If 9/11 was an inside job, I it's interesting how people point to WTC 7 as the "smoking gun" but don't seem to focus on it all as much from the planners' perspective. If they were really planning 2 planes to hit the 2 towers, it would seem pretty risky to also bring down WTC 7 as well (for exactly the reason it's looked at as a "smoking gun").
People generally say that 9/11 was about increasing government power, starting wars for profit, taking away the public's liberties, etc. I know WTC 7 was pointed to for holding key documents of big financial companies that were in deep trouble (e.g. Enron) but I wonder if it was the key to the whole plot (again, assuming it was an inside job). I don't feel like many people ascribe as much weight to that theory, however.
First of all, the video is in conflict with itself. First they say it was a controlled demolition. Then they say it was thermite. Then again they say it was explosives. Thermite is not an explosive, so which is it?
Secondly, a common thermite reaction is iron oxide (rusty steel) and aluminum. This can be ignited by a much lower temperature, and then once it starts, it burns super hot. What are jet planes made from? Aluminum. What are building made from... steel that usually has a rusty surface by the time it is assembled. You can have a thermite reaction at home if you have aluminum particles near rust particles and get some sparks on it. Once it starts, you would not be able to put it out.
Thirdly, the buildings in NY, are they earthquake proof like in CA? You start pulling structural supports out from the middle, how many do you think you can remove before the building falls down? 50%?
I particularly don't like the way they show the association names... what a crock.. AIA... did you ever read The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand? That will tell you how much associations are worth.
Two fully fueled jet liners crashed in the area... that's why the buildings came down! DUHHHHHHHHH. Who was controlling them, and who set the whole thing up, well that is something that there is a story, but dwelling on the physics of the buildings coming down, that is just a complete waste of time. That is what you are missing. Try tracking the money involved.
>First of all, the video is in conflict with itself. First they say it
>was a controlled demolition. Then they say it was thermite. Then
> again they say it was explosives. Thermite is not an explosive, so
> which is it?
It's my understanding that thermite burns very hot. That would account for the steel core columns melting despite the jet fuel (kerosene) not being able to burn hot enough to melt the steel. From what I understand, the collapse happened at near free fall speed. That doesn't make very much sense to me when the official explanation was something about a pancaking effect. Wouldn't the floors that got pancaked down on have caused some level of resistance (thus, slowing the speed of the fall?)
> Once it starts, you would not be able to put it out.
Isn't that consistent with the fact that the fires were still burning in the rubble a month later?
>You start pulling structural supports out from the middle,
> how many do you think you can remove before the building falls down? 50%?
The building falling down is one thing. Having the steel melt is entirely a different story.
>Two fully fueled jet liners crashed in the area... that's why the
>buildings came down! DUHHHHHHHHH.
Right. Except 3 buildings came down.
"First of all, the video is in conflict with itself. First they say it was a controlled demolition. Then they say it was thermite. Then again they say it was explosives. Thermite is not an explosive, so which is it?"
What? You want Ketchup AND Mustard on your sandwich? I'm afraid that's just not possible.
"Aluminum + steel = thermite"
If only the planes contained flour. Because that, combined with the heat of the fire and the water from the building sprinklers would have produced birthday cake everywhere and a much less tragic outcome.
"the buildings in NY, are they earthquake proof like in CA?"
Was there an earthquake? The buildings didn't even budge when struck.
"Two fully fueled jet liners crashed in the area... that's why the buildings came down! DUHHHHHHHHH"
Except that all that fuel clearly blew up almost instantly, and fire alone couldn't possibly have brought them down. But your "DUHHH" is persuading me to question 1700 architects and engineers. How can one argue with "DUHHH?"
Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen. Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the buildings.
Nanothermite, also called superthermite, is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nanothermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent that are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. Such nano-energetics are produced for various applications including propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
There are various ways to make nanothermites. They can be made as solid mixtures of aluminum and metal oxides which are typically produced using techniques like dynamic vapor phase condensation and arrested reactive milling. These mixtures are much like typical thermite mixtures, but with the components introduced on a much smaller scale. Alternatively, nanothermites can be made in a liquid solution that later gels, capturing the reactive components in an intimately mixed composite which is dried before it can be ignited. These are called sol-gel nanothermites, also known more generally as energetic nanocomposites.
1. This 2004 paper from Lawrence Livermore Labs is quite clear about nanothermites being –
“explosive composites based on thermite reactions.”
It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives…using sol-gel chemistry.”
2. This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
3. This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:
“All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”
It clarifies that –
[Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.
4. A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –
“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”
5. In this paper, former NIST employee Michael Zachariah discusses –
“developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [i.e. nanothermite] for energy intensive applications involving explosives and propellants…”.
6. This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a –
“new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times…resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including…explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”
7. Unlike some energetic materials, nanothermites are “tunable”, meaning the “ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.” Explosives generate pressure, as do nanothermites tuned to do just that.
8. This conference paper states that –
“Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as… explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.”
9. This paper from the US Army describes how:
“These tunable nanoenergetic materials will be useful for various applications such as high-temperature non-detonable gas generators, adaptable flares, green primers for propellants and explosives, high power/energy explosives.
10. Even Wikipedia knows that nanothermite is used for explosive applications.
Nanothermites “are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.”
"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009
I think you've answered that one ~ once and for all.
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir
Donald Rumsfeld announces 2.3 trillion dollars missing from DOD on Sept 10, 2001.
Larry Silverstien makes 7 billion in insurance payouts after the initial investment of 124 million six months prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Halliburton makes $17.2 billion in revenue between 2003-2006 alone from its activities in Iraq.
$400 billion in defense contracts of which one third went to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics.
...check out the video below. It's a parody of Loose Change called "Unfastened Coins" about the cover-up of the sinking of the titanic.
Note that in no way did I post this in an attempt to belittle the conversation about 9/11 (which I think is very legitimate and important). I just happened to come across this on youtube, thought it was funny, and am using it to help bump the real conversation back to the top again.
Just convinced a coworker we should reach critical mass soon.
That's the subject line of an email I designed in 2009 to wake people up to the fact that 9/11 didn't happen the way we are officially told. Interestingly my last major revision in mid-2011 was the addition of this exact video by architects and Engineers because it was so professionally done is the most convincing way (note where I included that below). I designed this email to get perpetuated through the Internet. I also use a stripped down version of this email to answer 9/11 questions on Yahoo Answers (also under Bloatedtoad).
I wanted to share this with you here because this will give you a working knowledge of the basics of the 9/11 story that you can convey easily to others. Get me in front of a computer with almost anyone and I will flip them from a government 9/11 fairytale believer to a 9/11 truth believer, and that's just using the links below in my Santa Claus email. If time is short (most of the time it is) the most important links are the Kenny Johanemann video (1 minute) and the Larry Silverstein "pull it" video (56 seconds) and your explanation of what these two videos mean. Then if you can get the person to watch the Aaron Russo interview that will tie it all together. The fourth most important link here is the BBC advance report (which proves that a story had already been scripted in the media in advance). Those three or four alone with your guiding insights as they watch is usually enough to cause cognitive dissonance. If you get them to go through all the links I present here it will devastate their world view of what really happened and they will be in a daze for a week or more as they sort out their world view. I know. I've been doing this for three years now. It's time to stop this utter nonsense that guys with box cutters directed by some bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan can somehow shut down the greatest country in the world. This will break it open if it reaches enough people. Feel free to copy and share:
When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?
BODY OF EMAIL:
As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!
There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.
I want to try an experiment here:
Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my letter so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:
(YouTube Key Words: Johannemann suicide)
Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?
The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:
(YouTube Key Words: Barry Jennings dead age – more hits when “dead age” excluded)
Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.
William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:
(Google Video Key Words: William Rodriguez Alex Jones)
Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
(Google Video Key Words: Steve Jones Boston)
In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:
The actual paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:
If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!
Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?
Then take a look at this:
Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:
(YouTube Key Words: BBC Solomon slips – you get more hits by excluding “slips”)
How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).
Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it. Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:
(YouTube Key words: PBS Silverstein)
Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. What’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”
Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" starts at 26:45 here in this interview:
(Google Video Key Words: Aaron Russo Reflections Warnings)
One more thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:
(Google Key Words: China 44 fire consumes)
Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
(YouTube Key Words: architects engineers 911 truth)
Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.
To forward this as a clean readable e-mail (without the accumulation of all the “>” symbols) just highlight all the text and COPY IT FIRST. Then paste it into your new e-mail before sending it on. It works like a charm!
NOTE: I included key words below each link because it’s common for a video to disappear. Usually multiple versions exist and the key words will assist in finding another copy.
Lol, he brought the explosives into the building beforehand making the War on Terror the biggest hoax in American history along with the War on drugs.
Everyone should see this video.
Great post. With all the chatter against us we need this as a 'short punch'. Short and to the point.
War is a lie, and we must expose the lies, as we have time.
According to Michael Scheuer, head of the Bin Laden Unit at the CIA, the US government had at least 8-10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden in the mid to late 1990's. His comment on the 9/11 commission? "It was a white wash from top to bottom."
According to Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, Able Danger identified Mohammad Atta (and other hijackers) in the country before 9/11. The Pentagon destroyed not gigabytes of information developed by Able Danger, but terabytes. When Curt Weldon (R-PA) exposed Able Danger and the smear campaign against Lt. Col Shaffer on the floor of the House of Representatives, he lost his seat in the House. If anyone hasn't read Operation Dark Heart, pick up a copy.
you aren't missing anything. There is a version that is 2hr 19min that will rock your world. I have several friends that are engineers and a friend that was a demo expert in the Marines. I asked them to watch the long version and asked them to "talk me off the ledge". They're all on the ledge with me now.
Live Free or Die Trying
You might find this interesting:
I'm not big on the truther movement... but I found this reaction of Biden's to be quite interesting. Almost a pause, as if, he wanted to say something, but couldn't. As if, it was something beyond his control that he knows about...
Just a hunch :P We'll never know what happened. If it was a conspiracy, it was done with quite a bit of precision.
I never followed it until recently when I watched the PBS documentary about the architects and engineers. I'm not an architect or engineer so I don't feel like I'm the most qualified person to make a judgment on this stuff. However, from what I saw, there were plenty of eye-openers. It definitely feels legitimate to want another investigation (an independent one this time).
I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!
Is that lady going to become a meme?
Why is this not on the front page and still has over 35 + rating !
Fox news reported Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 asking for permission from the insurance company to demolish WTC-7.
He could not have "just pulled it" it takes time to set all the charges, to do the math to work out were to put the charges. This was a well planed op. Not Silverstine's "last minuet idea." I just don't see any other way it could have happened. Building 7 was where NYC had it emergency management center that place was built to take a hurricane head on and not just survive but be able to run the city out of. And the thing fall into its own foot print from a little fire?????
If you believe that one i have this little bridge in Brooklyn ill sell ya
Honestly if you are really that incapable at understanding and evaluating information , You are a danger to yourself and others. I believe it is my duty to inform homeland security. :)
and I am not a truther but...
That building was intentionally demolished. Demolition experts spend a lot of time learning how to collapse buildings by taking out central key points and when it goes wrong, the buildings "fall over".
All of that is clear to just about anyone who cares to look.
The issue that I have with truthers is throwing in garbage theories, and fake facts along with the real information.
If you focus on videos like this that just explain what is 100% knowable and ask the questions, you will win more people over.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
...you are a "truther".
Because I don't make any conclusions just because I acknowledge a piece of evidence. Truthers claim that our government carried out the attack. Which may or may not be true, but having evidence of a controlled demolition of the outlying building alone is not enough to state that in either direction.
I also don't think it matters. The government used the event to seize more power and control either way. The government is the enemy, whether or not you can pin every crime on them or not.
...you are challenging the "official story". I guess you can say it's semantics but, to me, if you don't believe the official story then you're a truther. For what it's worth, I don't think there's an official position that truthers have (e.g. "the government did it"). I think they just don't believe the official story and want the truth.
"The government used the event to seize more power and control..." states the most obvious motive.
Now, if you acknowledge the fact that the government is the enemy, then I'm sure you understand that very few bodies or groups have the means and opportunity to coordinate, implement and cover up such an event.
Only certain groups within our government use this motis operandi on a regular basis. It is not a garbage theory to cast blame in that direction. It is simply most logical hypothesis and conclusion any prudent person can make.
I don't agree with your logic jumps without basis, but for a moment, let's say that you are 100% correct in that assessment, and think through it.
In all of recorded history, has a government ever been brought to account for it's crimes without significant bloodshed by/to citizens, and sometimes invaders? Answer: Never.
When, in all of recorded history, has one bad government been replaced with a better one that did not commit more crimes? Answer: Never.
So, knowing that, what benefit comes from convincing enough people? Historically speaking, the only solution in a war crimes situation is to take up arms. Is that what you want to do? Because there is no other positive outcome for the "truthers".
I propose an alternative. If you are willing to go that far, then instead, abolish the government through means that does not get anyone killed. Withdraw from the system, remove their financing. Refuse to play. That means giving up some of the "benefits" the government provides. But you will be happier, society will be better, and the murder and thievery will be curtailed at least, and possibly stopped.
Now, for my proposed solution, there is no need to even discuss or care about 9/11. For yours, there is, but it has a bloody end if it is successful, and makes your lives miserable if you fail. AND just replaces the old corrupt system with a new corrupt system.
>Withdraw from the system, remove their financing. Refuse to play. That
>means giving up some of the "benefits" the government provides. But you
>will be happier, society will be better, and the murder and thievery
>will be curtailed at least, and possibly stopped.
How is that even possible? If you withdraw from the system you get thrown in jail. Try not paying taxes and see what happens. What if our military dropped their weapons and decided not to fight? They'd be court-marshaled. Unless a group like Oath-Keepers grows large enough, it's very dangerous to withdraw as an individual.
And a hell of a lot safer than the outright war with the state that truthers are demanding.
And history has proven that is what will happen... And oh by the way, you will just get a new corrupt government in the end.
(p.s. if you want to know how it is possible, just ask)
If 9/11 was an inside job and it was proven to the people, THAT would be something that would wake the population up in droves. People wouldn't just be skeptical of government. They'd be outraged by it. Now here's the Thomas Jefferson quote...
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When governments fear the people, there is liberty".