You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well I've posted all the "structural" analysis on how the "Muslim terrorists" were really CIA working for Wall St. but the "official story" types just ignore that false flag information.

Yeah as Michael Ruppert says to focus on how the buildings were destroyed is no different that everyone focusing on how JFK was assassinated while ignoring the structural reasons it happened.

This is kind of like why Noam Chomsky ignores conspiracies as basically Western civilization is a conspiracy as Rousseau pointed out and Chomsky quotes Rousseau on the conspiracy.

But then Peter Dale Scott says -- hey you need to consider the structural policies of JFK and how JFK really was ending the Vietnam War and cutting off the Fed control and the Oil control and how he fired the CIA, etc. So then of course JFK had to be assasinated and of course it was set up as a false flag to try to blame Cuba. The goal was to justify another attack on Cuba.

This time the goal was to justify another attack on Afghanistan and Iraq -- for Oil and Drugs.

So once people realize that the CIA is the biggest drug dealer in the world and that CIA is Wall St. elites also wanting to control all the oil wealth - and then consider the actual CIA training of the CIA double agent "Muslim terrorists."

At that point it doesn't matter if there were bombs or a controlled demolition or not -- because the reason the buildings were brought down is readily apparent.

Obviously nothing can be done about this as the thugs are in charge -- we had the NeoCons being outed as both arming ISI-CIA and also getting the Bush administration to back off Osama Bin Laden. Osama is CIA -- whether it's rogue CIA doesn't matter because the Enterprise was also rogue CIA - drug dealing and arming the terrorists - it's a global network of conspiratorial thugs.

People don't want to face up to this because there's no place to turn to - there's no one to vote for -- there's no easy solution.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


I'm under the impression that the CIA never does anything unless it can kill at LEAST two birds with one stone. Is there another angle that 9/11 could have covered, that would have been highly advantageous to the CIA?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Oil and Drugs is two birds.

But let's not forget the military industrial complex -- over 50% of U.S. taxes go to the military and the U.S. alone has some two thirds of global weapon sales abroad.

The Bush Sr. genocide on Iraq was a huge boost to military sales.

Of course the military budget boomed from 9/11 with huge profits for Cheney, et. al.

O.K. so that's three birds.

You want a fourth? The value of the U.S. dollar -- aka "petrodollars."

The U.S. has "veto" power of Japan and Germany's economies so that Japan and Germany are forced to finance the U.S. debt.

How can the U.S. have "veto power" over Japan and Germany? By controlling their access to oil -- if the U.S. controls global oil then the U.S. also maintains the dollar as the global "reserve" currency.

The reserve currency means that other countries want to devalue their currencies relative to the U.S. dollar so that they can export products to the U.S. and so any profits they make from sales to the U.S. must then be used to buy U.S. treasury bonds.

This whole process then just increases the wealth of the top 1 percent as the U.S. dollar is privatized so every time the Fed prints dollars which it then "sells" to the U.S. government for treasury bonds -- and then the Fed sells the treasury bonds to the periphery of the U.s. empire -- so that all the wealth accumulates to the secret ownership of the Fed - the private banks.

O.K. so that's four birds.

But let's not forget that the U.S. miltiary complex is apocalyptic --

People think the U.S. military is to "protect" the U.S. citizens.

It's completely nuts as nuclear radiation is now global from nuclear weapon testing, from depleted uranium, and from the civilian nuclear "power" plants which are always being covered up -- the mining of uranium kills the workers with cancer, the storage of the waste kills people with cancer -- and everything else also.

So there are official "National Sacrifice Areas" already in the U.S. from all the industrial wastelands from nuclear waste in New Mexico to Coal Mining and Uranium mining, etc.

The elite just plan on going underground just as Cheney did at 9/11.

So it's not about self-interest or rational motives - it's about absurd corrupt power that people completely want to believe is not real - the U.S. elite don't care about U.S. citizens or even "national security interests" -- the CIA doesn't hide that it creates fascist regimes around the world.

That doc has a great expose with the CIA.

I recommend reading Sander Hick's book The Big Wedding for a great concise expose on 9/11 as an inside job.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1

Ah, so anyone who did think it was going to collapse was a plant? That sure is convenient.

Not anyone just the unnamed engineers telling a firemen that a 47story skyscraper is in danger of imminent collapse. Who is this enginner and how did he know the condition of the building? Why didn't he identify himself fir 11 years now ? I think he's a plant just like prophet Mark Walsh... Not a fact just my opinion.

I personally see plenty of evidence of people who were well aware that the building was wholly unstable. They were measuring creep in the structure, after all! A structure doesn't creep unless it is getting ready to completely collapse. It evidences the weakening/shifting of supports.

You need to go walk around a building of the same size and think for a second.. If on the other side (which is a block away from where you are) there is damage and it "creeps" what are the chances of the entire structure uniformly collapsing in seconds?

LOL this is so stupid that it's funny. I know, well actually i hope that deep down inside you understand, just can't admit that you do.

reply to post by maxella1

Not anyone just the unnamed engineers telling a firemen that a 47story skyscraper is in danger of imminent collapse. Who is this enginner and how did he know the condition of the building? Why didn't he identify himself fir 11 years now ? I think he's a plant just like prophet Mark Walsh... Not a fact just my opinion.

FDNY was watching the building using a surveyor transit (carried as part of equipment on Collapse Unit
housed with Rescue 3) By mid afternoon could see 3 story bulge forming on Southwest corner

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Here is link to site which shows photos of some of the damage to WTC 7

www.debunking911.com...

As for unamed engineer - I can conjecture that reason doesnt come forward is to avoid harassment from the nut fringe

Witness what happened to Val Mcclatchy who published a picture of crash of Flight 93 and was harassed for
years by conspiracy nuts

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Varemia

 

You mean collapse symmetrical into its footprint at free fall speed turning into dust?

Yep that's what happens from a creaking wobbling building.

Honestly, I don't think it was the most likely method of collapse, but unlikely things happen all the time. As a notation though, it didn't turn to dust.

A building that is creaking and creeping is highly unstable, and since I trust the firefighter assessments of the damage caused by Tower 1's collapse, I'm willing to bet that debris spillage occurred during Building 7's collapse. Would debris pouring out of the building toward the South not explain the "small" pile left behind by 7? Wouldn't it also explain the relative speed of the collapse itself?

reply to post by Varemia


I wonder why NIST said WTC 7 wasn't due to structural damage but from fire.

Even though fire has never collapsed a steel frame tower.

So the issue here is that you are assuming it is mutually exclusive that the building was "creaking" and that it was a controlled demolition -- as if it couldn't be both at the same time.

Were WTC 1 and WTC 2 also "creaking"? One of the architects of WTC 1 and 2 says that the footage on WTC 7 shows it has to be a controlled demolition because of the crimp on the interior columns taken out first and the speed and symmetry of the fall.

the free fall speed collapse of WTC 7 is the same as a controlled demolition as is the "foot print."

And once again no one claiming these buildings collapsed from airplane damage and fire have addressed the historical fact that the CIA and FBI protected the so-called terrorists -- as did the DIA and Pentagon against Operation Able.

The Sander Hicks lecture goes into great detail on a lot of this and the Daniel Hopsicker documentary gives further details.

False Flag operations are the standard norm for intelligence operations to justify war by the U.S. government.

Someone said the Michael Ruppert lecture was "factually inaccurate" -- wow great argument! No details -- just a broad label of dismissal. That's really impressive. haha.

reply to post by thedman

FDNY was watching the building using a surveyor transit (carried as part of equipment on Collapse Unit housed with Rescue 3) By mid afternoon could see 3 story bulge forming on Southwest corner

Yeah they put a trensit a 3 story bulge on 1 side of a 47 story skyscraper. What happend to the rest of the undamaged building? You are a firefighter right? You do know what a transit is right? Give it up man this is stupid.

As for unamed engineer - I can conjecture that reason doesnt come forward is to avoid harassment from the nut fringe

Totally agree with you on this one... That is the reason people lay low. But usually it's when they got something to say that isn't the popular or official thing, you know what I mean.

reply to post by Varemia

I'm well aware of Barry Jennings. His story has been dissected countless times over this last decade. The facts in his story only line up when one considers where he was in the building at each point in his story. The part where the building "explodes" and he gets trapped temporarily is a part where he is on the stairway in the corner of the building, right next to where there is documented damage from the collapse of Tower 1. Tower 2's collapse threw out the power, which is why he had to use the stairs in the first place, remember? Now, that's about as compressed as I can make the analysis. Just do a Google search on it if you want more detail.

I'm curious did you listen to what Barry Jennings had to say and do you still stand by your comment above?

reply to post by maxella1


Seven WTC fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds -- only as fast as in a vacuum created from an explosion -- faster than free fall.

Explosions have been recorded before the take down of all the WTC --

This doc has the evidence of the explosions recorded along with the witness testimony.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm well aware of Barry Jennings. His story has been dissected countless times over this last decade. The facts in his story only line up when one considers where he was in the building at each point in his story. The part where the building "explodes" and he gets trapped temporarily is a part where he is on the stairway in the corner of the building, right next to where there is documented damage from the collapse of Tower 1. Tower 2's collapse threw out the power, which is why he had to use the stairs in the first place, remember? Now, that's about as compressed as I can make the analysis. Just do a Google search on it if you want more detail.

I'm curious did you listen to what Barry Jennings had to say and do you still stand by your comment above?

Yes, I have. I believe that Barry Jennings was mistaken. After listening to the testimony of his companion, the events make a lot more sense. Jennings' account just doesn't add up, especially since based on the building's design and window distribution, at no point after he entered the elevator could he even see the towers. How did he know they were still standing? Hess (if I remember the name right) said the window they did find after the explosion was on the side opposite the trade center complex, ie. the North. Can't see the towers from there.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by maxella1

 

Seven WTC fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds -- only as fast as in a vacuum created from an explosion -- faster than free fall.

Explosions have been recorded before the take down of all the WTC

This doc has the evidence of the explosions recorded along with the witness testimony.

That's just a false statement there. The towers took about 10 seconds to fall. Unless you have some X-Ray vision, the collapse became obscured halfway through. So unless things magically speed up exponentially after they leave the field of vision, breaking numerous laws of physics, I think you might need to rethink a couple things.

Nice job on posting another 1:45 minute documentary with no references as to where or what their "evidence" for explosions was. I'm sure that bangs and booms over a one-hour period would totally signify a demolition (sarcasm), because it totally matches up with even a single demolition that has ever been pulled off (sarcasm again.).

My point is that the "demolition" of the towers was nothing like a demolition. A demolition in the first place is not intended to "blow up" an entire building. It is intended to weaken the structure just enough to cause it to collapse on its own. Remember that fact. Demolition collapses let the building destroy itself. They don't "blow up" the whole building in a once-in-a-lifetime experience of massive, silent bombs destroying the building and ejecting it everywhere as it collapses. Naturally, in order to start the collapse, there did not have to be a single initiatory pop or bang. Those were able to take place 15-45 minutes earlier, with a magical delayed physical reaction (this was sarcasm again, so we're clear).

reply to post by Varemia

Yes, I have. I believe that Barry Jennings was mistaken

Hahaha... Mistaken.. Sure he was just like the firemen who saw flashes and heard pops before the collapse, And don't forget all those people that said that a complete collapse came as a surprise. they were all mistaken obviously.

reply to post by Varemia

point is that the "demolition" of the towers was nothing like a demolition. A demolition in the first place is not intended to "blow up" an entire building. It is intended to weaken the structure just enough to cause it to collapse on its own. Remember that fact. Demolition collapses let the building destroy itself. They don't "blow up" the whole building in a once-in-a-lifetime experience of massive, silent bombs destroying the building and ejecting it everywhere as it collapses. Naturally, in order to start the collapse, there did not have to be a single initiatory pop or bang. Those were able to take place 15-45 minutes earlier, with a magical delayed physical reaction (this was sarcasm again, so we're clear).

Wait a minute didn't you say ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Explosions is not the same thing as explosives. If you watch any video of any demolition, you will notice one primary factor. There are always very loud explosive pops/bangs just before the collapse. Every camera on each demolition is able to capture it unless the audio gets replaced by music by the uploader.

Did this video changed your mind?

reply to post by Varemia



This film is definitely worth watching in its entirety, but here's just a clip with all the people who were "mistaken" about explosions before and after the planes hit and all over the buildings.

reply to post by Varemia

Yes, I have. I believe that Barry Jennings was mistaken. After listening to the testimony of his companion, the events make a lot more sense.

It pays off to play along, doesn't it?

Rudolph Giuliani Becomes Name Partner at Top Law Firm
In addition to former Mayor Giuliani, Michael Hess and Daniel Connolly will be joining Bracewell as partners assigned to the New York office. Both Mr. Hess and Mr. Connolly have extensive legal experience in the public and private sectors. Together, this core team will be recruiting attorneys with career practices in New York and working with current Bracewell partners who will be relocating from other offices to support the anticipated growth of the firm's New York-based practice.

I'm almost sure that it's just a silly coincidence that Bracewell Patterson happens to be a Texas law firm and this announcement came right after former Texas governor who just happened to be in charge of the government during 9/11 got reelected to a second term..

Man I tell you these damned fool conspiracy websites turned me into a nut job.

"I practiced law for a significant part of my career and have always had a desire to go back to it," Rudolph W. Giuliani said. "Bracewell Patterson is a great Texas law firm with both national and international offices. Now, they'll have a presence in NewYork, which we will develop together. I look forward to working with Pat Oxford and the entire firm in growing the New York, national and international practices.

This partnership worked out so well for Giuliani that he completely forgot that 9/11 was a terrorist attack during George W.s term in the White House.

Rudy Giuliani forgets 9/11 when suggesting President Obama take cues from Bush on fighting terror
Rudy Giuliani has been teased for only having three words in his vocabulary - a noun, a verb and 9/11 - but yesterday "America's Mayor" seemed to forget about 9/11.

Kinda like Condoleezza Rice got promoted to US Secretary of State in 2005 for being a great US National Security Advisor, and Philip Zelikow got a new job as counselor to the U.S. Department of State and as senior policy advisor to Condoleezza Rice in 2005 for doing a great job as a director of 9/11 Commission.

reply to post by maxella1


Yeah -- John Stockwell CIA station Chief testifying that the CIA has killed 6 million people in 40 years of covert operations against the two-thirds world. Nice -- to get that little tidbit out in the open. Funny how this fact never gets discussed in the U.S. at large. Hmm. Kind of like fascism isn't it. It is exactly since the CIA used fascism to kill all these people.

reply to post by maxella1


That's verinage demolition. It doesn't use explosives. It weakens the supports and then lets the building destroy itself. You're just proving my point.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1

 

That's verinage demolition. It doesn't use explosives. It weakens the supports and then lets the building destroy itself. You're just proving my point.

Did you notice that they weakened the building on few floors but across the entire building? What would've happened if they weakened only a portion? would it collapse uniformly?

Something like this maybe?

[edi tby]edit on 20-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)