To those who don't believe that 9/11 involved CD...

[jingofever]

I thought "pull it" meant "pull the fire fighters". Which is what they did.

[Morty]

I think the squibs are from air pressure from collapsing floors. And I haven't checked, but I hope Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth do too, because it's obvious that the collapsing floors would send an incredible amount of air downwards, and windows would be the first things to let go to release the pressure. That said, if there are any squibs from when the building isn't collapsing, then that's another kettle of fish.

Even if the towers were completely wired for controlled demolition, I don't see that there was any need to have any explosive charges that shot debris outwards for all to see. They would have gone out of their way to make sure any explosive charges weren't visible.

The building definitely did have a design that was amenable to collapse, and who knows, it may have been intentionally designed for a later psy-ops collapse. I think all that it needed on the day was for the columns to be cut at the level of plane impact, and from there on the collapse would happen without any assistance. But I haven't looked into it for a few years now. I'm on the AE911truth mailing list, but I haven't been reading any of it because most of it seems to be about fundraising.

I'm not convinced a 47 story building can be pulled down without explosives/thermite.

[BOOGIE66]

I thought "pull it" meant "pull the fire fighters". Which is what they did.

If talking about the firefighters I would think they would say 'pull them' not 'pull it'

[elfismiles]

I thought "pull it" meant "pull the fire fighters". Which is what they did.

The meaning(s) of "pull" and "pull it" in these contexts has been debated and there are multiple meanings / usages.

But yes, as the History Commons / 911 Timeline project link I cited cite ... the "official" explanation for Silverstein's use of the phrase was allegedly to pull the firefighters from working on the building any longer.

[Sounder]

I mean, I'm not saying the building wasn't spooked-up and probly worthy of being taken out if it was part of the op but ... meh - I always want more proof before I feel somethings a slam-dunk like so many others assert is the case with 911.

Not proof, but the op is the evidence that bldg. 7 was blown up, not the other way around. Your supposition seems to be a weak replacement in that the truck tires would spin long before the force needed to pull a pillar on a large steel framed building, and the building would not in that case come straight down, but would rather ‘tilt’ and not come down so fast.

Yes they did it in the aftermath, but there they had time and leverage not available on Sept. 11.

[elfismiles]

This thread is like a time-warp back to the early days post-911.

All of this has been hashed out millions of times by others.

The believers argue that "the physics prove it was CD" ... and well, to me that is compelling.

On the other hand, I've read the debunkings of a lot of the CD stuff and am also moved by many of their arguments.

"It's a fact" that certain people wanted those buildings gone ... and the list of people is on both sides of the "terrorist" line: greedy corporate developer fuck-heads wanted it gone so its ailing infrastructure wouldn't cost them shit-tons of money to properly remove, haters of western capitalism and its symbols wanted them gone in a dramatic way as a ritual initiating new strategems to take down the infidels empire.

Kinda like the many different folks who all wanted JFK dead each for their own reasons, "somehow" a zeitgeist shit-storm allowed a confluence of bad-actors to all act towards the same goal and to achieve it without the rightful parties ever being caught and prosecuted.

[semper occultus]

This thread is like a time-warp back to the early days post-911.

...funny you mention time warps ..I was just thinking last night what if we had all been around with RI 40 yrs ago.....how many pages would the RI thread on the Manson Murders pan-out at.....C2W typing up a storm on the Manson girls, Alice on the Yom Kippur War, the Vietnam thread, the Nixon thread....leading up to Watergate ofcourse.....

..but then I spend alot of time thinking bollocks..

..

[Luther Blissett]

JFK…

[MinM]

Kinda like the many different folks who all wanted JFK dead each for their own reasons, "somehow" a zeitgeist shit-storm allowed a confluence of bad-actors to all act towards the same goal and to achieve it without the rightful parties ever being caught and prosecuted.

Another parallel to the JFK case would be the ubiquitous stream of stories that were in the pipeline .. designed to support (either directly or through obfuscation and misdirection) the official story.

One of the first in the Kennedy case was the Oswald bio planted in an obscure New Zealand newspaper shortly after the assassination. Of course media assets and technology during the time of 9/11 provided many more avenues to prop up the desired narrative. Even supposedly alternative news sources...

This RI thread .. The REAL Story of 9/11 That Most Truthers Miss ..

Your post is scattershot, anecdotal, and dismisses the HARDEST EVIDENCE of what happened on 9/11 while you embrace the second level of cover, LIHOP, while dismissing the proof of MIHOP.

I don't think it will surprise you, Hugh, that I completely disagree. I think 8bitagent, and Chaim Kupferberg, are on the best-sourced track to uncovering what really went down.

Alice, I don't think there's any reason to suspect Kupferberg because there's little biographical data. Most of us who write online appear to only exist in our online writing. I also don't think he's whitewashing Israel. He acknowledges an Israeli nexus to deep politics and the possible involvement of its criminalized intelligence assets. What he's pointing out is the fallacious reduction of 9/11 to an Israeli job. (As he also points out re a "Saudi job," or a "Pakistani job.")

I also believe this reductionism has been encouraged by covert elements which mean to align the 9/11 movement with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, and they've had a great deal of success in recent years. There are some points of congruity to the floating of the "Oswald was a Soviet spy" cover story after the assassination, which admitted a cover-up for reasons of national security, just not the actual one...

I bring this up in relation to this thread to point out that it seems that there were many that bought into these various blowback scenarios/hijacker legends in a way that precluded the need to flesh out the physical evidence ie., controlled demolition.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-walls- ... hy/5394984

http://www.blackopforum.info/discussion ... ws-archive

[Lord Balto]

You guys don't want to hear my speculative theory about 1&2. 7 is obvious.

But, I'll tell you anyways.

After watching "Man on a Wire" and during it, I settled on the crazy idea that they were actually built for an eventual spectacular destruction at an "occult date". How iconic were those buildings? I don't believe this, but it is not out of the realm of possibilty. Proof of any kind? Nope. Just an out there idea. Literally built with a built in "plan" for September 11th, 2001.

Dumb, I know. But it sprung to mind. Such is my life.

That doesn't seem dumb at all, just far-out. But far-out isn't bad, I personally love those kind of speculations. I think only a mind that is bold and adventurous can cut through mysteries, find the thread that no one has noticed yet.

But the fact that you call it dumb does bring something to mind regarding fringe communities like this one, which is what appears to be an environment of increasing hostility towards far-out speculative thinking. It leads many of us to pre-emptively denigrate our own ideas when they get too out-there. I personally do that sort of thing all the time, just brand the idea as stupid right off the bat, essentially playing the fool for the sake of the "guardians of what is reasonable".

I have no doubt whatsoever that the reality of what is happening right now is a completely far-out idea from the perspective of where we're standing now. Now exactly WHAT far-out idea among the slew of far-out ideas is the most accurate, well that is still in question. But we are never gonna get closer without treading into some far-out territory.

This is basically the Khalezov theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo

Khalezov claims there were nuclear devices planted under the buildings in conformity with some mythical legal requirement that skyscrapers not be built unless there was a method available for taking them down.

As for building 7 being taken down by ropes, would I be treading too deeply into the Land of the Rational to ask whether anyone saw ropes being attached, or heavy equipment being used, or whether there is even any evidence that the building's structure was so far gone that it would be subject to such a device? The video presented was of a steel frame devoid of outside walls to which access was unhindered to the very core of the building. This is, at the very least, a bad analogy. If this is simply another fall-back position on the part of the official government conspiracy theorists, it is the weakest one I have ever seen. Building 7 is clearly a controlled demolition. That is, after all, what they look like, and nothing else looks like that, that hasn't come out of the Hollywood dream factory.

[8bitagent]

What do you make of the videos showing "squib" explosions, small, concentrated jets of debris being ejected from very tight spaces along the corners and center columns of the exterior shell of WTC 1 and 2 as they fell at near free-fall speed? Do you agree with the "syringe" hypothesis put forward by the debunkers from Popular Mechanics and the like? Is the video evidence simply not compelling enough on its own for you?

Just curious.
Jerky

I don't. While I believe the 'dark wizards' behind 9/11 absolutely needed the towers to collapse, I am not convinced in the least by the evidence (so far) posted by the CD proponents. I can't say with all certainty that fully loaded 550 mph jumbo sets seering through upper floors of the strangely constructed Saudi Bin Laden built alone couldnt have "done the job".

10 years of being in the "truther" world, noone has ever explained how these so called explosives would be intricately placed. I don't believe some CIA agents dressed in workman's outfit literally went up and down the towers and placed spray on nano thermite explosive whatever. Im not saying its impossible, but I also dont believe 9/11 was the sort of "inside job" that's part of the official conspiracy theory(nor do i believe al Qaeda masterminded the event)

[8bitagent]

What do you make of the videos showing "squib" explosions, small, concentrated jets of debris being ejected from very tight spaces along the corners and center columns of the exterior shell of WTC 1 and 2 as they fell at near free-fall speed? Do you agree with the "syringe" hypothesis put forward by the debunkers from Popular Mechanics and the like? Is the video evidence simply not compelling enough on its own for you?

Just curious.
Jerky

It seems pretty clear demolition charges were used in building 7. That almost seems a non-issue. So if they were used in one building then it is really not a stretch to consider that they were used in the other 2 as well.

My personal 2 cents: I think the highest probability is that TPTB became aware of a legitimate terrorist plot, they decided that this attack would be very beneficial for them, and so they took steps to ensure that the attack was successful in a very big way. These steps included things like the demolition charges. That is the rough skeleton that the visible events seem to point towards.

I love all your posts, but so much of this I disagree with. "WTC 7 = assumed non issue". I don't believe that. Truthers never show the massive gaping hole large chunks of the tower that fell into it. I mean about all the other WTC complexes noone talks about, were those rigged too?

"The powers that be became aware of a legitimate terror plot". Yeah, or the same forces that control "al Qaeda" also manipulate and control the west without each other knowing. If I was a bully on a playground, I could easily get too kids to fight eachother with whisper campaigns, sit back and laugh. al Qaeda = 100% brainwashed proxy windup toys for the true powers that be. What one might call the black lodge.

The "9/11 was super legit by al Qaedas, so Dick Cheney and Bush planted controlled demo charges and let it/make it happen" just doesn't wash with the facts.

[8bitagent]

I still entertain the possibility of CD with WTCs 1/2 though I'm really not wedded to it and I can buy the syringe effect idea.

I'm less inclined to believe in CD of WTC7 as I think the references to "pull-it" were LITERAL and that the firefighters actually attached ropes / chains / cables and physically "pulled" specific supports to bring down what was a dangerously precarious situation.

But then ... I've also "entertained" the pre-planted explosives ideas of visionary artist Paul Laffoley ... whose name rhymes with "Laugh-Away"

Now Laffoley has some VERY interesting things to say about 9/11 and the WTC, which may be a bit weird for some. But it's esoterically interesting food for thought.

Incidentally, it was the Saudi bin Laden group's star architect who designed the WTC with heavy Islamic influence. Most people don't know this.

[8bitagent]

You guys don't want to hear my speculative theory about 1&2. 7 is obvious.

But, I'll tell you anyways.

After watching "Man on a Wire" and during it, I settled on the crazy idea that they were actually built for an eventual spectacular destruction at an "occult date". How iconic were those buildings? I don't believe this, but it is not out of the realm of possibilty. Proof of any kind? Nope. Just an out there idea. Literally built with a built in "plan" for September 11th, 2001.

Dumb, I know. But it sprung to mind. Such is my life.

Well twin pillars are a longstanding religious and esoteric symbol. If one were to believe in the power of such symbols, or 'charged' symbolism, massive ritual death experienced live by billions on the planet could
be considered highly religious.

the architectural origins of the WTC should be of great interest to RI. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cult ... merce.html

Man on Wire is intense. That focus he had. 1" cable across the N and S towers...for approx 45 min. That's sheer focus. Focus I could even imagine Mohammed Atta having

[8bitagent]

You guys don't want to hear my speculative theory about 1&2. 7 is obvious.

But, I'll tell you anyways.

After watching "Man on a Wire" and during it, I settled on the crazy idea that they were actually built for an eventual spectacular destruction at an "occult date". How iconic were those buildings? I don't believe this, but it is not out of the realm of possibilty. Proof of any kind? Nope. Just an out there idea. Literally built with a built in "plan" for September 11th, 2001.

Dumb, I know. But it sprung to mind. Such is my life.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the reality of what is happening right now is a completely far-out idea from the perspective of where we're standing now. Now exactly WHAT far-out idea among the slew of far-out ideas is the most accurate, well that is still in question. But we are never gonna get closer without treading into some far-out territory.

YES. I agree.