New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

Best 9/11 video I've seen so far. The majority of the claims made by these film makers are extremely damning, and even if a few are highly debatable, the fact of the matter is that something doesn't fit with the official story we have been spoonfed by the media and the government.

I wonder, though, even if more and more people bought into the idea that some part of the US government was behind 9/11, are we competent enough to take action to save our selves and our country? Five years after 9/11, Americans are heavily divided and polarized. The unity we experienced has been destroyed, and we Americans are resorting back to our apathetic ways of thinking of ourselves and taking greater stock in materialism and wealth.

Do we really care about what happened five years ago anymore?

Will it take another major act of terror to unify us again, assuming we are not living in a police state if another attack were to happen again?

I hope not.

As a small aside to this conversation, I just discussed this movie with my apartmentmate. He is a moderately to highly intelligent person who is just about to finish up college and join me in the workplace.

I described my history of views on the subject of 9/11 and told him where I'm currently at. He had watched a few minutes of Loose Change and that's about it on the conspiracy front.

As we discussed the topic more after he watched this movie, I became astonished to realize that not only did he not know about the conspiracy theories, but that he didn't even know what the official NIST report concluded! He just assumed that the media was right when they said "buildings fall cuz planes crash."

Granted I may be a little more up to par on worldly events, but this is an intelligent human being who is ignorant as to what the NIST even came up with!

THAT is why videos like this are important ... not to get people to believe in a conspiracy, but simply to acknowledge the possibility that one exists. In all honesty the more I watch it the more I disagree with certain factual points. But damn, this got one person (possibly even more due to the viral effect) to open his eyes and actually gather all the facts on an event that in his mind was sufficiently explained by John Smith's Channel 8 report @ 10. Denying ignorance at its finest, and one can easily see why Skeptic started this thread (regardless of your position). Heck, if this thread wasn't started, those against conspiracy would not have a place to discuss the film. That would be ignorant in and of itself.

Originally posted by Slayer
Do we really care about what happened five years ago anymore?

Will it take another major act of terror to unify us again, assuming we are not living in a police state if another attack were to happen again?

I hope not.

I still do as I'm sure much of the members of this board would too. I discuss the topic with someone (friends or people on here) every day. Part of finding truth is examining people's ideas and opinions.

But, as said is it to say, I think it will take nothing short of a major war for the country to be unified again as it was after 9/11. There will always be groups of people who are united for a cause but the only one common that I can see among all Americans would be a response to an affront to our nation.

Hopefully someone or something will prove me wrong. However, I personally am not going to live my life in fear of war or terror by others. I'd rather spend my time trying to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of our own ignorant past.

Great video,
Hopefully more people will see the truth now.

But will the irrefutable evidence that we can see be enough to stop the ellite from going on with their agenda. I don't think so. Look at the scattered opinions on this site alone. A lot of debunkers will try to keep you in endless discussion. So you won't be thinking about doing something about it.

We should agree on the cause. And we can agree. The proof excists. Not on CNN or Fox, but on this website and many others.

Stop the SKULL & BONES, THE FREEMASONS AND THE ILLUMINATI. Give them a name! So also the public knows who we're talking about. Their not excisting in the minds of most people.

What should be our next step?

it, it's the Neo-Cons and PNAC.

Surely you must realise that this is more than just an American conspiracy. This is International. And the powers behind it are more powerful than just the neo-cons, MUCH more powerful.

SKULL & BONES, THE FREEMASONS AND THE ILLUMINATI.

1. Skull & Bones isn't much of a secret society.

2. Lower Level free masons have no idea about what the higher level masons are involved with. (And no I don't want to turn this into a debate.) It is the Illumized Masons which are involved in the evil stuff.

3. The Illuminati? Name names?

David Rockefeller
Lord Rothschilds (Baron Guy De Rothschild, someone correct me If I am wrong.)
Nicky Oppenheimer

Someone else can continue this list, although this is really off topic.

I haven't read the posts from page 8 on so please excuse me if this has been covered.

Watch the video again and go to time stamp 35:55 through 36:00. There's something very interesting in that segment.

You can actually see the flashes when the building is falling.....the one where they show from the left side. I think these are different flashes than sunlight reflecting because there are also flashes of the sunlight in that clip too and they look very different to the orange-yellow flashes that I'm talking about.

Anyone notice this clip before? Or has it been addressed already?

Originally posted by Dr Love


Sometimes I don't think that you even believe what you say and are just trying to stir the pot for other, more justifiable/understandable reasons.

Yes, I do continue to discuss these issues for more justifiable and understandable reasons...thank you for noticing! Those reasons would be that we need to continue to gather facts and address the gaps we find, and not leave anything out prior to making up our minds. So don't worry, I'll keep promoting that just as you've noticed.

And I'm not sure what things I've said that you think I don't believe. But then again, I don't care what you think since I've personally never been able to find value you in your hate-filled posts, so it all works out.

P.S. If I had known all it took to not have to put up with your drivel was to throw up a picture, I would have stuck one in every post from the beginning.

aelphaeis_mangarae

I get tired of people like you.
Ok your right, you know more than I do, is that what you want?

Skule & Bones are not secret?
They admid it excists and we know a lot of people who are/were members.
We've seen an undercover video on the campus and a lot of people talk about it.
But that's about it, the rest is secret. We don't know about their plans, scams and conspiracies.
Bush and Kerry both said: I can't talk about it, because it's secret.

Maybe your word for secret is not the same as mine.
But I don't care you win in whatever game your playing.

My intrest is in using the things we know to find a way out of their agenda.
So you keep playing...

Next time you post on me, try reading the links that go with my posts.

Sad is the fact it took 5 years for people to start realizing what was painfully obvious on 9-11-01 ...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a ?

Originally posted by grimreaper797

go for it!

LOL Thx!!

ok I know a plastic bag will give off a bunch of it. But I have personal experience that if you burn a pile of paper, pictures, and other office items, it may burn black initially, but you would be a bit surprised.

I was younger and accidently did it in my basement (no carpet or anything, still stupid though) and alot of the stuff burned black, but the smoke pretty much filled the house, it was like fog. It was a tint darker then fog as well. Light grayish. It was very unexpected.

LOL I think many of us have bonehead stories like yours! I know I do.

But to the point. As I have said before, with the exception of specialized fires (Chem, Electrical, etc), most fires composed of paper products will burn grey-white. That is due to the chemistry of the fuel. Additionally most petroleum based fuels will burn black. This color difference is due to the higher amount of uncombusted carbon particles. In a fire such as Madrid or the WTC, you would expect to see darker smoke than say a brush fire. Carpets, office equipment, etc. all have use plastic that burn black. Of course there was paper and such and that contributed to the smoke as well. My real contention was the videos comments about the smoke and the relative heat of the fire. It was erroneous and simplistic.

hmm I dont know actually. I would imagine that since it blew out on both sides, it would increase the air flow. Yes though, if you blow on a fire thats been going, the embers will increase the temperature. When you build a fire, you start with fuel and small things to burn. You add more larger things as you get it started. you DONT blow on it untill after the fire is started. if the pressure was any real significant flow, it would be more likely to put out the fire then increase it. It couldn't have been too pressurized.

I think that the pressure was low and the wind was probably the best help toward the fire. the wind combined with the pressure would probably be too much and put the fire out. For anyone that said there was no wind, that’s a bid hard to believe at 78 floors high. could be though. I don’t believe the pressure would last long either though. would it take 90 minutes for the buildings to fill?

Actually, when hand-starting a fire, you DO blow on the embers. This increases the amount of Oxygen to the fuel….unless you are starting a fire with a ton of accelerant. Then it would be best to keep your face away! 

I do agree that the wind was blowing at altitude. You can see that by watching the wide shots of the towers before collapse. I must confess that I can not determine the speed of the wind. The scale of the buildings is so large!

I guess I misstated my point. I think that with the windows knocked out there would have been a wind tunnel effect and that would have increased the temperature of the flames above the normal burn temp expected from an office fire. But I do not think that the temp was sufficient to degrade the steel support structure to such a degree as to cause a total systemic collapse. I do thinking that either one of two things happened: Either the steel was not up to the quality that the vendor said, or the engineers counted on; or That something else happened. As it stands I am on undecided on this point.

why would you assume that? the ones that are near the walls get the most air flow. they get more oxygen, and that at least keeps the embers going which usually keeps the fire going. so long as there is materials there they would be most likely to be on fire. You would be more likely to see flames at the window, since the fire would stay lit easier. The Madrid fire was fully engulfed because the time it had to build. that was the point. It built to that size, and thats why it was such a violent fire. The damage shows how much the madrid fire was as far as fire goes. It completely burnt every floor above it. It was not misleading because everything but the steel got burned up in the fire. Thats a full force fire plain and simple.

You keep focusing on “Embers” like this was similar to a campfire. A major burn on this scale is nothing like that. The fires that burned in the WTC, and Madrid, did not require embers to sustain ignition. They were far beyond that. In fact the places that were emitting a white-grey smoke had most likely consumed most of their fuel, were reduced to embers and were cooler. They were no longer capable of the supposed high temps. All the oxygen in the world will not help those spots regain their strength.

I agree that the Madrid fire had time to build and thus was more spectacular. But you missed my point. I was trying to say that to compare the two fires is misleading. WTC did not have time to build and that the pics, that was shown in the vid, were taken at night. Night photos, of fires, are always more impressive. The flames are able to “shine” from behind the clouds of smoke that, during the day, would obscure them. A good dose of sunlight pouring down does not help the flames visibility either.

I dont think I answered the questions well. the first question i can only answer with personal experiences of fire and that link from before about smoulder fires create think black smoke in large amounts.

second question is a good question which I dont have any answer for. I have no info on the pressure or how much air flow it would create.
'
third question i stand by my answer. The madrid fire ended with all the stories above completely burnt, and that shows how large that fire was in comparison to the WTC fire which was not engulfing all the floors above it and such.

Sorry but most smoldering fires just simply do not produce boiling black smoke clouds. They are simply too cool of fires. The color of smoke, produced by a fire, is determined by the temp of the fire and the type of fuel feeding the fire.
As are a temp is concerned. The color of smoke is a result of the elemental carbon released by a fire. A hotter fire will convert a more pure form of elemental carbon. These particles will absorb more light and will appear darker. A cooler fire does not produce as pure of carbon as a hot fire. This less refined carbon do not absorb as much light appearing to be lighter.

For fuel, POL fires always produce black smoke. This is due to the nature of POL. Fire just finds the hydrocarbons easier to refine than the carbon found in say wood. Plastic, made from petrochemicals, are also rich in carbon and will color smoke black.

See here is an example of what bugs me:

Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
There appears to be no evidence of fires within the buildings' cores. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.
9-11 Research

That ladies and gentlemen…is pure crap.

For one the explanation of the color of smoke is wrong. Secondly the fact that the fireball emerges from the other side of the towers shows the shrapnel damage that would have occurred in the impacted floors. Chunks of plane would have made the affected area like swiss cheese. Once the fires started, and the air started blowing through the floors the fire would have spread. Consuming any combustible materials in the process. The fires were not visible due to my previous explanation of the black spoke absorbing light.

This is a bogus argument. And it needs to be dumped. As I have said before, I am on the fence. And I do not think the temp of the fires were high enough to cause collapse. I was just pointing out a portion of the video that I thought was totally wrong.

Don’t we have a few ATS members who are firefighters. I could have sworn I have seen some with avatars that reflect their profession. Perhaps they could validate or invalidate this argument far better than I.

That was a great movie. Maybe if we can get the general public to see this then some might wake up and smell the coffee. I was not an avid believer in the 9/11 conspiracies until now. I'm starting to ask more questions now with some answered, like what role does Bin Laden play in this? It really makes me pissed that some people would actually sacrafice so much innocent life for money, but it doesn't suprise me. Like that Silverstien guy; he reeks of Illuminati. It also bugs me that Juliani may have known about it. When I heard that it took a few seconds to register then I was like"wait, WHAT DID YOU SAY?"

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Additionally most petroleum based fuels will burn black. This color difference is due to the higher amount of uncombusted carbon particles. In a fire such as Madrid or the WTC, you would expect to see darker smoke than say a brush fire. Carpets, office equipment, etc. all have use plastic that burn black. Of course there was paper and such and that contributed to the smoke as well. My real contention was the videos comments about the smoke and the relative heat of the fire. It was erroneous and simplistic.

I do have to agree with this. The fires were bigger than "19 minutes of smoke" and we can't give that away. In the search for truth...we can't just ignore facts...on both sides.

What such movies miss is that those planes tore big holes and I do mean big holes into the external superstructure of the trade centers, and in those buildings cases it was the external superstructure that held them together...fires be damned the shift of weight load on the remaining columns had to have been considerable and if anything the fires just helped the process along.

I just can't believe that the Bush administration had the imagination to envision such an event, much less carry it out.

Did you even watch the whole thing? They seemed to point to corporate conspiracy more than government conspiracy. Also, that big hole in the side of the building had me convinced until I watched the video and saw what looked like explosions going off and the fact that the towers fell fairly fast for having 70 floors of concrete and solid steel to go through. I did the calculations myself, and they are correct. It shouldn't have fallen that fast.

I did watch the whole movie...and do you honestly think this could have been pulled off without govenmental/military complacency?

Imagine the mass above the centers of damage coming down at 37 ft. per second....don't you think that things would be shooting out from all sorts of directions from the weight and pressure of the falling mass?

They looked like isolated blasts, though. If it were from the pressure it wouldv'e been on all sides, since it collapsed into itself perfectly, which you have yet to explain. And how can a quarter of the mass of the tower take down the rest of the tower? Weight can't be the reason. Also, I do belive they couldv'e done it, because the Illuminati do exist and they do have the capability to do just about anything. You do know that Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, right? And consider the return that Silverstien guy got off the Trade Center from the insurance: $7 Billion from a $15 Million investment. And he jacked up the insurance as much as possible just 6 weeks before, and then claimed that it counted as two events. And he claims that his main concern was the families of the victims. Tell me that's not oh so convenient for him. What happens now? He builds the new Freedom Tower with his $7 Billion in insurance cash, and gets an even more lucrative return from that tower. I see motive and capability here.

BTW why do you think we still can't find Bin Laden?

[edit on 26-9-2006 by CaptainIraq]

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
I did the calculations myself, and they are correct. It shouldn't have fallen that fast.

I honestly want to know so I can do some calculations as well......what exactly did you base your calculations on?

Seeing as how something like this has never happened before, what makes you so sure you know exactly how the buildings would react?
Again, not questioning you or anything. Just want to know how you came up with your numbers.

Professor of Mathematics Kenneth Kuttler of BYU did some calculations on WTC7's collapse here: worldtradecentertruth.com...

He basically points out the obvious in how counter-intuitive it is for such a massive skyscraper to collapse straight down at free-fall speed, into the path of maximum resistance.

show that confluent rows of what looks like explosive ejection of debris and concrete dust proceed down the sides of the towers at a constant velocity AHEAD of the collapse zone and the free falling debris. Since the debris is accelerating under gravity while the expulsions are at constant velocity, it eventually passes the expulsions.

Thank you!
and another very intriguing thing I've noticed is: When one of the towers began to collapse, the top portion (above the point where the plane had entered it) started to descend in one whole chunk at a slight angle--then it inexplicably disintegrated into pulverized bits as it fell, exploding into dust; blowing chunks outward in every direction! If the floors had "pancaked" onto one another --that would not have happened. Nothing fell onto the top portion of the building to warrant such destruction; it should've fallen to the ground solidly as it was. The "official explanation" defies the laws of physics in every way imaginable.

That wasn't a "pancake" collapse, people. What we saw was a building being blown to bits right before our eyes.

[edit on 9/27/2006 by MrEguy]