19 minute video: Secret Evil of 9/11

[Darren Dirt]

Simple video footage, simple questions, impossible physics.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684&q=secret+evil+of+9%2F11

(see also 20 year old proof that the collapse computer models are based on mistaken info. re. the structure of the WTC towers, if not outright intentional frauds.)

[Thorin]

Simple video footage, simple questions, impossible physics.

You're an expert on the science of metallurgical failure, then?  You know, sometimes you have to let the experts figure out the answer and simply believe them.  Like, for instance, the mechanic that works on your brand-new computerized car.  Sure, you're a coder.  Do you know how to reprogram your automatic transmission to improve fuel economy?  Can you do it without causing an exception (if yes, you've probably worked for Honda; if no, you might have worked for Dodge).

By the way, this video mentions thinking for oneself, but if I think for myself about the particular bent of the video, it's clear that the entire video has been edited so as to show George Bush as the evil mastermind behind the mass death at WTC.  So...  Should I think for myself, or simply accept what is being spoon-fed by the producer of the video?

Right.  I think that something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center provides a much more balanced discussion than some wingnut set to push his fantasy as reality through a video.

Gee, what could cause something that sounds like a secondary explosion?  How about a secondary explosion from a previously unignited tank or pool of jet fuel?  Hmm, no, that wouldn't help push the agenda that Bush Is Evil And Killed His Own Countrymen Because He's Out To Rule The World.

Yes, I would agree with you that Bush et al are getting a free ride on the 9/11 WTC crashes.  Yes, I think that Bush's policies and plans are far-reaching and detrimental to freedom as we love it.  Yes, I think that The Terrorist Threat (and the names of the first few terrorist groups) were invented by Bush's administration, especially as there are some old hard-line right-wingers that can't imagine a world without a dire threat and a horrible opponent to keep the masses enthralled so they can stay in power.  No, I don't think that the "evidence" provided by that grievously edited video proves in any way, shape, or form that the Horrible Republican Government of the USA planned, initiated, or helped those attacks.

But then, I believe that Bush is an idiot and a lot of the things he did that conspiracy theorists use as ammo in their case can actually be chalked up to, "He didn't know what to do, so he did what any idiot would do - nothing".

[Thorin]

see also 20 year old proof that the collapse computer models are based on mistaken info. re. the structure of the WTC towers, if not outright intentional frauds.

Umm, what?  How does that video prove or disprove anything about the load-bearing characteristics of the outer and inner core columns after about half of them on two or three stories have been smashed by a big airplane?  All it talks about is how the WTC was constructed, not anything even remotely related to how the steel trusses would stand up to fire without fire retardant on them, how the metal would change it's chemical composition when exposed to the right alchemical soup, or whether the weight of about a quarter of the tower falling on the rest of the tower at the speed of gravity would destroy whatever it falls on.

Here's a counter-point to the video you posted.  They question what could cause a cloud of debris to spray out from the sides of the towers when the collapse starts.  Here's an experiment:
1. Build a structure so that a piece of drywall is suspended horizontally ten feet off the ground, held only at the edges
2. Climb up high enough so that you're ten feet above the drywall
3. Drop a refrigerator from the height you're at (might be hard to carry while climbing, so maybe build some structure for that, too)
4. See if the drywall turns to dust and poofs out the side

I haven't run the experiment, but I imagine it will show at the very least that another explanation besides, "There were explosives planted all over the towers that no one noticed", exists.

Oh, and if you run that experiment, make sure to put it on YouTube and GoogleVideo

[Darren Dirt]

Simple video footage, simple questions, impossible physics.

You're an expert on the science of metallurgical failure, then?  You know, sometimes you have to let the experts figure out the answer and simply believe them.

I mentioned the documentary showing how the WTC towers were built because every one of the "official story" computer models were based on incorrect information re. the "core" of the buildings, let alone how each floor was connected to the core. Photographs and video of the construction of the WTC shows that the claims of specials like ones seen on PBS or A&E over the last few years are based on assumptions that are dubious to say the least.


I'm not claiming to be an expert at physics. Neither is Charlie Sheen. Nor the millions who question and openly challenge the government's "official story".


http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/charlie-sheen/charlie-sheen-talks-911-conspiracy-161961.php

...the evidence [Sheen] presented on 9/11 has been backed up in triplicate by such individuals as former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.

Logic would dictate that when the "official story" (see "Myths" below) seems to be contradicting common sense probability, but especially simple mathematics and physics according to experts in those fields, it becomes itself the biggest "conspiracy theory" until those promoting it (and starting wars based on it) are willing to debate openly and publicly based on the facts. After all, if all these theories (or at least the skepticism) is so easily dismissed by the facts then it should be a no-brainer to have say a 2 hour televised debate among experts in both camps, right?



Or how about a simple chart-filled analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST: examining the mathematics/physics behind the proposed "Pancake Theory" or "Progressive Collapse" (by simply comparing to a simple free-fall ball toss)... "A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory", by Prof. Judy Wood, Clemson University (presented to the 2006 Society for Experimental Mechanics Annual Conference):

If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. ... In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible.  A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001.  The "collapse" of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.

NOTE: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html Judy Wood (FM) - Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, Materials Engineering Science, Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University


Coloured charts and simple math not scientific enough? Not detailed enough?

Are these "expert" enough for you?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Physics+Jones+Why+Indeed+Did+the+WTC+Buildings+Collapse
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
(Dr. Jones produced this follow-up responding to attempted "objections" here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf (see especially starting at page 167 for critical unanswered questions re. the countless improbable events of that morning)

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

http://www.google.com/search?q=911+scholars+for+truth


btw: "impossible physics" IMHO comes from (for starters): the steel-frame structure collapse "due to fire" (never happened before or since, except 3 times that day), the fires being "almost out" according to the firefighters' audio tapes (which weren't released to the public until 3 years after the fact), the freefall speed of the collapse (supposedly due to "pancake theory" i.e. each floor hitting a solid floor below it and thus causing it to collapse -- but with no delay as the momentum is absorbed?), the mystery of everything-turning-to-dust, the melted pools of steel for weeks after the collapse, the 600 feet horizontal expelling of the 30-foot steel beams, the freefall collapse of WTC7 when it wasn't hit at all, the most heavily guarded building in the world (the Pentagon) having NO video footage of the crash or even the flight leading up to it -- but surrounding surveillance tapes were confiscated and have never been made public...

Actually, speaking of evidence concealed from the public, there's lots of it.



It's all the improbable stuff like that is all part of the "impossible physics" statement -- which I made based on what physics experts have said analyzing the video and still photos, seismic information, analyzing the south tower collapse which tilted at the top 30 floors or so -- but then somehow lost its angular momentum and thus didn't fall sideways like it "should" have -- see photos in #9 here )...



You might want to listen to (or read the transcript of) the respected David Ray Griffin's speech "9/11 The myth and the reality" -- or look at the "expert qualifications" of the folks at "911 Scholars For Truth"... not everyone who questions the "official story" is a Democrat or a Bush-hater or a crackpot or a loon.

http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Ray+Griffin+911+The+myth+and+the+reality *


PS: I've visited tons of "debunking the conspiracy theories" websites, and there is a lot of garbage theories that they rightfully debunk (e.g. holograms, aliens) however they always overlook the freefall collapse and the quick removal and export of the physical evidence of the towers collapse by a company called "Controlled Demoliton Inc." (a serious federal crime, in any situation other than this one apparently ) And of course they never discuss the strange situation where Bush remained in the classroom in Booker school a dozen minutes after being told of the 2nd plane crash -- staying in that same school for some time even after that, when his location was public knowledge for weeks in advance... Unless his secret service agents were all asleep, or were ordered told not to remove him (i.e. they somehow "knew" the president was not a target), either way they failed to do the most basic job of protecting the Prez (and all those innocent children).



- - -

* e.g.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.htm

...a story cannot function as a Sacred Myth within a community or nation unless it is believed to be true. In most cases, moreover, the truth of the Myth is taken on faith. It is not a matter of debate. If some people have the bad taste to question the truth of the Sacred Story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. Rather, they ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

...In many cases, however, stories that have served as religious Myths cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. When such a story is stripped of its halo and treated simply as a theory, rather than an unquestionable dogma, it cannot be defended as the best theory to account for the relevant facts. The official account of 9/11 is such a theory. When challenges to it are not treated as blasphemy, it can easily be seen to be composed of a number of ideas that are myths in the sense of not corresponding with reality.

-Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing.
-Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
-Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.
-Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed. (see http://www.strawandclover.com/ )
-Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden.
-Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration.
-Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted.
-Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.
-Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon.

^Myth #8 summarizes the main problems re. physics, if you want to ignore all the other myths due to their potential "Bush is evil so he did evil stuff" viewpoint.


In conclusion, dude, there's plenty of reasons to doubt the "official story" (here's 40 of them ... and so when all these lies are exposed one after the other, eventually you gotta start wondering, what else have the "officials" kept hidden from the "people"? And why would they do this... :-\



"...the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a 'conspiracy theory'. ...we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as 'conspiracy theories'. It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a 'conspiracy theory' in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two 'conspiracy theories' is more defensible?"

[Darren Dirt]

PS:
Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center by Dave Heller

...the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports. The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7's implosion. WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2.

...The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which conspiracy occurred. ...The real question is, "Who was involved in the conspiracy?"
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California

Also watch this interview -- again, not a loon, in fact a very logical, articulate, intelligent, calm academic individual. (right-click to save 50MB .WMV video file -- from .asx playlist file )

[Mr. Analog]

This topic is flamebait and is now locked.