No Building 7 180 here

Be the 1st to vote.

I’ve heard it twice that Simon has done a 180 on building 7, saying that perhaps the collapse footage of Building 7 was real. I heard it once on Fetzer’s latest shill show here  and on the latest with Brian Stavely here. It’s quite clear to me that Simon has not done any reversing of his position on the collapse footage, which was of course the crux of Richard Gage’s travelling clown show.

Here’s my original post here on Simon’s theory, which I think could be very close to what actually occurred.

Here is Simon’s reaction to Brian’s recent promotion of Simon’s 0;reversal” on fake footage.

I am reposting the above section of my above “SMOKESCREEN” post – for those with short attention span and poor reading skills who completely missed my point, such as Brian Staveley. Here’s what Brian is now circulating on the internets:

Brian Staveley wrote (in a group e-mail exchange):

“Simon Shack of has always said all the video from is fake! If you even suggested ANY real 9/11 imagery you would be banned from his site. It happened to many people. I personally was attacked for suggesting not all the video was fake. Well now he has done a complete 180! I wonder why? Will he unban people?? lol He goes on to say that tower 7 was demolished to cover up the evidence of the smoke machines. He even says there is real video of 7 and of the smoke plume,etc . Something we have always suggested. Listen for yourself. This was on his appearance on the Ab Irato show about 3 weeks ago.”

I am now fully satisfied that we did well to ban Brian Staveley from this forum. Whether he is a shill or not doesn’t really matter – since he clearly is too damn stoopid to participate / let alone contribute in a cogent manner to the all-important image debate.

As I’ve stated before, the 9/11 military media hoax has two pillars: and simulation, and psyOp hoax management. The nuances of the psyOp hoax are difficult to sort out. Because I have no doubt that Simon’s deconstruction of the is the closest to the truth, his position will logically get the sharpest attacks while paradoxically receiving the least amount of attention.

Is it any wonder that to fully understand 9/11, you have to study it for years before you can get a grasp of the enormity of the operation? Do you detractors now see why I’ve devoted a blog and radio program to it?


*Yes, the History Channel actually ran that scene – above right – in reverse motion (with the smoke seemingly being ‘sucked into’ WTC7)…

Here are two animated gifs showing the smoke gushing out (*and back into! :P )of WTC7 (as shown on TV):

No tags for this post.

4 thoughts on “No Building 7 180 here

  1. Brian-Staveley

    I misunderstood what he said Ab. I thought he was saying the plume was caused by the smoke machines in Tower 7 and that is why the plume looked so big n stayed for so long. He actually said the smoke machines caused the plume to be CLOSE to what we saw on TV. I screwed up. Once it was pointed out to me I immediatly removed it, issued a retraction and Emailed Simon to apologize. Even if maybe I butt heads with somebody I still don’t want to ever put words in their mouth. It’s corrected now though. Luckily I only had it up for about 2 days. I emailed back anyone I told also to correct the mistake. I spoke with Simon it’s all good. I didn’t intentionally try to say he said something he didn’t. The way he described it I thought he was saying the Plume which was generatewd by the smoke was what was filmed. I felt like an idiot and apologized immediately.

    1. Brian-Staveley

      I wasnt going after Simon at all. I made an honest mistake. If I was going after him I wouldn’t have put a retraction as soon as I realized the mistake. I apologized a bunch of times to anyone I told that to and to Simon himself. I made a mistake. There is nothing else I can do but admit it , correct it, apologize, and move on. If I had an alterior motive at all I wouldn’t be admitting to my mistake right away like I have. U can see the retraction here if you would like…’. Last thing I am trying to do is stir the pot. Been thru that enough. If he did say what I thought it would definitely have been worth noting. I misunderstood. Sorry.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.