Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

by **The Omega Man** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:55 am

Just saw an excellent new 9/11 expose film for anyone interested, and I would classify it as a must-see. Very detailed, concise and powerful expose on how the towers were most likely brought down using advanced, military grade shape charges and Thermate. The film is very accessible to the lay person and lays out exactly what happened, when and how. A lot of footage was used that had never been seen before. All in all it was a chilling, moving piece on how the U.S. murdered innocents for political and financial gain. You can find it here: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003">9/11 Mysteries</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:28 am

Excellent. Just watched it. Whew. New info from William Rodriguez and the guy who reported the power outtage the weekend before 9/11- heavy construction sound coming from totally unoccupied floors 34 and 98. Plus lots of dust around the windows as if...there was drilling through concrete to plant charges around the edges of the buildings. All the physics is there. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, etc. Excellent film of the up and out explosions of the buildings plus squibs plus Prof. Steven Jones barely getting the word 'thermate' out on MSNBC before getting shut down.

by **4911** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:56 am

yeah nice one, I remember reading some people on this board saying it couldnt be proven that it was CD. Sure it can. The physics prove it. It could only have been CD. Its screaming everyone in the face. Can we say "freefall"? The fact that so few people notice or care says something tremendously scary about our psyches. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 10/7/06 10:01 am

by **lady lib** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:19 pm

This is the best 911 video I've seen so far. It's well-organized and makes excellent use of footage, interviews, and research. If you want to order the video or make a donation for part 2, click here: <a href="http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-movie.html">www.911weknow.com/911-mys...movie.html</a>

by **orz** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Can we say "freefall"?<hr></blockquote> Sure we can SAY it, but IS IT TRUE? I've given up on 'believing' one way or another on 9/11 because for every totally convincing article which proves they fell at freefall speeds and were demolished with explosives, there's an equally convincing one proving that they didn't actually fall at the much repeated "freefall" speed... etc etc back and forth... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> Will give this movie a look if/when my internet's fast enough..

by **4911** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:09 pm

will give this human a feel when my nervous system is conscious enough.. get to it man: fuck. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 10/7/06 6:10 pm

by **orz** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:15 pm

Uhhhh what?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:21 pm

Here's Scott Forbes in a 7 minute radio interview describing how for the first time anyone could remember the building's occupants were given three weeks notice that the power would be out the weekend before 9/11. Forbes worked on the 97th floor and had to scramble to shut down Fiduciary Trust computers and networks for this disruption. Forbes is the one who tells of construction sounds on a supposedly unoccupied floor above and grey dust appearing around the windows. (In the list of other 9/11 videos at the right of Google's page don't bother with the 16 minute Prof. Steven Jones clip. It is 15 minutes of mere introduction to the topic of examining 9/11. Odd that this clip was put out, almost as if to dissuade people from listening to Jones' real data on thermite. Hmph.) <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4260823951534797708">video.google.com/videopla...1534797708</a>

by **isachar** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:54 pm

I don't know why there is any doubt whatsoever that the collapse of the WTC's was assisted through use of thermate. NIST found the sulphur residue evidence that is the signature of thermate, And, the documented presence of melted metal is prima facie evidence that incendiary/high temperature device(s) were present since not even the most vociferous advocates of the official conspiracy theory can account for temperatures high enough to melt steel. The icing on the cake is the photo Stephen Jones published of the firefighter in the foreground with an upright pefectly severed structrual column standing behind him with visible evidence of molten metal from thermate cutter charges placed at the precise angle as would occur during a conventional demolition. Now how did Osama do that? It's really a very simple open and shut case. All else is noise. Molten metal confirms that all 'official' reasons are without merit and that high temperature demo-type charges were present in the Towers that day. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 10/8/06 5:07 pm

by **orz** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The icing on the cake is the photo Stephen Jones published of the firefighter in the foreground with an upright pefectly severed structrual column standing behind him with visible evidence of molten metal from thermate cutter charges placed at the precise angle as would occur during a conventional demolition.<hr></blockquote> But what about the other photo of demolition guy cutting a similar column at a similar angle with a cutting torch? (just sayin'...) .... no, i can't find the photo at the moment. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o">

by **medicis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:30 pm

Anyone who looks at 9/11 Mysteries and then says 'but other equally convincing films debunk it' ... blah blah, clearly hasn't taken 10th grade physics. It's really, really not that hard. Sorry if I offend anyone but.....

by **orz** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:38 pm

Like i said, I haven't looked at it yet! ^_^ I was speaking generally...

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:49 pm

(on edit: This post shows how the Oklahoma City Bombing had all the earmarks of inside job as 9/11 with the same cover-up. Copy it and include OKC info when informing others on 9/11. General Partin needs to be as well known as Prof. Steven Jones.) Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories before questioning the bogus National Institute on Standards and Technology report and getting fired, has pointed out that the men who covered up the controlled demolition of the WorldTrade Center for the NIST were the same men who covered up the controlled demolition of the Murrah Federal Building known as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. When you need a job done, get men who've already done it. <a href="http://www.freewebs.com/oklahomacitybombingcoverup/">www.freewebs.com/oklahoma...ngcoverup/</a> This webpage above has quite a lot on suppressed Oklahoma City information including survivors at OKC who said they survived because of multiple explosions causing them to hide under their desks. Also cited is seismographic evidence of two large explosions plus reports of Pentagon ordinance experts like Air Force Brigadier General Partin below declaring that damage to the Murrah building could not have been done by a fertilizer truck bomb out on the street. Boy does all that sound familiar today. Anybody read General Partin's expose on the OKC cover-up of controlled demolition in 1995? <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok2.htm">www.whatreallyhappened.co...IN/ok2.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma July 30, 1995 by Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) 8908 Captains Row, Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652 On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed, causing extensive damage to the structure, the loss of 168 innocent lives, the victimization of the families of those who lost loved ones, hundreds of non-fatal injuries, and substantial property damage in the vicinity. The media and the Executive branch reported that the sole source of the devastation was a single truck bomb consisting of 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, transported to the location in a Ryder Truck and parked in front of the building. It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone. To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb. To understand what caused the damage to the Murrah Building, one needs to understand some basics about the use and nature of explosives. First, blast through air is a very inefficient energy coupling mechanism against heavily reinforced concrete beams and columns. Second, blast damage potential initially falls off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed. That is why in conventional weapons development, one seeks accuracy over yield for hard targets. That is also why in the World Trade Center bombing (where the only source of blast damage was a truck bomb) the column in the middle of the bombed-out cavity was relatively untouched, although reinforced concrete floors were completely stripped away for several floors above and below the point of the bomb's detonation (see Time Magazine, 3-8-93, page 35). By contrast, heavily reinforced concrete structures can be destroyed effectively through detonation of explosives in contact with the reinforced concrete beams and columns. For example, the entire building remains in Oklahoma City were collapsed with 100-plus relatively small charges inserted into drilled holes in the columns. The total weight of all charges was on the order of 200 pounds. The detonation wave pressure (1,000,000 to 1,500,000 pounds per square inch) from a high detonation velocity contact explosive sweeps into the column as a wave of compressive deformation. Since the pressure in the wave of deformation far exceeds the yield strength of the concrete (about 3,500 pounds per square inch) by a factor of approximately 300, the concrete is turned into granular sand and dust until the wave dissipates to below the yield strength of the concrete. This leaves a relatively smooth but granular surface, with protruding, bare reinforcement rods__a distinctive signature of damage by contact explosives. The effect of the contact explosive on the reinforcement rods themselves can only be seen under microscopic metallurgical examination. (The rods are inertially confined during the explosion and survive basically in tact because of their much higher yield strength and plasticity.) When a reinforced concrete structure is damaged through air shock coupling and the pressure is below the compressive yield strength of the concrete, the failure mode is generally compressive structural fracture on one side and tensile fracture on the other__ both characterized by cracks and rough fracture surfaces. Such a surface texture is very different from the relatively smooth granular surface resulting from contact explosives.<hr></blockquote> General Partin continues in... ...next PART TWO: Analysis of Graphic Evidence <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok3.htm">www.whatreallyhappened.co...IN/ok3.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ..... From the potential damage contours on Tab 3, and assuming the single truck bomb, the pressure and impulse for collapsed columns B4, B5 and A7 are all in the 25 to 35 pounds per square inch region. However, the much smaller and closer columns, B4 and B5, are still standing, while the much larger column A7 is down. Column B3 is down with 42 percent less pressure and impulse than columns B4. These facts are sufficient reason to know that columns B3 and A7 had demolition charges on them. Moreover, there is not sufficient blast impulse at that range to collapse any of the three. In fact, columns B2, B4 and Bs all have the sheet rock and furring strip finish still intact on the second and third floors except where damaged by falling debris.<hr></blockquote> General Partin continues with detailed evidence of the OKC damage showing the result of demolition charges- <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok4.htm">www.whatreallyhappened.co...IN/ok4.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>..... Tab 7 shows the localized damage to the header at the position of column As, the closest column to the truck bomb crater. The end of the beam on which the men are standing shows evidence of a demolition charge at its juncture with column As. Several feet of the beam juncture appear to have been pulverized away by a demolition charge and the ends jammed together in the collapse. The blast pressure from the truck bomb would have been in the 400 pounds per square inch region__a factor of 10 below the yield strength of concrete.  Tab 8 shows the localized demolition damage at the juncture of column A7 and the header. The same telltale demolition charge evidence is clear. The straight edge of the decorative grove at the juncture can be seen on both the column and the header. In my discussions with the building architect, who was on the scene as an advisor throughout much of the cleanup, he told me that the residual building was structurally sound and that the Murrah Building could have been rebuilt. This is totally consistent with the collapse of columns with demolition charges because the inflicted structural damage is more localized.  Discussions above have been limited to the reinforced concrete structure of the Murrah Building. Reinforced concrete columns are hard targets for highexplosive bombs. Structures that have large areas for blast loading and low mass can be destroyed at considerable range from a large blast. That is why glass, plaster, and light structures were destroyed at considerable distance from the Murrah Building, but not reinforced concrete columns. Five pounds of blast pressure will flatten most frame houses. <hr></blockquote> If you know the names Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, you should also know the names of General Partin and Roger Raubach. General Partin summarizes and includes affirmation from a Ph.D. named Roger Raubach- <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok5.htm">www.whatreallyhappened.co...IN/ok5.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma PART FOUR Seismograph Readings Much has been said about seismograph readings. Was there more than one explosion? Most people I talked to in Oklahoma City heard two explosions relatively close together. Some close by said they didn't even hear an explosion. That is not unreasonable, when you consider that getting walloped by an intense shock wave is about like being hit across the ear by a 2" x 4". One would expect the demolition charges to have had an electrical or primacord interconnect. If so, it would be difficult to separate them on a seismograph. If delays were used, they would be discrete. If a sensitivity switch was used inside the building, the explosions would have been distinct. Bomb initiations could have been easily designed to go off either simultaneously or with separation. Conclusion The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building.  The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the "pit" area behind columns B4 and By. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3. It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage assessment was not made during the cleanup__before the building was demolished on May 23 and hundreds of truck loads of debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence. When the picture at Tab 4 was made, all evidence of demolition charges had been removed from the building site (i.e., the stubs of columns B3, A3, A5, A7 and the demolished junctures at the header with columns A3, A5 and A7. All ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementing demolition charges and the type of truck used could be quickly resolved in the FBI were required to release the surveillance camera coverage of this terribly tragic event. ------------------ Appendix (Tab 9/no graphic) Letter of support from Rodger A. Raubach Ph.D. Rodger A. Raubach Ph.D. P.O. Box 3042, Casper, WY. 82602-3042 Phone: (307)-235-5266; FAX: (307)-2372500 18 July 1995 Brigadier Gen. Benton K. Partin 8908 Captains Row Alexandria , VA. 22308 Dear Gen. Partin; Earlier today I received a copy of your report on the bombing in Oklahoma City, entitled "Bomb Damage Analysis of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City". This report was dated July 13,1995. I read this report carefully and examined the exhibits appended to the text. Your observations and photographic analysis are meticulous in the extreme , and you are to be commended for your insights regarding the effects of blast vs. distance from the detonation. The major points of the report which I believe need to be emphasized are: (1) the fact that rebar reinforcing rods were broken but appear to be embedded in concrete;(2) very little concrete appears to have been crushed by the blast. These observations alone are at extreme variance with the hypothesis of a single large truck bomb containing ANFO. For the large (4800 lb.) ammonium nitrate bomb to have caused the damage, there would be huge amounts of sand generated from the crushed concrete around the columns wherein the rebar was fractured. I took the liberty of checking with the leading concrete supplier in my area in order to confirm the compressive yield figure that you used, that being 3500 psi. What I was told about concrete was very interesting. A 3500 psi figure is extremely low for structural concrete. A properly mixed and cured structure of the type dealt with in your report would probably have a yield strength of 5600 psi. In conclusion, General, I find myself in awe of the technical achievement that your report represents. I can find no scientific flaws in either your observations or your conclusions. I am, therefore, in full agreement with the conclusion of strategically placed small explosive charges being responsible for the destruction of the building. We can only hope and pray that a few good men and women in our Congress will heed your report and take action that results in the punishment of the real guilty parties responsible for this heinous crime against the American people, and that these same few good people are able to stem the abrogation of any more of our Constitutional rights.  Please keep up the good work that you are doing for your countrymen. It is an honor to be able to correspond with you on this matter and perhaps to be of some small service to our country, the Constitutional Republic, to which many of us have sworn to defend to the best of our abilities. If I may be of any further assistance, please contact me at any time. Looking forward to your response, I remain Very Truly Yours, Rodger A. Raubach Ph.D. <hr></blockquote> Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm">www.whatreallyhappened.co...IN/ok8.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) 8908 Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652 July 30, 1995 Sen. Trent Lott United States Senate 487 Senate Russell Office Building Washington, DC 205102403 Dear Sen. Lott: The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level. Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.) Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor. Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb. It is my hope and request that, as a Member of Congress, you will support a Congressional investigation to determine the true initiators of this bombing, which could not have occurred the way in which it has been portrayed as having happened. Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on socalled antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators. Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong. No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counterterrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency. If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counterterrorism sting or an FAA Controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possible every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure. To remove all ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementary demolition charges, the FBI should be required to release the high quality surveillance color TV camera tape of the Murrah building bombing on April 19, 1995. It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media's withholding of vital information from the American people. Sincerely yours, Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) BKP:aw Enclosure <hr></blockquote> Deja vu all over again. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/8/06 7:39 pm

by **4911** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:04 pm

please excuse me orz, I was being um something between a sarcastic dick and a smart-ass. (Guess that makes me a type of semi-conscious scrotum, or a half-wit prostate or something..in any case, please be aware that I am sometimes subject to spontaneous sarcastic statements that, in retrospect, only I seem to understand the real meaning of.) Either way, check out the vid when you get the chance; cant hurt? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 10/8/06 7:10 pm

by **medicis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:34 pm

And I will apologize too for being somewhat demeaning. But to really understand the problems with WTC's 1, 2, 7 you really should examine the evidence as laid out at <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/slides.html">911research.wtc7.net/talk...lides.html</a> which is a subsection of the 911.research.com site, well acknowledged as one of the most reputable and well-researched of all 9/11 truth sites. Do the slide show referenced above. Every single official dogma and excuse is debunked. Begin the journey into the rabbit hole. Once you realize 9/11 was a false flag, so much else begins to become obvious....

Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

Re: Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

Re: Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

Re: Amazing New 9/11 Film, A True Must See!

yeah

Re: yeah

?

Re: the power down at WTC on 9/8 + 9/9

Re: yeah

hmmm

Re: hmmm

:)

Re: yeah. Same NIST cover-up guys as OKCity bombing

Re: yeah. Same NIST cover-up guys as OKCity bombing

Re: yeah. Same NIST cover-up guys as OKCity bombing

Who is online