The Growth of the 9/11 Truth Movement Stats

September 2005 - September 2006

Source of Data 



Not only interest profits grow exponentially.


We in Europe have finally woken up too so hopefully this growth will continue...

^ Just in case you guys

^ Just in case you guys don't know CB_Brooklyn is a "no planes hit the wtc" disinfo pusher.

Yes - but this is a good post

I have no problem with CB posting good information. But, the no-planes theory will always be desconstrusted on these message boards.

further - if he engages in personal attacks he simply reinforces the organized disruption meme.

so- good post CB. Keep it civil - and accept the fact that your no-planes posts are not accepted by the majority of this community.

Oh, Brother

It's funny that the plane huggers are the ones who constantly insist on bringing up the issue. CB's post is great (although I'm curious where his data's from) and has nothing to do with the internecine plane-or-no-plane squabble.
John, remember, the majority of people in the community didn't wait for you to finally accept controlled demolition.
And nobody's waiting for your "Confessions of a CGI Convert" post either.
It's going to depend on what the evidence shows, not what John Albanese says the majority of Truthers think. And so far, I've seen no reliable evidence that either plane hit either tower. And saying that hundreds of people "saw" it doesn't do anything for me. Hundreds of millions think it's self-evident that bin Laden is personally responsible for all the damage. Trauma-tainted memories are worthless. Let's see the proof. If 9/11 has shown us anything, it's that nothing is certain until it's scrutinized intensively. The scrutiny so far afforded the plane hypothesis has so far shown only a lot of contradictory and indeterminate data.

What a f*cktard

What a f*cktard;

The following is an exchange between me and Nico (Click on the images to see them separately, the second image might be cut of by the page);

I really feel sry for you Nico, you’re a hopeless case it seems.

“quot;...when the plane hits the building the momentum it carries with it translates into the direction of the impact....quot;

Nico: There is no crumbling of the walls. Are you blind?

Crumbling of walls? The walls are being blown out as the jet tanks in the wings and elsewhere explode. WTF do you mean "There is no crumbling of the walls"?

"...In that video the plane hits from the left..."

Nico: But according to the WABC7 live footage it couldn't have come from *this left direction. You ignored this all over again.

I don't give a shit about "WABC7", the plane is coming from the left hand side from the perspective that the video was taken.

"...the debris is hurled through the building and out the other side to the right...."

Nico: Which comes from internal explosives.

Your logic is utterly mind-boggling, these "explosives" that you imagine would have been stationary. And so the material that they displace would have travelled at the same speed, and over a similar predictable distance. In reality the plane parts travelling at 500mph-plus crash through the building, and maintains a certain degree of that initial Kinetic momentum. As you can see here in an illustration that I’ve just made for you;

Unless what you’re imagining is that the A-Team’s evil twins got to work, and kitted out the twin towers with something that would launch debris at a faster rate then the expanding fireball. And direct it out of the opposite side of the building from where the plane enters.

"...Furthermore an explosion of jet fuel inside the building would have to be generated by huge tanks of jet fuel..."

Nico: I never claimed that jet fuel was used.
As a matter of fact, the color of the explosion does not point on JP4 or JP8 and the fire does INDEED dissipate too quickly for jet fuel. Therefore there was none. No jet fuel, no plane.

Total insanity, the behaviour of the fireball is entirely in keeping with jet fuel, from the fast yellow to orange dissipation of heat, to the fast developing black smoke.

"...which trained sniffer dogs can detect..."

Nico: Not to play devil's advocate for you now, but you have no clue about ANY 9/11 research. All sniffer dogs had been removed a week earlier in advance, very often pointed out by controlled demolition researchers and widely reported at Killtown's smoking gun list.

Laughable, I know all about the sniffer dogs being called of assclown.

Finally, if you look at the initial impact area for both buildings you will see that what’s produced is initially a greyish cloud that eventually gives way to an orange fireball;

The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material.

It's only sad

It's sad that so many new people are going to be seeking out this blog, only to see stuff like this.

i rest my case

"And so far, I've seen no reliable evidence that either plane hit either tower. "


part of the meme of organized disruption is to smear and misrepresent other activists - while pushing disinformation.

your characterizations regarding my position on controlled demolition is distorted.

my position has always been that physical evidence is the weakest evidence to lead with in bringing in newbies. period. many people still view CD as tin-foil hat.

on the other hand - my film presents an historical background that simply presents a different "approach" to 9/11.

the fact that the CD cry babies needed to relentlessly pursue me and condemn me for NOT including CD in my film was immature - and led me to write my editorial to simply silence the constant attacks.

But - attacks are what you specialize in - right?

Quick - someone page Nico and have him post yet another embarassing rewriting of history and personal attack against my character. It just goes to show what the no-planers stand for.

Ah, yes...

...attack Nico as a "whacko."
How many books by Webster Tarpley have mentioned you, John? How many books by Michael Ruppert have mentioned your "research" too, John?


when you put the word "Whacko" between quotation marks you imply that i used that word. more distortion and lies.

as for Ruppert - Shall I quote exactly what Ruppert said about Nico?


it is quite embarassing.

please - stop the personal attacks. i do not want to getting into a pissing match here. i do not and will not ever support the no-planes theory. period.

sorry for not being clear.

sorry for not being clear. The data is from sitemeter. I'll update my blog with the url

just to be clear DBLS, I am

just to be clear DBLS, I am not saying (anymore) that no planes hit the towers. I am saying that there was tv-fakery. (This is already proven fact based on simple science and common sense!) The exposure of this is important as it brings down the msm as being involved in the attacks. As for whether there were real planes (of any kind) or not... that question should be put to the government