No Something. No Another Thing. No Something Else.

  • Latest Comments

    Action Joe on Speaks No Mor…
    Proof Positive on BBK REPRINT: The Dummies Guide…
    Proof Positive on Kenneth Ng’s Statement o…
    Thomas on Underage Sex in Thailand by…
    BigBlackGulliver on Learning Thai….
    RealDaffyDuck on New Kenny Avatar!
    RealDaffyDuck on New Kenny Avatar!
    كيني هو خنزير on New Kenny Avatar!
  • Today’s Top 10 Read

  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Nano Termites!

Posted by RealDaffyDuck on October 25, 2010

The 9/11 Channel coverage continues – today, with one of the most popular and repeating myths surrounding ‘speculation’ as to what brought down the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11.


Read on for the rather clear cut truth on this myth (and if you’re Prufrock, get ready to wheep).

(…and if you’re not Prufrock, you’ll wheep for different reasons, I’m sure.

First of all – to stoke the fire – here’s undiscovered evidence of Nano Termites. A rare undiscovered picture of NANO TERMITES doing their nefarious work.

…or is it?

Termites, as everyone knows, eat wood.

The WTC Twin Towers (and surrounding buildings) were made of steel, concrete and glass – not wood.

Case closed.


32 Responses to “Nano Termites!”

  1. 2 Cool 4 Words said

    Those things are really small. I didn’t think they were that small.

  2. Wombat said

    Are nano termites a similar strain to the nano bots that stole Red Dwarf?

  3. BangkokMilkshakes said

    you spelt weep wrong 🙂

  4. BangkokMilkshakes said

    i think it would be interesting to hear you actually address some of the issues… in particular how building 7 fell down….how people were pictured in the hole left by the plane, waving, when the fire was meant to be insanely hot? the testimony of the janitor(?) who reported explosions before the impact of the planes, and saw people caught in those explosions with their skin hanging off…the fact that a number of the named hijackers came forward after the event to say they were still alive… that would be a start:)

    im not taking sides here, but I do think those are interesting talking points…

    • Good point – and your query deserves a response.

      My primary angle of investigation of most alternate theories and speculations is a simple one – “consider the source”.

      To illustrate: We have all seen and read Prufrock’s diatribes ad nauseam, and if he wants to be taken seriously (let’s assume he does), he does not do himself any favor by his judicious use of (shall we say) ‘colorful metaphors’ that he peppers, if not overwhelms his every essay of comments.

      I mean, honestly, if this is the guy that tells you he has ‘inside knowledge’ on a vast ranging conspiracy, would you waste even a single second on considering what he has to say? I’m sorry to say that, by and large, most of the demographics spouting the same message, come across very similarly – and those who manage to construct a coherent sentence invariably fall apart once you investigate their background, and their history.

      That said, let me address one single point you raise – about the ‘still alive hijackers’ (hint: they are not alive anymore):

      One of the so called “scholars” keeps repeating the ridiculous claim that the hijackers are still alive and well – tracing the numerous sites and blogs that all claim that, you will find that they all link back to the same relatively unreliable source.

      The absurd logic of this part of the conspiracy story is that the conspirators used the real name of phony hijackers.

      Think about that for a moment…

      These powerful mass murders can get away with planting tons of explosives / incendiaries, motivate hundreds, if not thousands of people to become accessories to mass murder but can’t create phony names to throw off amateur internet investigators…

      OK, let’s say your ability to think rationally about this is impaired and you need more than just simple common sense…

      By now you may recognize the theme of these conspiracy stories. They obviously didn’t bother to call the reporters involved in the article. And why should they? It sounds like a conspiracy just the way they tell it.

      What’s more, Saudi Arabia have now accepted that their citizens, as named by the US, were involved. Why would they do that if any of them were still alive, and so plainly innocent?

      That’s just one point – the others are just as easily explained. Occham’s razor, remember…?

    • BKKMilkShakes – for additional information, follow this link here:

      It pretty much answers all of these remaining questions you raised.

      There’s a certain irony in this considering how Prufrock has usually maligned and ridiculed you for asking valid and reasonable questions.

  5. BangkokMilkshakes said

    well, dont get me wrong, Prufrock is…well he is the last person i would want to talk about 9/11 with. And speaking as a non-US citizen, im not really that emotionally involved in the issue… but I was in the direct vicinity of the UK tube bombings when they took place so i can empathize with the passion surrounding the issue…

    I also find many of the arguments that the conspiracy theorists intertwine into the overall picture to be laughable…and i agree with your general dismissal of the rabid nature of what Prufrock and his truthers toss into the mix. On the flipside of that – do I think the official version of events is the way it went down….well in a word, no i dont.

    Im not saying that the US government blew up the buildings, but I do still think there are interesting things to look at concerning the whole case….

    especially when you look in depth at the root of both the Neocons within the US government, and Al Quaeda….how did both organisations actually come into being, what do they actually believe in, and why they need each other?

    so if i asked myself the questions…did the US administration know that an attack was imminent? and did they do everything in their power to stop such an attack?….I honestly dont know if i could say anything other than ‘No.’

    and in all the stuff i have looked at i havent seen one person ever explain why building 7 came down in the manner that it did…whatever the greater truth, that alone strikes me as being complete bullshit.

    just talking points though 🙂

    • “so if i asked myself the questions…did the US administration know that an attack was imminent? and did they do everything in their power to stop such an attack?….I honestly dont know if i could say anything other than ‘No.’”

      I’ve explained this once before – the US government’s administration at the time, was not complicit, it was complacent.

      Complacency and incompetency of the US government’s leaders were the allies and the secret sauce that assisted Al Quaeda terrorists in planning and executing.

      There is a huge difference between being knowingly complicit in the terror plot, and having been made aware but dismissing it, out of overbearing arrogance and incompetence.

      We know the FBI had reason to suspect a terror attack of sorts, but John Ashcroft not only dismissed such warnings, but virtually eliminated counter-terrorism budgets. FBI executives and agents testified as much later.

      Did Ashcroft do so because he was part of a NeoCon cabal carefully plotting a new world order and implementing a NeoCon strategy of death and destruction – or was he just an incompetent oaf full of himself who felt this kind of thing could never happen?

      There’s plenty of proof that numerous Bush appointees were truly incompetent oafs, with Ashcroft no exception. (look up “Heck of a job, Brownie!” for another example).

      So, yes, while you could claim that US admin leaders knew of a pending terrorist attack, they were told, but didn’t care.

      Complacent, not complicit.

    • It appears that Prufie, writing under his Bill Cooper persona, is now becoming a fan of your’s (though sadly his post stating so just disappeared under my eyes – it’s a cabal conspiracy, I tell you (or just BigDummy cleaning house).

    • BigDummyKenny said

      Bill’s comments are being held for evaluation. THE BDK covert intelligence team is examining these comments for hidden messages intended to mobilize sock puppets. Think of them as being held in a penalty box for the time being.


    • Excellent – I’m glad The Team is on the ball, as always!

  6. Bill Cooper said

    Bangkok Milkshakes.

    You never were on my Christmas card list, but now it seems you’re starting to wake up and question stuff – ther’s hope for you yet 🙂

  7. adman said

    BangkokMilkshakes – Where is your reference material for this statement?

    “the testimony of the janitor(?) who reported explosions before the impact of the planes, and saw people caught in those explosions with their skin hanging off”

    Have a link? Does it include the name of the janitor?

    • Adman – you can google “wtc William
      Rodriguez”, an you will find plenty of links – but as I pointed out earlier, all of these regurgitations from 911 bloggers link back to one single original story that left several details out (notably that William Rodriguez didn’t say anything of the sort originally).

      The link I posted earlier contains the relevant information:

      Search towards the end for “William Rodriguez”

  8. BangkokMilkshakes said

    i agree, probably the truth lies with complacent, not complicit….probably. but in all this….and your right…to look each detail, the source of each point….and they can all be debated, but i still in all of this, have never heard one reasonable explanation for why building 7 collapsed. in most debates, people, like Prufrock sling a lot of madcap theories into the mix all at once…and most often the other side of the debate reasonably address each point, but then it comes to building 7, and they kind of skirt over it. Falling debris hit it, it caught fire and collapsed….hmmmm….if you look at the video evidence, it was barely even on fire AT ALL. remember, no rocket fuel, no raging inferno….and that building came down …well exactly like a controlled demolition.

    please….if you could reinstate Bill/Prufrocks comment, its not often i get a promise of a christmas card 🙂

    • I will address building 7 in due time – and you would be incorrect, as the fall of WTC7 has been well explained as well.

      I’m surprised you haven’t come across it yourself, or maybe it hasn’t been sufficiently well explained to you.

      I’ll try in my follow up.

  9. BangkokMilkshakes said

    i have heard various explanations, none of them made any impression on me…

    • The truth is not required to impress you, in order to be true, nevertheless.

      You state: “if you look at the video evidence, it was barely even on fire AT ALL.”

      Well, Shakes, I *did* look at the video evidence – apparently, you didn’t look hard enough:

      You probably mean this picture, when you say “barely even on fire AT ALL” :

      WTC 7 Fire

      Of course, most of the ‘truther’ sites oddly leave out some pictures, like this image of the BACK of the WTC during the same period:

      WTC 7 - Back

      Here’s several other images, from different angles, vantage points and photographers — all showing a substantially bigger, all encompassing fire.

      Where there's smoke, there's fire...

      A lot of smoke, a lot of fire...

      That's a Big Fire...

      Finally, there are those claiming the images *must be faked* or that this is merely dust from the collapse of the WTC1 & WTC2 in a weird shape.

      Uh huh …. That’s why we have the magic of video available as well, which clearly shows smoke from fire that engulfed nearly the entire building, and no pyroclastic cloud (ask Prufie someday if he knows what a pyroclastic cloud is, by the way.)

      Here’s the videos – they might not play in-line, but they download. They are small, so a quick download, but they show a very obvious image of what’s happening.

    • (by the way – this is the kind of reply that illustrates exactly why Kenny’s site makes it impossible to hold this kind of discussion, as it is impossible to include graphics of images as I just did – a point that Prufrock, in typical fashion, ignores completely)

  10. BangkokMilkshakes said

    thanks for your efforts in posting those…I had never seen them before, and they certainly do paint a very different picture to the other footage i had seen previously….like i say, its not really something i care hugely about, so i havent looked into any of it in more detail than…say….by checking out a movie i was interested in on, so I did just take a lot of what I saw at face value. Ok up next…the pentagon 😛

  11. BangkokMilkshakes said

    haha, just keeping you on your toes Daffy

    • Seriously – what specific questions about the Pentagon do you have?

      I don’t want to waste both our times debunking obvious issues (like “there’s no proof of any plane”, when the ground was littered with obvious plane debris)

  12. Raider said

    See, in the end, all of you are getting what you want.

    Daffy & co have Prufrock jumping at the bait in every comment, and Prufrock has Daffy looking closely “at the science” and forming his own conclusions.

    Very synergistic.

    It might be a bit easier for the peanut gallery to follow, though, if you guys could agree to set up a neutral URL where the two of you and your mates were all happy to post. Right now it’s like watching a football match being broadcast on two different channels, with the red team showing on one, blue showing on the other and a spectator with a remote control clicking madly back and forth trying to see which team has the ball and what exactly they are doing with it.

    • If that’s your concern, our team
      ALWAYS has the ball, and as far as we’re concerned, Prufrock is always welcome to pop in and participate in the conversation.

      Frankly, no one cares about his multiple alias’ so his adamant fear of coming over here is misplaced and irrational, at best.

      There are some rules, though:

      – no bullshit (BigDummy takes care of those infractions).
      – no tourette’s like stream of insults spewing.
      – respecting each other.

      For example, shakes had some valid questions, and made some valid points which deserved an equally well presented response. That’s why we are having this conversation. Tit for tat.

      I will continue to present and respond in this manner. Prufrock is welcome to participate equally – or he may choose not to. His choice. His loss.

      As for ‘making up my mind’ – my mind was made up, and I had examined the available evidence back in 2001/2002 when I arrived at the conclusions that there was NO inside job or conspiracy, as all events transpired accordingly to expected and known parameters. I knew back in 2001 that if they did not get the fires under control, that the buildings would collapse and pancake due to their construction; I knew back in 2001 that fire retardant asbestos used was discontinued past the 50th floor for political reasons back in the 70s and that this placed the steel girders at serious risk of weakening and buckling; and I knew that this would happen within 60-90 minutes if the fire were not put out well before that.

      How did I know that? Am I part of the ‘inside job’ government cabal, or am I just some guy that’s smart enough with a decent educational and cultural background?

      My dad was a commercial airline pilot; my mother was an aeronautics and naval engineer (in fact, she was the very first female with that degree in Europe at the time); my uncle had a large electronics engineering firm and was a genius with that stuff; and pretty much everyone else in my family on that side were doctors and engineers. I wasn’t lacking a good background.

    • BigDummyKenny said

      @Raider – Not to duplicate RDD’s comment, but this site already provides the mechanism to prevent bullshit from taking place. You see what has happened on BBK’s site. He allow’s it to take place and encourages abuse through the removal of several mechanisms that would prevent abuses from happening.

      The dialog on each site speak for itself.


  13. Apparently they are having a veritable Prufrock meltdown happening over there on

    He is completely coming unraveled. Seriously, I can only imagine what that guy’s marriage must have been like – the judge must have felt great sympathy for the ex-wife if John ever opened his mouth to speak. Yikes.

    Nevertheless, he would still be welcome to peek in anytime.

    Anyone, feel free to post links to any of our 911-Channel articles over there, though.

    • BigDummyKenny said

      He is peeking in here RDD. 😉 Maybe he is some sort of control freak and that is why he refuses to engage you here. As has been suggested by others, his reason is weak, weak, weak.

      You and the other guests here are having an open, serious and meaningful dialog (as opposed to ad-hominem attacks and refusal to address specific points brought up) and that is driving him nuts.


    • You pretty much nailed it – what’s funny is that Zero_Proof is a powerless, wholly incompetent control freak, who is afraid to step out from behind his keyboard.

      I met him, and initially suggested just meeting at the Big Mango – no go, “because certain people don’t need to know what we talk about…”.

      Uh huh …

      You’re right, though – people having the kind of discussion and debate over here that he wishes he could force over there is driving him completely batty – you can tell by his most recent cacophony of comments (I like the single-word ones particularly).

      His problem is that he feels he needs to force people to his terms (probably the only way he ever got an audience – the guy is destined to be an ESL teacher, captive audience and all that), while we here just simply believe in providing a comfy forum and space to discuss – pull up a chair if you want, no worries if you don’t.

      His puffed ego can’t deal with that.

      So he stays in hiding, reading, gritting his teeth, cursing under his breath and claiming he will NEVER visit this site – yet some of his comments over there more than verify that he is over here daily.

    • uhhhh-huh said

      Yep. It’s quite pathetic The last 10-11 comments have been Bill “Prufrock” Cooper having a conversation with Prufrock.

      “The thing about truly crazy people is they don’t know they are crazy. Me if I started hearing voices I get to the doctor… Prufrock heads for his keyboard.”

    • That quote never gets old, Uhhhh-Huh….

      “The thing about truly crazy people is they don’t know they are crazy. Me if I started hearing voices I get myself to the doctor… Prufrock heads for his keyboard.”

      (corrected the structure, though – LOVE the quote!)

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s