Guest Post
(Disclaimer: We are posting this message from a 9-11 conspiracy theorist in the interests of airing all sides of the debate. Neither James nor Pat endorses the contents of this post.)
A short introduction: I'm Bill Giltner (bill.giltner at gmail.com), male, age 47, American... and sometimes characterized as a moonbat, looney, or CT. Pat and James have graciously granted my request to make a guest blog post. I hope this won't be my only appearance as a guest, but I fully recognize that it just might not make sense to fit my posts in with the general point of view of this blog. Getting to the point, here's my post:
Additional Evidence that the NYC WTC Towers 1,2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.
The evidence and discussion about the WTC Towers falling in Loose Change can be augmented greatly by the video evidence and the detailed logical arguments contained in the film called "911 Eyewitness" by Rick Siegel. This video is composed of the footage that Rich caught himself, taken from the New Jersey side of the Hudson. Much of the video is accompanied by a local radio broadcast that is synchonized with the video. There is also the audio that is captured live on the video camera. Even from a great distance away, one can hear sounds (sometimes faintly) related to the collapse of the buildings. For those of you who don't want to spend time looking at evidence that seems contradict the govt. story, this isn't the movie for you. It has unique footage and audio, and I recommend it for anyone who is interested in looking at information that you haven't seen before. This video doesn't cut corners, or try to make a case for any conspiracy. It simply puts it out there a lot of evidence, and conducts a reasonable discussion of the issues of applying science to the evidence. You can find the website and video here.
posted by Pat @ 9:46 AM
130 comments
130 Comments:
You can see this video for free here:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/googlelowrez.html
I'm pretty sure I've posted this link here before. What this video shows, or lets you hear, is the various explosions during and after the planes hit the buildings. It perfectly coincides with the eyewitness accounts of various explosions and firefighter radio transmissions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BG, I didn't want to change your post, but I think describing Hoboken as the Jersey shore is liable to surprise anybody who knows NJ geography. "The New Jersey side of the Hudson" would probably be more accurate.
You may be correct bg. It's been a while since I've seen this film. But I recall they captured the second impact and then zoom to the ground floor and catch the smoke billowing from the explosion in the basement. I may be wrong on that point however; I'll take a look at it again.
However, I definitely remember various explosions and him panning down to the ground level to show the ensuing clouds of dust and debris. Also, doing a sound analysis clearly shows about 9 spikes as the buildings collapse indicating possible use of explosives.
I think I'll trust findings and technical conclusions from people who actually are knowlegeable about these things, like:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Instead of a homemade film promoted by a fellow CTist:
http://ricksiegel.blogspot.com/
Thanks, Pat, You are clearly correct.
Undense,
Is that the best that you've got?
Ok, I fixed it.
CTs.... please explain to me why the evil government would bother hijacking planes or piloting remote controlled drones into the towers if they could've just blown up the things and said it was a bomb?
If I'm the one plotting this, I want to go about it the easiest damn way possible, leaving behind the fewest tracks.
A huge fuck-off bomb (planted by Marvin Bush himself and much bigger than the '93 attempt)in the basement of one or both towers (coupled with your "demolition charges") could've easily brought down the towers and justified a war.
Please rationalize why this wasn't done.
undense, if the CT'ers are correct and the government lies, shouldn't you always cross reference what THEY say?
In the run up to the war on Iraq, Judith Miller also quoted directly from "offical sources" but today finds herself getting ready to go back to jail.
Yet the invasion of Iraq was facilitated by her NYT piece and nearly 3K American soldiers paid with their lives.
Judy's case proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, government sources are NOT to be trusted. Especially those related to 9/11 and fake "war on terror."
bg,
Do you mean what's my technical information by experts in the filed compared to some guy on the Jersey shore making a home video?
If you bothered to read the information I provided to understand some of the technical aspects of why and how the towers collapsed, you'd also understand that you are going to hear large popping sounds that sound like explosions as structural members begin to fail prior to the floors collapsing and during the collapse.
CTs.... please explain to me why the evil government would bother hijacking planes or piloting remote controlled drones into the towers if they could've just blown up the things and said it was a bomb?
Because they tried that in '93 and failed to bring the buildings down. The '93 bombing couldn't have went down if it were not for FBI an "informant." Besides, THEY made sure the second plane would be photographed and videotaped extensively to prove that "evil jihadist" committed the crime.
They could have well tried the bring the buildings down with bombs again, but lessons from their first attempt taught them that they needed a more visible fall guy(s).
Do you mean what's my technical information by experts in the filed compared to some guy on the Jersey shore making a home video?
Not what I'm saying. The so called "experts" also say there were no secondary explosions but clearly, all the eyewitnesses including firefighters say other wise. This video doesn't draw conclusions but it lets YOU decide if bombs where going off or not. You can well trust these "experts" to do the thinking for you or you can decide view the available evidence and decide for yourself.
Not what I'm saying. The so called "experts" also say there were no secondary explosions but clearly, all the eyewitnesses including firefighters say other wise.
LOL. "So called" experts. One of these "so called" experts is Thomas W. Eagar. He's the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. I think that qualifies him as a true expert, not "so called."
And of course the experts say there were no explosions. Explosions are caused by explosives. They witnesses claimed they "heard" explosions, of which structural members failing would sound like explosions. Besides, none of the studies reported any evidence of explosives used to demolish the WTC towers and the full NIST report specifically addresses that. They tested the samples they gathered for explosives and none were found. Of course, you never hear the CT crew comments on that fact.
Listen you dumbasses,
I was there. I saw it ALL!
I saw the planes hit the buildings. I along with my coworkers SAW they were commercial airliners. As for eyewitness accounts varying, we ALL saw they were airliners, but at first there was disagreement as to whether the second plane was a United or US Air plane. WE ALL SAW THE PLANES CLEARLY. The second one flew right in front of us as we were outside looking at the damage from the first attack.
The impact of the plane hitting 2 WTC was ENORMOUS! Even though we were about 3 blocks away, it threw us all back. The hole in the building was HUGE. Fire was blowing out of it, and even 3 blocks away I felt INTENSE heat on my face while watching it.
There were multiple expolsions! All coming out of the massive hole in the building. So if that was bombs, they would have had to be perfectly planted at the sight of the impact. Yeah, right. No one watching that even for a second thought the explosions were bombs. We saw the fire and damage. It would have been strange if there were NO explosions!
I remember looking at the hole and thinking that there is no way the building can still be structurally sound, I remember thinking that the building (2wtc) was going to come down. The hole was that big, and the fire was that intense.
When the buildings did finally come down, it was like an earthquake. Everything shook violently, we thought another plane hit our building or one of the exchanges nearby our building. It was violent, and we were 3 blocks away!
As for WTC 7, After much of the dust settled (although there was still a lot of fallout in the air), I had to walk to Brooklyn from Downtown Manhattan. I walked past WTC 7 at around 1pm.
Let me tell you, WTC 7 was on fire and leaning over a lot. Any idiot could see it was going to fall, and fall soon.
Of course 7 WTC would be damaged by millions of tons of debris slamming into it. If I took a wrecking ball to the lower floors and then set them on fire the building would collapse too.
The force of the towers falling was like a million wrecking balls hitting the foundation of 7 WTC.
From the NIST report:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
The CTists try to claim that people supposedly heard explosions in the basement or ground floor. Can someone explain then, if there were explosions on the ground floor or basement, why the towers collapsed from the impact point down instead of from the bottom up?
"Visible fall guy" I like it. Thanks for really clearing that up. It's so obivous now that you've pointed it out.
Question #2. Why are the eye-witnesses who heard explosions at the WTC more reliable than the eye-witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?
LOL. "So called" experts. One of these "so called" experts is Thomas W. Eagar. He's the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. I think that qualifies him as a true expert, not "so called."
MIT deals extensively with the government and these professors can all be made to see the government's line by simply threatening them with cut off of their grants.
Lust look at what happened to Kevin Ryan when his communication with NIST was disclosed. All the "experts" on the government payrolls will NEVER give you what they really think and many did an about face on their positions when the government came out with its version of what happened.
Add MIT to the list of co-conspirators....
There were multiple expolsions! All coming out of the massive hole in the building. So if that was bombs, they would have had to be perfectly planted at the sight of the impact. Yeah, right. No one watching that even for a second thought the explosions were bombs. We saw the fire and damage. It would have been strange if there were NO explosions!
Trying to make it all fit? The firefighter transmissions don't lie. They heavily document explosions on floors OTHER then where the planes hit. Also, video footage clearly shows people at the sight of the impacts, why weren't they ejected by these explosions happening at these sites.
Regardless, you also confirm there were secondary explosions, something many "experts" and the media deny.
Lust look at what happened to Kevin Ryan when his communication with NIST was disclosed. All the "experts" on the government payrolls will NEVER give you what they really think and many did an about face on their positions when the government came out with its version of what happened.
You mean Kevin Ryan, the guy responsible for water testing at UL and one of your fellow CTists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ryan
LOL
Secondary explosions don't immediately translate to "demolition charges". Does anyone else think that pressurized canisters like, oh I don't know, fire extinguishers, just might ::gasp:: explode when exposed to extreme heat??
(Pssst..... Still waiting to hear why eye-witnesses supporting CTs claims are more reliable than eye-witnesses that don't.)
Lust look at what happened to Kevin Ryan when his communication with NIST was disclosed.
LOL. Ryan was responsible for testing water at UL and had no educational experience or formal authorization to challenge the NIST findings in regard to metals. He was also one of your fellow loonies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ryan
THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!
There were fireballs and crap flying out of the massive hole in the buildings!
All, ALL of the explosions were coming from the impact site. If anyone has ever seen a big fire (2 alarm or more) in a building, they would know that there are almost ALWAYS explosions. Ask a fireman. I've seen a bunch of big fires (living in a the city it was a pretty common occurence) there were always explosions.
By the way, I was at the WTC in 93 too. I felt that blast, and the explsion from that was very different from the explosions on 9/11. in 93 the blast was a big BANG! On 9/11 the explosions were more like giant WHOOSHES! They were different.
THERE WERE NO BOMBS!
By the way, I've also seen controlled demolitions up close. The newark projects were demolished years ago, and I went to see it happen.
THAT WAS NOTHING LIKE 9/11!!!!!!
The controlled demolition was a series of small pops and down came the building, almost in slow motion, into a neat little (well, big) pile. Once again, THAT WAS NOTHING LIKE 9/11!!!!!!
Sheesh.
Jujigatami,
You comments are dubious in a several very significant ways. Dissenting all of the BS is beyond the scope of this comment. If the guys behind this blog will let me, I can do an entire post describing just how unreliable your comments most likely are.
Chad,
No one is saying the entire instituion of MIT is part of the Conspiracy.
Even Eagar may not be "in" on any conspiracy. He may just be in error.
So bg, you were there on 9/11 and witnessed the towers get hit and fall?
See Jujigatami? You're one of those bad eyewitnesses. You don't say what they want to hear or what goes along with their ideas, so obviously, you're not a valid source.
Just because you were there doesn't mean you have the first clue what happened....
(However, if you said you were there and saw a few guys come out of the towers wearing Controlled Demolitions R Us t-shirts, they'd be singing your praises.)
Trying to make it all fit? The firefighter transmissions don't lie. They heavily document explosions on floors OTHER then where the planes hit. Also, video footage clearly shows people at the sight of the impacts, why weren't they ejected by these explosions happening at these sites.
Regardless, you also confirm there were secondary explosions, something many "experts" and the media deny.
Listen retard, I'm not trying to make anything fit. I WAS THERE, you on the other hand are talking out of your ass.
In the hour after the impact, the fire spread, it spread FAST. As the fire spread to other floors, Gee, there were explosions as the heat and noxious gasses mixed with all of the other flammable things on those floors. Big suprise.
Hundreds of people were ejected on impact. I walked up to the area after the second plane hit, and saw a sight that I swear to god I hope no one will ever see. I saw burned body parts on the street, I saw shoes with feet still in them. The things I saw that day I wouldn't wish on my enemies.
With that said, I also looked up and SAW the people hanging out of the building. I saw some fall when the explosions pushed them out, and I saw some jump. There would be a huge WHOOSH, and debris would fly out of the hole. Then we'd notice that the "debris" had flailing arms and legs. The hole was about the size of 1/2 the width of the building. People in the other 1/2 survived the initial impact. But then when the fire spread they either were burned alive, blown out of the building, or jumped to their death.
And I don't know of any "Experts" claiming there were no explosions, Just that there were no explosions from bombs. Which there weren't.
Chad,
My take is that you are being disruptive. My points have nothing to do with whether Jujigatami was in fact an eyewitness. They have nothing to do with him being a bad eyewitnes.
My personal opinion: if you and other continue this pot-shot approach, no one's interest is served.
Yeah, MY comments are dubious.
I know that a first hand eyewitness account is dubious to you nutbars.
Anything that doesn't reflect your warped sense of reality is dubious to you.
You CTers are worse than Holocaust deniers.
BG, so Jujigatami isn't a "bad eyewitness", just one who has unreliable information. Gotcha.
And we'll have to agree to disagree on my level of "disruptiveness". I think I ask a valid question concerning the validity of certain eyewitnesses.
You CTs are quick to dismiss those at the Pentagon that said they saw a plane, but rally behind those at the WTC who said they heard demolition charges.
I'm not being disruptive. I'm calling you people out on a glaring inconsistency. One which either you or nesnyc has yet to clarify for me.
C'mon... make me a believer.
Jujigatami,
I might suggest if you want any credibility and respect, you stay on topic (not the Holocaust). Perhaps you want to stick with Loose Change. I agree there are concerns, corrections, etc. to be made to Loose Change.
Perhaps you might want to talk about the subject of my Post: The Video called 9/11 Eyewitness. Perhaps you might want to provide the critical analysis of the vid that is being rightly provided about Loose Change.
For anyone who wants to really look at the WTC demolition, it would be really helpful to get reasoned feedback about 9/11 Eyewitness. It is clearly a much better reference to buttress the questioning of the official story of the WTC collapse than Loose Change.
I think even the makers of Loose Change would support that.
Chad,
Others may, but the last thing I want to do is discuss the Pentagon in this comment section. I don't think it's too much to ask to request that comments here be in reference to the post.
BG, I'll watch the video when I get home tonight. I hope they cover how the explosives got in the buildings.
And too bad Jujigatami didn't make a video too. It's always harder to dismiss an eyewitness who has video. Especially when that video is across the Hudson in Hoboken. (Obviously a much better vantage point than 3 blocks away).
BG accuses Jujigatami and others of using a "pot-shot" approach.
Jujigatami responds by comparing CTs to Holocaust deniers...even going so far as to claim that they're WORSE than Holocaust deniers.
You HAVE to be kidding me, right?
HOLOCAUST DENIERS?!
That's a wee bit harsh (not to mention ABSURD)there, don't you think?
bg, it's already been commented on in here. There's no basis for a controlled demolition of the WTCs, unless you want to twist, distort, and otherwise mangle what was seen, heard, said, and subsequently analyzed. Oh, you also have to believe in some outrageously massive collusional conspiracy too.
You don't seem to get that and all your weak attempts at level-headed replies and veiled ad homs in this blog won't change that one iota.
The post is about an eyewitness account, BG. I'm asking about eyewitness accounts.
All I want to know is why some should be considered more credible than others.
You want to keep the Pentagon out of it? Fine.
Why is that video from Jersey more credible in your eyes than the account of Jujigatami (who was only three blocks away)?
In reference to Juji, you said: If the guys behind this blog will let me, I can do an entire post describing just how unreliable your comments most likely are.
Yet you want me to believe that this video is more credible.
WHY.
Just answer that and I'll stop being so damned disruptive.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
What else is NIST going to conclude? But how did they come to that conclusion when their fire models that support their hypothesis were never released for peer review? Additionally, most of the superstructure was speedily sent to China to be melted down, so how in the world did they come up with that conclusion? "Educated guess?" Okay.
Is everyone forgetting that everyone realized we were at war before the buildings came down?
The instant the second plane hit, and we all understood that the first crash was not just some incomprehensible aviation accident, everyone in the country knew we were at war. The buildings didn't have to come down for there to be a causus belli. The attack on the face of it, the sheer audacity of crashing planes into the WTC even if all it did was knock big holes in them, was abundantly provocative.
So why on earth would "they" go to such effort to bring down the buildings? What was the point? What would it have proved? Why bother?
And who would plant demolition charges at random floors throughout the building anyway?
No I don't.
CTers deny terrorist murder of Americans, Holocaust deniers deny Nazi murder of jews.
Both do so in the face of facts and witnesses.
I watched that stupid video. Pyroclastic flow. Yeah, that sure settles it.
So why is there Pyroclastic flow in controlled demolitions when the explosions in CD's are all small? CD uses explosions to sever the structural members of the building causing it to collapse onto itself. That would generate a lot less heat and hot gasses than a fully fueled jetliner hitting the building and burning out of control for an hour.
But don't let that stop you.
That "movie" was total BS just like Loose Change.
But you must be right, someone watching from miles away listening to the radio and then searching for facts to fit his hypothesis must know better than an eyewitness at the site that felt the heat from the fire.
Oh, and I suggest changing from an aluminium foil hat to a pure tinfoil one... the Aluminum isn't doing the trick for you.
Listen retard, I'm not trying to make anything fit. I WAS THERE, you on the other hand are talking out of your ass.
I don't doubt you "may" have been in the area. I doubt your account is factually accurate or simply misinterpreted.
Jose Sanchez & William Rodriguez, were both IN THE BUILDING and contradict what you say. Also, video footage of firefighters clearly shows explosions had occurred in the lobby of both buildings and no traces of soot to indicate they were fuel related.
Again, You may have seen what you may have seen, but other factual and verifiable accounts tell a different story.
CTers deny terrorist murder of Americans, Holocaust deniers deny Nazi murder of jews.
Terrorist DID murder Americans on 9/11, but those "Terrorists" were not the fictional Al Qaeda.
Chad,
Here's my take on your question:
quote:
Why is that video from Jersey more credible in your eyes than the account of Jujigatami (who was only three blocks away)?
endquote:
For me, the point of this blog, and the point of other online writing on 9/11 isn't a matter of having a big debate, and somehow trying to weight one groups of witnesses against another group of witnesses. Trying to do this, as anyone can clearly see, is insanity.
This blog, which has allowed me to post is focused. It has many interesting, reasoned posts, that serve as a platform to suggest that Loose Change deserves debunking.
My specific post here is meant to offer an unique perspective on that proposition. My claim is the the vid "9/11 Eyewitness" is a resource that should rightly be included in any discussion about Loose Change, since it has targeted content that can corroborate or invalidate certain portions of Loose Change.
I imagine that you already realise what I just explained, but choose to ignore this because it is inconvenient to your purpose.
What else is NIST going to conclude? But how did they come to that conclusion when their fire models that support their hypothesis were never released for peer review?
:sigh:
Do you just make stuff up?
Notice that you can download the software used by NIST for yourself.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/
So much for that red herring.
Additionally, most of the superstructure was speedily sent to China to be melted down, so how in the world did they come up with that conclusion? "Educated guess?" Okay.
Maybe they used all the samples they collected before the steel was so "speedily" shipped off to China?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
hot gasses than a fully fueled jetliner hitting the building and burning out of control for an hour.
Even NIST claims this is not correct. They state (and I'm paraphrasing here) "most of the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes."
But I was in the Bronx on that day and could clearly see BLACK smoke indicating an oxygen starved fire. Oxygen starved fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel. Also, there have been buildings, even in NY that have burned for hours and not collapsed. 9/11 was the first time steel structures collapsed due to paper, rugs and office equipment.
I imagine that you already realise what I just explained, but choose to ignore this because it is inconvenient to your purpose.
Well there's a daily dose of irony for ya. I almost feel out of my chair laughing after reading that.
You proved me correct.
Notice that you can download the software used by NIST for yourself.
"Software" is not the actually model of a twin tower subject to a fuel fire and then collapsing. "Software" is a simulation of 1's and 0's. They did create an actual physical model but couldn't reproduce the results because their hypothesis is WRONG. Instead, they took the pussy way out and released a "computer simulation." Koodos to Steven Jones, PhD. For brining those facts to light.
Also, there have been buildings, even in NY that have burned for hours and not collapsed. 9/11 was the first time steel structures collapsed due to paper, rugs and office equipment.
Those buildings were also impacted by 757s and had portions of their supporting structure destroyed?
You're comparing apples and oranges.
9/11 was the first time steel structures collapsed due to paper, rugs and office equipment.
Yeah, that and a 100 ton jetliner hitting it at 400 miles per hour.
You people need help, serious psychiatric help.
Lack of oxygen is the only cause of black smoke?
Tell that to the oil fires in Kuwait.
Different materials make for different smoke. And how exactly would the fire be starved for oxygen? There's a fricking HOLE in the building!!
Maybe they used all the samples they collected before the steel was so "speedily" shipped off to China?
Oh yeah, all those 7 photos show a lot. Okay.
No wonder you guys believe the offical fiction.
Those buildings were also impacted by 757s and had portions of their supporting structure destroyed?
NIST themselves say it was not the impact or the fuel but "subsequent" fires and weakening of the "trusses." You’re coming up with a conclusion that wasn’t even reported.
Tell that to the oil fires in Kuwait.
We're not talking about oil well fires here. If supposed fires were hot enough to weaken steel, there would be very little smoke and blinding white flames. Look it up!
nesnyc, the outside columns provided the majority of support for the towers. that was part of the design, so they could keep an open core for the extensive elevator system they would need for such tall buildings.
oddly enough, when the planes hit the buildings, they took out some of these columns (noted by the huge gaping holes we've all seen).
so don't sit there and say the planes had nothing to do with the collapse.
"Software" is not the actually model of a twin tower subject to a fuel fire and then collapsing. "Software" is a simulation of 1's and 0's. They did create an actual physical model but couldn't reproduce the results because their hypothesis is WRONG. Instead, they took the pussy way out and released a "computer simulation." Koodos to Steven Jones, PhD. For brining those facts to light.
Uh huh:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2A.pdf
I wonder if Mr. Jones is going to make a retraction?
Fine, explain your lack of oxygen in buildings that have enormous holes in them.
And I'm still waiting for my breakdown on what makes a credible eyewitness.
Yeah, that and a 100 ton jetliner hitting it at 400 miles per hour.
Frank A. Demartini disagrees with you:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
I don't know how hot the fires were, all I know is that at 3 blocks away and almost 50 stories below the hole, the fire felt VERY hot on my face, like opening a very hot BBQ and getting hit in the face with the heat it was like that for the entire time I was watching, it was actually painful at times, but I couldn't stop watching. I can't even imagine how hot it was in there.
Obviously, neither can you.
NIST themselves say it was not the impact or the fuel but "subsequent" fires and weakening of the "trusses." You’re coming up with a conclusion that wasn’t even reported.
I seriously doubt you've ever read the NIST reports because you don't know of what you speak.
Oh yeah, all those 7 photos show a lot. Okay.
No wonder you guys believe the offical fiction.
What fiction is that? That NIST and FEMA never had a chance to collect samples because if was rushed off to China?
You can't even accept proof right in front of your face. The others in here are right. You're a retard.
I wonder if Mr. Jones is going to make a retraction?
No he shouldn't because he is correct. But like I said, 1's and 0's are very easy to manipulate.
Look at section E2 of what you posted. Their model consisted of populating a database just like Jones said.
What fiction is that? That NIST and FEMA never had a chance to collect samples because if was rushed off to China?
You can't even accept proof right in front of your face. The others in here are right. You're a retard.
There were fully 250,000 tons of beams and building debris. A thorough investigation WAS NOT conducted. I am not fooled by 7 pictures and a little report. They'll have to do better than that.
Look at section E2 of what you posted. Their model consisted of populating a database just like Jones said.
Populating a database is how you build a model in software, genius.
There were fully 250,000 tons of beams and building debris. A thorough investigation WAS NOT conducted. I am not fooled by 7 pictures and a little report. They'll have to do better than that.
Allow me to make you look ignorant yet again:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf
Populating a database is how you build a model in software, genius.
That's what Jones said. The actually built a scale model of the WTC but could not get it to collapse. It was a real physical model not a database. The population of the database should have been correlated from the simulation AND from the software simulation. Because in order for a theory to be proven it must be duplicated in the laboratory, not just in a computer.
Any other source than NIST?
That's what Jones said. The actually built a scale model of the WTC but could not get it to collapse. It was a real physical model not a database. The population of the database should have been correlated from the simulation AND from the software simulation. Because in order for a theory to be proven it must be duplicated in the laboratory, not just in a computer.
LOL. That's what Jones claimed?
Well that's what you get for believing an idiot because NIST never built an actual scale model to test the structural integrity of the WTCs.
I still haven't heard anyone explain what purpose it served for the "conspirators" to have induced the buildings to come down.
Why would they do it? The planes had already crashed; we all knew it was an act of war. The collapse of the buildings was just to add insult to injury; the attack had been committed, and the damage had been done.
All these leaps of logic from "strange seeming inconsistency" to "obviously this means the government was in on it"... has anyone formulated a concrete theory that explains just what kind of plot would call for the careful disappearance of planeloads of airline passengers prior to the mass murder of thousands in Manhattan, or for the towers and WTC7 to be nefariously demolished if the planes themselves didn't do the trick, or for the planes to carry missile pods and fire them just before hitting the building, or for a cruise missile to hit the Pentagon after two huge planes had already been observed hitting the WTC? What's the logical path here? What story is being told?
Wastin' your time Brian. The CT can only answer questions they have talking points and random websites for.
Anything requiring logic and thought is lost on them.
Yeah, and I suppose they built a scale 767 loaded with scale jet fuel and flew it at scale speed into the scale model (that was obviously furnished with scale replicas of furniture, computers, wiring, people, etc.)
So how big was this "scale model"? Do you have ANY references to that test and the results? Or were they covered up by Bush and co.?
The sad part is that if anyone actually did this, and it showed the towers collapse, you'd claim it wasn't an accurate test, and that they were obviously in on the conspiracy.
You know, if the government was so darn good at this conspiracy thing, you'd think they could have planted a nuke or some anthrax in Iraq for our soldiers to "find"
That would certainly be easier to accomplish than the 9/11 CT.
Why would they do it? The planes had already crashed; we all knew it was an act of war. The collapse of the buildings was just to add insult to injury; the attack had been committed, and the damage had been done.
Hint: no black boxes were ever "found."
you'd think they could have planted a nuke or some anthrax in Iraq for our soldiers to "find"
They tried that too, but before the invasion, it would be difficult and after, the Troops would have caught the perps. Believe me, they tried it that's why they resorted to Judy Miller to spew her propaganda and actually thought they would get away with it. However, that backfired.
Right now, "Official Sources," (from Zionist regime), are telling us that Iran has big time WMD. Fool me once...
So how big was this "scale model"? Do you have ANY references to that test and the results? Or were they covered up by Bush and co.?
It's all here.
"Hint: no black boxes were ever "found.""
Indicating what? That black boxes are indestructible, can't be incinerated, and have homing transmitters the ability to hover out of the wreckage of a skyscraper and fly home to be analyzed? A whole lot of human bodies were never found in that pile either. Does that imply that those people never existed? Are you seriously saying that the inability to find a box the size of a toaster in a pile of rubble seven stories high comes as a surprise to you?
Besides, I've already seen the claims from you and others that the black boxes from U93 and the Pentagon were faked. It's not like you'd believe what they said even if they were found, is it?
Right now, "Official Sources," (from Zionist regime),
Oh yeah, and I'm crazy for associating you CT'ers with Holocaust deniers.
Thanks for proving my point!
"They tried that too, but before the invasion, it would be difficult and after, the Troops would have caught the perps. Believe me, they tried it that's why they resorted to Judy Miller to spew her propaganda and actually thought they would get away with it. However, that backfired."
Gee, and I thought the news media and the military were controlled by the government and would say whatever they were directed to say.
Some dictatorship this is.
They tried that too, but before the invasion, it would be difficult and after, the Troops would have caught the perps.
You will try to have it both ways in any case. Since nothing was found, you insist anyone planting anything would have been caught by the troops. If something had been found you would be first to say the troops were in on it.
I would like you to give me a coherent, plausible scenario that fits better than the official one. You should include who would need to be involved, how it would be executed, and how it was gotten away with.
the Troops would have caught the perps.
Okay, so the troops would have caught the perps, the CIA perps that were planting a suitcase nuke or a hundred pounds of anthrax in the desert somewhere, but NO ONE can catch ANY of the hundreds if not thousands of people in on the 9/11 conspiracy. No one could catch anyone planting tons of explosives in the towers, no one could catch anyone launching a CRUISE MISSILE. No one could catch anyone painting a military plane to look like an airliner.
Yeah, the government is able to pull this off without even one person coming forward about the mass murder of innocent people, but they need Judy Miller to convince the world that Iraq is bad.
Man are you messed up.
you guys might want to learn what the difference between a 767 and a 757 is.
The people that are saying 757 hit the WTC are liers.... or they don't know how to read.
The loose change people don't know the difference for sure. The said that a B-52 hit the Empire state Building, when in fact it was a B-25. Doesn't seem that big of a deal, unless you know about aviation. As i have always maintained, they don't know anything about the subject matter. They make all these accusations and propose "theories", but if you are knowledgeable about the areas involved, a LOGICAL person could NEVER arrive at the conclusions they do.
the same is true for their theories on cruise missiles and the pentagon. The damage patterns would be far different if a cruise missile had indeed struck the pentagon. Explosives used in munitions generally inflict damage by blast overpressure, which is greatly different than that caused by flammable fuels etc.
For the record, I like conspiracy theories, but I also pay attention to details.....
you guys might want to learn what the difference between a 767 and a 757 is.
The people that are saying 757 hit the WTC are liers.... or they don't know how to read.
My mistake.
It wasn't lying or a lack of reading comprehension. It was a failure in memory recall. Stuff like that happens as you get old.
It surely wasn't as egregious an error a a 6-sided pentagon though. :)
What makes a credible eyewitness? Still waiting.
BG?
nesnyc?
Anyone really....
Chad,
I'm humoring you.
This quote is taken from Here:
It is concluded, however, that no really clear criteria currently exist for distinguishing post hoc high from low optimal witnessing conditions in any particular real-life situation. Hence the judiciary should cease their reliance on witness confidence as an index of witness accuracy.
* definition of humoring:
humoring
A noun
1 indulgence, indulging, pampering, humoring
the act of indulging or gratifying a desire
--------------------------------
It's more than you deserve.
Here's another quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. [citation needed]
Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.
Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid* delusions. A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability.
* definition of paranoid:
par·a·noid
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
Thank you BG, I appreciate your indulgence. I'm sure this applies to eyewitnesses that both support and contradict your theories.
Hey, non-sync, if it takes more than 7 pictures to "impress" you, how many pictures have you got of the demolition charges planted in the WTC?
Heh.
Think about this scenario, and try to put it in context. Let's go back a hundred years in American History, where blacks had no rights and were slaves. Now, I'm sure many people knew this wasn't moral or ethical, yet, because it was the main stream of thought, many people are scared to to come forward because they might easily loose their job or respect for being a n lover. Much is the same with 9-11. Even merely suggesting one should seriously explore the possibilities of demolotions used would cause one to loose their job ( As did Kevin Ryan, who yes, I know wasn't a stuctural engineer, but a water chemist of sorts)
Second of all, honestly, does the U.S. government have any credibiltiy these days? NIST and FEMA are of course government funded, so one of course has to question objectvity.
Now, when you look at both the NIST and FEMA reports( I've read most of them), they work from a certain axiom. We live in a world of many possibilities. Look at the world of quantum mechanics. One particle can be shown to be at two places at one time.
Is it possible for the towers and WTC to collapse the way they did? Of course it's possible. However, in the NIST report especially, they had to work with some very extreme assumptions to get the towers to collapse in the manner they did. Assumptions that were inconsistant with what was observed that day, mostly pertaining to structural damage and the severity of the fire.
Of course it's mechanically possible for a structure such as the WTC and WTC7 to collapse in the manner they did, however, even the NIST report says, were it to happen again, the same collapse would probably not occur. That is three very unique anomolies with no precedant in both the fields of engineering and physics.
Now look, I know Loose Change is a VERY biased film, much like NIST nad FEMA are VERY biased reports. However, if one open mindedly absorbs, digests, and regurgiates the data repeatdely, with out believing in one in a million coincidences or one in a million conspiracies, you can at least see 9-11 is not as cut and dry as many people think, and it is this lack of acknowledement that leaves much to be speculated. The fact that Scientists, and Americans, in general, will not pose some very hard questions, can only leave those who seek truth to speculate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
QUANTUMLEAP,
I appreciate the comments. I think the (my quote) "best evidence" puts the falsehoods put foth by Fema, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission in a poorer light than you are willing to state in your discussion. For the purposes of trying to get reasonable people to connect, perhaps you softer approach can help.
As far as anyone such as undense, who seems to think that they are making hay by denigrating conspiracy theorists, I think their ability to sway attitude and opinion with such rhetoric has to be minuscule.
There's more than just 7 eyewitness accounts and every video from every angle during the collapses shows anomalous 'squibs' indicating explosives.
Indicating what? That black boxes are indestructible, can't be incinerated, and have homing transmitters the ability to hover out of the wreckage of a skyscraper and fly home to be analyzed? A whole lot of human bodies were never found in that pile either. Does that imply that those people never existed? Are you seriously saying that the inability to find a box the size of a toaster in a pile of rubble seven stories high comes as a surprise to you?
I actually feel sorry for some of you :(
If I gave you and hint about the black boxes not being found, I was implying that to destroy the buildings would also destroy the evidence. Sheesh...
According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories. [citation needed]
"Al Qaeda" = Conspiracy Theory
so.. You actually proved your point :D
Nesnyc, BG tells me eyewitness accounts aren't credible.
And the squibs you're talking about, shouldn't we have seen them before the buildings started to collapse? Every CD I've ever watched, I always see the explosives FIRST and the collapse SECOND.
Never the other way around. 'Cause then it wouldn't be all that "controlled" now would it.
We are living in very difficult times. The truth is often so close yet so out of reach. Making a case for the status of human psycology and the fragile nature of the human mind, let's take the DeVinci Code as an example. Now you have kids in private schools being told not to watch or support this film. ( I am not arguing that the film is truth) Our young adults, are being taught that a human being was born of a virgin and was resurected 3 days after dying, and he was also the sun of god. However, speculating that this human might have had a desire to have a wife and family is seen as blasphemous or outrageous?
This is the sad state of the human mentality. For the most part, people only take comfort in numbers and rarely think independtly. This goes to CT'ers, as well as OS(Official story) believers. I see it as sort of a vicious circle.
9-11 has many, many, disturbing anomolies, yet this is not acknowledged by the OS people, so then the CT people have to rely on more and more speculation to make an argument. The OS have the benefit of the mainstream, in that anyone that supports the OS is not going against the grain. The CTers, however, do not have this benefit. There are a handfull of physcists and egineers that are asking these difficult questions, and each and every last one of them has faced ostrasization from their peers, both in their private and professional lives.
So here I think we have an issue of pride. Neither side wants to be wrong, so CT'ers call OS's sheep and OS call CT's dillusional tin hat nuts. We then, have a lack of platform to understand the most vital crime of our lives, because it is the apex of current world affairs.
Disingenuous CT'ers will speculate much and make links where none exist(One example is that the Popular Mechanics Debunk article author is related to some Homeland Security fellow, which has been shown to be pure speculation at best) Not withstanding that, OS's fail to realize the PM article does NOT provide ANY answers for the CORE anomolies that have not been satisfactorily explained, either by FEMA, NIST, or anyone else.
The CT'ers believe it is the crime of the century, the OS's also believe that, but in a differnt context. Despite constanly coming across documents like Operation Northwoods, OS's feel there is no secrecy, or covert ops that goes on in our government. This just goes to show they are more manifesting psycological defense mechanisms than debating an important topic.
Some Ct'ers, on the other hand, continue to insist that a missle hit the Pentagon, which speculates that many eyewitness are lying and that debris, along with a very heavy engine, were planted. Not saying it isn't at all possible for the C.I.A to do such a thing if they wanted to, just that one can only doubt the logic and feasibility of doing so. However, is it possible something smaller than a large jumbo jet hit the pentagon? I feel the evidence idiciates it is definatley worth looking into. What's so hard about admitting that much? Did the WTC and WTC 7 at least look and possess many characteristics of a pre-mediated progessive collapse? Of, course, especially regarding WTC 7. Why is it so hard to say, our government sponsored research has unsatisfactorily answered the questions regarding all the phenomena, and because our government has almost close to no credibility, it does not help.
Ct'ers: Why is it so hard to first pose the questions, and root out the half truth's that support your side of the argument. If Flight 77 really did hit the pentagon, it doesn't mean our government did't still let 9-11 happen, nor does that alone indicate that they weren't complicit in it. Forcing your CT onto people who don't have the mentality to accept the implications of such a thing will get you no where. You are only making the OS's burrow further and further into their side of the argument, which makes an intelligible debate impossiple.
OS's: Why is it so hard to take into serious consideration the very core phenomenon that the alternate theories present? Arguing that because someone presents evidence the government might have lied ( Big Anomaly there, no?)they are crazy, is just absurd. Government lie all the time. I think you're crazy if you don't understand that much. Now instead of taking the easy route of being on the bandwagon and backing the official story, why not understand that 9-11 is not all nice and neat like many OS's argue. Os's will argue that it is completely normal for the towers and WTC7 to collapse the way they did, for Flight 93's wreckage to be the way that it is, and for the damage at the Pentagon, along with the trajectory of the plane to be a normal occurance. At the very best, an OS should say to themselves how amazing of a singularity 9-11 was, for everything to play out the way it did. I don't just mean that it is important in the psycological aspect, I mean from the persepctive that there were many events in engineering and phsyics that simply had no presedent prior to 9-11. To argue that everything is just normal only leads those that believe in alternate theories to conclude you are very biased, and some of the times it is the case.
And the squibs you're talking about, shouldn't we have seen them before the buildings started to collapse? Every CD I've ever watched, I always see the explosives FIRST and the collapse SECOND.
Never the other way around. 'Cause then it wouldn't be all that "controlled" now would it.
Well sorry, seems this topic is beyond your ability to grasp.
Here's a great piece about the NIST, myths! :D
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Well sorry, seems this topic is beyond your ability to grasp.
Clever. Don't address my point, just chalk it up to my "inability to grasp".
You people forget that you're the ones making these ridiculous claims so you're the ones that need to explain them. There are perfectly logical reasons based in actual phsyics for those "squibs".
Unless of course you believe 110 office floors collapsing on top of each other wouldn't displace one cubic millimeter of air.
Buildings were demolished because they were obsolete. The asbestos removal was too expensive.The CFR owned the land.It was an insurance scam.The buildings were white elephants. What world do you OS believers live in? You are the true loons.
Right rayantoky. Why are they taking the time to dismantle the Deutsch Bank across the street then?
Shoulda just demolished that one too if asbestos removal was "too expensive".
Well sorry, seems this topic is beyond your ability to grasp.
The bolded response above, or a standard variation thereof, seems to be the standard CT reply when they are left with something they cannot or don't have the ability or technical expertise to explain.
Ooh, and what qualifications does Jim Hoffman, the author of the piece have to argue with the dozens of trained engineers at NIST?
From his Wikipedia entry:
Jim Hoffman is a software engineer and a 9/11 researcher.
Hey, I am a software engineer too! And I say he is wrong.
Unless of course you believe 110 office floors collapsing on top of each other wouldn't displace one cubic millimeter of air.
Squibs:
When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
-The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
-The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
-The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.
Source
Ooh, and what qualifications does Jim Hoffman, the author of the piece have to argue with the dozens of trained engineers at NIST?
Well if you stop trying to look for "qualifications" to do the thinking for you and actually read what he wrote, then you might be able to see he has a solid case against NIST.
But put it another way; a used car salesman is more "qualified" to sell you a used car than say the average guy on the street. It is, however, YOUR JOB to see if what this guy is telling is factual or not. You don't have to be a used car salesman to see you're being sold a lemon, that is, unless you believe what this guy is telling you and didn't take the time to kick the tires.
All that from the software programmer. I'm such a believer now.
No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers...
Uhm, considering that the 110 floors creating the piston effect weren't left hovering suspended in their original places after the rest of the building had collapsed, I think one can assume that they were "moving down" with it.
And there's plenty of photographs showing that.
Again though, your "demolition charges" are set off AFTER the building starts to fall. That begs the question why they were even needed to bring down the building to begin with. Did Marvin Bush waste all that time planting secret charges for nothing?
God, I hope not.
Well if you stop trying to look for "qualifications" to do the thinking for you and actually read what he wrote, then you might be able to see he has a solid case against NIST.
I guess this means my entire education is questionable. Just because my calculus teacher studied to be a math teacher doesn't mean what she was teaching me is true.... Or chem... bio... history...
Damn this sucks.
Same here. All these years in engineering leaves me completely helpless and unknowledgeable against someone with a google link and a chip on their shoulder.
All these years in engineering leaves me completely helpless and unknowledgeable against someone with a google link and a chip on their shoulder.
"Experts" at one time also thought the world was flat. But as I pointed out earlier, the Lemming Effect is a powerful thing.
I guess this means my entire education is questionable. Just because my calculus teacher studied to be a math teacher doesn't mean what she was teaching me is true.... Or chem... bio... history...
Damn this sucks.
Definitely. You'd be surprised how "school curriculums" are designed to actually block critical thinking and revert you to nothing more than a "trained" observer.
That's a classic argument nesnyc, and one that puts a smile on my face.
People once thought the world was flat. Ergo, Bush brought down the WTC.
You're nothing if not amusing.
Okay... What critical thinking skills are involved with subjects such as math? How is one supposed to "think outside the box" to solve 2+2?
I suppose gravity, photosynthesis, and other scientific phenomenon are all just bogus ideas put forth by The Man....
Science is one of those things were something either IS or ISN'T.
"Experts" at one time also thought the world was flat. But as I pointed out earlier, the Lemming Effect is a powerful thing.
Experts now agree the world is round. (Well, it's not really round, it's an oblate spheroid, but that's being pedantic.) I suppose those of us that agree with the expert concensus are all lemmings. However, there are CTs who still believe the world is flat, regardless of the evidence. But that's how CTs operate.
to solve 2+2
NIST and other "officials" tell us 2+2=5, it's that easy. The only thing preventing you guys from noticing is lemming-hood or blind patriotism to put it mildly.
But that's how CTs operate.
Well that's exactly what I'm saying. The "Osama did it" is nothing but an unadulterated conspiracy theory that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. Heck, he isn't even listed in connection with 9/11 on the FBI's own website.
Funny how the FBI, who would most certainly be in on the cover-up is now being used as a trust worthy source of information by someone who doesn't trust the FBI.
Long as it fits your theory right nesnyc?
Science is one of those things were something either IS or ISN'T.
Exactly! Two towers hit in different areas result in the same symmetric collapse, science tells us nothing can do that except controlled demolition. That is, if you believe what NIST is telling you and the laws of physics were somehow suspended on 9/11.
Funny how the FBI, who would most certainly be in on the cover-up is now being used as a trust worthy source of information by someone who doesn't trust the FBI.
Long as it fits your theory right nesnyc?
Who's saying they are trustworthy? Why hasn't anyone in the (yellow) press, pressed them on this? I bet you didn't even know that interesting tid bit.
Oh, but it's a coincidence, it's all a coincidence.
Two towers hit by the same type of plane in different areas collapse the same way at different times.
Really.... it isn't all that hard for me to wrap my brain around.
And the FBI thing is a stupid coincidence. Don't you think someone behind the conspiracy would've noticed that by now and suggest they update their site to reflect the fact Osama was behind 9/11 to keep appearances up?
Don't you think someone behind the conspiracy would've noticed that by now and suggest they update their site to reflect the fact Osama was behind 9/11 to keep appearances up?
Truth is they don't give a shit what you think. They know they have their army of experts and media (ministry of propaganda) designed to keep you in perpetual hypnosis. You even admit you can't seem to believe anyone other than "official" government "experts." Stalin would be proud!
I'll give you CTs this much. You are so proud of yourselves for thinking outside the box and not going along with conventional wisdom that I'm sure you must walk around with a 24 hour hardon and a huge shit-eatin' grin on your face.
I'm gonna make you guys a bumper sticker:
Conspiracy Theories - They're different, so they gotta be right!
I'm sure you must walk around with a 24 hour hardon and a huge shit-eatin' grin on your face.
Actually, no. I'm afraid for this nation. I smell a setup coming and an international smack-down when the rest of the world begins to revolt. Here at home, the loss of liberty and the erosion of the standard of living are also concerns. 9/11 teaches tough lessons but one of the things that stand out; we don't mean shit to the people in charge.
Most of us care, even for the likes of the "Red State" folks. We are all brothers and we have a common enemy to fight.
We are all brothers and we have a common enemy to fight.
Good deal. You go after Bush. The rest of us will concern ourselves with the people who openly and publicly call for our destruction.
Oh... and next time you see a picture of the Secretary of Defense carrying a sign calling for the beheading of all those who spout conspiracies, let me know.
"We are all brothers and we have a common enemy to fight."
Islamists.
This one's for Chad, who asks "why would the evil government use planes" when they could have easily used a bomb to simulate the trigger effect?
Simple. The amoral criminals who currently occupy the White House are very careful. They knew they needed a "Pearl Harbor-like event" to trigger their plans for world domination.
Bin Laden and his cronies had been planning a dramatic double or triple hijacking, so the Bushies (who had over fifty specific briefings on this scenario ahead of time) decided that they would exploit that plan by allowing it to happen. Much of the other anomalies (the towers collapsing, WTC 7 going down, the Pentagon) were, in my opinion, and in the views of many knowledgeable researchers, add-ons engineered by the Bush cabal to sort of beef up the original shock of the attacks.
See, they let Bin Laden's boys (if they were even on the planes) run around leaving clues and generally being good patsies, then they make sure to hit more than one location, and when the passengers take over the plane on 93, they shoot it down with a fighter plane's cannon to ensure that no one tells what really happened.
The truth is that this whole operation was designed start to finish not to make sense. It is a perfect example of what intelligence people call a Psychological Operation. It's so dramatic, so intense, so off the wall, that the people viewing at home can't take it all in. It causes a situation called cognitive dissonance, where your brain can't reconcile all that it's taking in, so it grabs onto the simplest story of events and tries to tell itself everything's okay.
This is how they pitched the "official story". Bin Laden and his 19 hijackers did it all without Bush's help.
But the rest of us understood that they were doing this, and made steps to understand what was really going on. And now we know.
And we hope that you all will accept that the Bush cabal is a dangerous group of thugs who won't rest until they own everything. They will not leave the White House unless we force them out, either by impeachment or some other means.
We have to do it soon, or else our democracy may not survive.
I may have come in after the discussion--oh, well. But I can't help but notice the sheer inability of some to not be able to trust their own eyes. All of the points brought up by "CTers" (not that the "official version" is any less a conspiracy theory) are supported by video, video we all saw on September 11th. When people defer to the "experts", even though reality played out right in front of them, they've given away more than their rights: they've given away any authority to judge reality for themselves.
I'm quite taken by the comments of jujigatami, someone that was there on 9-11. His insistance that massive explosions were occuring around the impact zone (and ONLY around and from the impact zone) is not borne out on the video record. He, apparently, was the only one that saw such explosions. Search the videos to verify for yourselves--TRUST YOUR OWN EYES--view them without prejudice.
One of the most important points to support planned demolition is the collapse rate of the buildings -- all three -- is comparable to the rate of free-fall (they took slightly longer to collapse). This is impossible without some means of destroying the supporting structure to allow for such a collapse.
This isn't something that "experts" need to tell us. Anybody with a modicum of physics knowledge can see it.
Just don't forget to open your eyes.
And, one last thing: if it's experts and authorities that you need to hear from in order to make sense of reality, the list of supporters of the controlled demolition model is populated with some very notable people--
Robert M. Bowman
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
Andreas von Buelow
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
Jeffrey Farrer
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU.
James H. Fetzer
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T.
Steven Jones
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum.
George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (retired).
Here's an exellent article by Col. Nelson:
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Jean-Pierre Petit
Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering.
Morgan Reynolds
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. http://nomoregames.net
Lon Waters
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory.
Judy Wood
Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University.
This is a sampling, focussing on those with engineering/physics backgrounds.
Post a Comment
<< Home