This is an explosion…






Keep it simple.

I propose a series of vignettes, like this one above, which describe simple anomalies and remind people of the essential incongruities of 9/11. It’s been done in several ways but these could go on cards, for example, that could be used to initiate 9/11 discussions. It’s a little thing, but, keeping these vignettes separate could make a difference. I know A&E have cards of bulleted evidence but I haven’t had much success with those. It’s a bit overwhelming. I thought breaking it up might help. We have to get beyond the prejudgment that our interpretation is biased. We do that by letting them arrive at the interpretation.

I think, in truth, even simple vignettes will be too much to take in. There’s a big filter for most people. They have built up a filter over 10 years while we've absorbed the obvious evidence. You can’t make people engage if they don’t want to. Eventually, it will spur discussion.
Any one of these ‘anomalies’ should be enough to raise doubt in even the most hardened psyche. But they must be air-tight, carefully worded, simple to understand.

It’s hard for people to understand complex and unfamiliar systems comprehensively. Technical jargon doesn't help. And, you can’t dumb it down and have the same effect. There’s a balance that has to be achieved.

The vignette above could be supplemented with additional information. We can describe how concrete is a great absorber of energy. That it take a tremendous amount of energy to break up or crumble concrete. Referencing what we know about concrete everyday can help. We walk on it. We work on it with pneumatic tools so we have a visceral sense of what it takes to break it up. We can describe pulverization as taking an order of magnitude more force or energy than that.

What we witness here (and in this picture) is concrete being pulverized in mid-air and thrust outwards with other debris resulting in horrific waves that then blanket Manhattan. How did that happen?

Now I don’t go on to describe every concept in this vignette. I just mention it… angular momentum, pile-driver, pulverization, ejected debris, intact floors. I credit the reader with some intelligence while keeping the wording as simple as I can. The simple wording is to hook their attention. I assume they can figure out that gravity wouldn't do this.

Then there’s the concept of support and angular momentum. This should be relatively easy to convey but still it has to be done with reference to mundane experience and not to technical jargon. The logic here is, we've covered the technical jargon so let’s now frame it in everyday words. (another vignette perhaps)

This vignette also points out that NIST never came up with an explanation. Many people are unaware of that. Let’s make it clear. We’re winging our way through the 21st century without an explanation for the most horrific stateside event we've ever experienced… the collapses of the twin towers. Perhaps these simple vignettes can help others confront the fracturing of the status-quo thinking about these events.

Another vignette might be titled “What do we know?”. That can be mostly empty but with a simple explanation that NIST (nor any other official organization) ever came up with an explanation for the global collapses of towers 1 and 2. I think people need to be confronted with these facts. People assume there’s an explanation. There isn't. Let them absorb that fact. (“Well if we don’t have an explanation why don’t we listen to these people?”)

Our overall objective with this particular vignette is to destroy the ‘pile-driver’ idea (a silly notion to begin with, well countered by Chandler). And then, without a pile-driver, why did the towers collapse? You want them to feel that emptiness that everyone feels when confronting this dilemma for the first time. Acceptance follows.

Let’s come up with 52, very carefully prepared vignettes. Then we can send them out, once a week to all our friends. We could all send out the same carefully prepared vignette each week. We’ll see them come up on discussion sites, etc. And when they do let’s keep the discussion respectful. We've done the debate. It’s over. Let’s let them discover however rocky the road. Do not engage, respect and proceed. I always complement any comment however disdainful. I don’t meet disrespect in kind.

However, to be effective, these sorts of vignettes have to be carefully worded and vetted; to be accurate and clear enough to be quickly understood. They should be advanced enough to credit the listener. And, as always, we should be completely open to criticism and acknowledge the doubts and fears of others as well as their arguments. The debate is over. We don’t need to debate anymore. We just have to present the arguments and allow others to see what we've known for years. Confronted with a debate, I encourage it. I encourage their thoughts. Only by accepting their thoughts do you encourage them to objectively look at what should be obvious.

It's a little (or a lot) like dealing with children. You don't directly criticize their thinking. You encourage them to study further.

(No subject)

(note this is not the original pic I posted, please see the comments below)

STOP! Bad Photo !

Please do NOT use this photo, ever. It has clearly been photoshopped.

Look at the left side. It has been skilfully edited to copy itself to enlarge the image, however with just a second's worth of checking the pattern can be clearly seen.

With the wealth of images available it is completely unnecessary to ever use such a photo, but even worse is the fact that anyone critical of 911Truth will definitely point this out as an attempt of Truthers to distort the truth.

Good observation

This image should be immediately deleted from whatever servers are hosting it, and aggressively eradicated from any other place where it might exist. This image is a falsification of history.

Good catch.

My mistake. Removed. Thank you.

I replaced it with a different shot. For reference, the (now) obviously photoshopped image is:

I will add some text to the image to point out that it's edited... That's my S3 account. Not sure where I got it yet, but will try to find out. If anyone knows where to find the original please let me know.

Thanks for the image and the

Thanks for the image and the link. I searched for an appropriate image and cut one out of a video of Kevin Ryan's presentation in Toronto. This one is much clearer... I would probably crop it to focus on the tower.

(No subject)

What Bomb?

Again, not a good photo

Again jkeogh, with a wealth of original photographs available, why use this?

Rather focus on close-up source photographs which highlight specific aspects of the event.

This long shot appeals to emotion, blows up a cloud and uses the word 'bomb' - which is not entirely apposite.

I can think of far more effective photographs. Just my opinion, by the way.


Thanks for the feedback. As you know, the thread is so we can toss out ideas and see what works.

Please post the shots you have in mind!

Simple test

Take your photo that leads this article:

Then ask any young person who does not know about 9/11 and ask them to describe what they see.

I'll wager the answer won't be "A falling building."

I'd expect "exploding" and/or "blowing up" will exceed 90% of the answers.


Something similar was done a few years ago with WTC7 vid's, asking passing strangers what they see... I don't have a youtube link, but it was in a subway.... somewhere outside the US. Maybe someone else knows where to find it.

Do You Support A New 9/11 Investigation?



What is alarming is how pliant and uninformed these people are but then again this is Times Square where people go to be spoon fed pop culture.

WTC7 videos in subway station

I believe the video which you are referring to, of someone showing WTC7 videos in a subway station, was done in Montreal. I think it was posted to 911blogger at some point.


Yep, found it:

I forgot they had other acknowledged CD vids in there leading the viewer. A good concept in general though.

Wow Anditico!!! I'm impressed. Wise, wise words.

I'm speechless at the moment and am absorbing your powerful commentary. I would love to talk to you in person and learn more from you. I haven't commented on this site in a long time, but I do keep up with the main posts. Unfortunately I haven't been reading too many comments in the past couple of years. Anyway, I'm not sure what proper protocol is, but I will leave my email address and hopefully I can set up a phone conversation with you in the near future. Please. Thanks.

Thanks for the comment. I was

Thanks for the comment.

I was just happy to be on the front page of the blogger :).

Hurrah anditico!

As mingusdog also wrote, I haven't posted here in years. IMHO this site got rather off thread, and strayed far from the "smoking gun" type of journalism it is (or perhaps was) famous for. When I would direct others here in a search to spread the Truth, many came away shaking their heads- "It's all about hearings, Obama and JFK stuff and blah blah blah". While I admit keeping the Truth community abreast of the latest public hearings as they are held in various countries and jurisdictions, so also is there a need for the continued exposure of the most blatant evidence of controlled demolition presented in the clearest light for all to see. And this blog is a shining example of that need being filled.


is relevant in studying 9/11 as it enabled the murder of aproximately 3000 civilians
however it can lead to inaction ... why? as it leads to many people assuming that therefore many people were planning to murder those innocents.. conspiracy theorising can provide a roadblock to many of those who dont want to contemplate that a conspiracy so enormous with many deliberate premeditated participants could have taken place... also conspiracy theorising leads one to the contradiction "surely someone would have talked"

The Elks Magazine (August 1956)

quote from a stinking sucker (fight the power/public enemy) but has a ring of truth relevant here i think

what im saying is make it look like a massive conspiracy and people dont want to investigate

i actually think that if there had been more than one person knowingly involved in a plan of mass murder then there would be a very high chance of someone having second thoughts

the fact that AA77 buzzed rummys office then looped round to crash into the target wall means what ?

if indeed the mass murder was not a conspiracy but was the act of a lone deranged psychopath using NSSE powers derived from the UNGA (which i havent seen mentioned on this site though its possible it has been) and the wargame/live fly terrorist attack exercises .. then that one person, using PROMIS and the secret service ("do the orders still stand , Sir ?") might have wanted to send a signal to the head of the military to keep well clear on pain of death
then why the lawn photoshoot? did rummy want it clear to all that he wasnt locked in a bunker ie wasnt accessing PROMIS (read MCR's crossing the rubicon) for the remote-control mass murder of civilians ?
the fact that this looks like a conspiracy makes many people not investigate it
we need to follow facts as we have no more proof that it was a conspiracy theory than a lone nut....

to clarify: lone nut theory would involve a "godzilla theory" type explaination for the cd eg cold war era collateral damage minimisation self destruct to prevent toppling of 1/4 mile high buildings with deaths in the tens of thousands

also im not 100% sure if the mass murder was committed by the VP or a group of premeditated murderers but next time someone calls you a conspiracy theorist why dont you say youre open to a lone nut theory as you dont know for sure what happened and all we need is a reinvestigation... some may find it much easier to ponder the need for a reinvestivation if u sugar coat the bitter truth pill with a hint of lone nut theory then we let the reinvestigation happen and see where the chips fall... first in the dock in a court case ? ......either way.. conspiritor or loner .. to quote MCR "Dick Cheney was the maestro of 9/11."

Take Jimmy Savile and British Hacking conspiracies...


Yeah, well, this is blown open with regularity. Take two examples:

(1) 'Surely someone would have talked" about paedophile JIMMY SAVILE of the BBC 'conspiring' with some of his fellow dirty-minded mates to gain access to under-age teenagers? Actually, some people did talk, but were side-lined and ignored. Who would have thought a "conspiracy so enormous with many deliberate premeditated participants could have taken place"? The child abuse at the Channel Islands orphanage, the child abuse at Welsh childrens' homes, the sexual assualts in the BBC dressing rooms, the nods and winks, the naive gullibility etc, etc ...

(2) British NEWSPAPER HACKING scandal. Editor Rebekah Brooks and her journalist cohorts have been charged with 'CONSPIRACY' to undermine justice. Who would have thought a "conspiracy so enormous with many deliberate premeditated participants could have taken place"? Yet it did... paid policemen, informants, hacks etc colluded together in a no-transparent manner to achieve certain self-serving goals.

People collude and collaborate in less-than-transparent ways in order to achieve goals in order to leverage their power positions and financial status. We need to all grow up and get over our naivete and credulity. It happens all the time.

Re: British Newspaper Hacking Scandal

Hey, funny thing, the rules of reporting are the same as being a social worker or a physician. Social work and medical treatment are nothing without follow up. If you give a family aid, like food stamps, it is wise to make sure,then, that the gas is turned on and the lights are on to protect the well being of the children. Come back in six weeks the physician says, when he tries to adjust you to a new medicine. Well, what are the 5 Ws? Who, followed by What, followed by When, followed by Where and of course Why. So that is what we all wanted to know when the British newspaper hacking scandal spilled over onto our shores. Surely the press would be over this one like a LiLo car wreck, right? Well, where is the follow up?

to clarify

i was thinking that before the mass murder someone in a theoretical conspiracy to mass murder 3000 of their own compatriots would possibly have talked
. hence ruining the plot.. i would have thought that would be a high risk to the success of a theoretical conspiracy
that type of crime is so heinous that willful participants would be few and far between.. makes me think the lone nut theory gains traction a little here.. im not saying the cheney lone nut theory is the one and only explaination.. just that i think we shouldnt count ourselves as conspiracy theorists if were not sure there was a group of people plottjng the mass murder of 3000 civilians

or looking at it like this: how many people did DC need on board in the hard core of a theoretical conspiracy to make it work.. ie people knowingly plotting the mass murder of 3000 compatriot civilians

surely if possibly one would use available means to reduce the necessary number of co-conspirators to reduce risk of spoiling the plot using technology and special NSSE + COG powers and PROMIS software and alligned protocols set up beforehand.. i think i could bat down many suggestions that one might think contradict the lone nut theory wherein one might try to say that such and such a role was vital to the success of the mass murder plan and therefore the person in that role absolutely knew the plan was to kill 3000 civilians on US soil.. or one might say that some behaviour was suspicious therefore someone was a theoretical conspirator but think... does it absolutely imply that someone knew that the plan was to kill 3000 civilians on US soil and that their behaviour was intended deliberately by them to assist in the achievement of that goal? sorry if i seem wordy but i think i have downloaded part of mike montagne's brain from the pfmpe podcasts...

Love it.

I concur.

Moving Pictures Bring Down Barriers

9/11: Building WTC7 Compilation

Stabelized Footage:

Excellent stabilizations by Nate Flach.