Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SphericalMiracle

Extradimensional Prelude to 9/11?

21 posts in this topic

This is about the mysterious banging, clanging, construction-type sounds heard in (one or both of) the twin towers in the weeks and months prior to 9/11. It was discussed in the (Internet) film 9/11 MYSTERIES. First, famed witness William Rodriguez reported the sounds. He said they were coming from a floor at which no elevators stopped. There was no button to go there. Then, much more vividly, another guy (whose name eludes me) reported the sounds on the floor above him. (We can assume others on his floor also heard them and were discussed. He wasn't hallucinating). Out of curiosity he went to look up there and, holy cannoli, the entire floor was utterly empty; devoid of any sign of activity or anything else!

Could there have been ghosts or other invisible beings operating there?

This is obviously the most overlooked aspect of the saga. How many other witnesses are alive? This needs to be explored to the fullest.

As a theory based only on a hunch (thereby admitting I could be wrong) I'll say the invisible ones were the good guys making as much general noise as possible in order to warn that something very, very wrong is going on. It fits in with my strong sense that there's a real Prime Directive concerning the Earthbound (based on my unexplained experiences). The noises weren't TOO overt intervention; considering the time it's taken to address them in detail. Opinions, input?

(Sorry I'm posting so late. Will be signing off shortly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could there have been ghosts or other invisible beings operating there?

So now ghosts or "other invisible beings" are responsible for bringing down the towers...?? :blink:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...cue eerie music...

edit: actually, some of this story sounds like it came from a certain WTC janitor. He heard noises from a supposedly (by his account) unoccupied, empty floor, which he did not choose to investigate by opening the door. As it turns out, the floor was at least partially occupied. As to the sounds, similar sounds were heard on other floors, mainly due to the building's losing it's ability to withstand the impact damage and ongoing fire, continuously readjusting the load paths of the structure onto less or undamaged structure as existing damaged structures became inadequate.

Edited by mrbusdriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course any evidence of wrong-doing has been erased from memories by use of mid-waves...

Let me say this about 9/11.

When large groups of structural engineers claim there is something wrong, I will listen.

When large groups of pilots claim there is something wrong, I will listen.

When large groups of demolition experts claim there is something wrong, I will listen.

If someone provides CLEAR evidence of wrongdoing, I will listen.

'Nuff said.

When groups of people who are NOT experts make claims that are not supported by fact or calculations, I will ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Clearly these "witnesses" are not qualified to accurately describe any noise as being a "banging" or "clanging". Only trained professionals can accurately identify a "banging" and it takes special equipment to confirm a "clanging". All people who actually know what they are talking about agree that those noises were actualy "dings" and "dongs" which most smart people recognize as being the sound of a door bell.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly these "witnesses" are not qualified to accurately describe any noise as being a "banging" or "clanging". Only trained professionals can accurately identify a "banging" and it takes special equipment to confirm a "clanging". All people who actually know what they are talking about agree that those noises were actualy "dings" and "dongs" which most smart people recognize as being the sound of a door bell.

everything I read says the buildings were making all kinds of noises...groans, creaks, moans, crashes, bangs, "explosions"...the buildings were moving, adjusting, fighting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
everything I read says the buildings were making all kinds of noises...groans, creaks, moans, crashes, bangs, "explosions"...the buildings were moving, adjusting, fighting...

I suggest you leave these supposide noises to the noise experts, they know what they are actually talking about. Popular Mechanics magazine has proven these noises were actually the sound of a doorbell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly these "witnesses" are not qualified to accurately describe any noise as being a "banging" or "clanging". Only trained professionals can accurately identify a "banging" and it takes special equipment to confirm a "clanging". All people who actually know what they are talking about agree that those noises were actualy "dings" and "dongs" which most smart people recognize as being the sound of a door bell.

So you support the 104 people who saw aircraft hit the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good morning... Banging, clanging, carts rolling etc. No mistaking construction sounds. I stand by the 2 witnesses' accounts in the documentary. (Google Video has the entire 1.5 hours). It'd be most great if there are any more who can corroberate them.

Czero 101, I'm not saying the (apparently) invisible beings were RESPONSIBLE for the destruction of anything. That would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Again I believe they were warning signals to be figured out later. (Prime Directive equals free will for us. They give only as much as they can. It's a little long to fully explain it).

Mrbusdriver, it's terribly prejudiced to say a janitor would make any less credible witness than anyone else, but the man in the film virtually certainly wasn't one, not that it really matters.

Here's my blog. Relevant issue is now second latest entry (possibly 3rd latest later today). Lightworth is my ATS (abovetopsecret.com) name. It's good to see a little more participation here than that jernt:

http://lightworth.blogspot.com

Edited by SphericalMiracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you support the 104 people who saw aircraft hit the Pentagon?

No. I think the idea that more than one aircraft hit the pentagon is just silly. What does that have to do with the WTC's doorbell anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is about the mysterious banging, clanging, construction-type sounds heard in (one or both of) the twin towers in the weeks and months prior to 9/11. It was discussed in the (Internet) film 9/11 MYSTERIES. First, famed witness William Rodriguez reported the sounds. He said they were coming from a floor at which no elevators stopped. There was no button to go there. Then, much more vividly, another guy (whose name eludes me) reported the sounds on the floor above him. (We can assume others on his floor also heard them and were discussed. He wasn't hallucinating). Out of curiosity he went to look up there and, holy cannoli, the entire floor was utterly empty; devoid of any sign of activity or anything else!

Could there have been ghosts or other invisible beings operating there?

This is obviously the most overlooked aspect of the saga. How many other witnesses are alive? This needs to be explored to the fullest.

As a theory based only on a hunch (thereby admitting I could be wrong) I'll say the invisible ones were the good guys making as much general noise as possible in order to warn that something very, very wrong is going on. It fits in with my strong sense that there's a real Prime Directive concerning the Earthbound (based on my unexplained experiences). The noises weren't TOO overt intervention; considering the time it's taken to address them in detail. Opinions, input?

(Sorry I'm posting so late. Will be signing off shortly).

The above is the classic example of how myths, conspiracies & legends are create.

No doubt the above with get sucked into the folklore of 9/11 conspiracy, & be quoted as fact untill the lines are blurred even further.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is about the mysterious banging, clanging, construction-type sounds heard in (one or both of) the twin towers in the weeks and months prior to 9/11. It was discussed in the (Internet) film 9/11 MYSTERIES. First, famed witness William Rodriguez reported the sounds. He said they were coming from a floor at which no elevators stopped. There was no button to go there. Then, much more vividly, another guy (whose name eludes me) reported the sounds on the floor above him. (We can assume others on his floor also heard them and were discussed. He wasn't hallucinating). Out of curiosity he went to look up there and, holy cannoli, the entire floor was utterly empty; devoid of any sign of activity or anything else!

Could there have been ghosts or other invisible beings operating there?

This is obviously the most overlooked aspect of the saga. How many other witnesses are alive? This needs to be explored to the fullest.

As a theory based only on a hunch (thereby admitting I could be wrong) I'll say the invisible ones were the good guys making as much general noise as possible in order to warn that something very, very wrong is going on. It fits in with my strong sense that there's a real Prime Directive concerning the Earthbound (based on my unexplained experiences). The noises weren't TOO overt intervention; considering the time it's taken to address them in detail. Opinions, input?

(Sorry I'm posting so late. Will be signing off shortly).

Interesting, a whole foor empty. How much money would that be per week?

I prefer to look for the obvious or common sense realities, lifts not stopping at floors and empty floors sound loose ended and odd. Ghosts and such I deal with every day, so do many millions actually. But here at UM we believe in Debunkers and nobody else..lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe common sense usually beats today's US propaganda unless districts and counties are undergoing group mind control inititives already. Common sense and proper research provides the fact that the technology is available and very old, and is possible via our mobile device technology. Common sense says we can be told anything and people wll believe.

No. I think the idea that more than one aircraft hit the pentagon is just silly. What does that have to do with the WTC's doorbell anyway?

from http://lightworth.blogspot.com And that's just the outside-NYC aspect. Face the fact: Either there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, or they did, somehow, thoroughly vaporize, but in order for the latter to be true there would have to have been unknown technology (that completely defies known physics) used. There's no precedent of an airplane totally going poof due to a high speed impact crash! Where were the engines, seats, fabrics and heavier metallic objects like silverware? Moreover, where were the bodies?

The very first USA reports of a plane and the pentagon were stating that they seee no plane...IF YOU SEARCH ON YOUTUBE YOU CAN FIND THE NEWS REPORTS ON VIDEO...

Who would you believe, if you had to ...

104 potentially government paid witnesses or a live national broadcast news event with cameras and reporter stating thy saw no plane??? Take your pick. Again, common sense states that governments will manipulate to convince their view upon the majority, until conspiray artists rise to inform the wise with facts, or simple common sense.

And that's just the outside-NYC aspect. Face the fact: Either there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, or they did, somehow, thoroughly vaporize, but in order for the latter to be true there would have to have been unknown technology (that completely defies known physics) used. There's no precedent of an airplane totally going poof due to a high speed impact crash! Where were the engines, seats, fabrics and heavier metallic objects like silverware? Moreover, where were the bodies?
Edited by JET SAVAGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If I told you just who monitors my internet pages you would never want to believe. In fact everyone who contacts me is monitored, be warned. I ha an animation gif of one of the 911 upright metal beams dissapating into dust on one of my pages. I used it here before. I thought to use it again then I suddenly decided to check before posting, whether or not it was tampered with...Low an behold, the gif image does no animate anymore. But it did clearly show the metal framework debris around a fallen tower turning to dust or vapourizing into dust.

The last time my data was seriously tamperd with was related to a helicopter crash after it's tail fin crumpled like paper suddenly in mid flight. The video footage dubed `invisible ray beam`was swiped from several places online and my hard drive and mail, and the video and topic were swiped from UM as well.

So the following gif gon stale reminds me of that and other events online with the powers to be.

Again this gif did show a spire vanishing into dust. Not only is the tech available and documented s manipulating steel in numerous new ways via the Hutchinson Technique, but for anyone to replace an animated gif with a still one, must be desperate to hide something.

What do you say huh? Crazy?

linked-image

Edited by JET SAVAGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:

There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story

(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Excuse any grammar faults as Im a Dutchy, dont really write in English that much ;-)

Godspeed to all

Salus populi suprema lex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense would tell you that if your plan is to tell people that a 757 crashed into the building and there is a 757 that will go missing that you crash a freaking 757 into the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:

There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story

(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Excuse any grammar faults as Im a Dutchy, dont really write in English that much ;-)

Godspeed to all

Salus populi suprema lex

I'm unsure why you especially pick me out, but I feel honoured. Thank you!

There are indeed capable and / or qualified people who profess doubts regarding various aspects of 9/11. They do indeed voice their doubts - sometimes quite strongly.

Why should we believe them?

Well, firstly, they are qualified. That means they should have their opinions listened to and evaluated. Should they automatically have their opinions taken as fact? NO. It means they should be listened to, because they have qualifications in the subject area. You should then seek the opinion of more people in the subject area, continuing until a clear consensus is obtained. Once this is obtained, you can be in a position to decide the veracity of various claims.

If, however, the claims by one (or a minority of qualified people) are refuted by the majority of qualified people, then those claims or opinions should be disregarded or treated with a degree of suspicion with respect to their veracity.

Another aspect to consider is the qualification of people who make the claims. What are they qualified in? A professor in philosophy is indeed a learned person... but their opinions regarding technical matters in a field such as physics or mechanical engineering or aeronautics is no more valid than anyone else's unless they are supported by a consensus of professionals qualified in that field.

I urge people to always consider these facts when evaluating the various 9/11 claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:

There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story

(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Have you read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things"?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Believe-Wei...7125&sr=8-1

He includes a chapter "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" which addresses the question you raise, and his answer is that, all too often, intelligent people use their intelligence to confirm their beliefs rather than to test them. You only have to look at the posts of the more intelligent conspiracy believers on this forum to see this in action. When confronted with evidence that their theory is wrong, their reaction is to look for reasons to disregard that evidence, and being intelligent, they can always come up with something, however unlikely.

Here's another link on this unscientific way of testing a theory:

http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic. The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING. They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic. The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING. They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.

Pseudo? Having "mundane explanations to EVERYTHING" is a pretty good definition of a sceptic. A sceptic only looks for an extraordinary explanation if a mundane one doesn't apply. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noteaph,

If you look at my last post and apply those principles to the "Scholars for 9-11 Truth", I believe you'll find that:

- A number of the members are not scholars in the normal meaning of the word;

- Those that are scholars mainly come from fields not directly applicable to 9/11 (philosophy, etc); and

- Those scholars that are in the related fields espouse theories that are NOT supported by the large majority of their peers.

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.