**shruggs shoulders** Perhaps the airplane had a really strong frame, creating a knife effect. The bulding's steel structure could have been designed to withstand bending of the building as a whole, but not an airplane crashing into it
Also, what was the facade made of? Why did it break apart as it did?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Clayton:It really doesn't matter how it was done. What we know for sure is that the government's story is silly, unbelievable and false. The rest is just details.
On one level, in the general sense, I can agree with you. We both agree it was an inside job, right? And actually I would submit that that is just about as much as most persons who have done a good amount of research into 9/11 _could_ actually agree on- essentially because the fact of methodological individualism ultimately ensures that no two persons can ever have the exact same theory as to what "really happened".
But on an individual level, things might be a little different.
If an individual comes to believe what myself, Simon Shack and others all believe, i.e. that the alleged MSM "live" broadcasts were all pre-manufactured fake footage, then I would submit that that belief would have a huge impact on an individuals world view and overall philosophy, perhaps similar in scope/size to the "red pill" effect of Austrian economic theory.
Which is not to suggest that you, or anyone else "needs" to believe the same things I do. As with anything else, [e.g. economics] an individuals conclusions about what happened on 9/11 are ultimately decided by how much of the existing evidence is exhaustively reviewed/re-reviewed, and most importantly the pre-existing mindset/bias [i.e operational review methodology, if any] of the person reviewing all of that "evidence".
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
John James: I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.
Neither am I. Regards, onebornfree.
Daniel Muffinburg: OBF's post count is 666...
OBF's post count is 666...
It was? Damn, I missed it. Is there some way you could "arrange" to keep it there, permanently Daniel?
Daniel Muffinburg:The plane could have been remote-controlled. And it could have been a shell of a plane, making it lighter and more easy to maneuver, like a NASCAR car,
Yes, but if it was lighter , how did it manage to penetrate WTC2 in one piece, without even slowing down, like "a knife through butter" in total contradiction of Newtons 3rd Law of Motion? Wouldn't parts [such as the tail section and wings] have been torn off at initial impact? On the assumption that if shown live, the plane penetration had to be flawless, mistakes could not be allowed to happen to achieve intended "shock and awe", then the only way to ensure such perfection would be to broadcast a computerized simulation of the plane crashes into the buildings, I submit.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'm not claiming that it cut through steel girders; the plane could have deformed around them as it smashed through the facade.
But that is not what the videos and post crash photos depict. All show steel girders and floor trusses [steel filled with concrete] severed to match the approx. profile of a 757, even to the wingtips.[ I won't post links to post crash plane-hole in building facade photos- it is easy for you to find 1000's of online examples]
Daniel Muffinburg:No. It's possible that I can't think of any because none exists. Anyway, do any exist?
My point was the contradiction between "there aren't many" ,[which implied there are some, or at least one], and "I can't think of any".
Regardless there are some. Here is one:
Now, your initial reaction to that short video should be something along the lines of "but that does not show the camera tracking the plane" [ignoring for the moment the very important question of just exactly how the cameraman was prescient enough to have his camera already pointed at the perfect spot to capture the event in the first place] , however what a slow motion analysis reveals is that the camera tracks the plane perfectly, to the extent that for the last few frames before impact the tail of the plane remains in the _exact_ center of the frame, even while the plane is still supposedly moving to the viewers right at the alleged speed of 500mph, as can be seen here:
Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building that moves towards the plane , and not the plane towards the building as it should have been.
Clayton: Flight 93 is supposed to have virtually "vaporized" upon hitting the ground because it was moving "so fast" that the shock of impact caused the plane to almost instantly disintegrate, leaving basically an empty debris field.
This is an incorrect conclusion, at least according to the FBI's Shanksville report , in which it claimed that nearly all of Fl. 93 disappeared and was completely buried underground, including all bodies ! I'll see if I can find a link to that report if you need it, but cannot put my finger on it at this time.
P.S. any such FBI "report" is an even greater violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion than occurs with the "Roadrunner" cartoon physics of Fl.11 entry into WTC1 and Fl.175's entry into WTC2, as far as I can see, considering that even though they were 500,000 ton steel and concrete structures designed to withstand plane impacts, the towers were at least hollow, stand alone objects, not a part of the actual planet itself, which weighs how much?
JJ,
It wasn't supposed to be proof of anything. Unfortunately it provided an out for OBF to skirt my question again, so, I'll repeat myself 1 last time.
Who have you or your fellow researches contacted to verify whether Jeremy Glick, or others like him, was a real person?
What answers did you receive?
If you have not contacted anyone, why haven't you? Don't you feel this is kind of important information based on your theory that all the victims in the 9/11 attack were fake?
Clayton: I surmise that CIA asked bin Laden to take responsibility for the attacks and he agreed that he would. Instead, he defected and issued a statement denying any reponsibility...
I surmise that CIA asked bin Laden to take responsibility for the attacks and he agreed that he would. Instead, he defected and issued a statement denying any reponsibility...
As I recall, the pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan actually required bin Laden's denial of responsibility. Remember Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, and they (rightly) insisted that the US provide some evidence of his guilt before attempting to capture and extradite him. This was presented as proof of the Taliban's complicity and the distraught public ate it up. If OBL had made any kind of plausible confession, leading the Taliban to cooperate, how could the invasion of Afghanistan be sold?
OBF,
Our arguement is whether airplanes hit the towers; thus, the videos being faked to show airplanes.
With regards to the second strike, there must have been hundreds on people looking at the towers from buildings that were facing the towers when the second projectile hit (unless you're arguing that no projectile hit the second towers).
Where are the witnesses that claim that no airplane hit the second tower?
This is why I think the "nothing whatsoever hit the towers" and its companion "the planes were holograms" hypotheses are untenable. Simon Shack theorizes that a cruise missile such as the JASSM or something with a similarly "plane-like" profile could have been used.
In this case, there really was something that flew into and penetrated each building. While eye-witness reports in any situation are problematic both due to the fact that not everyone is careful in describing what they experienced and some people naturally resort to hyperbole to get attention (cf TWA flight 800), there actually are many eye-witness reports from multiple people saying things like "a small plane", "no windows", "like no plane I ever saw", "a missile", "making a missile sound" etc. I think Simon Shack has a clip of one eyewitness pretty much muttering to himself "I can't say what it was", not as though he didn't clearly see it but as though he saw it very clearly and was simply unable to bring himself to utter the truth.
Remember, there were no live broadcasts that depicted the airplanes' penetrations through the faces of the twin towers. The live broadcasts only caught the second plane coming in from the side or the back (relative to the camera) of the building. With the remaining close-up footage collected from purported news-crews, the hoaxers would have had to work quickly. But supposing they had done their homework ahead of time, it would have been a fairly straightforward process of running the video through a software package to layer on the prepared images depicting the entry of a passenger jetliner into the building at the exact moment as the cruise missile hit. They may have had to make some slight adjustments here and there to work around any problems but this is not likely as the cruise-missile would have penetrated the building at the precise location and angle it was designed to - the US military has boasted for decades - starting from at least the first Gulf War - of its capacity to put a cruise missile "down a chimney".
The original, unedited footage would actually show the cruise missile for a few frames. The jetliner footage is simply "pasted on top." By late afternoon, they could have released a trickle of carefully checked and double-checked sequences clearly depicting commercial airliners (not missiles) entering the buildings, thus quashing the very small number of eyewitnesses who might have had a clear view of the approach and a sufficient sense of proportion as to realize that what hit the building could not have been an airliner. But 300 million Americans who saw detailed, close-up video shots of a commercial airliner plowing into each building would clearly outweigh the testimony of a few eyewitnesses whose testimony can easily be explained away as the result of stress, seeing the real aircraft at a wrong angle, hyperbole or any number of errors. It's irrefutable when you have frame-by-frame footage showing airplanes, not missiles, entering the buildings.
This is the part they didn't mess up. It went perfectly to plan. And I have a theory on this too (surprise!). I think that some of the folks who had been involved in JFK's assassination when they were very young (could still be less than 70 years old) were in on this, too, at least playing an advising role. The lessons from the Zapruder film and other botched evidence, photos, videos, etc. The body of evidence from that event is almost entirely fabricated but a lot of the fabrication was post hoc and bears the marks of desperation. See here for to get started.
That's why the twin towers are what is shown in almost all debunking videos and articles. How crazy do you have to be to doubt the official story?? Just look with your eyes. See? Plane. Building. Boom. Building fall down. Come on!
But it's WTC 7 and Flight 93 that they screwed-up on big-time and that's why these are the proper starting points for prying open the bullshit surrounding 9/11. Had they not messed up WTC 7 and Flight 93, there would still be conspiracy theories but it would have been orders of magnitude more difficult; it would pretty much have been the perfect crime.
Clayton -
Clayton: Who in this thread has suggested that? And I would exclude OBF from consideration because he/she mysteriously swoops in only at the moment a 9/11 thread is started on these forums and is otherwise absent for months at a time. Browsing his posting history from his profile to see. Clearly, he/she has a bot set up to datamine mises.org for hits on "9/11" and related terms and I find that weird.
Who in this thread has suggested that? And I would exclude OBF from consideration because he/she mysteriously swoops in only at the moment a 9/11 thread is started on these forums and is otherwise absent for months at a time. Browsing his posting history from his profile to see. Clearly, he/she has a bot set up to datamine mises.org for hits on "9/11" and related terms and I find that weird.
I was directing that towards onebornfree. It seems there would be better forums, focused solely on 9/11 if that was his/her "passion", for lack of a better word.
In the case of Flight 93 and Flight 77 (Pentagon), the official story is... simply unbelievable. Try here for starters.
Thank you for the link. I hadn't seen that website before. Videos worth watching: one; two
Who in this thread is positing hologram planes?
No one is. And I didn't say anyone is.
How could that be decided after the attacks?? There's no way to move that kind of explosives into the building.
In the video you posted, the demolition expert said it wouldn't take that long, and he offered the idea the owner may have made the decision afterwards. I don't believe the decision was made afterwards, but it's a possibility.
Why should it be able to?? The issue is not that the lower section couldn't hold the falling top section. The issue is that the top section fell through "the path of greatest resistance" and that with no evidence of being much slowed by the immense and increasing resistance that the building's core should have offered.
That's what I was getting at. Even at proportional weights (the top would have been proportionately less heavy. read: smaller supports, fewer packed offices, etc) ⅔ holds up ⅓. The first tower was hit more around the ninetieth floor, too. Anyway, physics tells us the bottom portion would have resisted the top portion, and the only falling that should have happened was the top falling off. This smart lady knew that in real time.
Actually, he had only purchased it from the Port Authority in January of 2001. He had owned WTC 7 since the 1980's.
Thank you for the info.
Bin Laden was never proposed by the official or conspiracy theories to have been a "fall guy". In the official story, he's a mastermind, in the conspiracy theories worth noting, he was a scapegoat (completely different from a fall guy). I surmise that CIA asked bin Laden to take responsibility for the attacks and he agreed that he would. Instead, he defected and issued a statement denying any reponsibility and directing Americans to look for a secret "government within the government". He was killed shortly thereafter. I doubt he ever even made it to the mythical "fortresses" in Tora Bora.
By fall guy, I meant scapegoat. So, not a patsy like McVeigh, but my point was his taking credit for it, when he realized it would suit his cause; and that was the better option than trying to prove innocence or somehow escape our authorities murderers. I agree with what you've said here. Related video.
Not really. We've already been through this several times before with JFK, MLK Jr, the OKC bombing, and so on. It is useless to try to "wake people up". The conversion must come from within. Only then will they be able to receive the truth. They must first realize that the State is a corrupt, lying, parasitic, tyrannical beast. Only then will their eyes be opened and they will be able to see the truth about the horrific campaign of terror the USG has been on for at least the last century.
Most people don't believe in those conspiracies either. They might think there were more than one shooter, or whatever, but most don't believe our government were the ones who actually committed the act. Obviously they need to figure it out for themselves, but they're not going to be able to do that if we don't lead them in the right direction, or help them out somehow. It's not going to come to them in an epiphany. Which is why we need to steer them clear of ridiculous theories, such as no planes, etc. What better way to make them "realize that the State is a corrupt, lying, parasitic, tyrannical beast" than to prove to them 9/11 was the work of their beloved leaders overlords?
Clayton:
Perhaps the only footage from news broadcasts are from the north, because to be from the south, you'd have to be in the port/river/ocean. The Empire State Building seems to be the vantage point of most of the broadcasts. It does seem strange that nobody perhaps visiting the Statue of Liberty (to the southwest) were video taping (even before the first plane hit). Maybe it wasn't open yet, I don't know.
Regarding the "dancing Israelis" you mentioned earlier. "Advise the message about the remote-controlled plane," and, "It's a big truck with a mural painted of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding". WTF?
Most people don't believe in those conspiracies either. They might think there were more than one shooter, or whatever, but most don't believe our government were the ones who actually committed the act. Obviously they need to figure it out for themselves, but they're not going to be able to do that if we don't lead them in the right direction, or help them out somehow. It's not going to come to them in an epiphany.
Really? So then how did it come to you and I and the people we read and the people they read and so on back to the first persons to say to themselves, "this doesn't make sense"? The fact is that society doesn't need us or any other kind of leaders.
Which is why we need to steer them clear of ridiculous theories, such as no planes, etc.
No, that's not the reason. The reason to do it is because those ridiculous theories (including the government's) are false. Whether pointing this out will have any effect on society, I doubt very much. The record is like 10-0 or worse just in the last century.
What better way to make them "realize that the State is a corrupt, lying, parasitic, tyrannical beast" than to prove to them 9/11 was the work of their beloved leaders overlords?
But they don't love the people who did 9/11 - our rulers/owners. Rather, they love the mask that our rulers wear: the politicians, bureaucrats, political parties, military, and so on. Trying to show the iron fist under the velvet glove will only work for those who have already begun - in at least some small degree - to doubt the noble motives of the hand of the State.
Clayton: Really? So then how did it come to you and I and the people we read and the people they read and so on back to the first persons to say to themselves, "this doesn't make sense"? The fact is that society doesn't need us or any other kind of leaders.
At the time it happened, I was politically apathetic. I don't quite remember when or why I started to question, but now that the facade of a caring government has been broken for me, I never take a position until I have objectively viewed the available information. People who first questioned were probably distrusting of the government already, and looked into the whole situation further, not accepting the official story.
They probably got this way because someone placed a little nugget of doubt in their mind sometime in their life. Then, they proceeded to investigate further, to their own accord. To claim we don't need leaders is silly. We don't need coercive rulers, but human nature defines leaders and followers in certain aspects of life. To grow as humans, wouldn't it behoove us to learn from those who are better at certain things than ourselves? This includes being able to see past certain things. It doesn't matter if the gap in ability is due to willful ignorance or not.
I agree, but if I change one person's mind, I feel better of it. You can't hit a home run without taking the chance of striking out. And chances are, you will strike out; many more times than you'll hit a home run. And even if you just get a hit, they can steal bases or have other hits move them along until they finally score.
You're right, but they don't realize they love the mask. They see politicians as people who represent us with our well-being first on their value scale. Your last sentence is what I think is my goal in getting people to do. I don't see how our positions are antithetical. Quite the contrary. It seems you view it as futile, but someone was successful with me. So I know it can be done.
@Maynard: I'm not trying to discourage you from trying to change people's minds. And it's not futile, either. But if you mean to change society I think you're in for a major disappointment.
My point is that the truth is its own reward. It is not valuable only insofar as it can change people's minds. I don't give a damn if nobody ever changes their mind on 9/11 - I know it's a big pile of steaming bullshit and that's enough for me. It's just one of those things I keep in mind every Apr. 15th.
To claim we don't need leaders is silly.
Let me say it another way. While I agree people choose leaders for themselves and naturally self-organize into groups, you and I have no idea what sort of leaders people actually need and to suggest that "opening people's eyes to 9/11" is the kind of leadership they need is unfounded. Maybe people just need leaders that help them with day-to-day stuff like family and business and leave the titanic, cosmic, geopolitical stuff out of their minds completely.
Perhaps what we need instead of people protesting and denouncing the government (which, in a weird sort of perverted logic usually ends up reinforcing the government's power all th more) is people simply ignoring the government, laughing at the government and shrugging off the government's attempts at intimidation. The whole system is built on fanaticism. "Are you for it or agin' it?" Well, on almost everything, the answer "it depends." But Leviathan thrives off internecine battle; it can even thrive off the anarchy-versus-statism dispute. I'm of the opinion that a long, bored collective yawn directed toward the would-be masters Masters Of The Universe in DC may be far more effective than the loud cries of "Down with the system!"
And the more you learn about exactly what they did on 9/11, how can you not laugh at their ridiculous story? Sure, some innocent people died (though probably not even anywhere near 3,000) and that makes it a horrific crime. The long-run consequences are sobering, as well. But the strongest society is the society that laughs in the face of oppression and adversity. The Jewish culture has always been noted for its aura of good cheer in the face of the strongest oppression and adversity amidst centuries of European bigotry and anti-semitism. The Zionism that has arisen since the mid-19th century is uncharacteristic of Jewish culture and resembles more the fanaticism of Europeans. I think we (Anglo-Americans, Europeans, the "developed" world generally) can learn a great deal from the history of oppressed peoples that have shed the wiles of their oppressors like water off a duck's back - the Jews in Europe, many of the Native American tribes, the Somalis, the Afghans, and so on.
Government is boring, absurd, laughable, ridiculous and, of course, morally bankrupt. This is the model anarchist:
So I suppose the Taliban changed its tune and invited the USG after bin Laden suddenly "changed his mind" and took responsibility in December?
OBL was supposed to have been an integral part of the whole setup (he was the heel, the Emmanuel Goldstein in the farcical War on of Terrorism). However, he decided to double-cross the Americans and issued his Sep. 16th statement denying responsibility. His statement pretty much states the unvarnished truth. He was, no doubt, quickly finished off after this defection. Bin Laden was the very first 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
It is just as much of an unbelievable conspiracy theory to say that angry Musilm cave dwellers under everything that was required and succeeded at all. If people say that the military and CIA, with all of the money and resources they have, couldn't pull it off with the level of success that happened, but less than two dozen semi-literate drug abusing ARAB IMMIGRANTS could manage it, the burden of proof is on them. Frankly, getting 1 of the 4 planes to hit on target would be pretty crazy for those hijackers, but 3 of 4...c'mon people. There is no wreckage of Flight 93 because it was shot down for F-xx fighters.
I think we (Anglo-Americans, Europeans, the "developed" world generally) can learn a great deal from the history of oppressed peoples that have shed the wiles of their oppressors like water off a duck's back - the Jews in Europe, many of the Native American tribes, the Somalis, the Afghans, and so on.
I'm with you on the Afghans (Not britian, not Russia 2x, not the US) and the Somalis (to a degree; they hate us a lot over there and they celebrate 9/11 as a holiday), but the Native American tribes were wiped out systematically with little to no chance of recovery from the start. What is left of them is a disgrace to their former selves (this is the vision for the Palestinians as well; overrun with prostitution & pornagraphy, alcohol, gambling, and dependancy) and the Jews in Europe were destroyed (killed) or assimilated to the structure. More or less, Jewish elites have become part of the Anglo American sphere. The further into western europe you go the more accepted Jews are in the elite circles. My guess would be Germany, the whole of Eastern Europe, and Russia probably still distrust their organization, but to compare them as if they are equal to the Native Americans and the Afghanis when "resisting oppressors" is a misnomer. Only in the bible are Jews as resilient and successful as the Afghanis and Somalis. This is not meant only as their support for Israel either.
Because Thomas Jefferson saw Native Americans as equal in talents and perception the early Americans saw fit to fine print contracts to get "good deals" on the land the Indians were on. In reality, the Native Americans never stood a chance and didn't know what hit them. Contracts aside; weapons and tactics, biological warfare, General Sherman knew to cultivate disease in the buffalo to thin their ranks (more than likely hoof and mouth),
Government is boring, absurd, laughable, ridiculous and, of course, morally bankrupt.
Boring; that is why it is so spoken of.
absurd; why so many put so much into their faith in it.
laughable; why it justifies the use of ultimate force.
ridiculous; so much "official authority" is required in its operations.
morally bankrupt; why we allow it to be managed.
Yes. Although he probably didn't double cross the US. The US double crossed him; as we did with (as bin Laden uses as an example of) General Noriega.
Daniel Muffinburg wrote: "OBF, Our arguement is whether airplanes hit the towers; thus, the videos being faked to show airplanes."
Why would you assume we are arguing? I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else here. I am not here to "change your mind". What you believe about 9/11 is your responsibility alone, no differently from your beliefs about economic theory.
Is an arguement what you want? [If so please look elsewhere].
Daniel Muffinburg wrote:" Where are the witnesses that claim that no airplane hit the second tower? With regards to the second strike, there must have been hundreds on people looking at the towers from buildings that were facing the towers when the second projectile hit (unless you're arguing that no projectile hit the second towers).
Why would you believe non cross-examined non- in-depth-background-investigated alleged witnesses who support the governments story? Aren't you thereby already employing a pro-government story evidentiary review bias?
Do you believe that such a pre- bias is in any way a useful investigative methodology? If so, why?
Daniel Muffinburg wrote: " Where are the witnesses that claim that no airplane hit the second tower?"
Why haven't you checked yet to see if such witnesses exist [ they do]. Why do you need me to provide links for you?
If you found some that claimed "no airplane hit" [or if I bothered to provide links to such individuals for you], would you even believe their testimony?
Or, would you simply say that you know fror a fact that there "had" to be planes,[because "everyone knows" there were] so those persons are either genuinely mistaken, or they are untrustworthy liars?
Last question : no offense intended, but why would you you assume that I would want to even "argue" [or even politely discuss] with a person so badly informed and so lacking in motivation to become informed that they have not even checked to see if there are some, or possibly many people who claim that they saw no plane hit WTC2?
What would be my benefit here, my gain, as you see it? [i.e. What's in it for me?]
Regards onebornfree.
Maynard:I was directing that towards onebornfree.
Maynard, whatever it was, I missed your comment. You need to clearly, directly quote me[ or whomever] so I know who you are replying to. Or you can simply ignore me from now on, seeing as how the self appointed commander in chief here suggests that I should be "excluded " from serious consideration because of my "mysterious" swooping in etc. :-) .
In other words my comments are deemed invalid because I don't post here often enough - not sure I see _any_ logic in that train of thought, but it is definitely worth a chuckle or two. [ Personally speaking , I would be inclined to take someone/anyones opinion here about what "really happened" on 9/11, or about anything else, and who regularly employed such "deductive logic" /" reasoning" with a straight face, with a _huge_ grain of salt .]
whether you are a disinfo troll or simply confused, I dont know. But you have to be really REALLY confused not to understand why people might think you were a disinfo troll.
Malachi:But you have to be really REALLY confused not to understand why people might think you were a disinfo troll.
I guess that would all depend on whether I had assumed that I was dealing with rational, intelligent, thinking individuals, or not, now, wouldn't it?
Are you also claiming that it is somehow logical to deliberately dismiss an opinion because a person does not post often enough, or on not enough subjects?
Enquiring minds want to know! :-)
Valuable post. Thank you. I apologize for quasi-derailing your thread. Back to finding 9/11 truth:
I watched an unhealthy amount of footage last night on YouTube. It occurred to me that the explosion of the plane flying into the Pentagon was minuscule compared to the enormous balls of flame that erupted from the WTC crashes. As far as I know, this hasn't been brought up in any discussion. Is there a way to explain the discrepancy that would fit in the official story?
Clayton: I don't know their names but you could start by looking at chivalric orders such as the Order of the Golden Fleece to begin to get the idea.
I finally got around to reading that article.
Interesting bits:
Undermines the official reason behind pretty much any war since the discovery of the new world. Of particular import are the US Civil War and WWII. For example, what if Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 that TPTB devised to get their subjects to accept war? Mind you, the Emperor of Japan is a member of the order.
No loyalty to anyone else. But it makes you wonder of other order/societies and their members. For example, Skull & Bones also requires exclusive loyalty and portrayed as pretty high up the food chain, but maybe because it is not the ultimate order, the Bushes are used as fall guys because it diverts attention from the OOTGF.
It's ancap.
Does anyone know what this means: "at each chapter the deeds of each knight were held in review, and punishments and admonitions were dealt out to offenders"?
Lastly: Noooooooooo!
The 9-11 Story in 5 Minutes
Nice!
I've posted this before but I think it's a good "wedge" to help get a toehold of doubt in the minds of "true believers" in the official 9/11 story:
If I recall it rightly no plane flew into building 7, yet the building imploded?!
What's the official excuse that it did implode that way?
Fire! LOL, no seriously: uncontrolled fires leading to "thermal expansion" of floor joists, which led to shearing of the support bolts on all 24 columns in near simultaneity (milliseconds), and which then somehow led to the symmetrical, straight-down collapse seen in the video.
Also, I noticed that the 5-minute 9/11 video (thx James Corbett of the Corbett Report) was not linked in this thread:
Wouldn't a building as wide as that fall more or less into its own footprint?
Well, the outer walls should tend to fall outward because there is no resistance in that direction, but there is resistance in the other direction. Of course, the outer walls are also attached to the floors and inner walls (and, thus, support columns) so you could argue that the internal structure could "pull the walls in with it". However, it can't do this in every direction at once - if the building is collapsing towards the West, it might pull the Eastern outer wall in and push the Western outer wall out. In the case of WTC7, all four walls are pulled in. Such an event is impossible without demolition, or at least, astronomically improbable. And this is precisely why a person would want to look at the NIST model of the WTC7 collapse. If you can change any one of the model parameters by an infinitesimal amount and get a completely different collapse, then that would be evidence that NIST had fine-tuned the collapse model until they got the desired, astronomically improbable result.
But the NIST model is classified because, as James Corbett notes, releasing it would Jeopardize Public Safety.
The wtc 7 collapse footage was all faked [i.e.prefabricated on computers prior to 9/11]. Therefor it is impossible to glean anything useful about its demolition from any of the videos that purportedly show that event .
WTC 7's demolition could even have occurred _before_ those of WTC1 or 2 or other WTC complex buildings [9 in total], but it is impossible to know for sure.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg
Regards, onebornfree
Wow, lots of information here. I've been completely unaware the level of skepticism folks have leveled at the 9/11 events. I've never given it much thought either way, but have never really considered the skeptics case. I watched several of the video's and wasn't very impressed. I am impressed at the depth of analysis in some of the arguments presented, but they are not fully convincing.
I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It's clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn't made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside.
Orthogonal said: "I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It's clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn't made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside."
Although I am not an "official" representative of either "September Clues" or of its author/creator, Simon Shack, I have spoken with both him and his partner Hoi Polloi via Skype and email and on various message boards, and have followed Mr Shacks research since around 2008 on a daily basis. so I consider myself fairly conversant with his 9/11 research to date.
My present understanding of his position is that because all of the original so-called "live" MSM footage of the plane strikes [i.e. the various MSM network "live feeds"] is demonstrably false/not live, and was instead 100% digitally pre-fabricated computer generated simulations that were then deliberately broadcast on 9/11 as live footage [including, but not limited to,both of the plane strikes themselves and the resultant impact "explosions"], it is impossible to know for sure whether or not missiles or planes were really used, whether or not actual impact explosions ever actually occurred [the ones seen in the videos are all faked, digitally created,Hollywood-style explosions], or whether or not actual impact/penetration holes [or even the fires] ever actually existed in the real 9/11 world, pre-demolition.
In his "September Clues" presentation he is merely raising the possibility for consideration that missiles might have been deployed , but he does not [and cannot ] know for sure at this point in time, and freely admits to this. He has even thought about doing an updated "September Clues" with the entire missile strike hypothesis removed.
So Simon Shack would himself tell you that he does not know for sure if anything actually hit the towers in the real world.
All he [and I] know for sure is that the footage showing both plane strike events and resultant impact explosions was faked on computers and then broadcast on 9/11 as live footage; real planes may or may not have been in the NYC area, and missiles may or may not have been deployed; because the MSM footage showing those events is fake, it is impossible to know for sure, and it is a minor point in any case.
[And of course, we know for certain that the WTC complex was there on the morning of 9/11, but by the end of that day had ceased to exist/been deliberately demolished.]
The main point he is trying to make us aware of is that the media knowingly broadcast 100% digitally faked "live " footage for 102 minutes on 09/11/01 [i.e. of plane strikes and of WTC buildings collapsing].
So what do you folks think of the recent find of landing gear from one of the Boeing planes found between some buildings in lower manhatten?
http://news.yahoo.com/part-9-11-planes-landing-gear-found-nyc-211517007.html
Orthogonal: So what do you folks think of the recent find of landing gear from one of the Boeing planes found between some buildings in lower manhatten? http://news.yahoo.com/part-9-11-planes-landing-gear-found-nyc-211517007.html
"
"WTC “Boeing landing gear”: Lamest planted evidence ever?"
onebornfree: "WTC “Boeing landing gear”: Lamest planted evidence ever?" Regards, onebornfree
See also: " NY police claim to have found part of landing gear from 9/11"
regards, onebornfree.