9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

DamagedTrax

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Once you can corrupt yourself in the now in the hope of a better future, you have already lost the good fight IMO. But perhaps I am horribly naive.

you're not naive at all. its how many of us think. unfortunately, neo-capitalism brought to the hyper extremes that we see today has caused a complete upturning of certain moral values on a societal level. A lot of people are now at the point where commercial gain is more important than anything else and they will push themselves to positions that wouldnt even exist without neo-capitalism.

im sure this happened in various ways in different systems through history but living at this point in time, its not hard to see what the major problems are.

now im no communist myself (maybe a wannabe socialist to an extent!) but i like nice things and im sure my new trainers meant someone suffered along the way. So while im ranting about capitalism im probably still part of the bigger problem anyway

Dohnjoe

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

No,of course not. But the main stream media does not represent the opinions of a large section of its population as anything other than the unpatriotic craziness of conspiracy theorists. Try watching how RT 'news' presents 911 'conspiracies'. Tell me then if that is propaganda or 'free press'.

Just to jump in here, "mainstream media" is hundreds of outlets from all sorts of countries, some with good press freedom, others with bad. It's also everything from tabloids to respectable broadsheets.

RT as a TV station has a specific task, it's to spread the Russian government view (whom it's controlled by) to English speaking countries

Are you saying that the free press was reporting that the WMD claim was a lie? If they were then you have a better memory than me. I seem to remember a lot about freedom fries and other nonsense, but reports on US mainstream media that Bush was a barefaced lying war monger are not something I recollect.

The press will report what politicians say, doesn't necessarily mean compliance. The press, like everyone else, just didn't have absolute rock solid proof there were no WMD's in Iraq (among other claims) I'd call US press reaction mixed at the time, outlet's like Fox obviously weren't enthusiastically overturning every stone, but for the rest of the world, especially "Old Europe" as Rumsfeld put it, were uncovering information that contradicted US intelligence.. it just took time

The response were some of the biggest anti-war protests the world has ever seen

I could have said pre snowden that the US was undertaking a massive illegal collection of all internet communications of every citizen (IMO), and you could have said where is the proof in wikileaks and claimed because there was none, it was highly implausible. That's my point. In other words it is a pointless argument and one that should be dropped. Wikileaks is not the arbiter of truth.

It wasn't like we didn't know about (personally I read about it years before the leaks) but an insider like Snowden revealed the sheer scale and technical details of it

A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful, so Lance and his team cheating 7 tour de frances through lies and deceit is a perfect example IMO.

There are plenty of conspiracies, just have a look at the recent gem from FIFA. The difference is in the scale, severity and complexity, cyclists doping is a little different from killing people, thousands of them

As I pointed out earlier in the thread (and I know this is proving contentious/touchy) the fact the many who support the conspiracy still don't seem to know exactly who actually did it (or how) is probably testament to the difficulty factor that would have been involved

Ctrl Alt Delete

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Oh, by the way, Danny ended up dying in a car crash. Of course, it could have been a genuine accident.

It was a single vehicle collision into a tree of course it was an accident, do you know how many people in Ireland let alone around the world die in single vehicle accidents every year?

Of course conspiracy people could be offing everyone all over the place in these single vehicle collisions :rolleyes:

DamagedTrax

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It was a single vehicle collision into a tree of course it was an accident, do you know how many people in Ireland let alone around the world die in single vehicle accidents every year?

lets be fair. while we dont know what happened and the odds are most likely that it was an accident, it is definitely within the realms of possibility that it could have been a hit. a tamper with the steering column and brakes would be more than enough. cars can be run off the road aggressively.. there's all sorts of ways it could happen. that doesnt mean it did... but it could.

Ctrl Alt Delete

DamagedTrax wrote: »

lets be fair. while we dont know what happened and the odds are most likely that it was an accident, it is definitely within the realms of possibility that it could have been a hit. a tamper with the steering column and brakes would be more than enough. cars can be run off the road aggressively.. there's all sorts of ways it could happen. that doesnt mean it did... but it could.

Ok fair enough. But if you are going to talk about this guy at least talk about what he said in full not just the part that suits truthers (because to be fair you all do it a lot)

Namely what he said was

That while I say it appears to be a demolition I am also
just guessing. And the theoretical plan described seems infeasible given the extent of fire that would have damaged or triggered pre-planted explosives.

I am also very unconvinced by the timeline and find it hard to believe it was possible in the time although that is assuming the demolition rigging happened after the twin towers collapse.

When the rest of what he said is read it paints a very different picture than one of someone sure it was a controlled demolition .

Add to that the fact he was killed before anything he said actually aired I would say it's a safe bet he really was just involved in an accident.

DamagedTrax

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Ok fair enough. But if you are going to talk about this guy at least talk about what he said in full not just the part that suits truthers (because to be fair you all do it a lot)

Namely what he said was

When the rest of what he said is read it paints a very different picture than one of someone sure it was a controlled demolition .

Add to that the fact he was killed before anything he said actually aired I would say it's a safe bet he really was just involved in an accident.

personally i dont count him as any kind of proof myself. maybe a signpost to follow but there doesnt seem to be any evidence (other than circumstantial) to suggest anything malicious so my thinking would be to leave it alone and just add it to the coincidence list.

weisses

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Add to that the fact he was killed before anything he said actually aired I would say it's a safe bet he really was just involved in an accident.

Fact is the program aired in 07 and he died in 2011

I asked you earlier if you agreed building 7 reached freefall acceleration ?

Ctrl Alt Delete

weisses wrote: »

I asked you earlier if you agreed building 7 reached freefall acceleration ?

I believe the science suggests it exceeded free fall acceleration

weisses

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I believe the science suggests it exceeded free fall acceleration

Exceeding free fall acceleration ??

Overheal

Uhm yeah, what?

mulbot

weisses wrote: »

Exceeding free fall acceleration ??

How can that happen?

Rabo Karabekian

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

No,of course not. But the main stream media does not represent the opinions of a large section of its population as anything other than the unpatriotic craziness of conspiracy theorists. Try watching how RT 'news' presents 911 'conspiracies'. Tell me then if that is propaganda or 'free press'.

You know that not all the mainstream press panders to the state line, right?

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I asked for sources because I knew of none, and I have read a lot about world war two. I was asking specifically for sources that showed the Nazis were making routine announcements in Nazi Germany about the killing of undesirables, which is what you claimed. Now you have changed your language to 'cleaning up' which is very different and something I do not need to check your sources, because I know they were public about that. Remember, the Germans were people, and as much as they have been demonized by the victors of the war, they would probably have reacted strongly to public announcement of mass genocide. Hence, claims they were for me are extraordinary and hence I look for sources. If you want to point to a source that backs your original claim, I will read it (does the source you provided a link to do that?)

Wow. Just click on the link! And for future reference, if somebody is talking about the Nazi regime and uses terms like 'cleaning up' chances are they are talking about the murder of undesireables in a systemic manner. Especially if, given the context, that's exactly what they were talking about.

I find it really hard to believe (I'm being sarcastic here: I find it extremely easy to believe as it seems to be the general tactic here) that you would focus on a 'change of term' (see: euphemism) rather than just click on the link. The mind boggles.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Are you saying that the free press was reporting that the WMD claim was a lie? If they were then you have a better memory than me. I seem to remember a lot about freedom fries and other nonsense, but reports on US mainstream media that Bush was a barefaced lying war monger are not something I recollect.

Free press isn't just the US press. I can't say for sure about the US press, but I know there were reports in the Guardian, and pretty sure the Independent and the BBC went to town on the claims.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I could have said pre snowden that the US was undertaking a massive illegal collection of all internet communications of every citizen (IMO), and you could have said where is the proof in wikileaks and claimed because there was none, it was highly implausible. That's my point. In other words it is a pointless argument and one that should be dropped. Wikileaks is not the arbiter of truth.

And my point is that something like 9/11 dwarfs anything that has ever been done with regards to a conspiracy theory. Even the NSA's illegal operations, which were uncovered primarily through a leak of sensitive information. I'm not saying that it means that it happened 100%. It means that it is highly implausible and, if we haven't heard anything about it by now, is a serious point that should be addressed.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

It is interesting IMO too, because it suggests that he may have been silenced. Then you have to ask, why silence him if there is nothing to hide? I cannot post links, hence I say go to youtube (sorry about that by my account is new and they don't allow me too) but if you want to know about more suspicious deaths and have a genuine interest, google mysterious deaths surrounding 911. Some on their own suggest nothing, but together these things begin to paint a pretty grim picture.

I have a serious interest. Any Google search brings up links to websites like whatreallyhappened [dot] com, usahitman [dot] com, wikispooks [dot] com. Even a quick perusal of the opening lines on the Google search tell you immediately that these were written by people who already 'know' the truth. What were you saying about the unreliability of the mainstream press?

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I didn't mean to focus on the gassing. I also see you have switched to 'Germans were aware' again. I was talking about the main stream media and the German population at large. Was it being reported in the newspapers etc. that the Nazis were committing genocide? I seriously doubt it and would like to see sources for that claim. Otherwise we go back to the Germans knowing as those close to the camps and those carrying out the orders.

If only you had just clicked on that link. The one with an actual source from a reputable publishing house with a full biography. Y'know, rather than links on Google and YouTube videos.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I never referred to any specific video.

You pointed out Weisses' video in an earlier post. Unless I'm missing something, that's referring to a video, right?

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful, so Lance and his team cheating 7 tour de frances through lies and deceit is a perfect example IMO. If you have another definition, I am all ears. And the claim was illustrative. Where was your free media, how did he get away with it for so long before without someone on the inside confessing? (someone did confess, but she was simply discredited, maybe if she had been killed, we would still believe he was not doping!).

Ah well, in that case why not argue about the burglary that happened down the road? I heard there were three people involved in a secret plan to do something unlawful.

I think your posts are displaying signs of being wilfully stubborn at the moment. Refusing to click on links because I've used a euphemism instead of the exact terminology I used earlier. Asking for sources, but suggesting Google searches in return (and the issue isn't that you can't post links, you can be more specific, something similar to a book published, with reputable biographical data and independent research).

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

That is your opinion. As I say, I could have shown many Germans in 1941 pictures of Jews on cattle cars and chimneys billowing smoke, but how could they ever believe their government would do something so vile, and how could they get away with it, too many people would have to be complicit? But then, a blind acceptance of authority, a lack of an informed public, and the combination of opportunists and those who genuinely believed that the extermination was an absolute necessity...well, for me it is easy to see how you could get away with it actually. And in the case of the Nazis, if they hadn't been defeated, maybe we would now live in greater Germania where talk about extermination camps was for crazy conspiracy theorists and only happened on 'where are the Jews now' web forums.

Click on the link (for the, what, fifth time now?) Up to at least 1941 (I think the author suggests 1942) the Nazis were quite open with regards to their policy. Announcements made in the press, there were even advertisements regarding auctions of clothes, jewellery and so on from prisoners. After 1941/2 the policy changed: the country was in an active war, so their policy changed, which is understandable. The Nazi government also had complete control over the media, which I think even you would agree is not the case in the USA.

Dr. Bre

Would ed Snowden revealed any conspiracy if there was one?

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Would ed Snowden revealed any conspiracy if there was one?

Considering he had extraordinary access, you'd think

According to some conspiracy theories I've come across he's a plant to distract us from the real truth

Considering the whole government is a giant leaky ship always at each other's throats (Benghazi, emails, etc) I would be impressed to say the least if they could keep something of that scale and magnitude under wraps this long.. unless that too is all a distraction to keep us from the real truth

DamagedTrax

mulbot wrote: »

How can that happen?

thats a hugely important question that also pertains to the large chunks of steel that were falling faster than the towers.

this is a very interesting video (turn the sound down if nanothermite theories arent your thing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMX7qHGEODs

the only possible way is if there is a propellant of some sort.

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Considering the whole government is a giant leaky ship always at each other's throats (Benghazi, emails, etc) I would be impressed to say the least if they could keep something of that scale and magnitude under wraps this long.. unless that too is all a distraction to keep us from the real truth

You're assuming it is a full 'government' cover up.

What if only certain people were involved? And why do you assume it would have to come out? The Iran-Contra affair wasnt found out about until 1986.. and even that was by accident.

There's plenty of testimony available from government officials (state senators even), that would suggest they had no idea what was going on. Norman Mineta being the obvious example.

Overheal

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats a hugely important question that also pertains to the large chunks of steel that were falling faster than the towers.

this is a very interesting video (turn the sound down if nanothermite theories arent your thing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMX7qHGEODs

the only possible way is if there is a propellant of some sort.

I wouldn't jump the gun on that. First off we can't see the tower behind a cloud of smoke, which is definitely influenced by air, wind, and pressure and other types of drag. You also have to take into consideration that the free-fall motion seen from this camera's perspective is still nonetheless pretty much all in some manner of parabolic free-fall, with piece traveling in both the X and Y. In theory and practice, the fall in Y is not affected by motion in X (we had fun exercising these principles in the lab with pinballs, an overpowered spring launcher and a trash can) but having variation in X from an observers viewpoint will play hell trying to figure out things. Think about perspective lines.



The building itself has to essentially fall through itself too, so even if it is close, the building is not going to actually all fall at 9.81 m/s^2, the dust cloud is certainly not, and in-fact any steel chunks ejected from the building that aren't subjected to appreciable drag due to size and shape are probably the closest to true freefall.

DamagedTrax

You have a strong argument for sure but what makes me disagree (or maybe suspect something different in this case) is that some of the pieces being flung are moving at a greater speed than others, yet there shouldnt be a discrepancy in free fall ejection speeds when mass is taken out of the equation. However these discrepancies are measurable.

And you have to admit, its pretty weird to watch a projectile change direction close to 90 degrees (as you mentioned, thats fully dependent on your visual perspective). But even being generous for perspective's sake, a 70 or 60 degree change of direction mid air (with no collision) is not something you tend to see happen. The fact that the smoke/dust/whatever cloud leaves a visible 7 shape hanging in the air suggests propulsion of some sort, rather than ejection.

In an ejection scenario the cloud/trail shouldnt follow so sharply (and can quite easily keep following the initial direction before the sudden change), unless it is something crumbling off the object...

... but that then opens up another can of worms

Overheal

could be the debris hitting different pockets of air/pressure, those pieces aren't exactly golf balls!

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

could be the debris hitting different pockets of air/pressure, those pieces aren't exactly golf balls!

And what then is the trail behind each piece? Why does it follow even the smaller pieces all the way to the ground?

• if it was dust it should be staying in the air. the smaller pieces were hardly covered in a layer so thick that even freefall air resistance couldnt blow it off before street levels?
• if it was fumes, what from?
• if it was the pieces crumbling as they fell, why? there was no impact explosion according to the official report. I will admit that a lot of material got obliterated in the torrent BUT all of the first chunks to the bottom trailed this substance too.. that cant be accounted for by impact if you go by the official story.

A very interesting theory from AE911 is that the thermate was applied in a paint format (as has been replicated and proven to work by AE911's Kevin Ryan (also ex of the company that certified the WTC steel). That is consistent with the elevator shaft renovations. A thermidic explosion, from within the centre columns would explain the huge chunks of inner columns that got blown up and out. Better explanation than a gravity collapse for me after having seen a homemade thermate cutter charge go off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmA59hQnoOU

im just pointing out the evidence to support one particular alternative view by the way. the thermate theory is plausible but i will admit it has its flaws.

Overheal

DamagedTrax wrote: »

And what then is the trail behind each piece? Why does it follow even the smaller pieces all the way to the ground?

Duh: contrails.

But seriously,

Even while most of the dust cloud behaves like dust, remember that larger pieces of debris will cause their own shocks and slipstreams as they travel. Like a vehicle that moves swiftly off a dirt road, the dust tails behind them for a good bit, most of it accumulated on the body, some is held in place by the vacuum behind the object/vehicle:



Mythbusters probably did this in more ways than one, but in one they tested pickup trucks with their tailgates down and up. You would assume a down gate would create better aerodynamics, but it does not, the large step between the back of the cab and the flatbed creates significant delta forces, and bernoulli's principle comes into play, air is forced to fill that space and to do so must slow down, and pockets of air near the wall of the cab get below atmospheric and/or vacuum, creating drag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle it turns out the tailgate up has the same effect/principle as a golfballs' dimples, it harbors a more static pocket of air but one that rolls/circulates with the flow passing over it from the top of the cab, in all practical effect acting as a very low friction surface (made of air) that the faster flow can travel across:





Now for a piece of debris instead of slowing down the object much/'affecting its fuel economy' the drag experienced at the debris tail will continue to pull the air behind it. Hence why the dust seems to travel along with it. You see a similar effect in this anime at 4:10 (I know, its a cartoon, but they're japanese and they pay attention to those kind of details)

more: http://ecomodder.com/blog/aerocaps-for-pick-up-trucks/

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

Duh: contrails.

But seriously,

Even while most of the dust cloud behaves like dust, remember that larger pieces of debris will cause their own shocks and slipstreams as they travel. Like a vehicle that moves swiftly off a dirt road, the dust tails behind them for a good bit, most of it accumulated on the body, some is held in place by the vacuum behind the object/vehicle:

i think you're completely missing my argument here.

what you're saying applies to actual 'dust' and you concentrated on that alone.

my argument above was to suggest that it isnt only dust getting thrown out of the towers & trailing the building, so explaining how dust alone behaves doesnt cut it in this case.

i came to the conclusion after seeing the many samples of dust and the fact (and it is 100% fact now) that they contain explosive residue.

my question to you is to ignore what dust does (as we know its not just dust) and please explain how a piece of free falling debris changes direction mid air (close to a 90% turn, taking perspective into account), when there is no impact to it? (see 1st 45 seconds of the video above).

it cannot happen without a propellant. i suspect that in this case, something fired late or more likely reacted late.

Overheal

Well, a propellant or external force, which could be a lot of things. But you're correct, physically speaking an external force would have to change somethings direction in general principle.

at 1:45 where am I looking exactly? I don't have audio

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

Well, a propellant or external force, which could be a lot of things. But you're correct, physically speaking an external force would have to change somethings direction in general principle.

at 1:45 where am I looking exactly? I don't have audio

Its at 45 seconds in.

A small projectile shoots clear in the top right hand corner of the falling/exploding debri cloud. As it shoots out horizontally, it suddenly (and without external impact) makes a sharp 90 degree downwards turn - leaving a kind of a number 7 shaped trial in its wake.

I'll hunt out a higher res version for you. it was presented, reviewed and accepted as evidence at the independent Toronto hearings.

Overheal

I see it. Really hard to go off of so hi res would be great if it exists. I can't even tell which way its going, it could as easily be traveling away from the camera in a parabolic arc which would do a lot to explain this travel; if it ejected more or less horizontally and met with air resistance Like this image below, except starting from a near level launch in the X direction give or take a few degrees in the positive.

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

I see it. Really hard to go off of so hi res would be great if it exists. I can't even tell which way its going, it could as easily be traveling away from the camera in a parabolic arc which would do a lot to explain this travel; if it ejected more or less horizontally and met with air resistance Like this image below, except starting from a near level launch in the X direction give or take a few degrees in the positive.

Yup, thats why i was sure to say it is dependent on perspective.

I have the toronto hearings on dvd so i'll cut the section out for you myself as i cant find hi-res online. And as it was reviewed and accepted by the hearings (and since the hearings only accepted evidence with proof of science behind it) we have to assume that all pertinent measurements were done before it was presented and that the angle shows the true flight of the object.

Overheal

came to the conclusion after seeing the many samples of dust and the fact (and it is 100% fact now) that they contain explosive residue.

For those tuning in, a link

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

For those tuning in, a link

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Good explanation and discussion here

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Concerning the Benthem Open platform for science articles

In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[12] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[13]

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers


And from the discussion

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/#.UlnoRVPhExo

DamagedTrax

iron found in the dust has never been claimed as sole evidence of thermitic reaction, despite how debunking sites like to spin it.

here's a very detailed analysis of the United States Geologic Survey on 911 dust and it gives a very different story to the AE911 reports (but still proves thermitic reaction within the dust samples).

http://www.academia.edu/8679047/9-11_An_Analysis_of_the_US_Geological_Survey_Data_-_Ground_Zero-The_Nuclear_Destruction_of_the_WTC_-_William_Tahil

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

iron found in the dust has never been claimed as sole evidence of thermitic reaction, despite how debunking sites like to spin it.

here's a very detailed analysis of the United States Geologic Survey on 911 dust and it gives a very different story to the AE911 reports (but still proves thermitic reaction within the dust samples).

http://www.academia.edu/8679047/9-11_An_Analysis_of_the_US_Geological_Survey_Data_-_Ground_Zero-The_Nuclear_Destruction_of_the_WTC_-_William_Tahil

The report is fairly heavy, the conclusion is the below

This report has presented indisputable and overwhelming evidence that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre were destroyed by the explosion and core meltdown of at least two nuclear reactors.

He still thinks the reactors are underground