and the reply
the answer you requested
Hi, man. Well, I will try my best to be as precise as possible.
Regarding JREF. I said what I said. These people are not worthy having any good discussion with and this will stand. This is the final sentence that can not be appealed. If you dont believe me, just read carefully all posts that were on that thread before my appearance. I was not even yet there, but the thread was full of insults and derogatory statements directed at me. You cant deny it. Just read first pages of that thread for your reference. So, I am not the one who will spend my precious time trying to argue with people who could resort to cheap insults and do not observe generally accepted rules of discussion that are widely practiced by intelligent people. Nonetheless, despite of a lot of insults and derogatory statements published on that thread prior to my appearance, I gave them a chance to have a discussion still, providing they would adhere to the rules that I made sure to publish there first. They did not even bother to observe the rules and they did not even appreciate the mere fact that someone condescended to attempting to talk to them constructively DESPITE of their former insults and derogatory statements, and, instead of demanding their apologies first, he demanded merely observance of rules of discussion. If this is not an ingratitude, then I dont know what is ingratitude. In any case, these people did not meet condition of the proposed discussion and discussion was ended by me. This is final. End of the story. I am a man of my word.
Regarding the rest. You say you are not a debunker. I am not quite sure about it, because, to be honest, you appear a debunker to me. Perhaps, I am mistaken.
Just to let you know. I do not consider any professional 9/11 conspiracy theorists as being worthy of any attention, primarily because during their 8 years spent on the 9/11 research they did not even get closer to the truth, despite the fact that 8 years is enough to get two different university diplomas per each conspiracy theorist of this kind. So, in my humble opinion if someone spent 8 years on the 9/11 research and during these 8 years he was not even able to find a pre-9/11 dictionary and to see what ground zero used to mean before 2001, it only means that such a person is totally dumb and has not chance to understand truth in any case even if this truth would be brought to him on a golden dish prepared in the most digestible manner. I guess you understand what I mean. Therefore my movie is primarily intended not to re-educated these professional conspiracy theorists (since they are incurable anyway), but only to educate those innocent common people who spent these 8 years on their careers, their education, their children, etc.
Based on the consideration described above, I could tell you that when my explanation is seen by 100% innocent auditorium, perhaps 90-95% got my point and believe my version of events at once. The remaining 5-10% might not believe it, but not because of they do not agree with any technicalities, but mostly because it sounds too outrageous for them and they cant overcome a certain psychological barrier. However, when my presentation is seen by so-called professional conspiracy theorists (such as those who spent their near entire free and working time chatting in various 9/11 forums and sitting in 9/11 societies), this is a totally different story. Out of such an auditorium perhaps only 10-15% would believe my explanation, while remaining 90-95% would express their disbelief and dissatisfaction in different forms, which may vary from personal insults and spiteful criticism to simple ignoring. This is caused by the following factors:
1)Many 9/11 truthers are brainwashed by their FBI-appointed leaders and because majority of them cant have any opinion of their own in any case due to actual construction of their brains, they just follow the rest of their flock.
2)Many 9/11 professional conspiracy theorists have just too low IQ, because if they would have any higher IQ they would not spend the 8 years from the 9/11 till now for nothing and would discover at least something.
3)Some other professional conspiracy theorists do realize that they spent 8 years for nothing and the mere fact that someone new (I am new for them, they are not going to consider that I spent not less than 5 years on my research) outdid them makes them very unhappy. It makes them jealous and therefore imperceptible to the truth.
4)Some other professional conspiracy theorists, especially prominent ones (from among honest ones, not appointed by the FBI I mean) who have already published their own books and released some documentaries with wrong ideas can not accept my version too, because it will require them to admit they were wrong and they are not brave enough to accept that they could have been wrong.
5)Large portion of the professional 9/11 conspiracy theorists (including also many full-time Internet forum-trolls) are nothing less than paid government agents whose only job is to ridicule and to ostracize all those who are pushing the only truth of the 9/11 (namely nuclear- and no-planes theories). Which is quite understandable, considering dare situation of the poor US Government.
Nonetheless, even from among professional 9/11 conspiracy theorists I still have some 10-15% of followers, including even some real high-ranking 9/11 truthers and some prominent 9/11 scholars.
Considering all of this, I would have some difficulty believing you that you are not a debunker as you claim. Sorry for that. If you were a real innocent reasonable person who is familiar with elementary logic you would not miss to notice 3 important things (which have nothing to do with me personally, except that I only pointed them out to others):
a)ground zero in pre-9/11 usage was the place of a nuclear/thermo-nuclear explosion and that was the ONLY meaning of this term;
b)Place o the WTC collapse was called ground zero (first in small letters only, then elevated to capital letters after a couple of weeks).
c)US authorities undertook a verily heroic desperate attempt to re-define ground zero term in ALL without any exception post-9/11 dictionaries which is nothing but a smoking gun US Government was caught with.
If combination of the abovementioned 3 points is still not enough proof for you that the WTC demolition had something to do with nuclear explosions, then I am very sorry, we have nothing else to talk. I could only presume that you are either completely dumb (which is irreparable and which I doubt, considering your intelligent way of writing) or that you are a paid government agent appointed to fight the 9/11 truth at any cost. It could only be either of the two with no third option. I am very sorry if this offended you. But logic and facts are stubborn things.
In the light of all above said I do not see any point in spending my precious time on explaining it to you why the Twin Towers collapsed from impact point down (while I definitely have explanation for this, dont even doubt it).
Just to make things clear. My version could be sub-divided for several points, some of them are unquestionable, just as matters of fact, some of them are products of my own contemplations which could be summarized as follows:
1)I served in the Soviet nuclear intelligence as a commissioned officer for 5 years. This is a matter of fact (dont believe me? Means you call me a liar. This is an insult. I do not talk to people who insult me. Get lost forever).
2)From my former service mentioned above I knew about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. This is a matter of fact (dont believe me? Means you call me a liar. This is an insult. I do not talk to people who insult me. Get lost forever).
3)From my former military service I knew properties of atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions. Based on this knowledge of mine I am capable of explaining why Towers were pulverized and why the collapsed in the manner we can see them collapsing on TV. (you dont like my explanation who would an underground nuclear explosion pulverized the structure above it? Well. Offer yours. I will be pleased to consider it. This could be discussed. Dont believe that it was a nuke? See clause 1 above. Get lost forever for calling me a liar).
4)I stated that the US Government attempted to re-print the post 9/11 dictionaries and produced a proof of it including ISBN numbers. This is evidence. Dont believe me? Then go to see your shrink. This is a clinical problem.
These are basically the most important points of my claims. As you can see, to continue discussing with me the rest of my claims and technicalities, you have to either admit that:
1)I am indeed a real former Soviet nuclear intelligence officer.
2)I indeed knew about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme.
Once you admit these two, the rest we could discuss. Perhaps you could offer some better explanation than mine one, and because I am not a jealous person, I could easily accept being wrong and I would agree with you if your explanation of the nuclear demolitions technicalities would look more believable than my own.
However, if you doubt the two points above it is tantamount to calling me a liar. This is an outright insult. Just get lost and forget my name and my address.
Hope you got my point well this time.
Best wishes
