

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+230 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:29 PM
In this AE911Truth film, Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction, the scientific method is applied in order to determine what caused the collapse of the twin towers. There is no better way to determine what is the truth and what is delusion. People always claim that AE911Truth are just conmen who fool gullible conspiracy theorists, but you can't fool the scientific method.

1. Formulate a question.
2. Perform research and record observations.
3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions.
4. Test with experiments.
5. Analyze results, draw conclusions.
6. Determine whether or not hypothesis is corrobrated, then either try again or report results.

How did the Twin Towers collapse?

Supposedly, the fires caused by the airplane crash, combined with whatever damage was caused by the airplane impact, caused the twin towers to collapse.

However there have been dozens of skyscraper fires that have not caused the buildings to collapse. There are obvious reasons for this. First of all, fire burns organically, it does not situate itself in one fixed area and remain there, it moves around and burns chaotically. Second, fire burns out an area typically in 20 minutes, and then moves to seek more fuel or combustables. And lastly, it burns asymmetrically.

Here are some examples of skyscrapers which were on fire yet did not collapse:
Caracas, Venezuela:
Burned for 17 hours.

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia.
Burned for 18 hours.

1 New York Plaza:
Burned for over 6 hours.

Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel:
This building was practically engulfed for 3 hours.

First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles:
This fire lasted for almost 4 hours.

Windsor Building, Madrid:
The partial collapse of this building is often cited as proof that fire can cause skyscrapers to collapse, but first of all it's only a partial collapse. More importantly however:

The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses....In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4

Professor Jonathan Barnett, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Fire Protection Engineering, had performed an experiment ( 11:38 in the video ) which simluated an office fire, and while the steel warped and bent slightly, the building did not collapse.

"In over 20 years, I have not seen, until recently, a protected steel structure that has collapsed due to fire"

Here are some buildings that have collapsed:
There are some things buildings that collapse have in common: They all collapse towards the path of least resistance and fall over. For the most part the building is held together in a recognizable form. The structural elements have not been dismembered from each other. And finally, the concrete has also not been pulverized to dust.

Here are some buildings that have exploded, with a description of their characteristics included:
( Screen-cap from 13:00 )

And here are some buildings that were brought down by a controlled demolition:
( Skip to 13:10 in the OP video for more ) Here are the characteristics of a typical controlled demolition:
[color=limegreen]1. Sudden onset of destruction at base of structure.
2. Straight down, symmetrical collapse into footprint.
[color=limegreen]3. Demolition waves remove column support.
4. Free-fall speed through path of greatest resistance.
[color=limegreen]5. Total dismemberment of steel structure for shipping.
[color=limegreen]6. Minimal damage to adjacent structures.
7. Sounds and flashes of explosions.
8. Enormous clouds of pulverized concrete.
[color=limegreen]9. Squibs: explosive charges visible at upper floors.
[color=limegreen]10. Chemical evidence of cutter charges.

These things show us direct evidence of explosive destruction, however none of those are characteristics of destruction by fire. There is also typically government documentation, expert corroboration, foreknowledge of destruction, and video documentation of controlled demolitions, all of which support the hypothesis of controlled demolition, providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

World Trade Center 7

This was a 47 story tall building which would have been the tallest building in 33 states, and as we all know it was not hit by an airplane yet it collapsed. WTC7 was hit by debris from the North Tower, and sustained 8 fires on various floors according to NIST.
In the above image, these fires are on the 7th, 12th & 13th floors of the north side of the building, the opposite side that was being struck by debris. Oddly enough, the Securities and Exchange Commission, operating out of the 12th floor, lost thousands of files related to hundreds of cases it was actively pursuing against Wall Street companies like Enron.
edit on 11-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: TO edit my post

+22 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:29 PM
Let's compare the characteristics of WTC7's collapse with those of typical controlled demolitions:

( Skip to 17:41 ) An interview from an emergency worker recorded on 9/11 describes a sound like a "clap of thunder", a shockwave seen ripping through the building and busting out windows, the bottom floor that "caved out", and the building collapsing to the ground.
[color=limegreen]1. Check.

Here are videos of WTC7 collapsing:
Notice how symmetrically the building falls:
Here's the collapse of WTC7 compared to some known controlled demolitions:
WTC7 also fell nearly into it's footprint:
[color=limegreen]2. Check.

For a building to fall symmetrically and in it's own footprint without falling over, the steel columns have to be removed symmetrically and within approximately 1/10th of a second of each other. It's impossible for fire to make this happen. So since fire can't be removing the column supports, something else must be.

However NIST said that a single column failure (column 79) caused the building to collapse, and also said that the falling debris or diesel fuel had almost no influence on the collapse. Could a single core column cause the rest of the columns to fail within 1/10th of a second? No, that's even faster than the human eye blinks.
[color=limegreen]3. Check

WTC7 also fell at free-fall speed for over 100ft:
For this to happen, the columns had to have been removed simultaneously on each floor synchronistically times so the building had virtually no resistance on the way down.

The once 47 story skyscraped was reduced to a 4 story pile of rubble:
[color=limegreen]4 & 5. Check.

While the collapse caused some damage to surrounding buildings, most of the debris was isolated to the buildings footprint. [color=limegreen]6. Check.

There were dozens of witnesses who reported explosions. Ground Zero first responder Craig Bartmer and Airforce Medic Kevin McPadden reported hearing explosions during the collapse ( skip to 22:50 ). There are many more seen in in the following video, although these are witnesses to both WTC7 and the Twin Towers:
[color=limegreen]7. Check.

Skip to 0:45 in the following video and watch the cloud move hundreds of feet at a fairly fast rate:
[color=limegreen]8. Check

Molten metal was seen in the rubble of WTC7 also. Skip to 25:20 to hear several witnesses describe it, or check out this and this website.

Thermal images also show extremely high temperatures:
Keep in mind that's just the temperature on the surface. The 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST reports all failed to address the molten metal. The temperature of this metal was much hotter than could have been produced by the fires, as structural steel melts at 2750*F and the temperatures of the fires were at the absolute maximum 1800*F:
In the following video, Lead Engineer of NIST John Gross denies the existence of the molten metal:
Notice how much he shifts around and stuff while the guys talking, does that look sketchy to anyone else or is that just me? Skip to 30:30 in the OP video to watch John Gross get owned. Either dozens of people are lying about the molten steel, or NIST has something to hide.

Thermite, a combination of Iron Oxide and Aluminum, is an incendiary which sustains an extreme heat reaction, creating molten iron. Skip to 32:30 in the video to see some thermite reactions. Appendix C of the FEMA report described sulfur residues on the WTC steel. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron, and iron oxide and iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steel. Thermite mixed with sulfur is called thermate, and produces a lower melting point and accelerated results.

Sec 12-4 of the NFPA: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations says that "unusual residues...could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials". However NIST didn't even look for this evidence.
edit on 11-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

+13 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:30 PM
Since NIST didn't do this, Steven Jones tested the debris for evidence of explosive residue. A previously molten metal chunk from the South Tower was analyzed by Jones, and found to be predominantely iron, ruling out the aluminum frame of the airplane.

Manganese and Flourine were also found during testing. The Manganese may be attributed to Potassium Permanganate, an oxider commonly used in thermite. Flourine is used in Sol-Gel type thermite charges. If Sol-Gel charges were used, there would be a unique signature left behind, 1, 3-diphenylpropane. The EPA found one molecule at levels that dwarfed all others, and Erik Shwartz said that they've never observed 1,3-diphenylpropane in any other sampling they've done.

There is also evidence of thermite in the dust, Steven Jones received 4 different samples and they all contained iron-aluminum rich microspheres. Based on his sampling, he calculated that there must have been around 10 tons of these spheres in the entire dust clouds.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. These spheres are formed when the metal turns molten, allowing the surface tension to pull them into a rougly spherical shape. Hundreds of thermite cutter charges igniting could produce these.

Many debunkers claim that the spheres were formed during the construction of the building when welding was being done, however the chemical signature of these spheres match those that are produced after a thermite reaction. An experiment was done to compare the chemical composition of various spheres:
Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite:
Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip found in dust:
Residue of red chip subjected to flame test:
Spheres extracted from WTC dust:
Dr. Jones concludes that aluminothermic reactions occured, likely with powders of aluminum, iron oxide, copper oxide, zinc nitrate, sulfur, and potassium permanganate.

He didn't just find spheres, he also found some unreacted red/gray chips in the dust that match the chemical make-up of thermite. Some of these chips were partially reacted with spheres imbedded in them, indicating that the source of the spheres was the chips:

Experimental Conclusions:
1. Conducted the following experiments on residue samples from the scene:
--Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy
--X-Ray Flourescence
--Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy

2. They identify predominately iron, (with very little chromium), along with aluminum, oxygen, and sillicon.
3. 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed.

The results, coupled with visual evidence such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal, provide compelling evidence that thermite reaction compounds were deliberately placed inside of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

Jumping back to an earlier point, no skyscraper has ever been brought down by fires, yet some scattered fires and some smoke supposedly brought down WTC7? Let's look at at some of the government investigations.

Starting in 2001, the American Society of Civil Engineers, who we were told were volunteers, had an investigation. However they actually earn millions annually working for the Defense Department.

Then there was the FEMA report in 2002 which only had $600,000 in funding.

Then in 2002, there was also the Silverstein/Weidlinger report which had a different theory than FEMA. This theory didn't back the pancake theory where bolts failed all around causing the floors to fall, and oddly enough if that was the case it would have been the buildings fault rather than the terrorists fault, and Silverstein would not have got his massive insurance pay-off.

So instead of the pancake theory, the new theory was that the trusses sagged, pulling the columns inward, causing the columns to buckle with resulted in the whole building coming down.

Then finally, there is the 2005 NIST investigation which took over the previous investigations. Curiously, the NIST is a part of the government, more spefically the Department of Commerce.

+12 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:30 PM
Many members of the NIST investigation were also a part of the previous investigations:
The FEMA report discusses sulfidation and oxidation on some WTC7 steel: "Evidence of a severe, high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure". FEMA goes on to say "a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel...No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified".

The results of this examination identified eutectic reactions, which are capable of turning steel into a razor sharp, swiss-cheese like material:
Limited Metallurgical Examination.

NIST completely ignored this entire appendix, there is no mention of this in the NIST report. The FEMA report concluded this: "The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time...The best hypothesis [fire + random damage - then complete collapse] has only a low probability of occurence".

The FEMA conclusion doesn't support the fire hypothesis, so according to the scientific method they should have went back and constructed a new hypothesis.

Around 800 trucks a day removed all but 250 pieces of steel from the crime scene of three of the largest and least understood structural failures in world history. The destruction of evidence is illegal. Since the evidence doesn't support the fire hypothesis, it was destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission Report, which claims to have given us "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11", ignored WTC7 entirely. There is not a single sentence that mentions its destruction. Senator Max Cleland resigned from the investigation, stating that "it's a national scandal" and "the investigation is now compromised".

How about some expert corroboration? Controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko says that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, as does Tom Sullivan:
Jowenko died 3 days after that interview in a car-crash. Coincidence?

Many other experts agree that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. There are many interview with experts on the AE911Truth YouTube page. Here are just a few:

Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti had foreknowledge of the collapse: "We're moving the command post over this way, that building's coming down". Indira Singh also described how around noon or 1pm, "they told us we had to move...because building 7 was going to come down, or being brought down". The words "bring it down" were actually used. Skip to 52:10 in the video to hear construction workers and police officers talking about the building about to come down, blow up, and telling people to move back.

Kevin McPadden's testimony also describes a count-down leading up to the buildings collapse. Do fires bring skyscrapers down so precisely that they can be anticipated by a count-down? No.

More evidence of fore-knowledge is the BBC report which aired a story about WTC7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened:
The BBC apologized and cited the confusing events of the day, but does that make them psychic?

World Trade Center Building 7 matches all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition.
Is it likely that Al Qaeda had access to WTC7, which housed the CIA's undercover New York station, the Secret Service NYC Headquarters, the IRS, the Department of Defense, Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and the Securities and Exchange Commission? And if not, who did?

Twin Towers

The Twin Towers were built as a tube structure, with a very dense and strong mesh of steel surrounding the exterior and asking as a bearing wall which resists the lateral loads from earthquakes, wind, hurricanes, and so on.
Inside was a core, a dense grid of 47 box-columns.
Pre-fabricated floor assemblies: 22-gauge steel decking, over which was poured reinforced concrete, and held up by 29-inch deep open webbed steel trusses were bolted to the perimeter and core columns with 5/8 inch bolts.

+11 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:30 PM
If the pancake-collapse occured, the core would remain standing while the surrounding, less-strong floor structure collapsed around it:
Any 1800*F fire would be conducted within this 100,000 ton "heat-sink", which is why there have been no collapses of steel-framed high rise buildings in history.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest aircraft of it's time, the Boeing 707. Skip to 58:50 to hear Frank DeMartini, WTC Construction Manager, describe the structure of the building and how it would react to an aircraft impact.

The North Tower collapsed 103 minutes after it was impacted by American Airlines Flight #11. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after United Flight #175 impacted it.

FEMAs theory was that the sagging of the trusses caused the connections to break from the perimeter columns, pulling the building down. NIST blames the persistence of these connections pulling in the columns, causing them to buckle.

It's usually more difficult for people to understand that the Twin Towers were a controlled demolition, beacuse it was such a large building that was outside of the frame of refrence. Here are the key characteristics of the Twin Towers demolition, some of which contrast with those of WTC7:
[color=limegreen]1. Sudden onset of destruction at location of jet impacts.
[color=limegreen]2. Straight down, symmetrical collapse outside footprint.
[color=limegreen]3. Squibs: explosive charges visible at lower floors.
[color=limegreen]4. Near free-fall pace through the path of greatest resistance.
[color=limegreen]5. Total dismemberment of steel structure.
[color=limegreen]6. Lateral ejection of structural steel up to 500ft.
[color=limegreen]7. Sounds and flashes produced by explosions.
[color=limegreen]8. Enormous pyroclastic clouds of pulverized concrete.
[color=limegreen]9. Iron microspheres in dust, pools of molten iron.
[color=limegreen]10. Chemical evidence of thermate cutter charges.

City fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen called for the accounts of over 12,000 firefighters and emergency medical technicians. The city was holding onto this information until a court ordered it's release, and it contained 118 firefighters witnessing sounds/flashes of explosions. Skip to 1:03:00 in the video to hear many of these testimonies.

Does that sound like fire or floors collapsing to you?
None of these explosions are part of the official story. Compare the image of a tower during the collapse to a known explosion:
But how could explosives be planted in the towers without the thousands of occupants knowing? If one had access to the elevator hoistway, they would also have access to the core columns and beams, and nobody would see you. In the 9 months prior to 9/11, elevator renovations were going on within the towers.

After the argument that people would see the building being set-up falls apart, the next argument usually revolves around the lack of blasting caps or det. cord. But as Tom Sullivan explained in the interview posted earlier, that's not true:

"You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators and they have been available for years....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive....What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges."

NIST said that it couldn't have been a controlled demolition because it didn't start from the bottom, but that's not true:
They can also start from the middle-down:
The idea that demolitions can only begin at the bottom is entirely false.

Skip to 1:10:13 in the video to see the collapse of the North Tower. You'll notice thick, violent clouds emerging from the top of the tower just before the collapse, and at a different angle you'll see the very top section of the building being destroyed before it comes into contact with the bottom section.

The antenna also begins to fall first, indicating a core column failure. The antenna drops at frame 6, but the rest of the begins moving at frame 8. [color=limegreen]1. Check.

The following video shows what are hotly debated as being squibs, explosions often seen in controlled demolitions:

+4 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:31 PM
As video clearly shows, debris rained down symmetrically during the collapse of the towers. Here's a FEMA image that illustrates that:
So asymmetrical airplane/fire damage causes a symmetrical damage pattern.

NIST tells us the squibs that are seen are just puffs of air, because the top section acts like a piston and the air is pushed down the hoistways and must escape somewhere, right? Well this isn't air, it's pulverized building materials. Plus not all of them occur where the elevator hoistway would be located. Some of the squibs measured by David Chandler had speeds of over 120mph. [color=limegreen]2. Check

A body falling with no resistance would hit the ground in 9.2 seconds, and the towers collapsed in between 9.5 and 11 seconds, at near free-fall speed. [color=limegreen]4. Check.

This paper calculates that the top sections momentum would be almost immediately arrested, so it could not have pile-drove the bottom section all the way to the ground nearly at the speed that a similar top section falling through the air with no resistance would.

And also, where is the 15 story pile-driver that should be destoying the building? There's nothing crushing the building, it is tearing itself apart.
[color=limegreen]5. Check

The top of the South Tower, on the other hand, falls with an angle of 22* as seen here:
How can it crush the building symmetrically if it's falling off center? As seen in the following video, as well as the clip at 1:20:10 in the main video, the damage pattern is symmetrical:

Steel beams were also ejected laterally hundreds of feet:
Gravity alone can't account for the steel gerders being ejected hundreds of feet. According to David Chandlers calculations ( 1:23:10 in the video ), the energy required to hurl steel gerders of that mass (4 tons) at over 70mph is comparable to the energy needed to launch a cannonball 3 miles. [color=limegreen]6. Check.

Where did all of the concrete go? What happened to it, and why are there not massive slabs scattered within the debris? As seen in this video, much of it was pulverized into dust that spread around the area:
Skip to 1:25:30 in the main video to hear ground zero workers describing the lack of concrete.

The energy for the heat required to produce the volume of dust is 10X more than the gravitational potential energy of 110,000kWH. Add to the pulverization and expansion of 90,000 tons of concrete the molten metal produced, and the crushing of 80,000 tons of steel, and you have a lot of missing enegy. [color=limegreen]8. Check.

Not only was the concrete pulverized, but more disturbingly, the victims were too. Of the 2,700+ victims, only 300 whole bodies were found. There were 20,000 pieces of bodies found, 6,000 of which were small enough to fit into test tubes. Over 1,100 victims remain unaccounted for.

The iron spheres and the chemical signature of thermite was already covered. [color=limegreen]9 and 10. Check. All of those 10 characteristics are direct evidence of explosives, and none of them are evidence of destruction by fire. Even by themselves, the probability is 0, but being generous and giving them each a 1% chance of occuring due to fire, that only gives them all a 1 in a trillion chance of occurence. The official story on the Towers collapse is disproven by that, however all 10 of those things are explainable by the use of explosives.

The only possible scientific theory is that explosives were used. Believing in the official story is believing in the impossible. It has been disproven scientifically, and the remaining explanation of explosives accounts for those things that cannot be explained.

Now let's look at the NIST report. "The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse....It does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

Why would they stop their investigation right at the most important point? The collapse of the towers is what killed the most people, what kind of a $20 million investigation is that?

+9 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:31 PM
There were 10,000 pages in the entire NIST report, and this is the half-page that explains what happens after the collapse began:
The report was title "Final Report on the Collapse of the Twin Towers", yet it contains absolutely no analysis or calculations whatsoever. This is not a scientific investigation, this is a cover-up.

In a response to a letter requesting an explanation on the collapse, NIST said the following: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Gage goes on to explain a book describing the distractions within the NIST report, the unfounded assumptions, omissions, lies, tweaked computer models, and more.

NIST refuses to show their computer visualizations that they tweaked until they matched the desired outcome, despite multiple requests. The former chief of NISTs Fire Science Department, Dr. Quintiere, has called for a new independent investigation.

There was also a whistleblower named Kevin Ryan. He was fired from his job at Underwriters Laboratories after making public the fact that NIST hired them to perform tests, and they showed the building should have remained standing. There were 4 mock-samples, all submitted to 2000*F fires for two hours bearing twice the load that the towers did, yet none of them failed. In fact, there was only 3 inches of deformation. NIST disregarded this testing, and claimed that there was a 42 inch sag, 14X more than what their experiments showed.

Expert corroboration ( Skip to 1:37:15 ) shows that many disagree with the NIST report and endorse a controlled demolition. However FEMA or NIST never tested for explosive evidence.

Was there any foreknowledge of the event? FEMA was on site running an excercise called Tripod II, which consisted of "hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack". Tom Kennedy of FEMA said "We arrived late on Monday night, went right into action on Tuesday."

All of these things are evidence of a controlled demolition, and none can be accounted for by fire, let alone all 10 of them.

All of this evidence is used to support the hypothesis, so it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This has earth-shattering implications, and skip to 1:41:20 to hear Gage's arguments against the common questions that people raise when faced with such a scenario.

The government lied to us about the building collapses, the 9/11 Commission Report reinforced that lie, FEMA and NIST justified it, and the corporate media repeated it and hammered it in. So what can we do? Is it too late?

No, you can all be a part of the solution and not the problem. Send this YouTube video to others and spread the word. Demand a real investigation. Call and write your elected representatives in Congress, local television stations, radio stations, newspapers, national TV and radio networks, newspapers, and magazines. Print off flyers that briefly summarize the key pieces of evidence that prove the official story to be false and validate a controlled demolition. Sign the petition to support a new investigation.

And to all of your skeptics out there, I have a message for you. You guys have supported the official story for 10 years. You've spent countless hours debating this issue with people and trying to show how their evidence is incorrect in order to reinforce the official story and keep it alive. I know there will be official story believers who will select just a few pieces of evidence from this thread, describe how it's incorrect, and then continue maintaining their belief that all of our evidence is nonsense and that the official story is the real deal.

Take two hours, watch this video, and really absorb the information. Consider that the scientific method disproves the official explanation and validates the controlled demolition hypothesis. If you people reading this have any respect for the scientific validity of information in society, then you will wake up today and realize that the official story is a lie. Those of you who continue believing the official story, you are undermining the very scientific method that has gotten us to the level of intelligence that we're at today, and you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

Honor the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 by at the very least considering the scientific approach to the official hypothesis versus the controlled demolition hypothesis, and make your own decision.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:42 PM
Dude that is some heavy duty, welcomed research. I do not have time to read it all tonight, as it is late in the evening here in the U.K.

But it looks amazing an I look forword to looking through all of it tomorrow evening.

I wish I could multiple flag, but alas.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by TupacShakur

Wow - really well done. S+F

Will watch the full video later tonight but just the reading of your post provides a ton of very concise information.

BTW - I think there can be something of an argument on Towers 1 & 2 re: the official story, but WTC 7 was the clincher for me years ago. Biggest load of bullsh*t I ever saw or heard. I actually can't believe people can really believe that WTC 7 came down on it's own from the fires (no jet fuel there btw) and falling debris from the towers - especially in the fashion in which it fell. It's ludicrous.

+2 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by Cobaltic1978



I wish I could multiple flag, but alas.
Thanks dude. I was up until like 6am putting it together, then I spent probably another 5 hours today. It took a looooong time, but it's the motherload of information that proves the official story to be impossible and shows how the controlled demolition hypothesis is the only explanation for the collapses. And I figured since it's the 10 year anniversary, I might as well go all out.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:12 PM
Yes. We make up our minds (I did nine years ago), But what then? You can assemble (or re-hash) all the scientific evidence you can muster, but it still won't do any good. 9/11 truthers still don't get it. This is not about proving scientifically that the official 9/11 story is false. It's not about proving conspiracy. There's no road open to establishing the truth PUBLICLY. The American establishment is too powerful. It has all legal avenues closed. There is no way forward. At this rate, there will probably be a majority of Americans who reject the official story in 20 years time. But a majority already disbelieve that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and do you hear a loud chorus asking for another investigation 50 years later? Of course not! Even if there were another re-examination in Senate or Congressional hearings, the politicians picked to pass judgement would issue another whitewash. Grand jury investigations? Forget it. The law officials and judges are already bought and paid for.

9/11 truthers made the fatal mistake of treating the subject as though it was an academic problem and then playing the game of one-up-manship with their fellow truthers over who possessed the correct answers. They never paid attention to the REAL problem: how to sweep aside all the political and judicial obstacles that the American establishment would put in the way of any REAL, public attempt to open the can of worms that would tear America apart for years if this ever happened.

So keep presenting all your (mostly old) evidence and winning your brownie points on conspiracy theory forums that only a small minority take seriously. It won't bring justice for 3000 murdered people.

+18 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:18 PM

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:30 PM
Absolute truth! A thousand stars & flags to you. I have watched the Architects & Engineers 10th anniversary video. Scientifically proven in my mind.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by TupacShakur

Bravo !!
i havent read the entire post yet but amazing find and amazing research , i truly believe that
some of us are pathetically blind to the facts which are so pre eminent

BTW im getting fed up with these redundant news about 911. It is so easy to blame others............

+8 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by TupacShakur

Unfortunately your video is way too long for the average mind-span. Here, allow me:


posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by knowledgeBborn

Excellent post, my compliments, however I'm still going with Dr. Judy Wood.

The is a video at Utube which shows a steel "spire" falling down vertically, however when you look at the top section you can "clearly see" the steel turning to dust, and thermite doesn't do that.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by downunderET


Stay away from that Judy Wood stuff, it makes the truth movement look bad.

The video you're referring to doesn't show the spire turning to "dust", it just looks that way because as it falls down it leaves some dust behind. Here, watch it and see what I mean:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:49 PM
Good work Pac. It's threads like these which make ATS great. I do complain about some threads on here, and mainly the lack of thought which goes into some of them. This however, is impressive. Thank you! S&F.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:26 PM
Tremendous work. We may probably never know for certain if you are right, but I, for one, will definitely give you credit for an incredible job. As much as we here at ATS love a good debate, this kind of effort should have been sent to a publisher before being posted here. I realize much of this must have been publicized, but perhaps not as comprehensively as this. If you can reach it, pat yourself on the back for me.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:42 PM
Damn, thats gotta be one of the best researched and thought out threads I've seen in a long while. I posted a link to this thread on FB so I could provide some support to my thoughts to my friends. This deserves so many flags and stars.

new topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in