Large Part Of 9/11 Answered In New Article

[nathan28]

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.

Duh, a Tesla earthquake generator placed at the site by Ancient Astronauts on vacation selling naked calls on American Airlines on 9/3/01.

[orz]

I think HMW should go read up on how bad it is to hotlink images.

I long for the day where internet-illiterate small-minded ignorant paranoid nutty bore Hugh Manatee Wins inadvertently ends up presenting Goatse as inarguable proof of 9/11 CD. It would be so apt.

[vigilant]

drvolin wrote:
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.

That is the most puzzling part of all of it. The origination...

[Jeff]

That is the most puzzling part of all of it. The origination...

Could it have been something like this?

I'm not being sarcastic. Is it so improbable that the initiating event could have been the impact of heavy commercial airliners traveling at more than 400 mph? Particularly since the collapse sequence was seen to originate at the point of impact?

[Nordic]

For all of you talking about impacts of jetliners and burning jet fuel --

I'm talking about building 7.

Let's just talk about Building 7, shall we?

No plane. No jet fuel. No impact.

Watch how it collapses. From the bottom up.

The NIST doesn't even want to begin explaining that one. They have to jump through some serious hoops to even come up wtih a rationale for it.

Quit arguing about the twin towers and the jets, and the burning jet fuel.

Talk about Building 7 and we might get somewhere.

[smiths]

but jeff, why fly planes into the towers at all?

[vigilant]

That is the most puzzling part of all of it. The origination...

Could it have been something like this?

I'm not being sarcastic. Is it so improbable that the initiating event could have been the impact of heavy commercial airliners traveling at more than 400 mph? Particularly since the collapse sequence was seen to originate at the point of impact?

It appears improbable to me that the building would shred itself so perfectly from stem to stern under any circumstances. Burning buildings in the past have fallen off in huge chunks and fallen into the street below. Skyscrapers burn themselves for days to hollow shells that remain standing for the most part. The velocity of the airplane appears to have acted more like a bullet impact on the building creating a puncture wound instead of systemic structural damage. If it had crumbled from the bottom it would be more convincing for me, even though the plane hit near the top.

As Nordic points out, building 7 collapsed from the bottom. It didn't get hit by a plane. It got hit by debris from the towers, but it too shreded itself from stem to stern. For me its another reversal of what should have "normally" happened. It too miraculously turned itself into powder, but from the bottom up, with no plane impact?

Too many things committed historical firsts. The number synchronicity surrounding the event doesn't help matters resolve for me either. I could keep listing all the weird happenings around this deal but we all know what they are, and I am tiring of this debate. It never goes anywhere.

When the event is taken in its totality, it remains unresolved for me.

[smiths]

and i wrote this a long time ago and i still belive it

if the north tower, which was hit first,
was so catastrophicaly weakened by the plane impact (jeff),
dont you think the monumental seismic and pressure wave forces of the south tower collapse right next to it would have collapsed it instantly,

but no, without any wind, and with a smouldering fire it comes down identically half an hour later

[nomo]

I am taking you point by point.

And you're still trying to argue with me based on your preconceived notion of what happened. You're still trying to refute me based on what you think brought down those towers.

I'm sorry. I don't have the time or the energy to debate any of that. Hate to be a disappointment. All I saw was a plane hitting a building and the building coming down. Call me a simpleton, but that works for me.

Your insisting there was something more to it seems like stretching. If it was so obvious there was something else involved, I'd imagine we'd know all about it by now. It's not like you're the genius and the rest of us are just fucking stupid.

[vigilant]

I am taking you point by point.

And you're still trying to argue with me based on your preconceived notion of what happened. You're still trying to refute me based on what you think brought down those towers.

I'm sorry. I don't have the time or the energy to debate any of that. Hate to be a disappointment. All I saw was a plane hitting a building and the building coming down. Call me a simpleton, but that works for me.

Your insisting there was something more to it seems like stretching. If it was so obvious there was something else involved, I'd imagine we'd know all about it by now. It's not like you're the genius and the rest of us are just fucking stupid.

Per usual nomo you reply with caustic nothing-isms. Due to my past observations of your debating style on this topic I can't imagine why I wasted my time with you. I guess I was having brain lapse...

I'm gonna stop putting my CD two cents into this thread because i'm sure that isn't what 8bit had planned for this thread.

[dale]

Do something: http://kucinich.us/

[8bitagent]

seriously 8bit, read the fucking book before you slag it off one more time

why the dialectical approach

CD versus phone logs and wire transfers,
true researchers versus gatekeepers

everytime you create the divide between the A's and the B's they win

"Blowback" means that someone believes 9/11 was 100% carried out, financed, and done by Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and 19 hijackers. It leaves no room for Saudi intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, FBI obstruction or the deep state...because it's saying "Muslims did it".
And when people say "Muslims did it", well it's a slippery slope to "the US is right to be in Iraq or Afghanistan".

I am actually 100% okay with blowback theory. At least it, like, suggests that people should, like, learn history and study people that aren't from America and stuff.

that, and blowback is far more "actionalble" than the Deep State. What are you going to do? Have Congress pass a law that outlaws organized crime and accepting donations from organized crime? Government is the best scam there is, so it's not wonder that the mob wants in on the action, and unless any of us plan on moving into a hunter-gatherer society, the Libertania, or an energy-independent self-sustaining farm/commune, well, you aren't going to escape it anytime soon.

I understand why people say "all the years of the US meddling in middle eastern affairs caused crazy jihadists to attack the US". And that may be part of the way these CIA/MI6 controlled mosques in London and Hamberg program and brainwash young students. Maybe that's part of how they got to Sirhan Sirhan.

But it's also intellectually dishonest...because quite frankly, I'm ashamed more of these liberal gatekeepers don't know about FBI informants and the WTC, the intentional FBI obstruction/Saudi money/ISI money/deep state shenanigans with 9/11, and the overall use of informants and assets in "al Qaeda" terrorism worldwide.

Blowback is as far as I'm concerned, as factually inaccurate as "Iraq had WMD's in 2003 and links to al Qaeda". All these people that claim to be "versed in history" when they use the term blowback, seemed to have selective memory.

[smiths]

we are chasing our tales here though,

i completely agree with you about 'blowback' being bullshit,

but that book by naomi klein chronicles in great detail a transnational agenda to disenfranchise most of the worlds population by any means necassary,
organised by an almost invisible elite,
it is a shocking, informative and essentail book,

and yes she 'says' she doesnt think the americans would stage false flag attacks on their own people,
personally i think she knows thats bullshit, but she wants to get the hard information about whats been happening for forty years out to as many people as possible

my view is that having read everything she has written, when the lines are drawn she is on the same side as you and i

[8bitagent]

I've considered the possibility that the controlled demolition angle is a complete dead end

Well hey, did the "back into the left" and "grassy knoll" meme get anyone anywhere? Money trails and connections I believe is the key.

But it is interesting...why is it ok to question the story of JFK's death, the Iraq war...but the second you question 9/11 to most people, you're just crazy and psychotic. That's powerful.

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.

Well I never thought I'd be an "expert" or at least well research on a subject as I have as most of you have become...with the "deep state". From Dulles Brothers and Truman to Nixon, Bush Family, Kissinger, Rockefeller, corporations, CIA destabilizations, to Operation Gladio. I feel like "Rain Man" when it comes to this stuff, heh.

In America, there's this running gag with the left that the GOP uses every chance it can to bring up 9/11. Well, 9/11 I have to admit since I started doing research a few years ago has always been there. It's hard to shake, when you see it in a different light than most people.

Hell I don't even look at it as a "US engineered" event, but in an almost existential way.

The whole point of 9/11 was true shock and awe, to reverberate deep within all our minds and consciousness and cause post traumatic stress disorder. It's an event I feel has to be respected for it's majesty, a grand working that truly changed the world forever with endless war...even tho 3000 people dying does not even compare to the Indonesian Tsumani...its the symbolism of 9.11 that is so striking. This is why the towers had to fall.

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.

You forgot this one...



Honestly, I can't hate on Hugh too mad with his "no Arabs involved/CD is the key/Cheney and Bush did 9/11" routine. Lord knows I can't help but bring up my occult theories on conspiracies or prattle on about informants, CIA charity fronts in Bosnia, and BCCI.

[8bitagent]

That is the most puzzling part of all of it. The origination...

Could it have been something like this?

I'm not being sarcastic. Is it so improbable that the initiating event could have been the impact of heavy commercial airliners traveling at more than 400 mph? Particularly since the collapse sequence was seen to originate at the point of impact?

Ok, well let's say I'm Osama bin Laden, David Rockefeller, Mr. X, or Belialmoron the demon hellspawn puppeteering Bilderberg Illuminati...

HOW do I guarantee the towers will fall Jeff? How do I make sure the PRESTIEGE of my years in the planning grand working is going to have it's main event: the complete and utter collapse of the towers.

Do you really think WASP European elite, bin Laden, Cheney or the Devil himself could go to so much trouble with patsies, informants, Saudi/ISI money trails, ect and NOT have a guarantee in place for the
grand main event?

You know the psychological and symbolic implication of 9/11...
why do you feel that 1) planes were a 100% guarantee
2) smokey towers alone would have been all that was needed to get endless war and everything else?

Maybe that's why I see an esoteric/Fortean factor in many of these events, because sometimes it doesn't seem like there's clear provable answers in the human world.

we are chasing our tales here though,

i completely agree with you about 'blowback' being bullshit,

but that book by naomi klein chronicles in great detail a transnational agenda to disenfranchise most of the worlds population by any means necassary,
organised by an almost invisible elite,
it is a shocking, informative and essentail book,

and yes she 'says' she doesnt think the americans would stage false flag attacks on their own people,
personally i think she knows thats bullshit, but she wants to get the hard information about whats been happening for forty years out to as many people as possible

my view is that having read everything she has written, when the lines are drawn she is on the same side as you and i

Yeah but I'm not talking about specifically the "US did 9/11" theory, which even I am not completely on board with.

I'm talking about the fact MOST of the big events...from the Depression, World War 1 and 2, the 1907 bank run, Federal Reserve, Vietnam War, and virtually EVERY major Islamic terror attack of the last 30 years seem to be the work of the deep state.

Does Klein even know about Operation Gladio, where a Masonic order, CIA and NATO waged decades worth of deadly false flag terror attacks to blame on leftist groups?

Of course I agree with her thesis, her basic premise...but it's bizarre how
she can just ignore and poo poo that factor.

What, does she think Poland attacked Gleiwitz, the Gulf of Tonkin really happened and a naked Dutch commie did the Reichstag by himself?