does not turn me into a whole-sale denier of the authenticity of most of the footage and photos we have from New

York, which is another sly technique attempting to undermine me by a man who, in my judgement, has shown no disposition to expose any truths that we have not independently established. So if he has news for us, the time has come for him to lay it out. This exercise is absurd.

 


 

 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Steve De’ak wrote:

I also read this article and responded on your blog.

 

Will you please now watch and comment on these very short videos?

 

Video of dust and paper pouring out of a WTC Wall column, evidence that the towers were not so much turned to dust, as packed with it:

 

Great shot of flight 175 hitting WTC2.  Note the cloud of dust and paper boiling below the fireball:

 

Video from the base of the towers after the first impacts – notice all the thick dust that was ejected by the fireball – further proof the dust was in dust form before then:

Videos showing missing bolts.  You can tell Dennis Cimino that thermite wasn’t used to cut them into easily transported chunks, they just removed the bolts:

 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D2pa_R8O2As/default.jpg?v=55960aad

 

Many photos of missing bolts:

Fema pix – missing bolts and old glory

Fema pix – missing bolts and old glory

Video showing arsonists setting fire to a car:


And please comment on these three videos – combined, all of these as well as all of the links above will amount to much less time than I have spent responding to you, Jim.

 

What Happened at Shanksville:

 

 

What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole:

 

 

The NYPD Planted Plane Parts (St. Nicholas and the Amazing Wall Panel:)

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

http://yankee451.info

http://911crashtest.org

From: James Fetzer [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:10 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Ken Freeland; Stephen Phillips; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Sure. I’ll look at these. But anyone who takes for granted that 9/11photos or videos are authentic hasn’t been paying attention. So for you to impugn me for raising the possibility about the gash images is beyond immature but actually completely irresponsible, especially when we have proof that the North Tower cut out was then extended.

 

 


 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Steve De’ak wrote:

I’ve given you the courtesy of watching your videos and reading your articles, and I think I provided a pretty thorough rebuttal but you won’t reciprocate.  That’s pretty weak, Jim, but alas, all I have ever expected of you.

In your previous email where you once again came out swinging with personal attacks and CONTINUE to ignore the evidence you asked me to spell it all out, well I think I can do that, but I’m pretty sure you cannot.

What exactly is it you’re saying, Jim?

I can explain it, and support it with evidence, but you’ll just brush it off as fake so why bother?  You’re no truther, Jim.

___________________________________________________________________________________

From: James Fetzer

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:16 PM
To: Steve De’ak
Cc: Ken Freeland; Stephen Phillips; Jahilliya Times; Evil Edna; Dean Hartwell; 911 Reynolds Morgan; Kevin Barrett; Richard Gage; Fred Smart; Dr. Judy Wood; John Friend; Christopher; Editor
Subject: Re: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

Alright. Since you are adopting such an attitude (which does not surprise me), precisely how do you explain the radar track of the plane from which the holographic image you want to deny was projected? There is the hologram and there is the plane traveling 1,200′ to its right, for which we have a radar track. How, precisely, does a smart fellow like you explain this? I can’t wait.

 

 


 

From: Steve De’ak [mailto:s.deak@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 7:01 AM
To: ‘James Fetzer’
Cc: ‘Ken Freeland’; ‘Stephen Phillips’; ‘Jahilliya Times’; ‘Evil Edna’; ‘Dean Hartwell’; ‘911 Reynolds Morgan’; ‘Kevin Barrett’; ‘Richard Gage’; ‘Fred Smart’; ‘Dr. Judy Wood’; ‘John Friend’; ‘Christopher’; ‘Editor’
Subject: RE: Possible debate between 9/11 scientists

 

No Jim,

 

It’s your turn to address the pinched cladding and the bent columns that you have been avoiding for years now.     I have been trying to get ANY mainstream truther to address this evidence for at least five years – two years ago Sofia Smallstorm organized call where I was going to explain it ALL on a conference call with shared screens, but you blew me off then too, a common theme with you.

 

I find it hard to believe that a grown man believes a hologram can cut through the steel, but then like most of us you were raised on Gene Roddenberry’s imagination.  But if it is as you say the damage evidence would reflect it – but then I assume you know that, which explains the jig you dance whenever confronted with it.  Somehow I suspected you wouldn’t respond.

 

Steve

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply





yankee451.info Hi! You can put anything here, be sure not exceed the limit.