473,842 Members | 1,585 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World TradeCentre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq

.
9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com

Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.

A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.

For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.

Sep 11 '08
176 5043
In rec.photo.digit al Al Dykes <ad****@panix.c omwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB
Sep 17 '08 #51
In message <6j************ @mid.individual .net>, Chris Malcolm
<ca*@holyrood.e d.ac.ukwrites
>In rec.photo.digit al Al Dykes <ad****@panix.c omwrote:
>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.

However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.

He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.

There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from the
people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.

Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple electric
pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good for setting
off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light striking (do they
have strip light in the WTC?

Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?

Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....

Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is cold
it is OK.

Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.

You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or down
the stairs.

Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.

With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.

That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle of
one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.

There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone other
than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it leaking
before or most certainly afterwards.

Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure that
in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be where
you need it when you need it.

In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.

The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building of
this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has actually
tested anything this size before . All it needs is the concrete mix to
be a little out in that area (hot day, running short of sand/cement etc
something contaminated the water when it was mixed) and you have a
weakness that only appears when you bake it with aircraft fuel for 20
minutes.

There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #52
Chris H wrote:
In message <6j************ @mid.individual .net>, Chris Malcolm
<ca*@holyrood.e d.ac.ukwrites
>In rec.photo.digit al Al Dykes <ad****@panix.c omwrote:
>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.

However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.

He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.

There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from the
people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.

Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple electric
pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good for setting
off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light striking (do they
have strip light in the WTC?

Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?

Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....

Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is cold
it is OK.

Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.

You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or down
the stairs.

Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.

With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.

That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle of
one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.

There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone other
than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it leaking
before or most certainly afterwards.

Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure that
in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be where
you need it when you need it.

In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.

The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building of
this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has actually
tested anything this size before . All it needs is the concrete mix to
be a little out in that area (hot day, running short of sand/cement etc
something contaminated the water when it was mixed) and you have a
weakness that only appears when you bake it with aircraft fuel for 20
minutes.

There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.
Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid... Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up
into the towers after the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20
minutes?

The mind boggles.

d
Sep 17 '08 #53
In message <Lr************ *************** ***@giganews.co m>, Jason
<Ja***@net.netw rites
>theget wrote:
ct airbrushers to talk this way. You aren't one are you?
> Or maybe you really do think that whole world war really happened.
Why? Because you've seen the pictures? They're not real. They're the
result of the airbrushers careful work. You should take a close look
at the links I posted above and you'll see how the airbrushers are
faking it all and making us look like suckers for going along with
them.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance.
We know the truth, It's as simple as that.
>discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs
Bush and Blair etc.
You neocon you!
>2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited.
THEY always discredit it.... that's how you know it is a conspiracy.
>3. Inability to answer questions.
I did answer it! It was you who change the subject...... You did not
PROVE that the cost of coffee hadn't gone up 1cent in the restaurant
thereby signalling to the Moslems the attack was on.....

>4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?"
Precisely My Dear Watson.
>5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
What has Occam got to do with this... HE wasn't there.
>Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice
that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence
in any alternative account.
No be fair people don't remember everything and get things wrong. Even
TV cameramen... (video is not 100% good at recording facts besides the
Jews in the Media can photoshop it afterwards)

>6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Not at all. MY evidence is Good Your Evidence is Bad.
>7. Inability to withdraw.
Not everyone is a good Catholic...
>8. Leaping to conclusions
You just don't have any imagination... Now don't go quoting Newton at
me... He got it wrong.

>9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
THEY covered up Kennedy AND keep Elvis locked up.
>10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it?
Yepp I knew we would win you around...
Got to go the nurse is here with the tablets... THEY want me to take
them so I forget the voices.... only the voices tell the truth my
Precious....

What has it got in its pocketses....
I am going hide with Julius Caesar so the Nurse can't find me....
Damn..... she got me

Hmmmpf...

Hi My Bush..... George Bush.....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #54
In message <AP************ *************** ***@posted.plus net>, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam. comwrites
>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid...
You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?
My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.

So shove it.

:-)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #55
Jason wrote:
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are
trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for
Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you
listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
"no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have
no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
It's surprising how much in common there is in conspiracy theories and
religion. In both areas there are extreme fanatics which will ramble on
and on about their theory/religion, annoy people with their constant
preaching, will never listen to reason, and fabricate evidence to
support their views.

Without taking any stance of whether Intelligent Design has any truth
in it or not, just compare ID fanatics with 911/Moon/whatever conspiracy
theory fanatics. There are surprisingly many similarities in their
behavior and tactics. Both will claim to use scientific facts to support
their claims, while in reality they only use very selected pieces of it,
pulling them out of context and twisting their meaning. Likewise both
will use quotes from famous people or eyewitnesses, which seem to
support their claims, but usually these quotes are badly cut and pulled
out of their context, or the person who has said those things is either
an ID/conspiracy fanatic himself or in no way an expert on the field in
question. Both will dismiss any statements by actual scientists or
experts in the field if these statements contradict their views.

Conspiracy theorists also show deep religious conviction, completely
in par with the most religious people. Nothing you could ever say will
convince them otherwise, no matter how well-founded it might be. There
just is no convincing them, no matter what you say or do. They have seen
the light and they will not be turned off the "right" path, no matter
what. Unlike religious people, conspiracy theorists are, however, in a
worse position: Nothing they claim can be simply attributed to something
supernatural or something which is a matter of opinion. Instead,
everything they claim is something which should be real, can be proved
and should be verifiable. However, like true religious fanatics, it
doesn't matter. Even if they cannot prove anything, they will still keep
their religious conviction.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without
foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the
evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3.
above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
"swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to
the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
The reason why conspiracy theorists cannot concede even on one single
point is that they need all of their arguments for their conspiracy
theory to be effective.

The main weapon of conspiracy theories is the so-called shotgun
argumentation: They present lots and lots and lots of little pieces of
"evidence". Not because there indeed *is* that much believable evidence
of a conspiracy, but because there must a lot of it for the shotgun
argumentation to work.

Shotgun argumentation works by two means:

1) The sheer amount of "evidence" might be enough to convince people
that something strange is going on. Basically the idea is: "There's
*this* much evidence that something is not right. Something *has* to be
wrong. There just cannot be this much evidence without something really
being wrong in this situation." Presenting just a half dozen pieces of
evidence might not be enough to convince anyone. However, present a
hundred pieces of evidence, and the likelihood of someone believing your
theory is much higher.

2) More closely related to the metaphor: A shotgun fires hundreds of
small pellets, while a rifle fires only one bullet. It's much easier to
kill a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle because the likelihood
that at least one of the pellets will hit the rabbit is much higher than
the likelihood for the single bullet to do so.
That's where the large amount of "evidence" works: The more pieces of
"evidence" there are, the larger the probability that at least one of
them will convince someone that there is a conspiracy. Even if the vast
majority of the presented "evidence" is not convincing, it may take but
just one which is convincing enough to make someone believe the
conspiracy theory.

For this reason conspiracy theorists cannot drop any of the arguments
they have been carefully designing for years. Dropping them would lessen
the likelihood of convincing people.

And this is, once again, another parallel with religion: This is the
mission of conspiracy theorists: To convince others of their own faith.
They will use whatever tools necessary to convince them. If evidence
must be fabricated to achieve the goal, they will do that. If twisting
what other have said is necessary to achieve that goal, they will do that.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to
declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
remotely enough cause so to do.
Moreover, conspiracy theorists go so far as to create a mentality
where terms like "the official explanation" is a complete synonym with
"a coverup", "a lie". Just the term "official" will have a big negative
connotation to them. Anything which is "official" is immediately
something to be highly mistrusted, most probably a big coverup and a
lie, and something you should avoid at all costs.

Another term with a negative connotation (to them) is "expert".
Whenever there's a statement by "an expert" which is against the
conspiracy theory, it's automatically dubious and must not be trusted.
Conspiracy theorists have effectively reversed the meaning of the word
"expert" to the point where, to them, it means someone who is *not*
competent on the subject or, at the very least, is someone "official"
and thus part of the conspiracy. To the conspiracy theorists, all
"experts" which do not agree with the conspiracy theory are either
employed by the government, or completely incompetent.

It's not even rare to see a conspiracy theorist write something along
the lines of 'are you going to believe some "expert"?' as if the word
"expert" all in itself was a sign of someone who is not competent, has
no practical experience on the subject or is in the conspiracy.

Quite inconsistently, if there is some "expert" which actually
supports the conspiracy theory, the theorists will immediately exalt his
achievements and expertise, and go to great lengths about convincing
people why *this* expert is to be trusted (while the ones which disagree
with the conspiracy theory should not).
Sep 17 '08 #56
Chris H wrote:
In message <AP************ *************** ***@posted.plus net>, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam. comwrites
>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up
would have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just
where the charges were laid...

You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?

My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.

So shove it.

:-)
Damn! You saw through me far too easily ;-)

d
Sep 17 '08 #57
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:35:54 +0100, Chris H <ch***@phaedsys .org>
wrote:
>In message <AP************ *************** ***@posted.plus net>, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam .comwrites
>>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid...

You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?

My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
And they were taught the art by the "Mission Impossible" crew.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sep 17 '08 #58
In rec.arts.poems on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:39:46 -0400, David DeLaney
<db*@gatekeeper .vic.comwrote:
(apologies to the other groups here)
Don't apologise to us in rec.arts.poems. Danny's delusions are
entertaining to read about.

Where are you reading this?

--
PJR :-)

<http://pjr.lasnobberia .net/verse/>
Sep 17 '08 #59
On Sep 16, 4:21 pm, Jason <Ja...@net.netw rote:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited.
3. Inability to answer questions.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources.
7. Inability to withdraw.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again
is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at
very least, a bore.

Copied from:http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Sounds like a pretty accurate of Bush and his claim of WMD in Iraq...
Sep 17 '08 #60

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.