Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

false-flag operation


illuminated

Recommended Posts

no comment... this is so sad that people still trust those who lied them countless times... but dont trust the fair working man

More pointless blustering with no substance.

Since you're not American, I don't think you can offer an opinion on whether or not we trust our government. Believing in the overwhelming evidence against these idiotic CTs has nothing to do with trusting government. This is what gave the "truther" movement traction - since we were highly dissatisfied with our government, the WANTING to believe they could do this was present. But that does not negate reality.

It also has nothing to do with "trusting the fair working man", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    60

  • TK0001

    51

  • Q24

    45

  • SolarPlexus

    36

why is nobody talking about this recently released clip - the lobby was blown up with secondary explosions, firefighters first hand testimony.

I cannot see anyway to square this with the official explanation of collapse. watch the video.

The simple explanation is that a lift shaft is a very good way for a fuel/air explosion to carry a long distance with undiminished force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no comment... this is so sad that people still trust those who lied them countless times... but dont trust the fair working man

More pointless blustering with no substance.

Since you're not American, I don't think you can offer an opinion on whether or not we trust our government...

But why I cant say opinion?

Edited by SolarPlexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why I cant say opinion?

Feel free. Just don't expect to hear none in return when you presume to speak for all Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is no one looking at this?

English author and public speaker David Icke argues that reptilian,shape shifters are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. Icke's 2002 book Alice in Wonderland and the World TradeCenter Disaster is focused on the 9/11 attacks. 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites reject Icke's theories.

Makes about as much sense as the other theories.........

I have been trying to sum up why this very small minority of people refuse to see the truth , so I will try to post some...

An article in the September 11, 2006 edition of Time magazine comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories "depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses", and enjoy continued popularity because"the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting". It concludes that "conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events" and constitute "an American form of national mourning."

Doug MacEachern in a May 2008 column for the Arizona Republic wrote that while many "9/11 truthers" are not crackpots that espouse "crackpot conspiracy theories", supporters of the theories fail to take into account both human nature and that nobody has come forward claiming they were participants in the alleged conspiracies. This view seconded by Timothy Giannuzzi, a columnist specializing in foreign policy.

Charlie Brooker a British comedian and multimedia personality, in a July 2008 column published by The Guardian as part of its "Comment is free" series agreed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists fail to take in account human fallacies and added that believing in these theories gives theorists a sense of belonging to a community that shares privileged information thus giving the theorists a delusional sense of power.

Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation. A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT,suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.

For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove, or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or a combination of well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones : paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.

My link

Now I kind of feel sorry for these little guys...Group hug ?

Edited by Sakari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free. Just don't expect to hear none in return when you presume to speak for all Americans.

Whoa where did you get that idea from?? Please take a closer look at what i said :) ...

... this is so sad that people still trust those who lied them countless times...

I didn't say nothing specific... I said 'people', not 'all americans' okay?

I understand your patriotism but there is no need to generalize (be assumptive) :)

Edited by SolarPlexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these buildings were indeed wired up with explosives, please tell me:

1. How no detonation chord was found in the rubble.

2. Since the collapses initiated at the point of impact:

2a. How the explosives survived direct impacts from the planes

2b. How amateur pilots precisely hit the places where the explosives were planted

I've been asking these questions over and over again, and nobody wants to tackle them for some reason.

Actually I answered these questions the last time you asked them here.

You disappeared.

Now you repeat them again and pretend nobody wants to tackle them.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I answered these questions the last time you asked them here.

You disappeared.

Now you repeat them again and pretend nobody wants to tackle them.

:blink:

My apologies, you did try to tackle them.

You said:

As for how sufficient charges survived the impact and fire, thermite has a high ignition temperature that cannot be achieved by conventional methods or diffuse flames as in the WTC. The ignition method could have been some form of electrical or chemical detonator that it would not be possible for any direct impact or fire to initiate – still remember, there were limited columns which actually took the impact. There are further methods which could safeguard the demolition set-up such as constructing the units from a durable, heat resistant material, attaching them to the columns facing away from impact or even placement slightly below where the impact is planned to occur.

Nothing about how these amateur pilots found those exact spots and flew their planes into them, or how these charges survived direct impact. You seem to think it's perfectly plausible that they survived the impacts, yet this as-yet-to-be-mentioned indestructible material that these charges were encased in wasn't found on the scene. Which materials could've housed cutter charges and survive an impact from a 767, anyway?

Regarding the videos you posted, there is nothing telling me what material is burning in the second one. But if it's indeed thermite, it is being ignited with a lighter. This goes against your first sentence above.

Beyond that, you've provided no plausible justification as to why "they" needed to go to such outlandish lengths to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about how these amateur pilots found those exact spots and flew their planes into them, or how these charges survived direct impact. You seem to think it's perfectly plausible that they survived the impacts, yet this as-yet-to-be-mentioned indestructible material that these charges were encased in wasn't found on the scene. Which materials could've housed cutter charges and survive an impact from a 767, anyway?

You misunderstand…

I said “durable” not “indestructible”.

And…

I don’t think that the charges would survive a direct impact – but as I said, we know there were limited columns that actually took a direct impact, those which did being damaged and/or severed rendering a charge unecessary at those points. In other words, where the plane directly impacted the charges it also destroyed the columns doing the job for them. Where the plane did not directly impact the columns the charges would remain. Some charges would have been destroyed and some would not, the same as some columns were destroyed and some were not. Have I said it enough ways to make sense yet?

I think I have already made reasonable suggestions regarding why fire would not initiate the charges early.

Moving on to how “amateur pilots found those exact spots” I think you are the only one claiming they did, i.e. this is a bit of a strawman argument. Further I don’t actually think it necessary for the charges to be located at the exact impact level to give the witnessed results. Even if the core structure failed a number of floors below the impact zone, external failure will first occur at the weakest point – that is the impact zone.

Still, I will try to expand on the point. First there is the possibility that the planes were piloted by a remote guidance system. This would require only setting of the altitude to impact at the approximate correct floor. Another possibility, especially if you believe that amatuer pilots were in the cockpit, is that charges were placed at intervals throughtout the upper storeys of the towers. This would allow for the collapse to be initiated from various levels as necessary.

These are plausible solutions as to how the charges could still be effective after the impact.

Regarding the videos you posted, there is nothing telling me what material is burning in the second one. But if it's indeed thermite, it is being ignited with a lighter. This goes against your first sentence above.

It certainly looks like a thermite reaction.

The fire would not have ignited this charge - I don’t think that it can. What may have happened is that this particular charge in the damage path was displaced from the core into the vicinity of the North-East corner. It could have been damaged but remained intact enough to function. This charge ignited when the rest of them were triggered, noticeably in the few minutes prior to collapse. I think this is a very possible theory.

Beyond that, you've provided no plausible justification as to why "they" needed to go to such outlandish lengths to begin with.

I can name the leading suspects and explain their motive if you don’t like “they”.

Well, we had a discussion early on in this thread about why a “new Pearl Harbor” type event was of benefit to certain American interests. Hundreds killed and a few repaired buildings is not going to match Pearl Harbor or sustain a long War on Terror for long. However, with the landmark buildings removed there would be a permanent reminder to fuel public support for decades.

There is the additional issue that removal of asbestos in the Twin Towers to meet building codes had been estimated in the worst case to cost in the double-digit $billions. This is far more than the current rebuild project that is ongoing and largely funded by the taxpayer and insurance payouts at that. The Port Authority had been trying to claim on their insurance to have this fixed for years and with 9/11 the problem was gone. I’m not saying this is a decisive reason for removing the buildings though, added to the first point, it clearly killed two birds with one stone.

I don’t see why anything in this post should be problematic to the theory.

The explanations all fit horribly well with the background, physical evidence and resultant actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple explanation is that a lift shaft is a very good way for a fuel/air explosion to carry a long distance with undiminished force.

would you take another look at the clip. what you are saying cannot explain what the firefighters are saying.

"there was a third explosion and the whole lobby collpased on us."

"definitely a secondary explosion, we were inside waiting to go up and the whole thing blew."

"we came after the fire, we were in the staging area already waiting to go upstairs, then the explosion and the whole lobby collapsed."

"we were in the building for the third one, the collapse, I was on this driveway here for the other one"

any fuel/air explosion down a lift shaft would have occurred when the plane hit - the firefighters were not in the building at the time the plane hit. they were in the lobby waiting to go upstairs to deal with the fire.

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying the only things that make loud banging noises are explosives? Do you think it's unusual that a failing building would occasionally make popping and banging noises?

I'm not saying "definitely a secondary explosion", it is the firefighters that were there that are saying "definitely a secondary explosion".

"loud banging noises" don't cause lobbies to collapse without explosive force.

I don't see how this doesn't square with the official version of the collapse. I don't recall the official version saying the buildings were completely silent prior to collapse.

what was the event that caused the explosion and destruction of the lobby if not explosives?

the official version is that the building collapsed from the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying "definitely a secondary explosion", it is the firefighters that were there that are saying "definitely a secondary explosion".

"loud banging noises" don't cause lobbies to collapse without explosive force.

what was the event that caused the explosion and destruction of the lobby if not explosives?

the official version is that the building collapsed from the top.

If fire made it's way to the basement levels via elevator shafts, then certainly there were things that would be in danger of exploding down there, like diesel generators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any fuel/air explosion down a lift shaft would have occurred when the plane hit - the firefighters were not in the building at the time the plane hit. they were in the lobby waiting to go upstairs to deal with the fire.

Not necessarily. With the enormous quantity of fuel involved, some could have well pooled away from the initial fires and only ignited later when the fires spread.

The fact that TK and I come up with different explanations shows that there is a range of possibilities that don't involve high explosives.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24,

This is the second video you posted, to which you say "The fire would not have ignited this charge - I don’t think that it can". This substance is being ignited with a common cigarette lighter.

So, to your point:

I think I have already made reasonable suggestions regarding why fire would not initiate the charges early.

No, you haven't.

You misunderstand…

I said “durable” not “indestructible”.

I know what you said. I threw in "indestructible" because that's what the material would have to be to survive a head-on collision with a 767, which is apparently what "they" figured would happen if they planted charges in the pre-planned impact site. My question is what material could this have been, and was any found on the site?

You seem to think that typing out enormous posts makes the absurdity of this plan go away, but it doesn't. You are saying the planes were "fake hijacked" and then remotely piloted to fly into the towers with surgical precision, in the exact locations next to thermite charges wrapped in some indestructible material and some were miraculously undamaged until the correct time, when they all somehow suddenly fired and the buildings came down. To you, this is plausible.

On the other hand is the official version which says the planes were hijacked and flown into buildings, where fires worked to weaken exposed beams, eventually collapsing the buildings. To you, this is completely implausible.

I often wonder if you're just playing devil's advocate with us here, and this is all an exercise in writing skills to you. Politicians know that if you're verbose enough, anything can sound reasonable. I think you're the same way. You wrap absurd thoughts in layer upon layer of wording in an effort to make it sound plausible, but at the end of the day it's still absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying "definitely a secondary explosion", it is the firefighters that were there that are saying "definitely a secondary explosion".

"loud banging noises" don't cause lobbies to collapse without explosive force.

what was the event that caused the explosion and destruction of the lobby if not explosives?

the official version is that the building collapsed from the top.

We must account for the unusual properties of this fire, Little Fish.

You see, it can cause fireballs to barrel down lift shafts on impact but fuel can also ‘hide away’ from the ignition source at the same time, ready to cause numerous low level explosions later. It cannot however pool or flow down the outer face of the building… only ever in the lift shafts where no one can see. This fire below the impact zones is also special in that the flames causing later explosions were invisible to eyewitnesses who describe the damage that it caused. Finally it has a deceptive quality in that it can convince experienced FDNY personnel that it is not really fire at all but secondary devices! I don’t need to mention that this particular fire made three huge buildings imitate features of a controlled demolition, could produce a thermite-looking substance, sound terribly like a shaped-charge and melt (yes, melt) steel. As NIST said, it was quite “extraordinary”.

I hope this helps explain it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you said. I threw in "indestructible" because that's what the material would have to be to survive a head-on collision with a 767, which is apparently what "they" figured would happen if they planted charges in the pre-planned impact site. My question is what material could this have been, and was any found on the site?

You seem to think that typing out enormous posts makes the absurdity of this plan go away, but it doesn't. You are saying the planes were "fake hijacked" and then remotely piloted to fly into the towers with surgical precision, in the exact locations next to thermite charges wrapped in some indestructible material and some were miraculously undamaged until the correct time, when they all somehow suddenly fired and the buildings came down. To you, this is plausible.

As you are still going on about “indestructible” materials and “precision” impacts it seems that you didn’t actually read my post properly.

You wrap absurd thoughts in layer upon layer of wording in an effort to make it sound plausible, but at the end of the day it's still absurd.

As it seems that you did not read my post properly I’m not sure that you can judge my thoughts.

Read my previous post properly and see if you can come back with a response that is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you are still going on about “indestructible” materials and “precision” impacts it seems that you didn’t actually read my post properly.

As it seems that you did not read my post properly I’m not sure that you can judge my thoughts.

Read my previous post properly and see if you can come back with a response that is relevant.

You're telling me your post didn't involve autopiloted planes crashing into the buildings at precise locations and thermite charges wrapped in "indestructible" (my word) or "durable" (yours) materials?

Sorry I didn't read that properly.

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must account for the unusual properties of this fire, Little Fish.

You see, it can cause fireballs to barrel down lift shafts on impact but fuel can also ‘hide away’ from the ignition source at the same time, ready to cause numerous low level explosions later. It cannot however pool or flow down the outer face of the building… only ever in the lift shafts where no one can see. This fire below the impact zones is also special in that the flames causing later explosions were invisible to eyewitnesses who describe the damage that it caused. Finally it has a deceptive quality in that it can convince experienced FDNY personnel that it is not really fire at all but secondary devices! I don’t need to mention that this particular fire made three huge buildings imitate features of a controlled demolition, could produce a thermite-looking substance, sound terribly like a shaped-charge and melt (yes, melt) steel. As NIST said, it was quite “extraordinary”.

I hope this helps explain it. ;)

What's more plausible? The collapses initiated at the points of impact (which is unlike a CD), so if there were explosives in the basement, they certainly failed to do their jobs. You would think "they" would have learned from the '93 bombing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're telling me your post didn't involve autopiloted planes crashing into the buildings at precise locations and thermite charges wrapped in "indestructible" (my word) or "durable" (yours) materials?

Sorry I didn't read that properly.

:wacko:

It’s ok, just try reading the post again.

See if you can spot the following points…

  • Why the planes did not need to crash at “precise locations”.
  • How I do not believe the charges were “indestructible”.
  • How the ignition method could be proofed against fire.

You have to go back to my original post here to find the last one.

You say people avoid your questions.

The fact is that you miss the answers and continue on the same broken track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. With the enormous quantity of fuel involved, some could have well pooled away from the initial fires and only ignited later when the fires spread.

The fact that TK and I come up with different explanations shows that there is a range of possibilities that don't involve high explosives.

there was no mention of fire destroying the lobby.

the firefighters said :

"we were inside the lobby and there was a third explosion and the whole lobby collapsed on us, the whole building just collapsed on us, yes it was definitely a secondary explosion"

"people don't understand, there maybe more, any one of these buildings could blow up, this ain't done yet"

jet fuel?

you can't be serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was no mention of fire destroying the lobby.

the firefighters said :

"we were inside the lobby and there was a third explosion and the whole lobby collapsed on us, the whole building just collapsed on us, yes it was definitely a secondary explosion"

"people don't understand, there maybe more, any one of these buildings could blow up, this ain't done yet"

jet fuel?

you can't be serious?

I think if I were a firefighter on the scene and I heard an explosion, I might probably would think there was a bomb going off somewhere. That doesn't mean there actually were bombs, though, it only means there were explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was no mention of fire destroying the lobby.

I didn't say there was. I said a fuel/air explosion. In case you are unaware of the existance of such a phenomenon, here's a link:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

Fuel/air explosive represent the military application of the vapor cloud explosions and dust explosions accidents that have long bedeviled a variety of industries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Why the planes did not need to crash at “precise locations”.

The collapses initiated at the points of impact. If there were charges planted, they were planted in those locations. Now, you may want to get bogged down in semantics and argue what exactly "precise" means when it pertains to a 767 flying at 500 mph, but you would look silly doing so.

[*]How I do not believe the charges were “indestructible”.

More semantics. Fine, I'll say this material was "durable". So what material was it? Was it a unique material that would stick out like a sore thumb in the rubble? Something that would be out of place in a office building?

[*]How the ignition method could be proofed against fire.

So why haven't you addressed the fact that the material in the video you posted, which you say is thermite, which you say can't be ignited with fire, was ignited by a cigarette lighter? I suppose I didn't read your words properly again...

Edited by TK0001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was no mention of fire destroying the lobby.

I didn't say there was. I said a fuel/air explosion. In case you are unaware of the existance of such a phenomenon, here's a link:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

Fuel/air explosive represent the military application of the vapor cloud explosions and dust explosions accidents that have long bedeviled a variety of industries.

you mean like this one, but without the fire?

without the fire?

seriously?

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean like this one, but without the fire?

without the fire?

seriously?

Seriously. Watch the video again. Notice at about 0:15 the blast wave moving off to the left while the fire remains behind.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.