9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

However, in no video I have ever seen, do we see/hear explosions leading up to the collapse.

One of the easiest things to do to a video is alter or mute the audio track. All it takes is some audio software which you can purchase off the shelf or probably even download for free. Regardless of who did or did not hear what, two massive skyscrapers which were designed to withstand airplane impacts, hurricanes, high winds, fires, earthquakes and other disasters should have never collapsed due to a couple of oxygen starved fires.

In fact, collapse isn't even the correct term. Both buildings were literally blown to bits, judging by the ridiculously small remaining rubble pile. For one to believe this is what a random collapse results in, well, let's just say you must have a very unorthodox sense of reality.

As for WTC 7, I am sure the BBC and "Pull It Guy" will be more than happy to tell you what "went down" there.

reply to post by esdad71

I do not even know how to respond. I know where you stand, I am asking you a question. Why is it so hard to answer a question.

You asked me a question, and I answered it.

Are you saying that the energy was dissipated as sound yet still caused the collapse?

Let me try to break it down nice and simple for you.

From your perspective, when the building began collapsing, there were no explosives involved, making it a gravity driven collapse. In this collapse, energy would be transferred to sound (among many other things), so from your point of view the explosions reported are simply these sounds. From your perspective, the answer to your question would be yes.

From my perspective, when the building began collapsing, there were explosives involved. In this collapse, the explosives would be the thing causing these sounds which were reported as explosions, so from my point of view the explosinos reported are explosions. From my perspective, the answer to your question would be no.

So, just to avoid any more confusion, let's review.

You: Energy --> Sound

Me: Explosions --> Sound

And I don't really understand the point of your question, the way it's framed it seems like you think that energy being transferred to sound would arrest the collapse: "Are you saying that the energy was dissipated as sound yet still caused the collapse?"

Also, I did not state you are an expert but if you are going to play like one you should be prepared to back it up with more than a movie review and the newly coined "breaking wind" theory you have presented that shows how you believe the energy must have converted itself to sound...

Are you claiming that energy would not be transferred to sound during a collapse? You confuse the hell out of me dude.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

However, in no video I have ever seen, do we see/hear explosions leading up to the collapse.

One of the easiest things to do to a video is alter or mute the audio track. All it takes is some audio software which you can purchase off the shelf or probably even download for free. Regardless of who did or did not hear what, two massive skyscrapers which were designed to withstand airplane impacts, hurricanes, high winds, fires, earthquakes and other disasters should have never collapsed due to a couple of oxygen starved fires.

In fact, collapse isn't even the correct term. Both buildings were literally blown to bits, judging by the ridiculously small remaining rubble pile. For one to believe this is what a random collapse results in, well, let's just say you must have a very unorthodox sense of reality.

As for WTC 7, I am sure the BBC and "Pull It Guy" will be more than happy to tell you what "went down" there.

I see. So we're devolving back down to "if the evidence isn't there, it's because 'they' covered it up."

How, exactly, did "they" manage to get every single video and cover up the audio track? How powerful are these "people" who perpetrated 9/11?

It just doesn't make sense to me that when you are proven wrong by evidence, you claim that the evidence, ALL the evidence has been tampered with. I personally think that the volume of videos is just too high for this. You can't realistically imagine every video being taken and altered to fit a no-demolitions view.

reply to post by Varemia


This is the age old Truther ploy:

We can't explain it, but we believe it, so the evidence is missing because of a) a cover up b) secret technology c) assassinations and death threats.

Never mind that without that missing evidence all they have is suspicions based on coincidence and distrust.

In other words, it's faith. Faith that their assumptions about people is correct. Faith that missing evidence is ... actually missing, not non-existent. Faith that a coincidences are meaningful. And on and on.

And in an echo chamber like ATS this faith looks like fact to the true believers... however, if you actually demand something like proof before you "believe" you;ll be out of luck; there is none in Trutherism.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I have also addressed this in another thread. in some instances, they noises sound like xplosions because they are exceeding the threshold of the mic that is on the camera/etc. There were no iPhones in 2001 folks and no HD cameras around for 200 bucks. You had video cameras that, if you ever shot a video, would know you need a seperate mic or it will sound like garbage. This is why with live rock recordings you record the show and try to get a good soundboard take and sync it. I could show you, in 15 minutes, how to download free software, edit a audit track and make it fact based on your faith.

Here, I've found a couple videos which compile a number of different videos of the tower collapses. It gives you an idea of the different audio in the separate cameras:

www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...



In the second video, towards the end is a camera with exceptional sound. It captures some of the more intense booms. There is also a point where one reporter is being escorted away by officers, and he's asking why they're being taken away, and he says "The tower's leaning." The reporter asks, "The North Tower," they say "Yes," and then he turns around and says "there it goes!" as the North Tower comes down.

On a side note, I finally found a video I've been looking for for a while. It's not the entire video I originally saw, but the original was removed from youtube, I guess. What annoys me is that, just like when I saw it before, in both tower collapses, there is the chance to see the base of the towers. In both collapses, the video skips a couple seconds.

www.youtube.com...

The third collapse shown on the video is interesting as well, though it leaves out the start of the collapse, but it shows a bit of what happens afterward.

reply to post by TupacShakur



Question. Or thought. Something is definitely not right with 9/11. I totally agree on that.

Why would they bring down the towers. To what gain or to what advantage did it give whoever to bring them down . ????

Originally posted by VI0811
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Why would they bring down the towers. To what gain or to what advantage did it give whoever to bring them down . ????

The answer is: common sense. Why?

-Renovations would have cost big time money: look it up for yourself.
-The owner of the complex (recently) at that time took out an insurance policy and collected big time money.

Look it up for yourself. The evidence and conjecture here does NOT somehow disavow what really happened
when we ALL do NOT know the entire story.

The video in the OP: has it been debunked?
Where and when, and how? I'd like to know.

All I hear are suppositions that do NOT make logical sense.

Intuition coupled to common sense and deductive reasoning has a tendency to transcend accepted
Science...

The official story is one giant steaming pile of craptastic dung.


Why was there molten steel. This is common sense.
Common sense: Jet fuel did NOT cause that. The bulk of the jet fuel ignited and burned at impact
(hence the explosion we saw when the plane visibly impacted the tower)

Why was there molten steel?
Where is the damaged plane from the Pentagon?

Did it just disintegrate into thin air?
Or was the air so dense the sheeple believe whatever they are told despite lacking common sense!

reply to post by Varemia



Why are you so hung up on the sound?
Do the visuals NOT tell you what happened to the buildings?

Both towers fell without resistance.
The OP'd video uses Science to come up with that.

Where did the reinforced steel go that resided within the center of both towers?

I just don't get ANYONE who could actually *think* this event could have been accomplished by a PLANE
and its jet fuel! Do you?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Varemia

 

This is the age old Truther ploy:

We can't explain it, but we believe it, so the evidence is missing because of a) a cover up b) secret technology c) assassinations and death threats.

Never mind that without that missing evidence all they have is suspicions based on coincidence and distrust.

In other words, it's faith. Faith that their assumptions about people is correct. Faith that missing evidence is ... actually missing, not non-existent. Faith that a coincidences are meaningful. And on and on.

And in an echo chamber like ATS this faith looks like fact to the true believers... however, if you actually demand something like proof before you "believe" you;ll be out of luck; there is none in Trutherism.

edit on 20-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

So tell me, (genius who thinks he knows everything yet demonstrates the exact opposite)

What title of unfriendly admonition do I receive, when;


-*I* Do NOT know 100% what happened on 9/11 Check.
-*I* Reject the official story and NIST's accounting of what happened to both towers on 9/11 Check.
-*I* Smell bull# a mile away when the masterminds are name dropped expeditiously after 9/11

The only thing I can do (sans becoming a structural engineer and/or a Scientist that studies
the related fields in question) is to research....Research what?

The compositional elements of:

-The planes used that day
-The buildings that crumbled into their own footprint that day
-Then speak with professionals that already have degrees and have real world experience OR
-watch videos with said professionals and research their backgrounds to ascertain what they know
-and how their own deductions and calculations COULD answer questions many do NOT know the answers to...

Did anyone have ANYTHING to gain by these attacks? Oh yes.

-WTC7 going down meant SEC files and records permanently destroyed.
-Alan Silverstein walks away with a huge load of money...
-Under this pretense of "terror" the Incorporated U.S. of A (raping) gets to implement right abrogating codes,
statues and acts that undermine each man/woman and child's individual freedoms affirmed in the Constitution.

Are there anymore that had to gain by 9/11 happening?

-The U.S. military perhaps?
-Haliburton?
-Blackwater?

Create a little destruction and we can also create jobs! Who would have thought!


I would have thought that by the subsequent illegal legislation that has allowed to avoid checks and balances
to have been thought of, written by and passed by Corky from Life Goes On.

Arguing over who is right and who is wrong....

When ALL of you that disbelieve 9/11 was allowed to happen are being raped in the A
by your very own government who sadly and unbelievably do NOT give a crrrrap about you!

Why?

Originally posted by Chinesis
reply to post by Varemia

 

Why are you so hung up on the sound?
Do the visuals NOT tell you what happened to the buildings?

Both towers fell without resistance.
The OP'd video uses Science to come up with that.

Where did the reinforced steel go that resided within the center of both towers?

I just don't get ANYONE who could actually *think* this event could have been accomplished by a PLANE
and its jet fuel! Do you?

Because I have done research on this, and to the best of my ability, I have determined that the planes are the most likely reason that the towers collapsed. I can't find enough evidence to suggest another cause.

You can say it "looked" like a demolition until the cows come home, but until you prove that there were demolitions in the building, what's the point? I'm trying to find evidence FOR demolitions, but I cannot find any evidence. One of the signs of a demolition is the noise that the charges make. I went through every sound byte I could find and could not quantify explosive sounds.

So, instead of saying, "perhaps it is not explosives," you guys move the goalposts and say "oh, it must have been a silent explosive."

Riiiiight. Well, I'll believe that when I see it. Show me a demolition that has silent charges, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and there will be no cop-outs by saying it was "secret government technology." Evidence is nicer than conjecture.

Originally posted by Varemia
Because I have done research on this, and to the best of my ability, I have determined that the planes are the most likely reason that the towers collapsed. I can't find enough evidence to suggest another cause.

What research from which sources?'
Granted I like the fact you have conducted your own research. But I ask you this...
IS it absolute and infallible? Is it really a conclusion that you are qualified to make?

Or, is this "the best you have" to conclude based on the evidence we have at hand?

Originally posted by VaremiaYou can say it "looked" like a demolition until the cows come home, but until you prove that there were demolitions in the building, what's the point? I'm trying to find evidence FOR demolitions, but I cannot find any evidence. One of the signs of a demolition is the noise that the charges make. I went through every sound byte I could find and could not quantify explosive sounds.

You say: "One of" the signs of a demotion are...
This isn't conclusive is it?
What are the other "signs" and are they present?

I could if I had wanted to...say, "a building falling into its own footprint at nearly freefall speed
IS a sign of a controlled demolition, emphasis on the word, "controlled." Right?

I have personally listened to at least ONE recording where I heard explosions, but those did not go off
as the buildings fell (because it is visually evident that they did NOT collapse)

WHERE is the resistance?
What temperatures was the steel designed to resist structural integrity damage at?
Was the jet fuel hot enough to melt the steel or weaken ALL of the steel present inside of both towers?

What are your sources and please don't say NIST, because I will laugh out loud and dismiss them
for their blatant omission(s) in their report.

Originally posted by VaremiaSo, instead of saying, "perhaps it is not explosives," you guys move the goalposts and say "oh, it must have been a silent explosive."

If we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains although improbable MUST be the truth.

Can you tell me RIGHT NOW that unequivocally ALL technology derived from Scientific discovery and
research has been 100% fully disclosed? How many of the public sector KNEW about thermite/nano thermate
prior to 9/11? We already know the answer: it's called, "Need to know information." Isn't it?

Originally posted by VaremiaRiiiiight. Well, I'll believe that when I see it. Show me a demolition that has silent charges, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and there will be no cop-outs by saying it was "secret government technology." Evidence is nicer than conjecture.

This is what is so funny about you!
You claim you will believe it if you see it...
No plane hit the Pentagon, yet YOU believe (despite seeing it for yourself) that NO plane hit that building.

You claim to believe it when you see it, yet NO plane hit Shanksville, YET you probably disbelieve that too!


Watch this:

You show me HOW the reinforced steel trusses, columns and posts somehow were compromised enough
to allow the building to fall without resistance, subsequently ACCOUNTING for the molten steel witnessed
(not only via eye witness acounts) but also flowing out the building's exterior in countless captured video media.

Please explain OR site your source and I will gladly debunk it right here and now.

reply to post by Chinesis


You seem to misunderstand how science works. No one can know anything for absolute 100% certain, as new data can always be introduced.

I'm completely open to new data, but all I am finding/receiving is rhetoric and conjecture. This is not evidence. It is opinion.

reply to post by Varemia


Copy that, thank you.
However I would like for you to post your source(s) from which you have concluded based on your research
that the towers collapsing were due to structural damage at the hands of the jet fuel and plane explosion...

I just seem to misunderstand how you can read the Op's research and then after watching the
video...a giant collaborative effort made by professionals and engineers that go completely against
your research...come to your same conclusions seemingly dismissing it in its entirety?

Am I missing something here?
I love to admit when I am wrong or state something that is incorrect.

reply to post by Chinesis


Gosh, it really isn't one or two sources. I've been at this for a couple years, and the information has slowly put together the whole picture. So, I don't really have a source to list. It was partly NIST, partly an Engineering University's paper, partly a plethora of youtube videos showing the towers from every conceivable angle.

It's partly members here who have done research and explained things, such as when exponent did an extremely lengthy post on why WTC 7 collapsed the way it did. The conspiracy minded ignored it and buried it rather quickly, although he cited everything, included diagrams from the schematics, and made a lot of sense. It effected me, because he didn't have to use youtube videos where other people are giving their opinion and saying it is fact.

But yeah, I admit that I'm not a genius. I don't have all the math and physics worked out (after all, I'm an Anthropologist, not a structural engineer). All I have is a basic understanding of why things went where they did and the effect they had on the stuff around them.

I think the trusses failed because of uneven fires, and I believe that the upper floors had enough mass and energy to break the connections of the lower floors all the way to the ground. This was mostly supported by a lengthy peer-reviewed paper by an Engineering school.

I've seen a lot of simulations too, and those kind of help, though some are just odd and others are un-fact-checkable. I suppose they support it, but I don't know how the physics engines work in them, so I don't use them as evidence.

reply to post by VI0811

Why would they bring down the towers. To what gain or to what advantage did it give whoever to bring them down . ????

To kill Americans, get the people upset at the enemy, and want to go to war and invade the Middle East.

Also the passage of the Patriot Act, because spying on Americans and giving up our constitutional liberties is all in the name of safety and security, and if we didn't pass it, there terrorists would get us! But I haven't heard of many terrorist plots being foiled because the government was spying on people's phone calls/e-mails/text messages, but I'm sure this Orwellian concept is for the best.

For every 100 million citizens rights the government violates, maybe 1 terrorist phone call will be intercepted. And if there's anything Benjamin Franklin would have supported, it's giving up liberty for security....."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Then there's the elimination of habeas corpus for those deemed "enemy combatants", which based on some of the terrorist qualifications could be a McDonalds drive-thru worker as much as a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by VI0811


OK, so your thought process is that the US government created a scenario that would kill 3000 innocent people, coordinate the demolition of 3 buildings, shoot one down and hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile. This would then incite America to attack the enemy. Then, the conclusion is that we would invade the Middle East. Throw in the Patriot Act and we are all living 1984..right? Orwellian...

9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was as UN resolution( A bogus one, who knows but it was not about 9/11). What we did do in the days after 9/11 was run ops in Afghanistan with no restraint. The US was already in that region you call the Middle East. So there was no need for 9/11 as it would have happened anyway. If anything, it open the drug trade from Taliban control. Drug Dealers benefited more from 9/11 then the US government and how to control their minions.

You may not have heard of any plots that were foiled by a cell/text but that does not mean it does not exist. Computer forensics is a huge field. It is safer to use Electronic communications than sending something in the 'mail' that would just not get there or be read/replaced and sent on. How do you think people communicate these days and in the last 10 years or so? Email....The government has always tapped or kept phone records.The PA just gave them more leverage to use it against someone I believe from how I interpret it. I mean, if you are doing nothing wrong, what are you worried about. However, if something is intercepted that could have stopped an attack, etc...then why not? We are all still on this site so I do not think 9/11 or Bush brought in martial law nor a new world order. Bottom line is NSA does what it wants and always has.

Does it make me feel safer, no, but it also does not impose on my own liberties.

reply to post by esdad71

OK, so your thought process is that the US government created a scenario that would kill 3000 innocent people, coordinate the demolition of 3 buildings, shoot one down and hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile. This would then incite America to attack the enemy. Then, the conclusion is that we would invade the Middle East.

I think Flight 93 was our military finally getting their act together after a day of confusion and actually wasn't the original plan. I also think that the Pentagon was struck by a commercial airliner because there's more evidence that supports it than contradicts it, although there is some of both. But the conclusion is the same, we would invade the Middle East as a result of the false-flag attack.

Throw in the Patriot Act and we are all living 1984..right? Orwellian...

No, but we're well on our way.

9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was as UN resolution( A bogus one, who knows but it was not about 9/11). What we did do in the days after 9/11 was run ops in Afghanistan with no restraint. The US was already in that region you call the Middle East. So there was no need for 9/11 as it would have happened anyway.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this subject, because I think the invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq would not have happened without 9/11, and you think otherwise.

If anything, it open the drug trade from Taliban control. Drug Dealers benefited more from 9/11 then the US government and how to control their minions.

I believe that the US government is in one way or another involved in the drug trade. This isn't a thread about that topic, but I plan to make one in the near future that describes that very subject.

You may not have heard of any plots that were foiled by a cell/text but that does not mean it does not exist

Yes, but the lack of evidence tells me otherwise.

Computer forensics is a huge field. It is safer to use Electronic communications than sending something in the 'mail' that would just not get there or be read/replaced and sent on. How do you think people communicate these days and in the last 10 years or so? Email....The government has always tapped or kept phone records.The PA just gave them more leverage to use it against someone I believe from how I interpret it. I mean, if you are doing nothing wrong, what are you worried about. However, if something is intercepted that could have stopped an attack, etc...then why not? We are all still on this site so I do not think 9/11 or Bush brought in martial law nor a new world order. Bottom line is NSA does what it wants and always has.

Yes I agree with you here, however the Patriot Act expanded on this and gave them even more authority to spy on citizens.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

This is the age old Truther ploy:

We can't explain it, but we believe it, so the evidence is missing because of a) a cover up b) secret technology c) assassinations and death threats.

Never mind that without that missing evidence all they have is suspicions based on coincidence and distrust.

In other words, it's faith. Faith that their assumptions about people is correct. Faith that missing evidence is ... actually missing, not non-existent. Faith that a coincidences are meaningful. And on and on.

And in an echo chamber like ATS this faith looks like fact to the true believers... however, if you actually demand something like proof before you "believe" you;ll be out of luck; there is none in Trutherism.

edit on 20-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

Scenario.......The Pentagon has just been hit and the F.B.I. deem that the most important thing to do is confiscate 83 CCTV recordings within minutes, within minutes they have managed to locate and grab every single CCTV video in the intermediate area of the Pentagon.

Why was this the main priority?, and more importantly how did they know the location of these 83 videos within minutes of the impact?.

It`s a well known ploy for any criminal to hide their tracks, whilst we are demanding proof, where is yours?, ah it must be on the F.B.I.`s most wanted website...yes?

reply to post by Seventh


Is this true? If you have a source, I'll be very interested, because that is kind of suspicious unless there is a protocol somewhere that explains this.

I honestly don't know what their standard operating procedure is in the case of an explosion.