Large Part Of 9/11 Answered In New Article

[8bitagent]

It really worked on the level of magic tricks. Illusionists. People who make those who view their tricks say "but I SAW that card (or girl, or horse, or plane) disappear! Right in front of my eyes!" It's EXACTLy like the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast, except there was nobody, when it was over, saying "JUST KIDDING!"

So it stuck. I can't help but believe that the people who did 9/11 studied that broadcast and realized "hey, let's just fake it and tell them it's real, only we'll REALLY kill thousands of people and destroy huge, unsinkable landmarks!"

Aww, but you see you're hitting the nail on the head. The destruction of the towers WAS a magic trick...of sorts.

the pledge, the turn, and the prestige...

When we, the audience, turn blue in the face musing as to "how" the prestiege was done...we completely miss the majesty of the complete working. Some mysteries are meant to stay hidden. The destruction of the towers is a secret upon which will never be revealed or stumbled upon.

I do not believe the plane impact and fire alone could have been enough guarantee for the towers to fall...for the ones behind 9/11 WHOMEVER they may be NEEDED to have the towers fall. Now how does one ensure that? Maybe it's not meant to be known?

9/11 is a mindfuck. Think about it folks.

Flight 11 slams into 11 shaped, 11(0) story towers on the 11th of september.

Flight 77 allegedly slams into the 77 foot pentagon, which began construction on 9/11/1941. Both the Pentagon and the iconography of Twin Pillars ties heavily into the occult.

11 and 7 would soon become the dates that virtually all major "al Qaeda" attacks would occur since 9/11/2001

9/11/1990, a good 11 years prior to 9/11, was the day of Bush Sr's infamous NWO speech.

And as a reminder, a little revelation of the method wink...Yankee's top star pitcher crashes into the top of a downtown Manhattan high rise on 10/11/06, or 9/11/01 upside down...evoking the image of the burning tower.

11 years after 9/11, the Freedom tower rises in its place in its 2012 opening.

Someone's writing this script, call it synchronicity, or call it "magicians".

[nomo]

How many of those buildings were 110 stories tall?

The manner in which this building suddenly disassembled itself at the top of the building, which didn't have the weight of the entire building on it, turned to powder and tiny chunks, and then hurled itself horizonatlly with massive force, has absolutely nothing to do with building height.

Ya think!?

How about them fully loaded jetliners plunging into them at top speed, and the ensuing fires?


As far as I'm concerned, those are the only facts we can ascertain at this point in time and probably forever. Everything else (thermite, "explosions") is just conjecture.

[OpLan]

Sorry to bring this up..but as usual,HMW hijacked yet another 911 thread that doesn't conform to his paradigm and turned it into yet another CD slugfest.

All you have to do is used your damn eyes with Building 7.
That building was destroyed from the bottom up

It puzzles me why both CD fanatics and skeptics edit the footage of B7 collapsing.The BBC could have got a lot of debunking mileage out of showing the complete collapse but instead,all the footage they aired had the beginning edited out.

Here's a video from your DU friend Boloboffin

The floors under the east penthouse fail,and the machine room crashes through the building before the infamous 6.x seconds we all know and love.Theres a 20 storey gash in the south face and fires burned out of control for the best part of 7 hours.

There are photos of unburned thermite flakes

The thing about Jones' thermite samples is that there is no provenance.some woman gave him a bag of crap.some kid wiped his finger on some railings.
Some lawyers offer a provenance service.Dr Roger Leir,the alien implant surgeon, uses such a service.The implant is videoed being removed,and Leir gives a running commentary about what he is doing with the evidence as it is photographed outside the body and parcelled up for its trip to the lab..then the implant is tracked along every step of its journey to the analysis lab,where they video the removal of the implant from the parcel prior to testing.
But just disregard that..its ufo woo woo isn't it?

On that picture of the tower you are fond of spamming us all with.
I don't see girders and lumps of concrete anymore.They are bodies,heads,arms, legs.I'm getting really sick of you constantly slapping my retinas with psyop death-porn.

2 more trivial points:
I think HMW should go read up on how bad it is to hotlink images.

I've just discovered something about you tube.
When I went to my subscriptions to find Boloboffins account,his videos were not listed.I thought he had simply pulled them.However,when I put his name into the search engine,there they were.I checked a couple more subs,and I found new videos from a few tubers(typically conspiracy/politics) that weren't showing up in my new video list.This is probably just some kind of cock-up;they seem to be constantly tinkering with the code;but be aware that the people you are subscribed to might have new vids that you have not been alerted to.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Sorry to bring this up..but as usual,HMW hijacked yet another 911 thread that doesn't conform to his paradigm and turned it into yet another CD slugfest.

WRONG. CD laws of physics were disparaged in the original post as "theory" in favor of a pile of trivial bullshit from the lying FBI.

8bitagent wrote-

We've heard your CD theories, now check out this.

You want the smoking gun proof? Here it is.

There are photos of unburned thermite flakes

The thing about Jones' thermite samples is that there is no provenance.some woman gave him a bag of crap.some kid wiped his finger on some railings.

WRONG.
The dust samples from the independent company working for the USG found
THE EXACT SAME CHEMICAL SIGNATURE which is incredibly precise.

PLUS they also found the EXACT SAME iron-rich spheroids that can only come from masses of molten metal being turned into a wide-spread mist.

PLUS there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION for all the molten metal, either the molten metal pouring from a tower just before it came down OR the massive pools of molten metal unquenchable by water under those three demolished buildings for many weeks.

On that picture of the tower you are fond of spamming us all with.
I don't see girders and lumps of concrete anymore.They are bodies,heads,arms, legs.I'm getting really sick of you constantly slapping my retinas with psyop death-porn.

Mass murder is ugly. Sorry. Maybe go to a sports board if you can't stand it.
That's why piffle like sports and TV is there, as an escape into subliminal conditioning.

I've just discovered something about you tube.
.....
This is probably just some kind of cock-up; they seem to be constantly tinkering with the code;but be aware that the people you are subscribed to might have new vids that you have not been alerted to.

YouTube is Google is now NSA. They are fudging visibility to control youth online.
Because youth watch TV and movies and the brain is strongly influenced by visuals.
Like the sight of dead Vietnamese children.

Like the sight of the Twin Towers and being blown up and over 1100 bodies being turned into pink mist. Sports is so much more attractive to the eye. "Play ball!"

[vigilant]

nomo wrote:
How about them fully loaded jetliners plunging into them at top speed, and the ensuing fires?

Yes the building was damaged. How does damage suddenly powder the building in an instant two hours later and hurl the small debris laterally with that much force? That is a question nomo, will you answer it instead of just saying, "didn't happen"?

The body of a plane, which at that point was only an object present in the building, does not explain how the debris acted in this manner. The fuel tanks ruptured on impact and burned off the fuel on impact, so the plane didn't explode two hours later. Even if it hadn't ruptured, the plane could not sit in that type of heat for two hours and then finally explode because the tanks would have exploded long before the time it took the building to collapse, due to the fact that they were cooking in enormous heat. Can you explain how the presence of a big piece of metal (plane) powders a building and hurls the small debris with such lateral force? That is a question, will you answer it nomo, instead of just saying, "didn't happen"?

Heat due to fire, all by itself, does not create massive lateral force, powder large buildings into dust and small chunks, and hurl them laterally with such force. Can you explain why you think it could? That was a question nomo, will you answer it instead of just saying, "didn't happen"?



I have given you fairly specific answers for my conclusions. I have discussed outward pressure, trajectory, fuel, heat, size of debris, and the manner in which I think they should be exptected to react to the circumstances you keep repeating. Will you be more specific and explain why you believe the things you cite could cause debris to powder itself, break into tiny pieces, and hurl itself laterally with such massive force?

[vigilant]

oplan wrote:
Sorry to bring this up..but as usual,HMW hijacked yet another 911 thread that doesn't conform to his paradigm and turned it into yet another CD slugfest.


Most of the time I don't participate in the CD debate. Usually the CD detractors are the same small group of people that never give any definitive reasons for their conclusions except "impact, fire", and beyond that they are just detractors that offer few if any reasons for their opinions.

There is another opinion that CD believers have, which is that too much energy is expended on CD because it detracts from the larger story, and I agree. So...I will wait and see if nomo answers any of my questions, and then I won't fill the thread with anymore CD debate.

[nomo]

How does damage suddenly powder the building in an instant two hours later and hurl the small debris laterally with that much force?

Gravity. 110-story buildings hold a tremendous amount of energy. Unlike you, I don't need to imagine outside forces to see how those towers could crumble. Have you ever actually seen those towers?

I have given you fairly specific answers for my conclusions.

No you haven't. You have merely framed your questions to fit your foregone conclusions. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking.

[nomo]

So...I will wait and see if nomo answers any of my questions, and then I won't fill the thread with anymore CD debate.

Bullshit. You're only waiting to see if I answer those questions the way you framed them. You're not interested in honest debate or disagreement.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

How does damage suddenly powder the building in an instant two hours later and hurl the small debris laterally with that much force?

Gravity. 110-story buildings hold a tremendous amount of energy.

Nonsense and outright lies, nomo. You always do that on this topic.

There is NO energy source at the WTC/planes that can account for the radial dispersal of tons of debris for hundreds of feet, shattering of all the windows in buildings surrounding, the pulverization of the concrete into dust, the total disappearance of over 1100 bodies, massive pools of molten metal and evidence on girders of 3000-4000 degrees fahrenheit.
EXCEPT THERMATE AND BOMBS.

When laws of physics are cited you claim "but they were really really tall."
At just what floor do the laws of physics change? 27? 56? 99? 9/11?

Unlike you, I don't need to imagine outside forces to see how those towers could crumble.

You certainly don't "need" science or evidence or witnesses in your way, do you?

Have you ever actually seen those towers?

Oh, but I thought that citing visual evidence was some kind of proof of insanity worthy of snarky spitball comments like yours?

I have given you fairly specific answers for my conclusions.

No you haven't. You have merely framed your questions to fit your foregone conclusions. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking.

Pathetic pseudo-logical ad hominem, really running away from the topic.
But very revealing at the same time.

Just like this-

[nomo]

Nonsense and outright lies, nomo. You always do that on this topic.

Hugh, why do you have to be so tiresome every time someone disagrees with you? Why can't you just accept that a lot of people have thought about the collapses long and hard, and they just don't see anything impossible with the buildings coming down because of impacts and fires, and yes, sheer fucking mass?

Why should we adopt your complete misunderstanding of basic Newtonion physics in order to explain what happened? Why should we have to assume super-duper top-secret technology that no-one can prove even exists? Why should we believe Mormons and theologians and other miscellaneous Internet folk with no relevant experience in these matters? Why should we draw outrageous conclusions based on selective Internet photos and videos?

Why do you claim it's me who plays the ad hominems when you never ever, not even once, engage me on the arguments? Have you ever seen those buildings in person, Hugh? Have you?

Oh, and one more thing: Agree to disagree with me, but don't call me a liar, you asshat.

[barracuda]

Mass murder is ugly. Sorry.

Thanks for the propaganda. Well, here you go, Hugh. You forgot a couple other mind-control images to keep us in line.

[vigilant]

vigilant wrote:
How does damage suddenly powder the building in an instant two hours later and hurl the small debris laterally with that much force?

(for clarity sake, I add "damage to a building")

nomo wrote:
Gravity. 110-story buildings hold a tremendous amount of energy. Unlike you, I don't need to imagine outside forces to see how those towers could crumble. Have you ever actually seen those towers?

Hmmm...The forces are not imagined. They are clear as a bell in the well documented pictures and video. That is "pulverization" and "lateral force"? Is it not? I don't see how gravity has any bearing at all. We are talking about a building, which is a stationary object. Gravity has no more effect on an object 10 stories off the ground than it does 100 stories off the ground. At what altitude does gravity suddenly become an explosive force? The buildings only became unstationary, and flew across other parts of the city, when they suddenly disassembled themselves into powder and hurled themselves laterally with much force. The plane wasn't even able to do that when it slammed into it. If it was the planes fault, the building would have flown to pieces and hurled itself several blocks on impact, but it didn't. Did it? Yes they were damaged, but still stationary. How did gravity suddenly pulverize a damaged stationary object into powder and hurl it laterally like that? Gravity can't do that. Can it? Can you explain?

I think this is a reasonable explanation of Newtons Law of Gravity. It says, "toward the ground" not "outward or laterally". It didn't disassemble the apple either.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... ngrav.html
The apple is accelerated, since its velocity changes from zero as it is hanging on the tree and moves toward the ground. Thus, by Newton's 2nd Law there must be a force that acts on the apple to cause this acceleration. Let's call this force "gravity", and the associated acceleration the "accleration due to gravity". Then imagine the apple tree is twice as high. Again, we expect the apple to be accelerated toward the ground, so this suggests that this force that we call gravity reaches to the top of the tallest apple tree.








vigilant wrote:
I have given you fairly specific answers for my conclusions.

nomo wrote:
No you haven't. You have merely framed your questions to fit your foregone conclusions. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking.


Forgone conclusion? Again, that is "pulverization" and "lateral force" isn't it? If not what is it? Well you finally cited one example of why you believe as you do. It was gravity. Gravity does not suddenly disassemble stationary buildings into powder and hurl them laterally for hundreds of feet, or yards, whether they are damaged or not. Most people know that. If it were possible, lots of things would suddenly disassemble themselves and hurl themselves laterally for hundreds of yards. They don't. Can you cite some examples?

I didn't frame my questions to fit my answers. I am citing specifics as to why I believe the way that I do, and asking you specifically why I am wrong, and you are mainly delivering one liners with no explanation. Detailing the way falling objects fall, and the influence that outward pressure, trajectory, and gravity have on them is not "conjecture" nor is it "wishful thinking". I think Newton makes this pretty clear. I believe Newton was correct on this. If you don't believe it drop something from the top of a building.






nomo wrote: to Hugh
Why should we adopt your complete misunderstanding of basic Newtonion physics in order to explain what happened?

And...you're serious? Newton? Remember Newtons apple? Where did it fall, due to "gravity", when it fell out of the tree? It fell "down". It didn't disassemble itself and hurl itself laterally several hundered feet, or yards, before it started downward. It wouldn't have had it been damaged, or 100 stories off of the ground. Apples are more fragile than damaged buildings. Why don't apples, or anything else for that matter, disassemble themselves when you carry them to the same altitude that these buildings flew apart at?

Drop an object, from the top of a 100 story building and watch what it does. It will fall almost straight down unless you give it a little push, then it will slowly drift a small distance from the building. We both know that nomo. Don't we?







nomo wrote:
Why can't you just accept that a lot of people have thought about the collapses long and hard, and they just don't see anything impossible with the buildings coming down because of impacts and fires, and yes, sheer fucking mass?

If the mass of a building had anything to do with the ability of gravity to suddenly shred it, and hurl it laterally with force, we would all be in a heap of trouble, and we wouldn't have many skyscrapers left.







nomo wrote: to Hugh
Why should we draw outrageous conclusions based on selective Internet photos and videos?

Selective? These are well known photos and they are legitimate. They might be stills taken from video. These photos and the videos speak for themselves. These are the best photos I have ever seen to demonstrate "exactly" what happened when the buildings collapsed. Obviously you disagree. Why? Do you have better photos to demonstrate what you believe?






nomo wrote: to Hugh
Why do you claim it's me who plays the ad hominems when you never ever, not even once, engage me on the arguments?

I guess we could start with this.


Why should we believe Mormons and theologians and other miscellaneous Internet folk

And I am engaging you. You are not taking me point by point. I am taking you point by point. The only point you brought to the table was gravity. I am waiting on your explanation of gravity and its explosive nature. I would agree that the bottom of the building is "holding energy" as you put it, but not much near the top where the building flew apart. Some, but not enough. If it were so, buildings all over the city would fly apart, at the slightest provocation, and they don't, even when they are damaged or on fire, unless they "explode", for some reason. I have told you what I believe the effects of gravity to be, and disassembling stationary objects, and hurling them laterally with force, due to their altitude and mass, isn't one of the characteristics of gravity. Is it?






nomo wrote:
Have you ever seen those buildings in person, Hugh? Have you?



I have. They were stationary buildings. I saw the aftermath too. I don't see any special circumstances that would allow gravity to disassemble them, damaged or not. Do you? Or is it that explosive nature of gravity on mass at certain altitudes thing again? If so, can you explain how that is so? Newton never said it.







nomo wrote: to Hugh
Why should we adopt your complete misunderstanding of basic Newtonion physics in order to explain what happened?

Will you explain to me how and why Newton believes that this is possible, since you obviously understand Newtons laws better than I do? Obviously you know something about Newtons laws that I don't.

[vigilant]

vigilant wrote:
So...I will wait and see if nomo answers any of my questions, and then I won't fill the thread with anymore CD debate.



nomo wrote:
Bullshit. You're only waiting to see if I answer those questions the way you framed them. You're not interested in honest debate or disagreement.


Framed them? How do I phrase my questions in a manner that you don't consider them framed? I don't understand. I am only asking questions to determine why you don't accept my interpretation of Newtons Laws.

I am interested in honest debate. That is why I am not citing anything as "proof positive". I am correlating the behavior of the building to the laws of gravity, as I understand the law of gravity. You seem to understand the law of gravity in a different manner. I am asking you how gravity does this to a building but you refuse to respond with anything but insults. How am I being dishonest?

In my rebuttal above, I was very specific. Yes I asked questions that I am waiting on a reply to...."honestly"

[thegovernmentflu]

I've considered the possibility that the controlled demolition angle is a complete dead end, and that its main purpose was to coerce millions of people into watching that traumatic event over and over again. At this point, the 911 "conspiracy theorists" make a bigger deal about 911 than even the mainstream media. It's almost like the media giants passed the ball to their staged opposition when they realized that the direct approach wasn't working to keep 911 in the public's consciousness.

I was working the overnight shift 12 hours at a time and living a nocturnal existence without access to the mainstream media when 911 happened. I was horrified that America was taking a turn for the worse and I couldn't stand the creepy post-911 months during that winter. Hearing my coworkers talk about Bin Laden as if he were a literal boogie man and having to humor them to avoid an argument was one of the most depressing moments of my life. It was a bleak time, but I immediately tuned it out.

Anyone who's ever had to work overnight shifts for years at a time knows how easy it is to get disconnected from the daylight world. I'd actually never even seen the twin towers collapse in their entirely until I started checking out 911 conspiracy videos years later.

My point is, 911 looms far larger in my consciousness than it ever would have otherwise, and I can't help but feel like I've been manipulated somehow. I think this is true of many people who are interested in 911 conspiracy theories.

[DrVolin]

The debris was thrown six-hundred feet horizontally and ALL photos and onsite personnel confirm that.

That's yet another proof (of umpteen) that gravity didn't bring down the Twin Towers.

That claim has never struck me as very impressive. The energy stored in those towers was enormous. I finally decided to do a little bit of calculation as a check on my intuition. I may not be a physicist, but I am not completely illiterate.

Assuming a combined weight of 1 million tons for the WTC towers, and assuming 25% of half that value for each collapsing top part of the towers:

it turns out that 1 percent of 1 percent of the mass of one collapsing top would have to fall 81 cm to release enough energy to displace a 1 ton object 1 kilometer away from its point of origin.

Try it. f = ma, and PE = mgh. That's all I used.

I had to deducetimate the acceleration to solve the problem: Since the collapse took between 10 and 15 seconds, I estimated that one of the first girders to be ejected, if it travelled 1km horizontally, must have had an acceleration of at least 100 m/s, since it hit the ground as soon as 10 seconds after ejection, and travelled 1000 m.

Even if I was overestimating the mass of the tower tops by an order of magnitude, you could still easily end up with a 1 ton girder 1 km away from the towers. The 1 ton figure for the girders comes from here. Look at their heaviest product, and figure a 6m beam.

Of course, I don't think there were 1 ton beams 1 km away from the towers, but that is because some of the energy was absorbed by breaking the anchors of the beam, and by the further collapse of the tower, instead of being released exclusively into shooting off steel beams horizontally. From this we could further estimate the portion of the energy needed for the initiated collapse to continue. As you see, it likely isn't a very big portion.

While this tells us that the collapse as we see it on video is not suprising once it has started, it nowhere near telling us how it originated.