March 13th in Uncategorized by .

9/11 Phantom Warfare

This article and the linked video below are from Judy Wood’s minions “Conspiracy Cuber” and “Wolfclan Media,” allegedly in response to my recent articles. I find the article difficult to read but from what I gather they say a Tesla Death Ray, Programmable Matter and holograms were used.   …

This article and the linked video below are from Judy Wood’s minions “Conspiracy Cuber” and “Wolfclan Media,” allegedly in response to my recent articles. I find the article difficult to read but from what I gather they say a Tesla Death Ray, Programmable Matter and holograms were used.


Text below – you gotta read this!

Edit -Comments added to the text.


Here y’are. 10283 words for this script. It helps to watch the video though because it doesn’t make any sense without images.

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for the length and long-windedness of this video. I feel like I need to get this out there as soon as possible, so I may be flooding and overwhelming your mind with a bunch of ideas all at once. Do not feel like you need to watch this video in its entirety unless you are Steve De’ak. Feel free to skip ahead if you find it boring, or just turn the video playback speed to twice as fast as normal. Okay, let’s begin.

Oh, the pressure.  This guy doesn’t even have the conviction of his own beliefs to sign his name to it, but somehow he thinks that because he’s watched so many of my videos, I am somehow obligated to watch his (self-admitted) long-winded video ranting about me.  Frankly all of Judy Wood’s winged-monkeys give me the creeps, and I have zero tolerance for those who sling barbs while hiding behind anonymity, but I know this guy represents the Judy Wood Cult so I’ll consider this about as close to a Peer Review as I’m ever going to get out of that bunch.

Over the course of the past year, Steve De’ak, also known as yankee451, has once again emerged and presented information that he believes exposes the entire truth movement and everything everyone has ever believed about 9/11.

Not everyone, just the leaders and the useful idiots who uncritically buy what they’re selling.

Now he has been circulating information since 2012 when he announced his 9/11 Crash Test project, but in the past year he has made considerable progress in his research, and I use that term with a very negative connotation. All of his points that he brings up in his interviews with Fetzer are either old rehashed lies from a decade ago, or new claims that are equally as fallacious and ludicrous, if not more so.

All of my conclusions are based on evidence we ALL have access to but which Judy and her merry men wish stayed buried while they throw pixie dust in our eyes.  I urge everyone to treat everyone’s claims with a critical eye, mine included.  The evidence doesn’t change, but the interpretations of that evidence are what he’s complaining about.   I maintain that the evidence at the scene of the crime can only be explained with the lateral impact of small projectiles, but I could be wrong and I admit as much, but I must say that the evidence does appear to support my conclusions.

As we all know, or as we all should know, both Fetzer and De’ak have been longtime opponents of Dr. Judy Wood’s work and will now overtly oppose and mock anyone who realizes that steel turned to dust.

Who are you speaking for or to?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket?  Who are “we all;” are you addressing the cult?  I thought this was only required viewing for me, Steve De’ak.  I know you don’t like to hear it, but  I was once a supporter of Judy Wood’s work, probably before your time.  You know the old saying, it’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they have been fooled, and when I realize I have had the wool pulled over my eyes, I don’t say thank you to the con artist who did it.  Steel doesn’t turn to dust in the real world, even on 9/11, and anyone who insists it did is either a liar or a fool, as the evidence indicates.

Read both of Andrew Johnson’s books; that’s 9/11 Finding the Truth from 2011, and 9/11 Holding the Truth from last November.

Must I?

Both of those document the tactics used by Fetzer and De’ak to spread disinformation.

Tactics – this is rich.  I am apparently trained in the art of propaganda, but the last time I checked, it is the leaders of the opposition that you need to be concerned about, you do know that Conspiracy Cuber, right?  I am not a leader of the movement by any means, and I don’t have a cult following either, I can assure you.  I work alone and if I am a trained propagandist I’m not doing a very good job of leading the opposition.  It’s been 17 years – but truthers still keep following the same leaders in circles, and when confronted with evidence they can’t deny, they accuse the new guy of being disinformation.  Not the sharpest tools in the drawer, truthers.

Also go to for refutations of some of De’ak’s specific points. Read the description for the links to all of these and other things that I will reference throughout the video. So, De’ak has put forward more points related to the video fakery debate; some concerning missiles, and some concerning tripods and amateur videos.  And by amateur videos I mean the Michael Hezarkhani shot. His only tidbits of evidence that he uses in an attempt to discredit the video, photos, and eyewitnesses, are 15 supposedly motionless frames, 9 alleged witness reports of missiles being fired from the Woolworth building, and a misunderstanding of the formation of the plane shaped holes.

I have never said the missiles were fired from the Woolworth building.  Stop lying and please correct the record.

Oh, and also he says that the WTC towers were empty for 30 years and that the columns were all filled with dust and paper to mask the controlled demolition of the steel.

Nope, never said they were empty for 30 years.  You’re a liar.  Is that why you try to hide behind anonymity, because you can say anything you want without any repercussions? 

So let’s start off with his missile theory. He cites 9 testimonies of missiles, or rather, he copies and pastes these from another website.

Yep, this one:

I’ll let you rant on about the Woolworth building statements for a while, because you obviously spent a lot of time on them, but you’re wasting your breath because you don’t understand the significance of those witness accounts.

  So you have these 9 statements on this website, and there are also two more floating around out there that I found while preparing for this video. So…we have 9 or 11 alleged witnesses again. Just like how Ace Baker makes 9/11 puns with his features for TV fakery, De’ak and others are doing the same with missile witnesses. And also like Ace Baker, none of the statements are true. When you go to the sources for all of these, you discover that either the statements are taken out of context, simply reports of missiles being fired, or people who were approached by other anonymous people saying they saw a missile. Let’s take a look and I’ll show you what I mean.
Here’s one, “The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They’re shooting at the trade center from the Woolworth Building,” an office yells. Notice here, how this statement is accredited to “an officer”. Also, it says in this article that these were rumors and therefore they have no value of truth to them at all. We can’t verify this statement because we don’t know who said it. So witness account number 1 is excused.
Now in the website De’ak references, this is truncated to show only the second half of the statement without the screams of the Woolworth building. However, the 5th witness account in the list shows some remarkable similarities to the statement I just excused. The source is Portland Inymedia, and the website it takes you to provides no names or source for the exclamation, “Woolworth Building! They’re firing missiles from the Woolworth Building!” It seems to me, that someone took the statement, “The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They’re shooting at the trade center from the Woolworth Building,” and modified to say, “Woolworth Building! They’re firing missiles from the Woolworth Building!” “Shooting at the trade center” was changed to “firing missiles”. And even if this were a separate account, it would have been said by some unnamed person on the “Police Channel.” How vague. So because the Portland Inymedia website provides no insight into who might have said this or where they found it, and because it seems to be a rehashing and paraphrase of a previous statement, witness account number 2 is excused.
Next one, “The first on they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building”. Again, this statement it not only accredited to “Male A”, whoever that could be, it also is a report that some people happened to believe was true. And if you think this guy is infallible, then why don’t you also believe that a plane hit tower 2? These are both conjectural allegations that were unconfirmed. Just like with the first live 9/11 TV coverage from CNN at 8:49am, the reports that a plane hit the building were unconfirmed. No one knew what was happening exactly. “Either a plane or a rocket hit the Trade Center.” The Port Authority and New York Police Department, and Fire Department of New York were still trying to figure out what was going on at the time. So, again the source of this statement is not only anonymous, but also a simple report and conjecture. So witness account number 3 is excused.
This fourth snippet comes from the 9/11 Commission. “…the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the Word Trade Center from the Woolworth building.” Again, the police had a report of a missile being fired, they did not see it themselves. We cannot verify this report because no one is named. And if you read the whole statement in context, you see that Alan Reiss later says, “we realized that this was not a missile.” So why don’t you like that part huh? Mr. Reiss himself did not believe this report, because it was just an unverifiable report. Witness account number 4 is excused.
Now this fifth one is actually documented from the perspective of two different people from Fire Engine 16. I was able to find this document in full on an page which showed me a capture of some website called Mr. Beller’s Neighborhood. Now I immediately copied everything and saved it so I could access this offline, but now that link does not seem to work for me. So, in the description I’ll post a link to an accessible copy of this document, and I recommend saving it so that if the link ever dies, you still have it for reference. Okay, but in Pete Falluca’s account, he says, “a cop tells us he saw a rocket hit it that came off the Woolworth building.” However, it would help to read the statement in context. I encourage all of you to pause the video and read the full statements whenever they appear even if I do not read them. But I will read key parts of this one. “I remember hearing a plane come overhead real low. I said that sounds low for Manhattan. Two seconds later it comes over the scanner, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. Lieutenant Kross comes in, he says ‘did you hear that?’ Within five minutes we were on our way there. Initially we just thought it was a plane crash.” Skipping ahead a little, “I didn’t think terrorist attack, I just though plane crash. It was odd because it was such a beautiful day. Not a cloud in the sky. As we got closer the second plane hit. We were just trying to get through the streets. They were packed. Like New Year’s Eve on Times Square. We were about a block away when it hit, but I couldn’t see ‘cause I was on the opposite side of the rig. Paul Lee and Tim Marmion could see and they cringed down like holy *crap*. When we got out we saw another gaping hole.” Then Mr. Falluca says, “The first thing we see a cop tells us he saw a rocket hit it that came off the Woolworth building.” So, a few problems with using this as absolute proof of a missile: First, this guy says that he heard the first plane but didn’t see it, and he almost saw the second one but didn’t, but his fellow fire department employees saw it. Then he says that “a cop”, who is anonymous just like with all the other testimonies, a cop told them this. Now, if you read further into the document where Tim Marmion’s testimony is recorded, he includes a key detail about this cop that completely nullifies this statement. He says about the cop, “He thought it was a missile launcher, he saw it out of the corner of his eye, you know he probably saw you know the smoke link of the jet engine and maybe just assumed.” So, the anonymous cop who makes this unverifiable statement didn’t even see a missile, he saw something out of the corner of his eye and interpreted it as missile. Now, Tim didn’t see either plane even though Pete Falluca said he did. Apparently he was wrong. Mr. Marmion also says that Pete Falluca saw the first plane, when he only heard it. He was wrong about that as well. So, why cherry pick these statements as evidence for a missile when the context indicates that there were no missiles? I’ve never seen people use Pete Falluca’s account, only Tim Marmion’s, which is strange because Pete’s is much clearer. But he does leave out the key detail that the unnamed cop actually didn’t see a missile. I think it is very clear that someone copied and pasted this into Word and ran a search for the word “missile”. Otherwise they would have found Pete’s account which uses the word rocket instead of missile. So, these two men both report what a cop says and therefore only counts as one supposed witness statement. After all of this, witness account number 5 is excused.
Now this sixth one is one of the two “stray” statements that are not included in the nine that are most commonly referred to. But it does mention missiles and people have used this as evidence, so it needs to be addressed. So, please read the entire statement in context. I have provided all of the links that I can to each source in the description. It should be very easy for you to follow. Okay, so, “three unidentified white males in business attire ran up to me and started to scream that missile had been fired into Tower Two from the top of the Woolworth building.” Three unidentified white males. Huh. Later when this person tries to go and check the roof, he is told that it was an aircraft not a missile. We also have a NIST FOIA release where a man saw the 2nd “plane” from the top of the Woolworth building. The link is in the description again. The men in this account are unnamed and cannot be contacted to verify whether or not they saw a missile, so witness account number 6 is excused.
The seventh account is the other one of the two “stray” statements that are not circulated as widely. Very short testimony here; it only says, “Detective Sergeant Zika reports possible missile launch”. It is a report of a possible missile launch. ‘Nuff said. Witness account number 7 is excused.
This next one is a quote mine. “It was if someone, one or two floor above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile.” He is not describing seeing a missile, he is describing the sound of the 2nd alleged plane. “It sounded like a missile” does not equate to “I saw a missile” in any way. Again, it helps to read statements in context rather than to take a little phrase and use it as evidence for your position. Because of this, witness account number 8 is excused.
Now I’ve only covered 8 of the 11 total statements, but the other ones are unverifiable because of dead links. The two WNBC sources are linked to the same website, but nothing on that website says anything about missile launches or anything even close to that. If anyone can find these statements, please tell me and I’ll talk about it in a later video. But, until then there is no way to verify these. The same can be said for the one accredited to Mailgate News. The link is dead, and doesn’t have it saved either. But one thing that all three of these already unverifiable witness statements have in common, the person who saw it is anonymous. The first WNBC source doesn’t even list a person who saw it. Not even their occupation or gender or anything. The Mailgate News source is credited to the all-knowing-and-infallible “Police Officer”, and the other WNBC source that doesn’t exist is also credited to a “Port Authority Police Officer.” Plus, it says the explosion was possibly caused by a missile. Ooh, thank you for telling me exactly who that is by narrowing it down from any police officer in the world to a police officer who is part of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Wow, it’s so helpful when 9/11 researchers use unverifiable, and dare I say fabricated, witness accounts of people who are shadows in the background. None of these people are named, and the ones that are simply cite other people seeing missiles. And they are unnamed as well. So, because of that, witness accounts numbers 9 through 11 are excused.
All 11 of these statements have fallen flat, and I have knocked them down one by one. They don’t count as evidence and would not be acceptable in a court of law. And after all of this, even if missiles were fired from the Woolworth building to create the plane shaped holes, it wouldn’t have impacted at the correct angle. Here’s a rough calculation of how the missiles should have impacted. For the north tower, each missile would have impacted at an angle of 33.6 degrees, relative to the north face of the tower. Well, anywhere between 33.6 and 29.2 degrees relative to the north face of the north tower. Now the Woolworth building is 792 feet tall, and the North Tower was 1368 feet tall. The left wingtip of the plane shaped hole began at 1157 feet above the ground, and the right wingtip ended at 1231 feet above the ground. The distance from the center of the Woolworth Building to the left and right wingtips would have been 1323 feet and 1416 feet, respectively. Now that’s from an aerial view, looking down disregarding the height dimension. With some very simple math, we can determine the absolute distance from the tip of the Woolworth Building to each wingtip, and that works out to be about 1372 feet for the left wingtip and 1482 feet for the right wingtip. You can see what the measure of the angle of the missile trajectory should have relative to a flat level plane, and the smallest number we get is 15.42 degrees. I’ll be generous and round that down to a solid 15 degrees, because my measurements may have not been perfect. When you look at the world trade center wall and realize that the measure of this angle is less than 13 degrees, it further invalidates this theory. “But it’s close!” Yeah, but it would only work if the left wingtip gash was lowered down to the 87th floor. And you also have to consider measure of his angle as well, and I don’t think this would be possible. I mean really people, a missile being fired from the Woolworth building wouldn’t be capable of producing the plane shaped holes on either of the two towers. I don’t even need to address the south tower because the missiles would hit the wrong face of the building. And plus, if you only have statements about missiles being fired from the Woolworth building, which are all false as I have proven, but let’s pretend that everything I’ve said up until this point is wrong…

Steve De’ak has said that at least a dozen missiles were fired at each tower. How could they all have been fired from the Woolworth Building?

This is a total fabrication. I have never said missiles were launched from the Woolworth building, and I expect you to retract that statement.  What I have said that if you follow the trajectories of those bent columns in the North Tower away from the WTC, it’ll take you right past the Woolworth building, so from the street it might appear that they were launched from there.

In this clip the missiles were increased in size so they could be seen as they fly PAST the Woolworth building. Please correct the record in your next video rant about me.

The trajectory wouldn’t work out, you have no credible or verifiable witnesses, and the theory is already dubious at best. Where did the missiles come from then?

Hello…US Airspace, US military.

All from the Woolworth Building but they curved so that they impact at the proper angle? Do you have evidence for that? Are there eyewitnesses or photos or videos that can prove anything about missile being fired from anywhere at anything that day? Can any of you watching this name one person who said they saw a missile? And when I asked that question to Steve De’ak, he replied: Susan McElwain. Wow, just wow. At the WTC???!? The fact that Grandpa De’ak is at such a loss to name a witness at the WTC that he resorts to Shanksville should be very revealing about his character and agenda.

I didn’t catch the name of the witnesses, but aside from the Woolworth building statements, this is what your media had to say about it:

“Some people said they thought they saw a missile.”  “A loud sound that I can only describe as a missile.”

And speaking of De’ak’s responses, he’ll probably tell me something like, “Well, you aren’t addressing the formation of the plane shaped holes!” Okay then, let’s do just that. Yeah come to think of it, why don’t I address the plane shaped hole?

Now, by no means with this analysis that I present here be comprehensive, but it should be sufficient to show that De’ak’s theory is false. I’ve already shown how weak his theory is, but let’s talk about the holes. He starts out by saying that the first eight columns are bent to the right which is the opposite of what a plane should to. Absolutely correct, but that doesn’t prove missile use. He frames that argument as if it’s physical 767s vs missiles.

Actually that’s not true either – since the official story is based on the use of regular old 767s, that is a valid comparison, but since many truthers believe the jet was a super duper reinforced jet, I also note that the damage evidence is not consistent with that either, AND I address the hologram theory too, all wrapped into a neat, 15-minute video experience:

Just like how morons like Richard Gage and Steven Jones like to frame the 9/11 debate as terrorists vs bombs and thermite.

Not true.  I will discuss all options, but not all the options fit all the evidence and those options should therefore be eliminated from the table.

No, how about look at the evidence first before coming up with an explanation!

WTF?  Don’t you just wish Judy Wood had examined the evidence at the scene of the crime before coming up with her explanation?  I mean, for a forensic scientist to avoid the impact holes is pretty embarrassing, that is unless she’s really just a Military Propagandist tasked with leading gullible truthers into a DEW-eyed dead end.

“Well how does this not prove missile use? It proves that something struck the towers!” No, it proves that the steel and aluminum are bent in the wrong direction.

Exactly, and this is one of the points that you, Judy, Andrew, Richard, Gordon and all the other DEW cult members won’t touch. 

Why with all their fancy directed energy weapons and with their “Hutchison effects” and whatever other imaginary explanations you can come up with, WHY O’ WHY did they choose to bend the steel in the wrong direction?

When you examine the beams more closely, you’ll discover that the warping and pinching shows remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect and other strange energy related phenomena. I’m not saying it was the Hutchison Effect that caused this, I’m simply saying there are a lot of resemblances that show it was some form of directed energy technology.

You mean this Hutchison Effect?

This guy?

Missile don’t account for any of the strange things going on in this picture. Why is this column not damaged when it should have been, be it via a plane wing or a missile?

Sure they do  A missile is just a delivery system for a bomb; and in the case of the JASSM the wings and the airframe are mostly fiberglass whereas the warhead was 12×60 inches of dense metal weighing 900 lbs. and bonus for the local witnesses, they look like small white planes (if they could be seen at all.)

Why is this part of this column punched in from the right? How do missiles explain that? Or how about the next two columns? They’re peeling apart like a banana.

Actually, they’re FLATTENED and sharply bent to the right.  All it takes is to study the construction of the towers and the mystery of what you’re looking at disappears.  If you did so you wouldn’t have to rely on imaginary weapons to explain things you don’t understand.  The mystery is explained in detail here:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

Neither of them are severed nor are they cut through, they are simply damaged and bent in the opposite direction of what we should expect if a plane had hit the building. Why are they bent? And not severed in any way? The first two are.

No they aren’t.  You’re looking at the cladding, not the steel column. 

The third one isn’t and it should be. Neither is the fourth one as far as we can tell from this photo.

There are plenty of other photos.

North and South comparison:

Nine Columns and an inward-blasting hole.

The fifth one looks like someone tied a belt around it pulled so hard that it contracted in on itself.

It’s a gouge through the protruding sides of the column courtesy of a 12×60 inch, 900 lb warhead.  Multiple trajectories indicate multiple warheads, which would be deflected in front or behind columns depending on the angle of impact.

Missiles don’t do that.

They do when they carry dense metal warheads designed for punching through hardened targets before detonating, like the JASSM.

This is an omnidirectional severing.

Because they were struck from the side, duh.

The sixth one isn’t cut through either, it only has this punched in section that is inconsistent with a missile attack.

Any kid who has ever run a stick against a picket fence can see that something struck from the side.

And again, the 7th and 8th columns are bent and mangled in a way that looks like other pieces of steel found in the debris field.

Except of course that you’re comparing debris that has had a building fall on it with the impact hole of the undamaged tower, and the size of the bends to the steel columns are tiny when compared to your example.  Is this a valid comparison in your book?

This is unexplainable with missiles. How did the plate of steel on the right of each column bend so smoothly?

Because it was a square box that was flattened and bent to the right by a dense, projectile with a rounded nose.  It’s all explained repeatedly in my articles and videos; I’m surprised you missed it.

The wings and airframe would cause less damage than the warhead and at an oblique impact of say 15 degrees from parallel, to match the progressively worse-damaged columns there’s not much else that could explain it.  Except a Klingon Death Ray or something. 

But with equal and opposite reactions being the law and all, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to surmise which direction and at what trajectory the flying bomb was traveling.

Or a GIF:

Or in an animated version; (I know how you like the animations)


I’ll get the rest as time permits, Be sure to read the comments below.  Returning now to your regularly scheduled rant:


Doesn’t it remind you of this column that was found in the shape of horseshoe which is also on display at the 9/11 museum?

Yes, the official story wants us to be baffled by the anomalies, and Conspiracy Cuber is all too willing to be awestruck by them.  Here are a couple other museum exhibits, but all they do is expose the authorities as complicit in the fraud:

Molten Concrete from the NYPD:

The NYPD and Molten Concrete

Fake exhibit that was obviously not taken from the impact hole:


The ninth column is gone completely because this was supposed to be where the engine impacted.

Not even close!  I trust you’ll correct this error on your next rant:

Notice where the alleged engines hit as compared to where you stated they hit.  This is a dilemma for you because you have to admit this hole is nowhere near where the engines hit, and yet both towers show the same pattern in the same place, which you maintain was done with directed energy weapons that you cannot prove exist, but which I maintain was done with good, old-fashioned cruise missiles using off-the shelf technology.  They used missiles because they have them and they can do the deed, and they struck from the side because that was the only way to ensure hitting more than one column at a time and to avoid passing between the columns.

The physical evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but yours not so much.  For your conclusion to be correct these guys used their fantastical weapons which you cannot prove exist to mimic the lateral impact of cruise missiles.  For your hypothesis to be correct it relies on a huge leap of faith that our masters have reached such a level of technical prowess that they can use directed energy to mimic what can be done with kinetic weapons striking from the side, instead of using them to mimic what they were showing on the television.  Or are you saying that they used this godlike power to mimic the impact of small projectiles as a way to throw-off the truth movement?  Do tell, but first, correct your error about where the engine impacted.



Incidentally, as stated in my articles and videos, by the time the engines penetrated the wall, the wingtip that took a sharp turn to the right was no longer attached to the wing, but then you think it was a hologram so that doesn’t matter anyway.

Notice however that it is bent in the opposite direction of what De’ak would have us believe. Well, actually he says that something exploded on the surface of this one causing it to protrude inward as shown, but that would surely push back this flap of steel on the eight column if the explosion was powerful enough to push the entire column back several feet into the building so that it even rips and bends the spandrel belt and severs the column connection on the floor above.

Doubtfully.  The eighth column was bent by a physical impact, but the explosive on the 9th column would have been a shaped charge which appears by the damage to have detonated right on the face of the column, blowing it in, and popping OUT the top of the column at the seam where it met the column-end above it.  The spandrel acted as a fulcrum, and from the looks of it they knew exactly where their missiles would hit, so they prepared the area by removing strategic bolts.  The steel on the 8th column would not be nearly as easily bent by an air blast of an explosion as it would be by the physical impact of a fast moving dense object (that’s why explosives are ATTACHED to the structure in demolitions) and if the explosion occurred first, before the 8th column was struck and bent sharply to the right, then your complaints are even more irrelevant.

And also how the explosion would rip this part of the column, but bend this part is anyone’s guess. The bottom of the column looks sort of like the top of the 12th, so I’ll talk about that when I get to column 12. The tenth column shows a weird sort of truncation or something, but the bottom part isn’t cut at all.

Like you said, this is all old material, so old that I can’t believe I have to repeat again.  This was explained 6 years ago in a video you say you’ve watched, likely numerous times.

Like I said, and like anyone can check for themselves, that is a seam.  The only way that the top of that wall-panel seam could be creamed like that is by removing the bolts of the seam and hitting the upper most column ends with something very heavy, dense and moving fast, like a missile warhead.  Even if it was done with planted explosives, or with a directed energy weapon, the fact that only one half of the seam is damaged is evidence that there were no bolts there at the time.


This makes De’ak say the bolts were removed on this wall panel section which would include columns 10, 11, and 12. If they were removed, then there is no reason we should see the aluminum cladding missing on the 10 and 12 columns, but present on the 11th. If the bolts were removed beforehand and missiles struck the upper parts, why the inconsistency? The top of the 10th column shows some more remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect.

Rolls eyes.

Why is it peeling apart? If a missile hit it, it should be bent in one direction and show a clear missile indentation. This is splitting apart in all directions, which is exactly the opposite of what we see on column five.

Multiple trajectories visible in the damage indicate multiple projectiles.  Some pieces of cladding were blown off by explosives (each warhead carries 240 lbs of shaped charge explosives.)  Some were cut in half by warhead impacts, and some were bent by wingtips and fuselage.  I note that according to you ALL of this damage was done deliberately using weapons that could bend steel any direction they wanted, but they chose to bend it in the wrong direction, mimicking the impact of small projectiles striking from the side.  Why do you suppose they chose to do that, rather than bend the steel in the direction of travel of the hologram jet?

Column 11 appears to be a direct cut, but to the right of the column it looks like part of it got stretched down and folded over 90 degrees. Column 12 shows that the front and back plates of the column are missing and the ones that faced directly east and west are bent outward slightly. Again, these show remarkable similarities to the Hutchison Effect. It looks similar to eht bottom of column nine now doesn’t it? The exact same scenario took place there. Also, the aluminum cladding below that gash is bent in the wrong direction of what De’ak wants. So is the cladding on column 8. Now as for the cladding on the other columns that is bent toward the west, well, not all of them are bent that way. Some have remained vertical, and by that I mean columns 3 and 4, which again, show no visible gash. Columns 8, 9, and 10 don’t have aluminum cladding at all, but Steve will say that the reason for this is the explosion on the surface of column 9. But I could also argue from the standpoint of the average person out on the street who believes that planes hit the building, I could argue that that was caused by the turbulence due to the engine. Of course, planes didn’t hit the buildings, so that means nothing to Steve. But I already went through why it couldn’t have been an explosion when I was talking about this column. Anyways, the cladding is bent in a direction that fits Steve’s theory, but the column damage doesn’t fit his theory. And if his theory doesn’t account for all the evidence it must be rejected. Just because part of his theory seems to be correct doesn’t mean that all of it is indisputably correct. Same thing with the first column with only pinched aluminum cladding. Just because Steve thinks it is evidence of a physical impact doesn’t mean that it was caused by something solid hitting it. And if the source of this damage was a missile, how did the missile hit these two columns only and nothing else? If his 3D animation he always shows is true with the left wing of a JAASM missile pinching the cladding here, where did the missile go? We see these two columns sliced through, and no indication of a missile entering anywhere. And it he argues that it went across all eight column and entered the hole already created on the ninth column, you run into even more problems. How does that single missile account for the damage evidence on the first eight columns which I have already discussed, how did it skip over the 3rd, 4th, and 6th columns, and how was it able to wiggle its way into such an optimal position? By that I mean, each column is only about 14 inches deep. The eight column is indented in by maybe a foot at most. The first one appears to be punched in by about three inches at the very least. Probably more. Either way, how was the missile able to fly nearly parallel to the north face of the tower without damaging any more columns? The distance from the east side of column 1 to the location where column nine should have been is approximately 25 feet. If the missile only traveled 9 inches south for every 300 inches it traveled north, we should see many more columns damaged to the left of column 1. These should all have some sort of indentation where we can see the gash getting deeper and deeper. And if your objection is “well there were multiple missiles”, now you have even more problems. Where did the missiles go? Where did they come from? How do they account for the damage evidence which shows remarkable similarities to strange, yet well documented energy effects? There are way too many problems with grandpa De’ak’s multiple missiles theory for me to seriously consider it.
Back to the damage evidence though. I mean we’re less than a third of the way through here. If this is boring you, I’m sorry but it is extremely difficult, actually it is impossible, to address and adequately answer a baited and loaded question or false statement in the amount of time that is was asked. For example, if I someone said to me, “planes did hit the twin towers”, I could not accurately and thoroughly refute that in the two seconds that it took to say that. It would take hours and hours, and indeed it has been done. A lot of exhaustive research is required to refute statements like this, and as a result, it will take dozens of times longer to debunk these faulty claims.

So, bear with here, but Steve should be able to refute everything I’m saying point for point if he is correct.

Being able to refute your sloppy research isn’t a problem,.

All he’ll do is accuse me of ignoring evidence and appealing to authority and believing in fairy tales and being a “Judy Woodtard”. How creative.

Heh, Judy Woodtard…lol.  Yeah, missiles, corruption and reality are just so darned boring.  Creative thinking is better.

Back to the plane shaped hole for real this time. Column 13 shows more damage on both the top and bottom sections, but we also see that the spandrel belt is oh so suspiciously cut off. If missiles did this, why were they strong enough to cut straight through a spandrel belt and column, but still fragile enough to only pinch the cladding on column one? The damage gets worse the closer you get to the center. Obviously. So were weaker JASSM missiles used on the wingtips and then bunker busters were used on the center?

You know, I’ve never seen Steve De’ak talk about anything other than the supposed formation of the wingtips when it comes do the damage evidence.

You need to get out more.   Maybe if you ask really nicely I’ll tell you.   I guess this is that long-winded part.

Anyways, the top of column 13 is squeezed in a similar fashion to what we saw with column 5, and the bottom of it is bent inwards, not sideways. Column 14 appears to be splitting here at the top, and at the bottom we have this nice circular indentation that looks like Swiss cheese. Remind you of anything, say, maybe the holes in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, and also on Liberty Street? And the Deutsche Bank building? And the great big exotic donut? On the next column, there isn’t much to report, although the top of it has a very clean cut. Keep in mind that this was in the middle of a spandrel belt originally. Something to keep in mind. The bottom of it is bent to the right and inwards. With columns 16, 17, and 18, De’ak says that the bolts were removed on top, but that doesn’t explain how the columns would be severed on the bottom rather than bent. I can’t refute this necessarily, but he can’t verify it. There are other reasons the bolts may appear to be missing, not only on this panel but the other ones he alleges. Perhaps they were turned to dust. I don’t know for sure, but I do know that on the other side of the tower, we have an entire wall panel missing. You can see it in the Luc Courchesne video. In De’ak’s video called St. Nicholas and the Amazing Flying Wall Panel, he suggests that the panel was planted there and the NYPD beat it up with sledgehammers. He doesn’t actually prove that panel was planted there, he just states it like it’s a matter of fact and proceeds forward. No, it is not facing the wrong way, and it is missing from the tower. Now, if you want to claim that the panel was planted there and removed from the tower, you need to prove that somehow or other. I know where I stand on this. I see no invalid reason to believe that the panel did eject outward from the south face of tower 1 with a plane tire in it. In fact, I think the reason the spandrel belt appears to be wilted is because some form of energy was directed at it, dustifying the bolts and weakening the steel. The steel was still in this semi-jellified state when in made contact with the pavement which caused this warping we see. Now that is another topic, but this is the perfect example of how I know that the bolts were not removed. I see no evidence at all that this panel was planted. Steve saying “this was never a part of the World Trade Center, nor was it ever used during its construction” doesn’t cut it. So there’s that.
Now I would like to move more quickly through the rest of the damage seen on tower one, so here we go. Column number 17 doesn’t show much, but it is the start of something that I will get to in a few minutes. Column 18 is the same as 17, but we see this perfectly rectangular punch in or something here. To Mr. concerned grandpa, please tell me exactly how missiles cut a rectangular hole in this column. I am awaiting your response. Thank you. Moving on, the panel that should hold columns 19, 20, and 21 has broken off the upper floors and I think this is due to the collapse of these floors that we see in here. So there is really nothing to report about the tops, but the bottoms show some interesting features. Steve says that the bolts were removed right here, but then why do we see a perfectly clean cut on this aforementioned panel. Only two floors are visible here, what happened to the third one? Unless it turned to dust. Column 22 shows this weird shape on the spandrel belt. We see a diagonal cut and this appears to be a curve that continues eastward until the 17th column where it ends. “OH WELL COLUMN 19 HAS THIS MANGLED PIECE OF ALUMNIUM CLADDING WHICH GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH THE CURVE!” Yes, that is true, how do you suppose it got that way? Missiles? What they can bang up one column yet leave a gash in another? Do you see the double standard? But, while it does break the curve, the stuff behind it continues in this curved pattern. Now I don’t know what this indicates, but I’m pointing it out so that others can provide additional insight into this matter if they have any. Now farther up along the building on this column, we see that this is where the tail of the plane was supposed to have dented. I haven’t seen De’ak explain this. Did a missile get fired from above? In fact, maybe it was fired from the International Space Station which would explain their presence as the north tower went away. They fired a missile at it while going around the earth once and then 102 minutes later they got to see the aftermath and what became of the plot. Oh wait, but the international space station doesn’t exist because the earth is flat and the towers were empty and the north tower served as a flat earth antennae and the complex was built in such a way that reflects pagan sun worship. I’m not actually joking, but some people believe that. How easily can you be deceived that you think all those things? Anyways, I am going to skip columns 23 through 35 because they all look the same. Steve claims that the bolts were removed, but I have already addressed their dustification. It probably has something to do with how the energy was moving around, but it really is just a distraction. We can see one panel that has flipped upside down and there is nothing noteworthy about it that I can find. As for the top parts, they are covered in fumes so there is really no way to address them. However, what are these things? They could just be wires or something, and that’s probably what they are, but I would find it very remarkable that missiles were strong enough to punch through steel and cut aluminum, but it couldn’t cut these wires, if that is what they are. Whatever. Now with these panels bent inward, Steve says that this is evidence of removed floors because if there were floors, they should keep the panels from bending like this. Even from the standpoint of the official story, it really isn’t that difficult to refute this. I could argue that the floors crumpled up inside the building as the plane hit and we just can’t see them. Unfortunately, the official story is not true, so Steve rejects this and screams “removed floors”. No, this shows missing floors, not removed floors. The floors were turned to dust. As Mark Conlon has pointed out, the so called “explosion” or “fireball” is actually just instant dustification. And the more you watch the videos, the more you realize, yes these floor actually turned to dust. They were not removed, nor were they never put in. They were there, they just turned to dust. Got it? Okay. Good.
Column 36 shows noting of our particular interest on the bottom, although that is another clean cut. Not only there, but also four feet higher on the top part of the column. This is another reason why the removed bolts theory doesn’t hold any water. Some of these columns up here show straight, abrupt cuts to them, I use the term cut sarcastically, yet sometimes it occurs when no bolts could have been removed. The cut is in the middle of the column. How do removed bolts account for this? And missiles? You can see on the NIST diagram, this in the middle of a column. Now clearly they didn’t know quite what to do because this area is just left blank. But that aside, this was not a place where bolts could have been removed. Same with a few more columns that we are about to meet. Column number 37 is bent inwards at the bottom with a seemingly clean cut, yet there were no bolts here. With column 38 it’s a bit difficult to draw conclusions from this one because it is masked by the fumes. But its cutoff is again, straight, and there were no bolts here. Column 39 has another clean cut where no bolts were, and the bottom of it is bent to the right. Now if De’ak says missiles came from the east to form the left wing, and west to form the right wing, why are these pieces of aluminum cladding bent in the wrong direction? If he’s saying this indicates directional damage, yet he contradicts himself in his animations and words, why should we trust him? Next column. It shows the same characteristics as column 39 with the clean cut, but the aluminum cladding looks slightly warped. And it’s a smooth warping, nothing that could be caused by a projectile. Jellification maybe? Column 41 shows a clean cut at the spandrel belt where obviously, no bolts were. The aluminum cladding underneath shows a twisting in one direction similar to the last column, and the aluminum cladding up above shows this weird sort of indentation. The damage is son minor that it could not have possible been caused by missiles. Almost done here, and I’m sure you are very glad. 42nd column just has this diagonal gash in the cladding which does not push the cladding to one side or the other. In column 43 though, the top part of the aluminum is bent toward the east, and the bottom part is bent toward the west. And finally, the last column, column 44, shows this straight cut on the cladding above the gash, and a messy cut that almost looks like a double-you in the bottom part. These last there column shed a whole new light on things. If a missile hit these columns, why did it decide to let the cladding remain stationary in one column, to have the cladding move in two different directions in the next column, and then create a double-you shaped cut-out on the last column? What type of missile does this? And you can’t ignore this and pass it off as irrelevant, it needs to be addressed if you think JASSM missiles did this. You have forces working in all directions, not only in these three columns, but also throughout the rest of the plane shaped hole.
Let me ask you something, what direction was this column struck from? Simple answer, it wasn’t struck from any one direction, you have energy directed at it causing it to behave like Jell-O. “Directed energy weapons don’t exist!” Really, would read for me Chapter 17 of Where Did the Towers Go?? That would benefit you a lot. Yes, free energy technology does exist, and this is a proven fact! And De’ak tries to say it isn’t because his missiles and hollow towers theory invalidates directed energy weapons. Well, Steve, I’ve never you seen you address the seismic signature, the bathtub, the dustification and dust cloud rollout and fuzzballs and molecular dissociation, jellification and rolled up carpets, the lack of debris, the holes in other buildings, toasted cars, partly dustified steel, weird fires and unburned paper, lather, Hurricane Erin and weather anomalies and field effects, the magnetometer data, or the similarities with the Hutchison Effect. This is just for starters, please read Where Did the Towers Go? and address everything in there! How does one column supposedly showing dust and paper pouring out of it refute anything in that book? “STEEL DOESN’T TURN TO DUST IN THE REAL WORLD!” Well guess what, APPARENTLY IT DOES! Otherwise the videos wouldn’t show it!! Some videos show it so clearly that if you can’t see it, you are a confirmed disinformationist. And I sent him a video that shows steel turning to dust, and he kept avoiding the question. This was all through comment debates over the summer on his YouTube channel. The thread is still there as of the making of this video, and I actually ended up copying and pasting the comments and taking screenshots of them and saving them. On September 10th, I saved it as a .pdf knowing that it could be useful in the future, and I uploaded this to my blog page. The link is in the description unless I forgot to put it there because of how long this video is and the time it took me to write this out and script this and record and edit it. If any of the links are missing, please tell me and I’ll find them. But yeah, I saved these and uploaded them to my blog page which is only for supplementary material to my videos. I won’t be writing articles like Mark or Christian Hampton do, but if something I do on YouTube requires that, I’ll use the blog site. By the way, if you haven’t already, please go check out their blogs which I have linked on my channel’s home page. So much information was exchanged in those comments that it would utterly ridiculous to go through them all. Read through them for yourself if you want to, but it’s 136 pages in length, so…there’s that. Anywho, I’ve also been going back and forth with him on his website and every time he replies to one of my comments, it saves it to my computer through an email. I just have this archive of emails from these comment debates so no one can accuse me of faking them, not that they would. Now, Steve doesn’t want this .pdf of 136 pages of comment debates for some reason. All he does now is say that Mark deleted his comments, which he did not. I happen to believe that Steve deleted them. You’ll notice this pattern of accusation has happened multiple times. He first accuses Mark of deleting his comments, and I do remember seeing that his comments were missing from that thread when I checked on it on September 10th. His first strike on his channel was the next day, so it can’t be related to that. I’m thinking that Steve deleted them sometime before then, maybe in August, and then remembered this until December when he comes out attacking Mark on his website. Because by that point, Mark’s channel had been long gone, and Steve should have very well known that, or at least privately asked Mark through his blog whether or not he deleted the comments, and why. This same pattern has occurred with Andrew where Steve says that Andrew won’t address his claims, when I really is Steve who hasn’t contacted Andrew since 2012! And even I got mentioned in an article, yay I’m famous! Except I don’t care about fame, I only care about truth.
But, I won’t go through the comments at all, I will leave that option entirely up to the viewer on whether or not you want to read through those and you can make up your own mind on Steve’s genuineness. Go to and read through the comments in the articles, and if they mysteriously disappear, please let me know and I’ll post them to my blog, or maybe I’ll just do that anyways if I have time.
Now I’ve only addressed tower 1! I’m not going through all the columns in tower 2, I promise you, but neither does Steve. So neither will I. All he says is that the damage evidence looks very similar, and it does in some ways, so I’ll leave it at that. It is very difficult to find good photos of the hole in tower 2 also, but I may examine the tower 2 hole in the future, or add more information to the tower 1 hole if it is found, which I’m sure it will be. But for now, I am perfectly content in saying that the holes were created by directed energy, and that the planes were holograms. I am comfortable using the word hologram now that Christian Hampton also known as Wolf Clan Media has made some new breakthroughs with information related to advance holographic technology. The link to his article is in the description, unless it isn’t. Anyways, Steve also won’t talk about anything except for the towers. I don’t mean to sound like the stereotypical Richard Gage worshipper, but what about Building 7? Or Building 6? Or 5? Or 4? Or 3? Or the Deutsche bank building? Or anything else in Where Did the Towers Go?? He has yet to refute that, but he can’t because it has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now to briefly address his removed floors claim, I don’t have to say much. Before I say that though, let me make it clear that he believes that the towers were hollow from the beginning. In his own words, “Prove the floors were there to begin with. Prove every floor had poured concrete on them, and that every floor had HVAC, electrical and plumbing fixtures and water therein.” Umm, whoa! Okay, very simple, there are pictures of it and eyewitness testimonies of people who worked in the World Trade Center. A list of tenants in the complex is available at And from there you can see the tenants of other buildings. “OH, BUT THE LIGHTSWTICHES WEREN’T IN THE OFFICES!” I though you said there were no offices to begin with! He has such a double standard! He’ll say that the 92nd or 93rd floor of tower one was reinforced, but then he says there were no floors ever, and he also says that Edna Cintron was real, but there were still no floors, and he brings up things about the towers not have light switches or what have you, but none of that proves that the towers were hollow. Steve, until you can prove that every single employee never existed, your theory is bull crap. What, were the tourists fake also? This is the same logic that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage use with explosives. When people ask how bombs and thermite could have been planted, they always bring up an example of this 57 story building that was refurbished or something without the knowledge of the general public. Well guess what, that ain’t the same as planting bombs! You know, the hollow towers theory is so ridiculous that it is honestly embarrassing that I have to talk about it. We have footage from the top of tower 2 on September 9th, and from the top of tower 1 on September 10th! Watch the documentary 9/10: The Final Hours and prove to me that all those people were liars. “WELL YOU AREN’T ADDRESSING THE POSTS!” I don’t need to! I can think logically! As Richard D. Hall has said, “you have left your Occam’s Razor rusting in the garden shed.” You can’t have literally tens of millions of people in on it. That includes employees and employers, tourists, their relatives, photographers, business owners, must I continue? Thousands upon thousands of people visited the complex each year. How was such an enormous conspiracy kept secret for over thirty years with anything going wrong? There would have been way to much risk involved. “WELL IF I HAD A BILLION DOLLARS AND WANTED TO PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS OFF–” NO! I don’t care how much money and power you have, it doesn’t enable you to be in complete and total control of what everyone sees, thinks, reports, and does! How would that have any effect on people at all? Are all the videos and photos from inside the towers fake? We have videos from 9/11 of firemen going into the towers, and I don’t just mean Jules Naudet’s footage, there are others as well. Why does Steve think that the Naudet scenes in the lobby were pre-recorded? You can find the entire footage archived elsewhere, although there is an ugly watermark and quality is extremely low.
This logic also applies to the plane issue. Mr. concerned grandpa ignores all aspects of the video fakery debate. All he does is spew this missile garbage as if it’s the key to solving everything wrong with the world and use this as a smokescreen to ignore the video evidence. He says it’s important to start with the scene of the crime, so why wouldn’t he like any videos of it? In his own words, “I shouldn’t need to address any of the video evidence at this point, the damage evidence mentioned above is enough to discredit all of the jet impacts all at once. How they faked them is irrelevant and beside the point of what the impact evidence shows. It doesn’t matter how many “official story” witnesses or how many “amateur” videos they trot out, their claims don’t change the evidence of lateral impacts from small projectiles. Besides, in this day of 3D movies and digital animations it should be understood that the videos of the jets are a piece of cake to fake.” No, as I have shown, the damage evidence is not consistent with lateral impacts from small projectiles. Even if it were true, which it isn’t, I don’t see why that would be a valid reason do discredit ALL videos, photos, and eyewitnesses. He won’t address the video evidence except for his few junk theories on the Hezarkhani video about 15 supposedly motionless frames, which he now admits doesn’t prove anything he says about tripods. And then right after saying that studying the video evidence is irrelevant, he says, “Furthermore, all the videos of the plane impacts show anomalies that indicate they are fraudulent, every one.” He provides no evidence to back up this claim and contradicts his earlier statement about us not needing to focus on the video evidence. His assumption is very much like David Ray Griffin’s with the Pentagon, and that is “physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony”. Dave keeps saying that no matter how many eyewitnesses of a plane at the Pentagon are produced, he still won’t accept their account. Same thing with De’ak, he ignores dozens, actually dozens of thousands in this case; he ignores all eyewitnesses in favor of misinterpreted damage evidence and unverifiable statements that are quoted out of context. What I find disgusting about him is his doublemindedness with videos and eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are all unreliable, except for the ones that side with me, and all the videos are fake except for the ones that aren’t. Okay. I see how this is. You have a pre-determined conclusion and will try to force all the evidence to fit into that tiny little bucket. Now about the Pentagon, he has some theories about that as well, but I cannot address them simply because I have not looked into the Pentagon nearly as much as I have the World Trade Center. I’ve seen all the films the Pilots group has done, and I’ve seen all 12 hours of CIT’s films. They make some excellent points in there, but they lead you to the wrong conclusion of a flyover. As far as I’m concerned, people did see what they believed to be a plane crash into the side of the Pentagon according to the official flight path, at least during the last few minutes. Exact same as in New York. I do think that Thierry Meyssan was wrong with his missile hypothesis, but I do think that his astute observations so early on caused the powers that be to fret a little bit and somehow or other keep this information from being noticed at the other sites as well. Anyways, that is a topic for another day, but that is the position that I hold to very loosely, even though I’m relatively certain that all the evidence shows that. I now have a feel for the pattern of events that day. Whatever. But, De’ak twists so much evidence and ignores the rest, and spends most of his time people bashing.
He put forward a lot of false statements in his articles responding to Mark, and then the other Paparazzi one that I was criticized in. Just to address the Paparazzi article briefly, because I want to defend myself, this shouldn’t take any more than a few minutes. So he accuses me of stalking him, and I don’t stalk him, I just watch him closely because of how suspicious he has become. He says that I purposefully tried to get two frames completely motionless in my video from Battery Park, but I was there on June 13th, and he released that information on June 20, or at least that was when I became aware of it. He says that Michael Hezarkhani was “zoomed in tight on flight 175 as it hit the WTC”, but as Chris has pointed out, he believes that there was no plane actually in the original, so he was zoomed in on nothing? But as for the relationship between zoom and video stability; how far in a camera is zoomed does not affect how stable it is in ANY WAY. The shakiness may become more noticeable when it is zoomed in, but if it is motionless when it is zoomed in, it is motionless when it is zoomed out, and vice versa. The zoom of the camera does not influence how the videographer moves the camera around. But at the end, he concedes to me and admits I was right all along, which I actually didn’t even know he thought until January 12th when I read the article for the first time. He has had all the time since June to tell me that, and he told me indirectly through an article on his website in JANUARY! This is why he is so good at defending himself because he takes doesn’t even let you know when he attacked. He doesn’t take the time to contact you at all to try to resolve any conflicts. About our comment debate over the summer, he later says, “During the conversation with Conspiracy Cuber, Mark Conlon showed up and thanked Conspiracy Cuber for keeping a record of the conversation, so clearly this was a team effort.” It turned into a team effort, but I originally started this by myself without even knowing of Mark’s existence. I had seen his name a few times on, but if you asked me who he was I wouldn’t know. What introduced me to him was his No Planes Perception Management Article on checktheevidence from April and I saw De’ak mentioned at the bottom. Then I went to his blog and found the MORE TO THE STORY article which was published in the middle of June. Eventually I came across his YouTube channel on July 4th, and I left a comment and throughout the rest of the day we started exchanging information. So on July 6th, he intervened into the thread that Steve and I were debating on, and things took off from there. This was not a planned trolling or what have you, it was a sincere inquiry in April, and then I realized that something was amiss. He also accuses Mark deleting of all his comments from the thread which he didn’t as I have already said. And now he has said on Facebook, “Mark Conlon is a con, it’s even in his name!” Oh okay, and I suppose I’m a con too because it’s in my YouTube name as well, CONspiracy cuber. HahAhAHa! Right, so he’s resorted to ad hom now that he can’t actually answer Mark’s questions or mine. I won’t comment beyond that at this time, unless I have to.

Too much petty whining to respond to.

So, this video has gone on long enough and it’s about time that I stop.

Ya think?

But a few questions for Mr. Concerned Grandpa De’ak before I leave:
1. How could a dozen missiles be fired at each tower and no one notices?
2. Don’t you think that after over 16 years some people might report seeing that now?
3. How did the “compositrators” fake the videos so perfectly so that they match 100% in every way?

For 1-3, please see:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

4. Can you provide any irrefutable proof of video fakery on every video?

I don’t need to, the damage evidence is proof enough that the videos were fake. Holograms don’t cut steel and even if they could, they wouldn’t have mimicked the lateral impact of small projectiles, they would have mimicked the impact of what they were showing on the television. As stated in the article and numerous times elsewhere, logically the evidence indicates exactly what it appears to indicate, that small projectiles struck from the side, and that they were smaller and less dense in some areas than they were in others. Since this was not what was shown on television, then logically, none of the videos depict a real event. You insist they were holograms or some other advanced technology, but the lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns make no sense at all, even if caused by explosives or a Tesla Death Ray, if such a thing actually exists. They would have used them to mimic what they were showing on television.

5. Can you provide any evidence that all the witnesses were lying?

Anyone who says they saw a plane slide like butter into a steel building is either lying or a fool, because as the lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns prove something else happened.

6. Can you prove to anyone that there were actually very few witnesses rather than the generally accepted number of thousands? I haven’t actually seen anyone refute the claim that thousands of people saw each alleged plane, so the burden of proof of insincerity is on you.

This is the herd mentality at its best; all the witnesses in the world that claim to have seen a jet melt like butter into the building don’t change the damage evidence that proves something else happened.  You are assuming thousands of people witnessed what was missed by the networks, and you then assume that because thousands of people were there they must have seen the plane.  But you are simply making one assumption after another, a circular argument that was explained nicely by the late Gerard Holmgren:

Why They Didn’t Use Planes

7. How could the trajectory of the missiles be so perfect as to replicate the exact dimensions of a Boeing 767-222 or 223ER for flights 175 and 11 respectively? What is a sudden gust of wind happened to push a missile off its course by three feet, or even three inches?

They were hardly “perfect,” in fact WTC2 was so bad they had to censor the images of the hole, or didn’t you notice that good close-up shots of the South Tower hole are nearly impossible to find?

8. Where were all the missiles fired from? Not all 24 or more could have been fired from the Woolworth building, in fact none of them could have. Especially for the south tower.

Again, I repeat – Depends on which missiles were used. Some are air launched, some are sea or ground launched. The reports were that missiles were launched from the Woolworth building, but those reports came from the media and the authorities who are all neck deep in the operation. As a covert operation the perpetrators would want to have an answer for anyone who insisted they saw a missile, and in this case they had a patsy to blame in the Woolworth building. However, the interesting thing is if you follow the trajectory of those progressively worse-damaged steel columns away from the North Tower, they take you right past the Woolworth building.

9. How were two dozen missiles transported to the roof of the Woolworth building which is almost 60 floors tall?

I never said they were launched from there and I expect you to retract this error.

10. Where is the missile debris?

I’m sure it would be indistinguishable from the building debris.

11. Why are there absolutely ZERO people who saw missiles?

This is an assumption you cannot prove.  There may have been thousands of people who saw missiles beyond what is already in the public record, and they may even reported having seen them, but why would the media and the authorities tell us about them?   Explained in detail here:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

12. Why are there no parts of missiles wrapped around the columns near the holes?

The fiberglass air frames don’t hold up well on impact and would probably be indistinguishable from building debris, but the warheads do okay.

13. Realistically, do you think that you could execute this perfectly and flawlessly first take, and manage the cover-up for decades and decades even after you die?

I never said it was first take. They obviously had been practicing for a while and knew exactly what damage they could expect with their missiles. You keep thinking that this was supposed to be secret, right? Well the missiles make it clear it was run from the top-down so you can dispel that notion. The Manhattan project allegedly had hundreds of thousands involved and none were allegedly the wiser. Why would you think they would tell we the people, anyway?

14. How do missiles account for the damage evidence that resembles energy effects and not missiles?

Something tells me you see energy effects in your sleep but any kid who has ever run a stick against a picket fence can see something struck those columns from the side.

15. Why do you deny the existence of advance directed energy weapons and LENR?

I don’t but I don’t see any evidence of their use anywhere on 9/11 even IF they do exist, nor a reason to use them on those shitty buildings.  Besides, as you exemplify, the power of suggestion works just fine.

16. Why do you think that the 1400+ toasted cars were all set ablaze by firemen? How does that account for all the phenomena that Dr. Wood has observed such as the missing engines, instant rusting, instant toasting with that parking lot on West Street, fuming handles, missing handles, weird fires that are attracted to the tires or roof or somewhere else were you wouldn’t expect. And that is barely scratching the surface; these fires also could not be quenched.

Leslie Raphael already exposed the FDNY, OEM, NYPD, the Mayor’s office and more as being complicit. Surely you own the Naudet video and have used Leslie Raphael’s fantastic research as a study guide, and know that corruption is the name of the game. Or don’t you? Firefighters setting fires, as shown in this clip:

17. Why do you so vehemently deny that steel turned to dust?

Because anyone can see it doesn’t turn to dust. There are no half “dustified” examples of steel anywhere, but plenty of examples of missing bolts and floor material, but I repeat myself. This was explained here:

Why do you vehemently insist that it did turn to dust?

18. Have you even read Where Did the Towers Go??

Parts of it. I’ve learned a lot from people like you. I know she doesn’t touch Shanksville or the impact holes.

19. How do you explain all the other evidence in the book which you ignore?

I explain here why her book is irrelevant:

20. Why did you block me from your website three times? First on January 12th, second on January 25th, and then a third time from posting comments several days later. I found ways to get around it each time because he blocked my IP address, so I could go somewhere else or go off of WiFi, but then he blocked me from posting comments. And then he unblocked me eventually, so why did all of this happen? You even admitted to it in a comment, so why?

You repeat the same fucking questions and refuse to answer mine, and you generally annoy me; I thought that was obvious.   Who gives a shit anyway?

21. Are you willing to take this to court?

Don’t be naive. There you go appealing to authority again, just like Judy taught you.  The same court that put Bush into office? The same international courts that have been turning a blind eye to the USA’s and NATO’s war crimes? I tell you what I am willing to do, I’m willing to reproduce the scene of the crime to prove whether or not my hypothesis has merit, something no other truther can say.

Why would I turn to the court system of the most likely suspects?  Do you say that because Judy turned to them for redress?  How did that work for her anyway?

22. Why do you still believe that the buildings were blown up in a controlled demolition?

Let me think…oh yeah –

Taboo Truths: Clues Avoided by the 9/11 Truth Movement

23. Were you responsible for the sudden and oh-so-coincidentally-timed release of the BBC article on 9/11 conspiracies? Why is this pattern mirroring last year so marvelously? We have you coming out with new information, then Andrew’s website gets shut down temporarily, then after a little bit of fighting back, we have the mainstream news publishing articles on 9/11 by the dozens. We have the BBC article on 9/11 conspiracies (which is basically controlled demolition) released one day after Chris’ article on video fakery. Then on the 5th of February, the Associated Press comes out talking about Moussaoui saying that he has been psychologically tortured. And there were several more articles of the same nature, and also ones on the death of 9/11 heroes, and some now on 9/11 cancer, and even more stray ones talking about how president Trump implied that another 9/11 could benefit America or other things. Do you see what the powers that be are doing? They keep using the same tactics over and over and over, and if no one takes the time to document any of this and expose their efforts, we will fall for the same trap time and time again. It is often said that learning history is important so that humankind doesn’t keep making the same mistakes, so why not step back for a moment and realize that history is repeating itself in respects to 9/11. Read Mark Conlon’s articles on the “no planes perception management” from last year, and look at these recent events, and you’ll see that the same tricks are being performed, just rehashed and presented as new information. Sickening isn’t it?

Almost speechless over this one – all I can say is the truth movement is worse than useless.

So De’ak, you need to address the points I brought up in this extremely long winded and semi-disorganized video. Truly, I apologize for the length and monotony of this video, but I think this response was necessary even if it was a bit rushed. If there is more information that y’all found and I didn’t notice, please tell me, or if I got anything wrong please tell me. Thank you all for watching, have a good day, and please spread awareness of this information and visit Mark and Chris’ blogs. Bye.

News flash, whatever your name is; I don’t “need” to do squat, but you have some corrections to make.

Steve De’ak


Leave a Reply Hi! You can put anything here, be sure not exceed the limit.