911 Clues Everyone Missed (Video)

Just came across this video on youtube...



This is a great video called "911 Clues EVERYONE MISSED".

Its a reminder of 3 cover stories which were broadcast very shortly after the attacks happened.

The first is that of a random "witness" who spoke like an expert...very shortly after the attacks. matching the official story about the building collapsed due to structural failure because of an intense fire. This witness is revealed to be an actor.

The second cover story is that of a speaker on CBS who repeats the "official story" about the buildings weakened structure.... and then goes on to speak about Osama Bin Laden in great detail..... very shortly after the 2nd tower was hit.

The third cover story is from MSNBC... speaker talks about OBLs abilities against the US....half an hour after the 2nd plain struck.

These stories that broke out on the MSN shortly after the attacks....and are identical to the "official story"
Its almost as if they were all reading out from a script.


Has anybody else seen this?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yeah I recall specifically that guy "structural fire was too hot and melted the steel" even while the engineers were still stumped as to how that could possibly fail the way it did.

since I'm out of time, can you point to a timestamp in that video where they prove that guy was an actor? I don't ever recall hearing they proved it.

The talking head who went on about OBL, well, that's to be expected, OBL attacked the USS cole and was on the radar, in fact, clinton left a large file on bushes desk about OBJ. So it makes sense that someone would be pinning it on him.

But that random guy on the street has always bugged me. He said enough to sound intelligent, while parroting an official story that was yet to be written. It was awhile before the pancake collapse BS theory was introduced, so this guy was ahead of the game.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Two words: Particle dust

Particle concrete dust under 10 microns was found all around Manhattan.
Concrete breaks apart when dropped from a high altitude but it doesn't pulverize into particulates

The concrete for the twin tower was of an especially strong batch of concrete, it would have to support a structure like that. Making it harder to turn it into particles 10 microns in size.

I couldn't agree more.

The movie's points are pertinent but the real hidden clue is the 10 seconds the building's contents took to turn into dust, the extreme warping and outright melting of massive structural steel beams (again in 10 seconds flat), the explosive force seen from the fact that some massive beams were blown hundreds of feet laterally and embedded themselves into nearby buildings, and the biggest question mark of all, where did all the residual heat in the basements come from and why were those 'fires' unable to be put out with both millions of gallons of water and a very effective heat absorbing material that was poured on site in the 100K's of gallons' worth?

Please keep in mind that nuclear weapon technology development did not end in the 1960s and that low yield, low radiation signature nuclear weapons the size of apples, potted plants and your secretary's lunch bag are now available...

reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

The concrete for the twin tower was of an especially strong batch of concrete, it would have to support a structure like that. Making it harder to turn it into particles 10 microns in size.

Wrong in soooo many ways.
It wasn't especially strong. The concrete used was 'light weight' because they had to use so much of it and weight was an issue on the floors. ie the floors were only supported at the edges. There was no support in the center(s). Now I don't know what additive they used instead of aggregate (rocks), or if they had some way of injecting air into the mix. But light weight concrete suggests less strength to me.

Secondly concrete was not used to support the towers other than the foundation below ground.

The towers were supported by the internal core of structual steel (60% total building load). This core used traditional building methods. Methods that are normally used to build an entire sky scraper.

The exterior used steel panels bolted together (40% total building load). The exterior would not be able to support itself without the bracing effect provided by the floor trusses.

reply to post by signalfire

and why were those 'fires' unable to be put out with both millions of gallons of water and a very effective heat absorbing material that was poured on site in the 100K's of gallons' worth?

Google Centrailia PA.
The town is all but abaondoned due to a mine fire that has been burning since 1962. That's 50 years. If you can't get to the base of the fire, you can't put it out. Ask your local FD.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


This video is very enlightening, but I doubt it will enlighten the official story believers who have their heads up their asses..

Interesting point about how much they knew about Bin Laden within hours of the attack, isn't it? All the information the news readers had about how he moved three times a week from mud huts and tent cities.. so much detailed information we had on him prior to 9/11 -- YET -- We couldn't find him afterward. Interesting indeed.

Yet there will still be naysayers. At this point, I think they are being paid to spread disinformation just like these "experts" in the video.

I think this vid relates to yours very well. It goes a bit deeper into the that scene with the supposed "witness".

It wont let me embed it so here's the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qa1PbBf-o&feature=related

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by signalfire

 

and why were those 'fires' unable to be put out with both millions of gallons of water and a very effective heat absorbing material that was poured on site in the 100K's of gallons' worth?

Google Centrailia PA.
The town is all but abaondoned due to a mine fire that has been burning since 1962. That's 50 years.

Google "fighting inaccessible underground mine fires vs. easily accessible above-ground structural fires" and also "comparing apples to oranges".

reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

Two words: Particle dust

Yep, those are two words alright. Question: Is there any such thing as non-particle dust?

Particle concrete dust under 10 microns was found all around Manhattan.

Says who? And "all around" Manhattan?

Concrete breaks apart when dropped from a high altitude but it doesn't pulverize into particulates

Says who? And what if you drop it from a great height and then drop a couple thousand tons of other stuff on top of it also from a great height? Maybe?

The concrete for the twin tower was of an especially strong batch of concrete, it would have to support a structure like that. Making it harder to turn it into particles 10 microns in size.

Well, the only concrete that actually "supported" the structure was in the foundation, which didn't fall from a great height.

Wow, how the hell could those people have known that plane impacts and fires weakens the structural integrity of a building? I can only think of one thing, inside information. And someone knowing about Osama before 911?? I mean, he was almost never on TV and youtube did not exist yet. How could he possibly know?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by signalfire

 

and why were those 'fires' unable to be put out with both millions of gallons of water and a very effective heat absorbing material that was poured on site in the 100K's of gallons' worth?

Google Centrailia PA.
The town is all but abaondoned due to a mine fire that has been burning since 1962. That's 50 years. If you can't get to the base of the fire, you can't put it out. Ask your local FD.

edit on 1-5-2012 by samkent because: add

Centralia has a massive coal deposit underneath the town with enough air infiltration (old coal mines) to feed it. I didn't see any coal underneath the towers, just bedrock. The excess heat was from residual fission. They COULD get to the base of the fire, they were pouring water on it. Water will not put out fission heat. It wasn't a fire, it was just heat, that's the point, and enough to melt steel and granite. Are you saying that either thermate (a cutting charge) or gravity plus a little bit of jet fuel left over created that heat?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

 

The concrete for the twin tower was of an especially strong batch of concrete, it would have to support a structure like that. Making it harder to turn it into particles 10 microns in size.

Wrong in soooo many ways.
It wasn't especially strong. The concrete used was 'light weight' because they had to use so much of it and weight was an issue on the floors. ie the floors were only supported at the edges. There was no support in the center(s). Now I don't know what additive they used instead of aggregate (rocks), or if they had some way of injecting air into the mix. But light weight concrete suggests less strength to me.

Secondly concrete was not used to support the towers other than the foundation below ground.

The towers were supported by the internal core of structual steel (60% total building load). This core used traditional building methods. Methods that are normally used to build an entire sky scraper.

The exterior used steel panels bolted together (40% total building load). The exterior would not be able to support itself without the bracing effect provided by the floor trusses.

Where's your proof that concrete can be particularized from a thousand foot free fall? You can't, it's not possible, deflect all you want but you know it can't be particularized without being blasted apart.



yea I see your point

reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled


You mean like this?

www.youtube.com...

Indeed impossible without explosive charges. Oh, wait...

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

 

You mean like this?

www.youtube.com...

Indeed impossible without explosive charges. Oh, wait...

Just like how building 7 could spontaneously collapse with NO explosions an ANY floors, yes?

You official-story kool-aid drinkers always like to omit building 7, don't ya? Why is that? Perhaps because it throws a wrench into your argument?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by YourDreamsCanceled

 

You mean like this?

www.youtube.com...

Indeed impossible without explosive charges. Oh, wait...

Oh wait, maybe that's why Brits see you Americans as so ignorant, you see here in London people don't believe in buildings that free fall to the ground after a metal cylinder hit them and they don't believe free falling dust falling from every inch of the building is a result of a metal cylinder impact. In my trip to America recently most people didn't even know a third building went down that day. Your right, four guys just went from riding camels to crashing commercial jets into buildings, that sounds like a much better explanation.


I love the first comment from your source...

Are you mentally retarded? That is an inaccurate model with different simulation models being tested. None are what actually happened, nor is it meant to be an accurate model.

Maybe there is hope for you all yet.

And yet another delightful comment from your source...

Continued - your misinterpretation of Newton states that, yes. But you are not competent to apply Newton's 3rd Law.

Please refer to the papers by Bazant et al regarding the forces. Try to understand, don't close your mind to science.

Right now you're just repeating talking points like a sheep.

I suggest that you leave out sources and stick to talking points as you are not benefiting your argument

Please let us all know of any other similar structural collapses where the building explodes, projects structural beams hundreds of feet horizontally, crumbles, and turns to dust and smoke from the top down. Please post the url so we can compare these events.

This is one in a series of videos attempting to determine factually if the collapse of the WTC buildings were structural failures as the US government and the US media have been telling people now day after day, year after year since 9/11/01, or are they just possibly lying to the public?

In fact, the building not only did not simply collapse it BLEW UP FROM THE TOP DOWN. The metal infrastructure of the building was so HOT the metal exo - skeleton, as well as the interior beams exuded smoke unlike any conventional collapse due to structural failure.

LIDAR photos taken after the event show WTC5 and 6 perimeters intact after the event therefore WTC1 and 2 debris did not reach or weaken WTC7.

Well isn't that a bit of a pickle



Imagine that, WTC7 Controlled demolition (pulled whatever you want to call it) and yet the same kind of fine particulate dust but not a plane hit it. Falls like the first two but no plane.

"There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."

- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski

BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS?

"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS?

"It was as if as if they had detonated ... as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom "

- NYFD Captain Dennis Tardio

There now, that makes a bit more sense now doesn't it, boom boom boom boom and you get concrete dust but falling, falling, falling you get concrete pieces, don't see many pieces of concrete. Lot's of steel some molten but no concrete. It's like a chapter from a childrens science book.