Gummiworms of 9/11 Destroyed the WTC

Maxwell C. Bridges  ^**

2024-10-11

A fictional zoom meeting between characters based on real celebrities in the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the real people name-dropped in this zoom-mockumentary said exactly or loosely the words that are attributed to them here. This is fiction, and yes, words are being shoved into their mouths that they didn't ever actually say. But those familiar with the real people upon whom this is based will probably agree that the fictional dialog is something in character for the real people and is probably something they wished to say. Why?

In terms of trying to have a rational and reasonable discussion:

"Reason wasn't working."

"Polite requests weren't working."

"Personal insults weren't working."

Let's try some mockery.

The 9/11 Truther celebrities being mocked in this theatrical drama in alphabetical order are:

Chris Bergier, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Richard Gage, Jon Howland, Sandra Jelmi-Laratonda, Gene Laratonda, Craig McKee, Alfred Magaletta, Adam Ruff, Eric Sandstrom, Susan Serpa, Andy Steele, Norman Swanepoel, and Adam Syed

McKee and Orbitals

This article re-publishes Facebook exchanges from people associated with Mr. Craig McKee through his social media presence and blog.

Remnants of Truth & Shadows

Although I was in exile from Truth & Shadows, I was able to check in from time-to-time. I caught passages written by others worthy of preservation and response. Alas, my responses were written but had to wait for publication and exposure until now, except what could reach participants through email.

Emails from T&S exile

Truth & Shadows run by Mr. Craig McKee has had me in exile. Several postings or comments over the year rose to the level where I thought I should respond, generally via email but sometimes by comments that have not been published. There is no small amount of irony between Mr. McKee's experiences in various Facebook discussion groups (e.g., trolled, banished) and my T&S tenure. Mr. McKee articulates his position on 9/11 nuclear devices (and by extension "me").

These discussions sadly add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods must be suppressed.

The Albury-Bot

{The following is but one comment on one posting on Truth & Shadows that tackles the subtle deceit of what became increasingly clear was a paid-to-post govt shill. Every website should experience such a bot, but in small measure.}

Dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

El Once can think whatever he wants about me, but he's spending way too much time obsessing over banning me to explain why he thinks I'm being disingenuous about anything, and hasn't supported his claim with any examples.

Just saying it is does not make it so. I regularly tear apart your postings line-by-line to prove why I think you're being disingenuous about damn near everything. ... Don't get me started... Ooops. Too late. Here we go. Your last three postings jumbled together and shredded.

Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

Calling me "Albury-bot" and a "liar," and my comments "bullshit" hardly contributes anything worthwhile to the discussion, whether it qualifies on here as a personal attack or not.

Unless of course the levels of bullshit were dissected, not just by me, but by Brian Good. Unless examples of your lies were exposed [more below]. Unless your antics resemble that of a bot: repetitive demeanor, stringing together of illogical assertions, and never deviating from database talking points.

I'd also suggest looking more closely at El Once's posts if you're tired of people engaging in personal attacks, since I've personally attacked no one who's commenting here, and this "Albury-bot" is also tired of it.

And I, too, tire of calling you it. The old expression of umpires -- "I call it like I see it" -- has applicability here. If you'd stop acting like a bot and a Q-Groupie in the subtle deceit that you peddle, not only would I stop with those jabs, I would also most humbly and respectfully apologize.

Agent Hauptstadter

Sehr geehrter Herr Hauptstadter,

Take a step back and view the identity issue as thus. No arabic names were on the flight manifests that I have seen, and no names aligned with the named suspects/patsies which was broadcast within a couple days of the event complete with pictures. And when some of the named suspects are alive and well in foreign countries and disputing their involvement, a rational person would think: "Ah, just a case of identity theft that we've learned to be fearful of because of those damn Mexican laborers stealing the manual labor jobs that no one wants and having to fake their identification and social security information to be paid."

A hallmark of the G.W.Bush and his administration was to never admit they were wrong. On anything. Ever. Not even doing cocaine or not fulfilling national guard service. Nothing.

The FBI and others could easily have said, "Oops! My bad. Yes, indeed, identity theft occurred." The reason they didn't was that it opened up a can of worms for which they didn't have a full explanation worked out, and lying on the fly is bad form and is easily caught. No Arabic named passenger A on the manifest? Arabic named person alive and well? Then what passenger name X was used instead? How did the hijacker get that fake identification? Are there conflicts with the name X and a real person X already accounted for on the flight?

So, just like the initial NIST documents on the WTC destruction ignored WTC-7, just like the 9/11 Commission ignored and omitted things like Able Danger, Sibel Edmunds, Mr. Rodriquez, Mr. Jennings & Mr. Hesh, ... just like the NIST/FEMA assumed it was commercial aircraft and office fires so didn't test for accelerants or plutonium, the FBI on this hijacker front had to ignore this incongruity.

It was important for the 9/11 cheerleaders to be in lock-step on all points, however stupid or debunked. Keep repeating the lie. National Security was indeed at stake even if the cheerleaders suspected they were giving lip service to lies. If any of the lies are exposed, the whole house of cards could come down and the fallout will be our nation, certainly our govt, and most definitely the job security of those in govt at all levels.

Yes, they may have given their oath to the Constitution, but by golly their family still needs to be fed, and the consequence to wanna-be whistle-blowers was made clear. When did the Anthrax attacks occur, who was targeted, and who did they blame?

The issue with the DNA is an issue with the aircraft. You see, in all four cases, the crash and fires were supposedly so intense that they vaporized the aircraft, which supposedly explains the lack of wreckage, luggage, aircraft debris, bodies, and body parts. But if the aircraft were vaporized, kindly calculate the intense heat required and what would happy to bodies and body parts subjected to such aircraft-vaporizing heat.

If DNA was found, why not more of the aircraft? Conversely, because more of the aircraft wasn't found, how were they able to find DNA?

Hey, the lies on this could go either way and both ways at the same time just to keep it suppressed, and keep the FUD going.

Here's another point. Human remains were found in tiny pieces on the roof tops of adjacent buildings. Kindly calculate the energy required to sever a body into tiny pieces and eject it those distances. How do we know that the remains on those distant building roof tops was from WTC office workers or fire fighters and not those of the hijackers?

Another Failed Google Searcher

Dear Mr. Albury writes:

The USGS thermal imaging detected temperatures up to ~1400F. Easily explained by the long-lasting debris fires, and hot enough to melt lead from UPS systems, or to keep fuselage and building aluminum molten. Simply put, nanothermite and other explosives wouldn’t produce pools of molten metal, and no incendiary known to mankind stays hot for more than a few minutes.

No, it is not so easily explained by long-lasting debris fires, because debris and rubble sat on top of it, smothered it, and made it difficult for air/oxygen to fuel such fires, particularly when the fire department began dumping water on it as well.

Moreover, you should Google what temperatures a debris fire, or an office fire, or even a jet fueled fire can reach, thereby further shooting down your explanation. Mr. Limey can help you on this, because he was recently given a tutorial on this on another of Mr. McKee's articles.

Your statements about nanothermite and other explosives not producing pools of molten metal are only half true. The half that is false is that those mechanisms could indeed produce pools of molten metal; the half that is true is that those mechanisms could not maintain those pools of molten metal over time.

No incendiary known to mankind stays hot for more than a few minutes.

This is (probably) true.

Now if you really want an Occam Razor easy explanation for the detected temperatures up to ~1400F, try multiple milli-nukes (as is 1/1000th the nukes you are envisioning). Unspent and fizzling left-over nuclear material from companion fracticided milli-nukes can easily explain the recorded temperatures, their duration, the methods employed in the clean-up, the high security of the area, the suppression of photos & images, the shipping off of materials for recycling, the song-and-dance dog-and-pony show of various alphabet soup govt agencies to control the reports, control the message, control the propaganda...

Señor El Once

Chop, chop: Let's Learn Properties of Steel

Dear Mr. Limey,

The "chop, chop" nit should be directed at me, instead of Mr. McKee. But since you drag me into this, I might as well address your concerns.

Mr. Limey wrote:

How about that factual backup for your comment that the fires would not have got hot enough to weaken the steel. Come on man, chop, chop!

Having problems with the Google, are we, sir? You could learn a lot by entering into Google phrases like "steel blast furnace", "temperatures weakening iron", "temperature steel loses strength", and "temperature jet fuel burns".

What temperature does steel lose strength? At about 550° C (1,000° F) steel is at 50% strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength. The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

What temperature does jet fuel reach in open air? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).

Already you should be seeing a problem that jet fuel can't heat steel hot enough to lose 50% of its strength, and this is before the heat conductivity of steel in a structure is factored in. And this is before we observe that the buildings were over-designed by at least a factor of 2 and that NIST said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes (assuming of course that it was a commercial jet).

Banned from 9/11 Blogger

Anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement who has mustered their anonymous alias’s courage — fortified by superhero underwear, Toy Story pajamas, Cheetos, and beer in their mother’s basement — to step up onto their cyber soap boxes to enlighten their online world to the conspiracy truth has experienced not only the direct ridicule regarding these very aforementioned (real or imagined) issues but also the indirect after-the-fact embarrassment from having been led around by their noses and been mistaken on an issue or two.

“Pods on planes” comes to mind for me. A clever limited hangout I was once enamoured with. Today, I don’t think that. I think “planes on pods”, or rather, pixels representing planes covering over small military planes or cruise missiles on the video footage. Another good one is space based weapons & DEW. I don’t discount their existence, only their operational deployment on 9/11.

A propaganda trick I’m observing relates to spearheading the exploration into a theory, establish the legend base on a pile of substantiated truth, becoming the go-to expert, and then doing something that undermines credibility that serves to take both the theory and the underlying truths/evidence out of play in a guilt by association ploy. When all else fails, poor online behavior on either side of the debate can help it implode.

The taboo subjects are a knee-jerk reaction not just to the topics deemed collectively crazy upon some review. No, it is also kickback to the religious (or football) fanaticism to the subject, much of which was less than sincere, because its purpose wasn’t to shed light or enlighten or to demonstrate an open-mind that could be convinced it was wrong. Its purpose was to co-opt and divide the movement.

So having gone through those wringers, those who administer sites like 9/11 blogger are jaded. Imagine the “go-to” website on 9/11 infiltrated with a team of close-minded, misinformed, and often purposely obtuse (even in cases paid-to-post) fanatics. I’ve been there, done that. The first round is fun, but when you get dragged through the 2nd or n-th round covering the exact same dubious arguments, it gets old. Disinformation warriors never tire of such circles; it is their job, and they’ll gladly re-use entries from their database.