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 -
darkbreed

911: Professional experts says it was staged

512 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Little Fish
:cry: That's a serious question, I shall assume?
of course it is a serious question. masses of material were moved in and out of the building every day. I don't see any reason to think it is impossible to move some tons of materials into the buildings. there were renovations going on all the time there. as harrit answered to how was it moved into the building- "on pallets and you drive it in on a truck"
How is the mass of the buildings related to the difficulty of plcing tons of explosive into one of them?

the bigger the building, then the less difficulty of placing something covertly that weighs tons, seems to be obvious to me.

the unreacted thermite was ubiqitous to the dust.

if you are thinking it is impossible for tons of thermite to have been placed in the building, then where do you suggest it came from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

of course it is a serious question. masses of material were moved in and out of the building every day. I don't see any reason to think it is impossible to move some tons of materials into the buildings. there were renovations going on all the time there. as harrit answered to how was it moved into the building- "on pallets and you drive it in on a truck"

Oh, OK. I completely understand. I'd love to have interviewed the puchasing departments, and the receiving docks and security departments to see when tons of thermite were purchased, and received...who checked them in, who cleared those pallets, where they were stored, and who might have moved them subsequently.

Makes perfect sense to me that such a substance, which has no real use in an office building, got delivered there, supossedly under the noses of everyone who handled and procured materials and controlled inventories.

Dock buzzer rings, driver walks in, receiver stands ready, driver says, "Hey, Pal, got 6 pallets of thermite for ya." And our receiver dutifully says, "OK, I'll get it, door 3 right there!"

the delivery's completed, and the receiver says, as they look through the packing lists and freight bills, "Hey, what's Thermite anyway?" Supervisor says, "Hmmm, Joe, I don't know, I'll contact Bill up in purchasing and find out."

Uh huh. I can see that. Then, somehow, tons of Thermite are suddenly, gopne. Somehow, sometime, that inventory was absconded with and slathered all over steel beams by someone, somehow.

Gotcha!

:rolleyes:

the bigger the building, then the less difficulty of placing something covertly that weighs tons, seems to be obvious to me.

You never worked in a big building, did you? You never were involved in procurement, inventory control, or any of those nominal business functions, were you?

The biggeer the building, the more staff you had, and the more controls, and the more security constraints.

But hey...anything's possible, right?

;)

if you are thinking it is impossible for tons of thermite to have been placed in the building, then where do you suggest it came from?

I neither suggest that it was there, nor would have any idea where it came from if it was there!

Call procurement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

anyone have any thoughts on this?

I'm sure some will say it is fake, but i believe it is a new video shot never seen before today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JqEGAZ4fg

this is the south side, wasn't it supposed to be engulfed in flame?

there is no visible damage from wtc1 collapse.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Looks like a video of a building, possibly WTC7, blowing out windows prior to collapsing. The random sequence of the blowouts points to a gradual (relatively speaking) build-up of pressure finding a weak point, rather than a massive explosive force obliterating everything in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Looks like a video of a building, possibly WTC7, blowing out windows prior to collapsing. The random sequence of the blowouts points to a gradual (relatively speaking) build-up of pressure finding a weak point, rather than a massive explosive force obliterating everything in the way.

yes it is wtc7.

you don't see the flashes and hear the bangs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psychoticmike

i can't edit my post for some reason but watch from 5:57 on he shows that a pretty small amount of thermate can be used to cut the steel beams.

Edited by psychoticmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

i can't edit my post for some reason but watch from 5:57 on he shows that a pretty small amount of thermate can be used to cut the steel beams.

The video's only 47 seconds long and it shows nothing...

Can the thermite./ Jesus Almighty (almost like a swear word, huh?), what the hell with this crap, anyway?!??!

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

MID, I think he was talking about the video he posted, not the one from Little Fish.

anyone have any thoughts on this?

I'm sure some will say it is fake, but i believe it is a new video shot never seen before today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JqEGAZ4fg

this is the south side, wasn't it supposed to be engulfed in flame?

there is no visible damage from wtc1 collapse.

I'll embody your prediction. I think this video is complete BS.

The question you should ask yourself is "why would the supposed truth movement need to fabricate a video like this?"

Where is the rest of the video?

I have little doubt that this will soon be proven to be completely fake. And yes, when I say that "I think this video is complete BS." I am communicating a belief only at this point.

I'll further add that if this proves to be a legitimate video of what happened (miraculously) I will be the first person to start taking the conspiracy theorists more seriously. I don't expect that to happen though because I just can't fathom that this is a legitimate video.

I likewise challenge you to honestly question the entire "truth movement" if this video proves to be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psychoticmike

what I don't get is why people assume that each tower would have to be completely rigged with the stuff to work. Why couldn't they just use a relatively small amount at just the base of the towers to initiate the collapse and then the weight of the building did the rest? I found this video, i don't know if it has been posted on other 9/11 threads but i found it of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA

oops sorry, didn't realize it was covered in the toronto hearings video.

and yes mid i was talking about the vid i posted.

Edited by psychoticmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

MID, I think he was talking about the video he posted, not the one from Little Fish.

I'll embody your prediction. I think this video is complete BS.

The question you should ask yourself is "why would the supposed truth movement need to fabricate a video like this?"

Where is the rest of the video?

I have little doubt that this will soon be proven to be completely fake. And yes, when I say that "I think this video is complete BS." I am communicating a belief only at this point.

I'll further add that if this proves to be a legitimate video of what happened (miraculously) I will be the first person to start taking the conspiracy theorists more seriously. I don't expect that to happen though because I just can't fathom that this is a legitimate video.

I likewise challenge you to honestly question the entire "truth movement" if this video proves to be false.

ounds like a bunch of picture flashes,then the builing collapses...kibda LIKE AHAT I OBSEVED All those tyars ago

Saw that...wonder What the government estabishment thinks of it after all these years!

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozner

You may well be right. But I imagine you're mistaken as to -who- has done the intense studying. Every official report on the subject that I've seen to date has been blown apart by independent researchers. Name an official report, I bet I can find a well written rebuttal. And I'm not talking about layman rebuttals. No, I'm talking about physicists, architects and engineers with structural engineering knowledge writing them.

So there were hundreds of people involved in a conspiracy that happened ten years ago, and no one has come forward since then to state that they were involved in some way with rigging the WTC with explosives. For an unknown reason the destruction of the WTC also required a massively complicated plane crash event to be merely a distraction, despite the fact that the WTC was almost taken down before in a basement bombing, and the public would have no problem accepting that the WTC was taken down by bombs set by terrorists. And on top of all of this, there was yet another highly complicated operation involving getting all of the people studying the event to agree with official study. And despite the governments success with covering up this mammoth operation, numerous people (bizarrely none of them were actually involved in the "demolition,") are all are simply allowed to spread the "truth" without any reprisal from the apparently very violent and well organized government. Or you could be mistaken, and those rebuttals simply aren't really that good. Which of these seems more likely?

Why don't you take a look yourself? Their names and qualifications are posted for all to see:

http://www2.ae911tru....php#supporters

They'd listed in a few categories. If you want to learn more about any individual, simply click on their name.

So lets say that they are pretty good at what they do- now they have the problem of being hopelessly outnumbered by their peers.

Edited by Ozner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

yes it is wtc7.

Sorry Little Fish, I understand that from your point of view it is considered "ignoring the evidence", but from my point of view, validation of the evidence is an extremely important part of any investigation. I am willing to assume, for the purposes of the argument, that this is indeed WTC7, but that does not mean that I will forget that the source of this video has yet to be validated.

Without validation, it doesn't matter what conclusion you come up with. Context has a nasty habit of changing outcomes.

you don't see the flashes and hear the bangs?

Yes, I do. I have two choices: One is to assume that, for some inexplicable reason, the demolition experts chose to put an extremely limited and otherwise useless explosive in such a way that it would blow out random windows, but not affect the ones next to them. This leads to many questions such as the purpose of the explosives, why didn't they break other windows, and why was the pattern so random, among others. Alternatively, I can believe that the flexing of the building structure caused the windows to catastrophically fail. This would explain why only random windows broke, it would explain the flashes of light from when those windows flexed out, it would explain the sharp cracks from these huge windows catastrophically failing, and it would not really generate any more questions regarding itself. A good explanation generates follow-up questions to the event, not to itself. If you are spending all your time trying to answer questions about your explanation, then all you are really doing is justifying your explanation.

You have this tendency of starting from the wrong end. You assume explosive demolition took place and look for evidence of it. That leads to a dangerous bit of bias when you start assuming that evidence which supports your theory is valid, even though you never actually validated it. Working backwards is a technique that is often used and used effectively however the people who use it keep in mind at all times that unless their explanation works perfectly backwards and forwards, then it really hasn't got a lot of explanatory power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I'll embody your prediction. I think this video is complete BS.

The question you should ask yourself is "why would the supposed truth movement need to fabricate a video like this?"

you know who faked it? after 24 hours, I'm impressed, can I see your evidence.
I likewise challenge you to honestly question the entire "truth movement" if this video proves to be false.
you'll need to show who created it, then I will direct my mistrust towards the person(s) that created it. you are jumping to conclusions if you think you know who created it. can I ask the same of you - that you question the integrity of the debunkers if it turns out one of them faked it?

and yes it maybe fake since the dark band at the top did not exist on the top of the south side, so at the very least the video has been flipped, so the video does not show the south side as I stated earlier, it is the north side.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
You have this tendency of starting from the wrong end. You assume explosive demolition took place and look for evidence of it. That leads to a dangerous bit of bias when you start assuming that evidence which supports your theory is valid, even though you never actually validated it. Working backwards is a technique that is often used and used effectively however the people who use it keep in mind at all times that unless their explanation works perfectly backwards and forwards, then it really hasn't got a lot of explanatory power.

that is a bit unkind. I was asking for thoughts on the video. I was not assuming the video was valid. you have assumed that i assumed the video was valid. you do take the biscuit sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

that is a bit unkind.

What is? Saying that you are starting from the wrong end (even after explaining that it is a valid technique, done properly)? Or saying that you are not doing it properly (and explaining what sort of behaviour results from falling into this specific fallacy).

Which of those did you regard as being something intended as a personal unkindness?

I was asking for thoughts on the video. I was not assuming the video was valid. you have assumed that i assumed the video was valid. you do take the biscuit sometimes.

You are being judged on your past actions. Yes, I did assume that you consider the video to be valid, and I still do so. That is what your past behaviour would indicate to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

What is?

I just told you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

the video has been manipulated.

in addition to the video being inverted, (the penthouse should be on the left).

in the video, the building collapses at the same time as the penthouse.

in reality the building collapses some seconds after the penthouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

So there were hundreds of people involved in a conspiracy that happened ten years ago,

I'm not sure that hundreds had to be involved.

and no one has come forward since then to state that they were involved in some way with rigging the WTC with explosives.

You honestly believe one of the criminals behind 9/11 would come forward? Please.

For an unknown reason the destruction of the WTC also required a massively complicated plane crash event to be merely a distraction,

It doesn't seem all that complicated to me; rig the building with explosives, then get a plane to crash into it so that people will believe that the plane caused the collapse not the explosives. If people knew that explosives caused the building, then they would look for the -real- culprits, instead of the patsies. It's much the same as the story of Lee Harvey Oswald; patsies are great when you want to get away with a crime.

despite the fact that the WTC was almost taken down before in a basement bombing,

Not even close. However, you may be interested in reading the following articles regarding the 93 bombing. Here's the New York Times watered down version:

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast

And here's a quote from one of the tapes that was secretly recorded between the FBI informant who made the bomb and one of his FBI handlers:

FBI: But ah basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary but you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. (Nancy Floyd is another FBI agent who worked with Salem in his informant capacity. The second tape obtained by the SHADOW is of a telephone conversation between Salem and Floyd -Ed.)

SALEM: Well, I have to tell her of course.

FBI: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.

FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.

SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a b****." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

Source: http://pdr.autono.ne...oBombedWTC.html

and the public would have no problem accepting that the WTC was taken down by bombs set by terrorists.

Maybe after the 93 fiasco, they would have been somewhat more wary. But not only that; it's one thing to put a bomb in a truck in the basement parking lot. It's quite another to rig an entire -building- with explosives. That would have required months of work. And really skilled explosives experts. There are very few organizations in the world who could have pulled it off. I believe Mossad, Israel's CIA equivalent, could have done it. As a matter of fact, there's a fair amount of evidence suggesting that this is exactly what happened:

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11

And on top of all of this, there was yet another highly complicated operation involving getting all of the people studying the event to agree with official study.

There weren't that many initially. You're also assuming the they were coerced; it's much more likely that they simply believed what they wanted to believe. The investigation was also done in a fairly sloppy manner. Even some of the initial investigators weren't exactly pleased with the way it was done. Take a look:

The only government entity that purported to examine the collapse of Building 7 within the year following the attack was the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) composed of volunteer engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). That investigation was taken over by the the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in late 2001 amid complaints that the ASCE investigation was being hampered.

Source: http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html

And despite the governments success with covering up this mammoth operation, numerous people... are all are simply allowed to spread the "truth" without any reprisal from the apparently very violent and well organized government.

You've shown no evidence that there haven't been some reprisals. I'm not saying that there's any direct evidence that there have been either, but you may want to see this video:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bvay28lZiHU

So lets say that they are pretty good at what they do- now they have the problem of being hopelessly outnumbered by their peers.

Their peers are generally silent on the issue. As someone pointed out here, there's only one petition for people to sign on to that supports the official story; it only has about 50 names and most of those are clearly not serious.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

you know who faked it? after 24 hours, I'm impressed, can I see your evidence.

you'll need to show who created it, then I will direct my mistrust towards the person(s) that created it. you are jumping to conclusions if you think you know who created it. can I ask the same of you - that you question the integrity of the debunkers if it turns out one of them faked it?

Did you not read my entire post or something? Where did I claim to know who faked it? I didn't even claim to know that it was fake. I expressly stated that it was only my belief at this point but that I expect it to be shown to be fake. Here, these are the relevant portions of what I actually said. Emphasis mine.:

I'll embody your prediction. I think this video is complete BS.

--

Where is the rest of the video?

I have little doubt that this will soon be proven to be completely fake. And yes, when I say that "I think this video is complete BS." I am communicating a belief only at this point.

--

Please do make an effort to understand the full context of what I'm saying instead of focusing in on one little bit. What you've done here is completely change the meaning of what I said by excluding the clarifying points that followed my initial statement.

I'm not overly surprised by this tactic though. It seems to be very common among 911 truthers to selectively cherry pick what they perceive supports their view while ignoring the things that don't. Don't you find such tactics to be dishonest? I do.

and yes it maybe fake since the dark band at the top did not exist on the top of the south side, so at the very least the video has been flipped, so the video does not show the south side as I stated earlier, it is the north side.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Where did I claim to know who faked it?
right here: "I likewise challenge you to honestly question the entire "truth movement" if this video proves to be false."

which is saying that if the video is fake then the "truth movement" faked it, you can't draw that conclusion.

but none of this matters because nanothermite was found in the wtc dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozner

I'm not sure that hundreds had to be involved.

You need to have people to rig the demolition, fly the planes, plan the event, cover up the event, etc... hundreds may even be a low estimate. I can't imagine how anyone could argue that less than a couple hundred people would know about this.

You honestly believe one of the criminals behind 9/11 would come forward? Please.

With the amount of people that would be involved, yes, many people would have eventually come forward. With conspiracies involving large numbers of people someone ALWAYS spills the beans. The people in the government also aren't monsters, only a handful of them would ever agree to the plan. That many people would not only agree to it, and none of them ever regret it later, is ridiculous.

It doesn't seem all that complicated to me; rig the building with explosives, then get a plane to crash into it so that people will believe that the plane caused the collapse not the explosives. If people knew that explosives caused the building, then they would look for the -real- culprits, instead of the patsies. It's much the same as the story of Lee Harvey Oswald; patsies are great when you want to get away with a crime.

The whole project is overwhelmingly complicated, for numerous reasons. The logistics would be a nightmare to handle, much less cover up.

1. Someone has to conceptualize the attack, then put it forward to their superiors/staff, and they would have had to take it seriously instead of arresting them for treason, or thinking it was a joke or a prank. They also have to convince everyone involved that there will be some kind of benefit to the attack that outweighs the damage. At no point in this planning stage would a single person have gone to the media. Also they would have to find a way to hide the information in a way that it could never be found by anyone else, even future members of the government, including future presidents.

2. An excuse to invade Iraq is not an acceptable answer. We had already invaded Iraq before, and the 2003 invasion already had an excuse- weapons of mass destruction.

Virtually nothing would be gained from the invasion of Afghanistan if Islamic terrorists weren't responsible for 9/11. If the goal was the create a tighter "police state" then a large number of small attacks spread out across the country would have been much more effective.

3. The planes would not have been needed. If a government group can apparently plant demolition charges unnoticed in these buildings then the government could easily argue that a terrorist group could have done it in secret, perhaps even disguised as building workers. Or they could have simply gone with the plane attack and forgo the demolition, since even if the planes didn't topple the towers, the damage would make a sufficient false flag attack. They would have chosen either the planes or the bombs, it would be far too reckless to chose both.

The WTC destruction would be both one of the most useless and poorly planned false flag attacks in history, yet at the same time it would also be masterfully orchestrated and covered up. Looking through minor details and videos of what happened is insignificant when the whole picture simply doesn't add up. No one even needs to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories, Occam's Razor has already sliced it into a thousand pieces.

Edited by Ozner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

right here: "I likewise challenge you to honestly question the entire "truth movement" if this video proves to be false."

which is saying that if the video is fake then the "truth movement" faked it, you can't draw that conclusion.

Ah, I see what you mean. In that case I concede the point. You are right that without knowing who created it specifically it would be incorrect to assume that it was faked by a truther. I made an assumption without even realizing it.

but none of this matters because nanothermite was found in the wtc dust.

I didn't find the presentation by Niels Harrit to be as convincing as you apparently did, though I do find it worthy of consideration. I'll have to watch it again and review some other materials as well. I think it is a bit irresponsible to state emphatically that his one test conclusively proves this and that it is the only possible explanation. Some legitimate questions I would have are:

1. How do we know that the dust tested truly was from 9/11?

2. Can anyone else reproduce the test results that he has produced?

3. Are his interpretations of those results accurate or are there other possible explanations?

There are probably other questions as well, but the point is I don't know that this is a trustworthy conclusion yet. If it is, it should be reproducible and the source of the dust verifiable.

That being said, I do intend to watch the Toronto Hearings in their entirety as time allows.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
codebreaker5000

FDR new the Japanese where coming to "Pearl Harbor"...The United States sold Japan the steel to build there naval fleet.Intelligence reports indicated the Japanese would attack at "Pearl Harbor"...FDR let them come our boys will defeat them. We needed a reason to enter the war with Germany and her allies...

President Harry S. Truman order the 2 nuclear bomb captured by they Nazi to be dropped on Japan...The fat boy project. `Our bombs where not ready in time to end the war. Alfred Einstein was informed in a letter by the president after the bombs had dropped...

After world War II...The United Nation where established...So where the "Bilderbergers"...

Richard Nixon and Vice President Lindon B. Johnson plotted to kill President J.F.Kennedy...To continue planning the war in Vietnam...

911 was staged in the same manner...Planned years in advance...By the United State Black Operatives...To create a war with the Middle Eastern Countries for oil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

FDR new the Japanese where coming to "Pearl Harbor"...The United States sold Japan the steel to build there naval fleet.Intelligence reports indicated the Japanese would attack at "Pearl Harbor"...FDR let them come our boys will defeat them. We needed a reason to enter the war with Germany and her allies...

President Harry S. Truman order the 2 nuclear bomb captured by they Nazi to be dropped on Japan...The fat boy project. `Our bombs where not ready in time to end the war. Alfred Einstein was informed in a letter by the president after the bombs had dropped...

After world War II...The United Nation where established...So where the "Bilderbergers"...

Richard Nixon and Vice President Lindon B. Johnson plotted to kill President J.F.Kennedy...To continue planning the war in Vietnam...

911 was staged in the same manner...Planned years in advance...By the United State Black Operatives...To create a war with the Middle Eastern Countries for oil...

Well...

I am guessing that we all know where you stand on these matters?

:rolleyes:

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
I didn't find the presentation by Niels Harrit to be as convincing as you apparently did, though I do find it worthy of consideration. I'll have to watch it again and review some other materials as well.

the published paper has the details you need to get a grasp of the presentation.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

I think it is a bit irresponsible to state emphatically that his one test conclusively proves this and that it is the only possible explanation.
there were many tests done outlined in the paper I linked.
Some legitimate questions I would have are:

1. How do we know that the dust tested truly was from 9/11?

the details of chain of custody is given in the paper. there were many samples taken by different people at different locations and different times around ground zero.
2. Can anyone else reproduce the test results that he has produced?
Mark Basile, chemical engineer has replicated the work-

"I can confirm these red chips are thermitic, they do produce molten iron...I have also seen it in an indepeendt sample sent to me from a museum in new york, I have seen thermitic activity in two independent samples of the dust"

3. Are his interpretations of those results accurate or are there other possible explanations?
bear in mind that Harrit is an emininent scientist and has been an associate professor for 30 years with dozens of published papers and his thermite work amd conclusions have been replicated.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.