The How Of 9/11 Revealed?

[Scotty CTA]

Again this is why I hate this pointless masturbatory speculation...

Well I don't hate it.

More than 13 1/2 years have passed.

Nothing wrong with brainstorming/thinking outside the box.

If there was an FBI/CIA/NSA/Secret Shadowy Lizard people (delete as appropriate) cover-up, I'm sure this would have been the first document released following the leaks by Edward Snowden.

I doubt very much that any such documents ever existed.

Your plane is mysteriously landed at a military base.

Your plane lands for precautionary/safety reasons.

You are disembarked...

All but 11 of the total number of people on the 4 planes stay on board.

...and military people tell you it is a drill.

Expert handlers get the selected people to make the desired calls. (It's what they do.)

Some passengers are isolated and told they need to call your parents and lie to them that you are in "a hijack situation and in danger of your life".

Maybe they weren't lying.

By the way who would call their elderly parents (or anyone?) and fake about their own kidnap even if some government goon told you to?

Someone who was scared and believed it?

They are then corralled into 'gas chambers'...

Gassed on the planes.

...and 'incinerated'.

Yes. That's the working theory.

[Scotty CTA]

It looks like they used soem sort of energy weapon in Iraq, but seriously the energy needed to basically turn the two buildings into their component atoms is astonishingly high.

It was probably a combination of methods that took the Twin Towers down.

[thplinth]

It looks like they used soem sort of energy weapon in Iraq, but seriously the energy needed to basically turn the two buildings into their component atoms is astonishingly high.

There is just no evidence for it at all so why bring it up. Wood's programme is right in that the 3 collapses on that day are very strange but the rest is rubbish. There is just no evidence for any of it.

Seriously considering putting Scotty on ignore just to save time scrolling.

[Guest]

There is just no evidence for it at all so why bring it up. Wood's programme is right in that the 3 collapses on that day are very strange but the rest is rubbish. There is just no evidence for any of it.

Seriously considering putting Scotty on ignore just to save time scrolling.

I disagree that there is 'no' evidence for Dr Wood's ideas but that what evidence there is remains inconclusive and open to interpretation. Any definitive evidence for what actually happened on the day has long since been placed beyond reach. What remains is an abundance of video and imagery, which by its nature lends itself to conjecture and speculation. I don't mind the discussions that arise as a result of this. I dislike entrenched perceptions and personal attacks, which is what these often descend into.

I think the magnitude of what happened and the 'impossibility' of it leads people to ever more complex and 'out there' attempts to explain it. Without wishing to sound melodramatic or pretentious (I may have failed) as well as the physical damage it was an attack on consciousness, freedom of thought and truth (whatever 'truth' is - this is a whole other debate). 9/11 is but a mere fragment of this ongoing attack, albeit a significant one and I think this is what pushes people so hard, sometimes into highly unusual territory, to make sense of it.

I have looked at some of the material relating to the planes/missiles/holograms etc etc but find it difficult to come to any firm conclusions.

In relation to the collapses themselves, based on the reading/watching I've done, Dr Wood's explanation provides the current 'best fit' for what was witnessed. This doesn't necessarily mean discounting multiple methods (explosives, invisible dragons, whatever). It is a compromise and I remain open to other explanations and evidence, should any be forthcoming.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mash it up Harry

[thplinth]

Well do what I did Harry, think back on the video and sum up the main pieces of evidence that she presents. Just bullets, what evidence did she present?

I think you'll find it is not evidence of anything really.

Take the 'dustification' of the steel pillars left standing briefly... if you covered steel pillars in heavy dust and then they collapsed straight down the dust on them would not fall as fast and would leave a 'dust footprint' hanging in the air. This does not mean the pillars turned to dust. It is all easily explained without the need to introduce energy weapons. And without any real evidence to do so is just a bad turn IMHO.

Edited April 14, 2015 by thplinth

[Guest]

Well do what I did Harry, think back on the video and sum up the main pieces of evidence that she presents. Just bullets, what evidence did she present?

I think you'll find it is not evidence of anything really.

Take the 'dustification' of the steel pillars left standing briefly... if you covered steel pillars in heavy dust and then they collapsed straight down the dust on them would not fall as fast and would leave a 'dust footprint' hanging in the air. This does not mean the pillars turned to dust. It is all easily explained without the need to introduce energy weapons. And without any real evidence to do so is just a bad turn IMHO.

To take your last point first re: the dustification of the steel pillars. I've watched that piece of footage numerous times and I've looked at the videos refuting that they were dustified and instead left a 'dust /'footprint as you describe. I happen to interpret that piece of footage in the same way as Dr Wood. If we try to analyse the minutiae of it on here, we're really getting into the navel gazing arena that you despise. It's as I said in my previous post, the nature of this particular evidence remains open to interpretation. Neither of us can 'prove' which viewpoint is the correct interpretation. I can only call it as I see it and to me it doesn't look like a dust footprint but does look like dustification.

I don't think it is 'all easily explained' without the need for energy weapons. I don't think any of us has witnessed anything similar before or since in the 'white' world, where two 500,000 tonne buildings appear to have been predominantly turned to dust (I'm talking about WTC1 & 2 only here). Is there footage anywhere else of buildings with similar mass (or not) being reduced to dust to the same apparent extent, with the use of explosives/controlled demolition? What other conventional explanations would explain what appears to be happening in the footage? Once again, we find ourselves relying on subjective interpretation of video footage. You see one thing, I see another.

I'll have a crack at the bullet points if I get a mo, but it's likely to come down to the same subjective interpretation, because that's all we've got. I introduced Dr Wood's work to the thread because it hadn't been considered/discussed. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just putting it out there for consideration. I've also looked at her work in the context of the overall 'Truth' movement. She has been attacked more than any other individual, as far as I can make out, with a different take on things (except, maybe for Scotty). I think she seems like she is genuinely trying to find the truth of the how. I'm less convinced by the other 'players' and their ad hominem attacks detract from their arguments and, rightly or wrongly, play some complex part in convincing me Dr Wood is possibly on the right track. I remain open to other ideas but for me, taking into consideration the broad reading/watching/interpretation I've done to date, her explanation remains the best fit at the current time. You obviously don't have to agree with this (and don't) and if you find compelling evidence for another explanation my mind could be changed. That's not a challenge, btw.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mash it up Harry

[thplinth]

If it was controlled demolition using conventional demolition technologies then I would have thought somewhere they did a mock up of the WTC construction (a few floors at least) and tested how it would work. That building was unique in many ways and to bring it down in one go perfectly first time in the way it did, it would have to have been tested in advance.

To leap to energy weapons is just too far and unnecessary.

I think 7 was rigged for sure but there may be a reason it was pre-rigged (for security reasons). I am not 100% on 1&2, probably bet yes but for the reasons stated it would have been a hell of risky endeavour for the plotters. The comments made to Randy Glass make you think yes as well, "coming down".

From what I have seen these energy weapons seem to revolve around laser and microwave weapons. I am not sure how this could bring down gigantic buildings anyway.

Edited April 14, 2015 by thplinth

[phart]

thplinth access to the towers is covered as well.

[Guest]

If it was controlled demolition using conventional demolition technologies then I would have thought somewhere they did a mock up of the WTC construction (a few floors at least) and tested how it would work. That building was unique in many ways and to bring it down in one go perfectly first time in the way it did, it would have to have been tested in advance.

To leap to energy weapons is just too far and unnecessary.

I think 7 was rigged for sure but there may be a reason it was pre-rigged (for security reasons). I am not 100% on 1&2, probably bet yes but for the reasons stated it would have been a hell of risky endeavour for the plotters. The comments made to Randy Glass make you think yes as well, "coming down".

From what I have seen these energy weapons seem to revolve around laser and microwave weapons. I am not sure how this could bring down gigantic buildings anyway.

thplinth access to the towers is covered as well.

One thing that I've pondered with the controlled demolition scenario is this. If the buildings were pre-rigged, and if they were hit by planes/missiles/invisible dragons etc., how could you be certain not to trigger a chain reaction in the planted explosives and an immediate catastrophic collapse?

Another connected thought. I think the timing of the collapses (i.e delay), as well as other curious reasons for fewer people to be present in the buildings on that day, was designed to reduce the number of casualties. I don't think maximising loss of life was central to the plan, quite the contrary. I think there was a deliberate attempt to minimise casualties, as far as possible, and allow time for people to be evacuated. Just an observation. And I'm not trying to belitte the loss of life that did occur.

[thplinth]

thplinth access to the towers is covered as well.

Yeah I have seen that before. Also reports of heavy and loud noises coming from 'empty' floors and lots of maintenace work that could have been a cover. Plus the fact that most of the towers were empty. It makes it easy to do over a period of months probably. If that is what happened.

ps. 87 eye witness accounts of the pane coming into the pentagon.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3

[thplinth]

Mr Wells sums up my feelings on the Controlled Demolition debate very well.

http://rigint.blogspot.cz/2007/03/its-real-thing.html

I really want to leave this subject alone, and you probably wish I would, too, but unfortunately I have a few more things to winge about before moving on.

You may have seen this by now: the trailer for The Ultimate Con ("the 9/11 Documentary you can't debunk"). It's creator is "Lucus," about whom all I know is that he says "Dave Vonkleist, Jack Blood, and Alex Jones are going to help me promote it," which almost says enough for me right there. It's ten minutes of mostly "I heard explosions" footage shot during the attacks, though to its credit there are some clips I hadn't seen before, such as real-time reports of an alleged bomb-laden van in the WTC garage and rumours of suspected "devices."

I don't mean to open up another can of thermate here, so I won't comment on the merit of the quadruple redundancy of car bombs, planted explosives in the basement, cutting charges and demolition squibs, except to say I wish some of those who defend the accuracy of eyewitness testimony with respect to the World Trade Center would apply the same standard to the Pentagon crash. (Consider, for instance, these 87 accounts of having seen a passenger jet, and not a cruise missile or a fighter aircraft, overfly DC and strike the building.)

Instead, let's do like the Jimmy Castor Bunch. What we're going to do right here is go back. Waaay back; back into time. When 9/11 Truth could look like the 2004 9/11 Citizens' Commission.

Go ahead, and watch The Ultimate Con. But then watch anti-fascist researcher John Judge deconstruct the official Commission report, beginning with the simple question, "Who wrote it?" Authorship is unascribed, but it's written in a "lucid, almost novelistic" fashion, with a single voice. Judge mentions the Warren Commission Report also had a single, anonymous author, brought over from the Pentagon's Army Historical Division. Otto Winnacker's previous employer had been Adolph Hitler, as one of 26 official historians of Nazi Germany.

Watch Michael Springmann, former State Department diplomat, testify that the CIA were running the Jeddah consulate, instructing officials to issue visas to terrorists for reasons of "national security." Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah.

Watch Indira Singh describe her discovery of PTech's deep black links to both US security infrastructure and global narco-terror ("When I ran into the drugs I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me," says Singh), the sheltering of al qaeda financier Yassin al-Qadi (he "talked very highly of his relationship" with Dick Cheney, claims PTech's CEO Oussama Ziade), and the two years PTech spent with Mitre in the "FAA's basement" prior to 911.

Watch Paul Thompson rattle off ignored intelligence, the Randy Glass story (which some may find of particular interest since Glass claims he was told by Pakistani intelligence prior to 9/11 that "those towers are coming down"), and the triangulation of the ISI, the CIA and al Qaeda. Then there are the wargames, the reconstruction of Cheney's command and control, Sibel Edmonds.....

Any wagers on how often controlled demolition is mentioned?

It's a bit wistful and over the shoulder, viewing these now: this Truth Movement moment seems much longer ago than a mere three years. Is this the same 9/11 I hear about today? Because I hear none of these things anymore. Is this the same "Truth Movement"? Because today's sounds nothing like this. Is this even the same truth?

A tough question. It's like asking Coke drinkers in the mid-80s, What is this shit?

Had Truth Classic's market share plateaued? Was its flavour too complex to break out of a niche market, or were there other reasons for finessing its formula? Because New Truth certainly goes down differently. "Smoother, rounder, yet bolder," in the stammering nonsense of Coca Cola CEO Roberto Goizueta. And in my experience it comes back up just the same.

Can you taste the difference, and can you tell what's missing? New Truth is now 100% Jihadist free.

Something less than 100% would be true enough, and would have served as a corrective to the official comic book which informs Americans that their enemy has dark skin and strange beliefs. But entirely erasing bin Laden and al Qaeda from the 9/11 equation makes no more sense - not even polemical sense - than trying to talk sensibly about the JFK assassination without mention of the Mafia or the anti-Castro Cubans. And was it any less an "inside job" for their involvement and manifold reasons for wanting him dead?

But it's impossible not to ascribe some such sentiments to racism, and sometimes something more. (For instance, neo-Nazi Curt Maynard writes, "there is considerably more tangible evidence to suggest that the United States government and Israel carried out the crime, not 19 troglodytes, i.e. cave dwellers from the Middle East.") And then there's the executive producer of Loose Change and Afghanistan war vet, Korey Rowe, who told CNN "I met my enemy and the people who supposedly pulled off this attack, and these people are not strong enough and they're not, uh, advanced enough." However, I think there is also something else happening here.

Some of the most damning evidence presented by Classic Truth is that which ties state power to supra-state terror and criminality. Peter Dale Scott's definition of Deep Politics is "the constant, everyday interaction between the constitutionally elected government and forces of violence, forces of crime, which appear to be the enemies of that government." Al Qaeda, a creature of intelligence agencies, is one such node of contemporary deep politics. As recently as the mid-90s its Mujahadeen were NATO's unambiguous partner in Bosnia, helping to secure and profit by the Balkan trade route of Afghan heroin into Europe. The CIA were demanding visas for al Qaeda operatives in the consulate of bin Laden's hometown, and an al Qaeda financier was also hardwired into Washington's security apparatus. 9/11 cells were hosted by FBI informants and their flight schools were up to their altimeters in Iran-Contra-like narco-dollars. Al Qaeda's structure was penetrated up to the senior operational level, possibly including assets of ambiguous loyalty who helped plan and fund the attacks. (For instance Fort Bragg instructor and FBI informant Ali Mohammed, who trained those involved in the 1993 WTC bombing, oversaw al Qaeda's relocation to Afghanistan and taught hijackers how to smuggle box cutters onto aircraft.)

New Truth hamstrings itself - and perhaps on the part of some, that's the entire point of New Truth - by clearing the table of everything pertaining to al Qaeda and defining "inside job" as merely "inside the Beltway." Because it is by their parapolitical linkages to, and patronage of, the very forces of violence which appear to be their enemy, that governments most condemn themselves.

Doing away with all that does away with much of the High Crime, which a few might think a good thing. Watch the 2004 videos. How does the health and rigor and scope of New Truth compare? Which do you think the High Criminals prefer?

Someone told me recently that "common sense shows that CD is the 'back and to the left' of 9/11." That's the problem. It is. Look at where 40 years of "back and to the left" has got John Kennedy.

[thplinth]

I defy anyone on here to read those 87 eye witness accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon and then come on here and tell us it was a missile or a drone.

I think the reason they do not release the footage is maybe the flying might be too good. Not becasue it was not a giant plane seen by 87 different witnesses.

[thplinth]

This is also excellent (originally released in 2004 I think) and has incredibly detailed timelines for each hijacked plance in its appendices.

http://www.justicefor911.org/911CW_omission_report.pdf

[Eisegerwind]

Meanwhile on armageddon watch, nothing much to report. Cars fiddled with resulting in shiny wheels and MOT booking. Stellas consumed a variety of beef lamb and chicken seen the hot bit of the barbecue.

On the eyes peeled front not seen any signs of impending destruction, although the christians thrown overboard in the boat thing did make me laugh in a shaking my head laugh sort of way, 'I'm floating about in a ####ed boat in the middle of nowhere, my life's shit, but I'm going to make yours worse, and consequently make mine better', the race to the bottom. Don't think it was a government plot though(they weren't Americans), just people being chunts.

Anyway, eyes still peeled,bring it.

[broono83]

Surely to you can look this up on google and work out if this guy is who he claims to be?

And if you did I imagine it would be a lot more convincing than if I 'told' you.

I am betting here but I say you find it hard to believe because you do not read into the subject?

Its plausibility though isn't it?

You've undertaken the greatest ever conspiracy and created a mock terrorist attack or allowed one to happen; including rigging a load of skyscrapers for demolition and killing thousands of people. Then one Joe Bloggs finds a flight recorder and instead of just killing him along with the other 4 thousand odd you just say "you keep that to youresel pal, alright?"

Don't think so.

[Scotty CTA]

A wee review of the official fairy-tale...

And the perps aren't done.

9/11 was the 'starter's pistol' for WW III.

False-flag mini-nukes, chemical, and biological attacks yet to come.

This will lead to a planned martial law and nothing will ever be the same.

Get right with God while you still can.

Jesus is our 'Blessed Hope'.

[mariokempes56]

Scotty were fighting for independence, gies a brk for a couple of weeks

[Orraloon]

Scotty were fighting for independence, gies a brk for a couple of weeks

Bark?

[Scotty CTA]

Scotty were fighting for independence, gies a brk for a couple of weeks

You realise that I'm posting 9/11 stuff on a 9/11 thread don't you?

I'm nowhere near the independence threads.

[Eisegerwind]

False-flag mini-nukes, chemical, and biological attacks yet to come.

What!, no death rays, are we off them this week.

[Eisegerwind]

You just have to keep your eyes peeled and your finger on the pulse.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is between 1 month and 5 years for worldwide chaos.

Guess only.

Meanwhile on Armageddon watch. Happily enough nothing to report. Weather a bit poor but evenings quite nice (would imagine weather to take a bit of the turn for the worse nearing the end of days). Only mention of Arma from the Clash booming out. Replying to my own posts a bit sad but heh ho.

[andymac]

Meanwhile on Armageddon watch. Happily enough nothing to report. Weather a bit poor but evenings quite nice (would imagine weather to take a bit of the turn for the worse nearing the end of days). Only mention of Arma from the Clash booming out. Replying to my own posts a bit sad but heh ho.

Think he has given up. Not been here in a month and a half. Perhaps he has more interesting things to do rather than wait for the end of days. like watching paint dry.

[Eisegerwind]

Yeah, trying to think of the phrase when you are taken up, quick google can't find it.

[andymac]

Small island in the Atlantic....

[Mindimoo]

Yeah, trying to think of the phrase when you are taken up, quick google can't find it.

Rapture?