Incredible film: what really happened on 9/11, quite credible:

[Solve_et_Coagula]

Incredible film: what really happened on 9/11, quite credible:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

[Laelth]

1. This is counter-spin.

One of the tricks the people who planned 9-11 use is just this kind of misinformation. Bizarre theories like this one make all those who question the official story sound like paranoid, delusional people.

Given what we know about the laws of physics, only one explanation of the "collapse" of the World Trade Center buildings (1, 2, and 7) makes sense. Controlled demolitions brought them down.

Go here for more:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html

There's no way a fire could have brought those towers down. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken a steel-frame building significantly. No fire has ever, ever, in the history of the modern skyscraper, caused a steel-frame building to collapse. Demolition is the only reasonable answer.



Think a fire could bring that down? Think again.

Just watch THIS if you need more convincing. A steel structure is very, very strong.

-Laelth

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

8. No need to be rude.

Believe what you want. I choose to believe the laws of physics. Sure, the planes hit the buildings. Sure, there was a fire, but neither the planes nor the fires brought those buildings down. Look for yourself.

-Laelth

[RayUbinger]

25. Show me the plane

> Sure, the planes hit the buildings.

WHAT "PLANE?" WHERE?



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Laelth]

26. Disabled profile. Hmm ...

Who, exactly, are you working for?

I suppose you're asking me about the North Tower since there were plenty of videos of a plane flying into the South tower, and only one known video (and no pictures) of the plane that flew into the North tower. For this reason, I can't show you a picture of the plane that flew into the building, as you well know.

What I can show you, however, is a picture of the plane's impact crater in the North tower.



Looks like a plane to me. Are you gonna tell me a missile made that crater? No.

But you're right to believe the official government story is a lie. The buildings were, quite obviously, brought down by controlled demolitions.

Thanks for playing. :wave:

-Laelth

[ixion]

12. stupid things: like kerosene will melt commercial steel and

cause mile-high buildings to implode, one after another, into their own footprints.

Like that kind of stupid thing? :shrug:



Have you ever worked with metal? There's a reason you use oxygen and acetylene to heat steel: because other methods won't do it. Pour jet fuel on a piece of commercial-grade steel like that used in the construction of the WTC and throw it in a large fire and see if it melts.

It's the chemistry and physics of the 'official' explanation that has always concerned me. And until those questions can be answered satisfactorily, there will always be doubt about what really happened, IMO.

[LARED]

16. Having worked with metal frequently I have a question for you

Why do building codes require fireproofing in steel framed office buildings? It's not to prevent the steel from melting.

[MrSammo1]

19. Considering the.......

corrupt nature of the capitalist system..........the fireproofing is most likely worthless.

[LARED]

20. While all economic systems can be corrupt,

Capitalism tends to be less corrupt than others, because those pesky capitalist tend to insist on maximizing their capital. Corruption always has a price and so in a competing market being corrupt has a price.

What this mean in this context is that in any economic system it might make sense that a building code inspector might be corrupt or law makers might create a flimsy law to help uncle Ernie that sells some construction material, it is almost impossible for them to institutionalize a worthless requirement (un-like fireproofing steel framed buildings) in the entire United States.

One good reason is that when non-fireproofed buildings fall down and kill firemen and civilians there just might be some liability attached to not minimizing a well known risk.

But hey, I you want to believe fireproofing is required just for giggles, be my guest.

[MrSammo1]

21. One good reason is that when non-fireproofed buildings fall down and kill

You are talking about brick buildings.

Steel buildings don't have the same problem.

Except on 911.

[LARED]

22. Steel buildings don't have the same problem.

Hummmmm.......

Maybe it's the fireproofing?

[MrSammo1]

24. Or the..........

explosives?

[sabbat hunter]

28. brick buildings

still need a structure to them. either wood (which would obviously burn) or steel. apartment buildings are made of steel supports with brick. they still need sprinklers, fireproofing, etc.

[HamdenRice]

29. Lared, you logic is way, way off here ...

Putting aside the issue of whether steel melts at what temperature, and even assuming that capitalism is a less corrupt economic system than others (which I actually doubt is true), you cannot infer from that, that governmental regulations in a capitalist system are also efficient and serve the purposes of maximizing profit. They don't. There is no logical correlation there.

For example, I assume that most electricians in New York strive to make a profit. In many localities, it is more profitable to use modern plastic wiring in walls. But New York City regulations require all electricians to use BX cable (that is steel housing flexible cable).

Electricians have told me that the official reasons they have been told for the regulation is that it is more fireproof in case of a short in the cable, or that because New York has a big rat population and rats cause shorts by chewing through plastic cable but can't chew through BX cable.

But they assure me the real reason is because unions want it that way because it makes installation more time consuming, raising wages.

So the regulation requiring BX cable has nothing to do with profitability. Similarly while the regulation requiring fireproofing may be valid for fire safety reasons, you can hardly assume that it is enforced for reasons of profitability.

[sofa king]

30. And yet steel has been manufactured and manipulated since 1300 BC

How did people make steel to begin with without pure oxygen and acetylene? How did they manipulate it to make such things as samurai swords and damascus steel, when they didn't even have kerosene?

The answer is highly instructive, I think. They found the highest hill they could find, to ensure a steady wind, dug a hole in the side of it, and placed the furnace there. With such conditions, charcoal fires were enough to sustain blast-furnace temperatures capable of melting and re-shaping steel.

Here's an example of a puddling furnace, which I think closely resembles the conditions created by the crashes created by the planes. Imagine the plane crash creating the hearth and supplying the fuel, while the central core served as the exhaust. I think someone else inadvertantly answered the question of where the molten steel "puddled" in another post.



However, I do not think the same argument can be applied to WTC-7. Would you guys please, PLEASE start looking at that instead of trying to pretend that what you saw didn't actually happen?

[greyl]

2. Too bad Part 2 discredits Part 1 nt

[No Exit]

3. Once I realized we'd been had, to me the question was always

"Who was really behind the 9/11 horror?" Not "What are the technical details of what REALLY happened?"

I'm not criticizing, because I think it's great that people are looking into the technical details of what really happened. However, I am content to assume that the jets actually brought down the buildings--because to me, the larger question is WHO ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT THE PLOT OF INDUCING THOSE JETS TO FLY INTO THE BUILDINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

While there are credible theories which insist that it was not the jets alone which brought down the buildings, the fact is, we certainly can agree we all saw at least ONE jet fly straight into a building.

I believe that possibly the hijackers were brainwashed into doing this. After all, we almost daily see instances where people are so brainwashed that they strap explosives around their waists and blow themselves up in order to kill lots of "the enemy" in a crowd. It's also possible that only the leader of each group of 4 men (of course, one group only had 3 men) knew that they were going to suicide into something. The followers on each plane may have thought they were eventually going to land the hijacked plane. That would mean that there need only have been 4--not 19--wild-eyed fanatics who were willing to suicide.

The troubling thing to me is that I have found out that this sort of stunt has been used REPEATEDLY throughout history: you carry out an attack on some country or political party, then you make it look like your enemy is the one who did the attack. Then you sit back and grow fat as you watch the two fight and destroy each other. Or you use the faked attack as an excuse to say to the world, "See? My enemy is a really rotten guy. No one can deny it after that horrific attack he just did. So we must all rise up against him." And the fools, naturally moved and outraged by the blood and guts, willingly all rise up against your enemy.

The most well-known of these "black ops" was the Nazis' set-up of the Reichstag fire. But there are many, many, many more going back at least to Roman times.

To me, the point is not that we, the doubters, must present a completely airtight alternative explanation to what REALLY happened on 9/11. (After all, it's not like the Official Story of 9/11 is very credible, nor is it anywhere near airtight!) To me, the point is that we, the doubters, must make people realize that it is quite likely that this was a "black op" stunt JUST LIKE THE REICHSTAG FIRE. I truly believe it was just that. And who has benefitted from 9/11? Answer that question and you have the likely perpetrators.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. I can believe this was the work of people who hated the actions

of the U.S. in some parts of the world.... if you want to believe we helped it along, I suppose our actions around the world did just that. If you don't want to believe that there are people who despise the U.S. governments meddling enough to do this, consider the marines barracks, consider project Bojinka, the millenium plot and on and on. Yes, there are people benefitting from this, yes they probably would stand down while this madness was being carried out for a much larger agenda... I for one wonder how much longer the towers were to stand without some sort of exhorbitant maintenance... perhaps the design was flawed, perhaps they needed to come down anyway for safety sake... now who would want to pay for that (deconstruction)?? Too many mysteries here... but they need to be demystified, our future depends on it.

[rman]

9. very valid question, some hints per Sibel Edmonds:

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: "This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation.

Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

=========

Sibel Edmonds: Revealing the content of the FBI intercepts

In an exclusive interview on Saturday, we asked Edmonds if she would deny that laundered drug money linked to the 911 attacks found its way into recent House, Senate and Presidential campaign war-chests, according to what she heard in intelligence intercepts she was asked to translate.

"once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

When asked how many Americans were named in the intercepts, Edmonds said "There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that,"
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://www.fathers.ca/fbi_cover-up.htm

========

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group (DU)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344
(also see Indira Sign)

[rman]

14. hijackers

Once you accept that it was an inside job, a false-flag operation, then it's not a big leap to assume the purpetrators did not make it hard on themselves by involving well trained pilots willing to give their lives, air craft crew and passengers.

The easier solution is to follow the Operation Northwoods scenario. In short: remote controlled airplanes. The technology was there in the 60's, presumably it got better since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[No Exit]

4. Pardon me, but what the heck does "Solve et Coagula" mean??

[ixion]

11. it means: "solution and coagulation."

:-)

[Ian David]

7. Crap you find on Thornweb's gateway to the paranormal doesn't wash

Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay.

[HamdenRice]

10. At this point, sadly, I feel if you don't believe LIHOP/MIHOP you are ...

unaware and uninformed about the facts, or very naive, or in some state of psychological denial, or actively spreading disinformation.

I personally lean toward demolition, mainly because of WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, had small fires and minor structural damage, collapsed straight down into its footprint around 5:30, and happened to house the NY offices of the CIA, Secret Service, and SEC office that contained irreplaceable Enron files.

I agree, however, with No Exit that it really isn't necessary to get into the technical details of the collapse of the towers. I read an interesting blog entry by DU's Minstrel Boy on his blog to this effect. He mentioned that a JFK assassination investigator recently lamented that the decades long investigation has been sidetracked by technical issues, such as the magic bullet, etc. Any time you focus on technically ambiguous events, there will be experts on both sides of the issue.

But if you step back and look at the big picture, with all the evidence available in even the mainstream presss, it is utterly obvious -- irrefutable even -- that there was a great deal of foreign governmental involvement (other than Afghanistan) in 9/11, and obvious links between the hijackers and elements within the US government.

For example, is everyone aware that the financer of the 9/11 plot was the head of Pakistan's ISI, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad? And that Gen. Ahmad flew to DC on 9/6 to meet with his Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council and State Dept counterparts? That he was meeting with Porter Goss for breakfast as the planes flew into the towers?

This was reported not in some alternative press, but in the Wall St. Journal.

So how can completely close minded believers in the official conspiracy theory like IanDB process that kind of information: The man who paid for Mohammed Atta's expenses, including flight school lessons, was meeting with the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who was a former legendary CIA operative, and who happened to represent the Gulf Coast area of Florida where Atta was in flight school, and who would be appointed head of the CIA as a result of 9/11.

And the journalist who reported this in the Wall St. Journal, Daniel Pearl, just happened to be kidnapped and to have his head cut off in Pakistan by the ISI operative who carried out the transfer of funds to Atta for Gen. Ahmad.

Just coincidence? One of those darned things?

Oh, come on.

And you think we LIHOP/MIHOPers believe in impossible things?

[QuettaKid]

23. Daniel Pearl and the ISI story

Do you have a link for this? I have been following the Atta/ISI story and this is the first I am hearing of it. Thank you.

[herbbrown]

13. Hey thanks for posting this

Incredible film, if this doesn't make you think nothing will!

[Laelth]

15. It makes me think that ...

someone, desperately, wants to hide the truth. This film is just silly, and it discredits those who question the "official story."

Controlled demolition, on the other hand, makes sense and is supported by the laws of physics. More here, if you're truly interested.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html

:toast:

-Laelth

[mirandapriestly]

17. It definitely looks like a controlled demolition

but it looks like other methods were used as well. Missiles or other means might have been used to create more fires so that the official story of fire would be more credible and they could pull off a demolition.

[Laelth]

18. That's certainly possible.

It was all "shock and awe." It was just too horrendous for anyone to consider that our own government might be involved. Still is, for most people. Hitler was right. A "big lie" is more likely to be believed than a little one.

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925

-Laelth

[lauren_victoria]

27. my friend showed me

that video a few months ago, it is truly amazing.
I posted it on one of my webpages, so people could get
a better perspective of what happened.
It has really sparked a lot of interest at my school.