Truther Dialogue: The 9/11 Shock Waves Theory


9/11 victims – Rest In Peace


Truther Dialogue: the 9/11 Shock Waves Theory


The following is an extract of a recent group e-mail conversation between certain 9/11 truthers:


Dr. David Griscom tries to convince Steve De’ak and Dr. Jim Fetzer to believe in his shock wave theory as follows:

“Despite what some people call “evidence” to the contrary, Dr. David Griscom has PROVED that every detail of the fast approaching plane that struck and entered the South Tower on 9/11 obeyed known laws of physics 100%.  Thus, those who still insist that what we all saw on the morning of 9/11 was faked is either misguided …or a troll deliberately misguiding the masses to cover up for the perps.”


Dr. Jim Fetzer then replies:

I agree 100% with Griscom that one of us is a troll. It’s really not that difficult to figure out which of us that would be.

Even in the first session of the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference his fakery is exposed for the world to see:


David Griscom then replies to Jim as follows:

I don’t know what fakery you refer to, Jim.  I was not at the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference.  However, I stand by my conclusions that real planes struck WTC1 and 2, both of which fell later due to shock waves likely to have been set off by mini nukes.

Conversely, I’ve never, ever believed that the Pentagon swallowed a 757.  More than that, I think that I have deduced the natures of ALL planes that came near to (or struck) the Pentagon, based in part my eye having witnessed a pair of aviation stunts at about 9:30 in the morning ~7 and 12 years before 9/11/01, which in retrospect I came to realize must to have been trial runs against on the Pentagon.


Steve De’ak replies to David Griscom:


You missed some very important details in the impact holes, Dr. Griscom.

Eight columns followed by an inward-blasting hole that was nowhere near the engine.  What could account for this damage?

According to you the wings were reinforced with steel (yet still somehow light enough to fly) but if that was the case then the columns would be damaged on the opposite corner.

Columns bent to the side and impacted on the opposite corner from what the videos show:

I wish you were willing to discuss this critical evidence.

… And the steel columns at the far left of both impact holes were bent laterally, in a completely different direction than the wing tip was traveling, and whatever it was struck the columns on the opposite corner from what was shown on television.    Physical impact from multiple small projectiles from the side, not an impact from one large projectile from the front.


Dr. Jim Fetzer also seems to dismiss David Griscom’s theory, and says he is appalled by the general bad behaviour within the so-called 9/11 truth movement:


“The problem with A&E911 is that it runs a limited hangout. Not only do they cling to the scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite but they refuse to discuss who was responsible and why. Think about it. The most prominent 9/11 organization–which will not allow its staff or even volunteers to talk about any other theory than that it was done with nanothermite–will not address the crucial issue of who was responsible and why. That is simply appalling.

More serious research was presented this weekend during the second Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference than you could find in all the articles, presentations and conferences sponsored by A&E911. Part 1, “How it was done”, can be found here:

and Part 2, “Who was responsible”, here: It’s time to stop pretending A&E911 is a serious organization.

Have you reviewed the presentations at the MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference yet?

US, International Experts to Discuss Alternative Versions of 9/11 Attacks

Engineers, intelligence experts and scientists plan to discuss independent versions of the World Trade Center towers’ collapse and other aspects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, author and founder of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth James Fetzer told Sputnik.


However, Steve De’ak is not convinced that Jim Fetzer’s nuke theory has all the answers. He writes:


Did you discuss the lateral bends to the steel visible on the left sides of bother impact holes to the towers?

Eight progressively worse-damaged columns followed by an inward-blasting hole.  What could do such a thing?

Do these sessions include the evidence of removed bolts and the still existing truss straps shown still hanging from the walls?  It is not trivial to discuss critical evidence, but it does make one wonder why you are so vehemently against an honest discussion of this evidence.

Can you just point to the session where you discuss this evidence please?  If it doesn’t include it I’m happy to discuss it.  No need to get nasty over it.

These truss straps which are still seen hanging from the lobby walls, Jim.   If you are stating that the ceiling was vaporized by a nuke, why are the flimsy straps still there, but the ceiling material they were attached to is cut away where it met the wall?

…for me a major stumbling block was the truss straps – they should have been poured into the concrete if there were concrete floors there.  But just as there is evidence of the remains of the lobby ceiling straps, I would expect to see similar evidence of the floors above the lobby.  But there is nothing, no straps, dampers or evidence of floor material where they met the walls.

Steve De’ak


Jim then replies to Steve:



If you are in agreement that no real planes hit either of the Twin Towers,

I am open to the possibility that the gashes could have been made by the

strike of a missile at an angle. But I am not willing to accept–and have in

fact disproven–that any of the 9/11 planes actually crashed ANYWHERE.

Here is my latest about what happened in New York. Do we agree on this?

Go through this and tell me exactly where we agree and where we do not:


Steve De’ak then replies to Jim:



I have been hopping up and down saying that no planes crashed anywhere at any of the sites for years now, that is not in question.  But something cut the gashes at the WTC and created that crater in Shanksville, and the evidence of what did (or what could have) is all I keep trying to discuss.



fake jet planeIt is clear from the above dialogue, that Dr. David Griscom is still having a very hard time convincing his fellow truthers to believe in his 9/11 shock wave theory. He’s probably crying in his pillow right now, or singing: “Can we pretend that shock wave planes are like shooting stars in the 9/11 sky? I could really do with a wish right now, a wish right now….And if your plans unravel in the sand, what would you wish for if you had one chance? ” Here is this song dedicated to him:


Airplanes – B.o.B ft. Hayley Williams

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

T Mark Hightower - Truth Seeking Pluralist

Christian Universalism, Flat Earth Debunking, Spherical Earth Affirming

The Truth Hurts

Truther Musical

A '9/11 Truther' Musical Production


A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Daily Post

The Art and Craft of Blogging

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: