Charlie Veitch - The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

Pretty interesting article about Charlie Veitch (never heard of him before) who has done a complete 180 on 9-11.

On a June afternoon in the middle of New York’s Times Square, Charlie Veitch took out his phone, turned on the camera and began recording a statement about the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. “I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths. If you are presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group want to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.” To most people, it doesn’t sound like a particularly outrageous statement to make. In fact, the rest of the video was almost banal in its observations; that the destruction of the towers may actually have been caused by the two 767 passenger jets that flew into them. But to those who subscribed to Veitch’s YouTube channel, a channel he set up to promulgate conspiracy theories like the one he was now rejecting, it was tantamount to heresy. “You sell out piece of s---. Rot in hell, Veitch,” ran one comment beneath the video. “This man is a pawn,” said another. “Your [sic] a f---ing pathetic slave,” shrilled a third. “What got ya? Money?” So runs what passes for debate on the internet. Veitch had expected a few spiteful comments from the so-called “Truth Movement”. What he had not expected was the size or the sheer force of the attack.

What amazes me the most is the raw and unadulterated hate heaped upon Veitch, the death threats, the images of his sister’s children spliced into child pornography. I get it, his fans were mad (pun intended) but IMO this incident really spotlights the mental defects and personality disorders in hard core conspiracy theorist.

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

People are entitled to change their minds whenever the like and the vitriol you say that is aimed at this man is not warranted.

However, WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane so.........

Everyone is allowed to change their mind...I did... I wouldnt call myself a truther, but I know there are huge flaws in the lie spun by so many...does that make me mentally defective?... Im psychology trained and a professional imager..... my decision to doubt the lie is based on these skills...what are yours to say Im mentally defective?

reply to post by SirMike

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

It's peculiar isn't it? This man all of a sudden changes his mind without explaining the reasons why? Don't you find that odd? No rhyme or reason? Oh of course you don't, just like you have accepted the NIST report on WTC7.

I think this shows all too clearly that to a % of people? 9/11 is NOT about finding truth but about pushing an agenda. Some? It's the "Official" agenda and support of these terrorism wars. Others? It's the "Official" Conspiracy theory and agenda to push war AGAINST those making the terrorism wars. Either way, the extremes of those two sides have far far too much invested in the versions to let a silly thing like truth interfere now. Too much B.S. has flowed beneath that bridge...and oh what a stink it's been too..in both directions.

Indeed..I'm glad to see he's remained open and I can guess what he saw. It's might be the same thing I finally saw...and it wasn't new to me, but the meaning it conveyed that last time was like an epiphany. For me, it was the precise and identical (between the towers) style of cross beam construction. Failure of beam strength was never needed. Simply warping enough and at once across a floor....and it pancaked. As designed. as intended....almost miraculous to have WORKED, when one looks at it that way, but it was intended.

Just my two cents on the topic...and I do think the hate is ignorance showing itself as called out, very simply put. The more hate, the more the ignorance took hold in a person. Those are my thoughts on the comments and threats he's gotten.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SirMike

 

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

It's peculiar isn't it? This man all of a sudden changes his mind without explaining the reasons why? Don't you find that odd? No rhyme or reason? Oh of course you don't, just like you have accepted the NIST report on WTC7.

I accept the NIST report because as an engineer I understand the NIST report.

Originally posted by SirMike
The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

And what forensic engineering qualifications do you hold sir? because the NIST report has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals and yet the NIST report has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review – the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories.

I do not have the knowledge to say if the NIST report is correct or not, but more than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation and they do have that knowledge.
I do however have the knowledge to see when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and the fact the NIST report has not undergone scientific peer review seal the deal for me.

Your credentials please sir...

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SirMike

 

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

It's peculiar isn't it? This man all of a sudden changes his mind without explaining the reasons why? Don't you find that odd? No rhyme or reason? Oh of course you don't, just like you have accepted the NIST report on WTC7.

I accept the NIST report because as an engineer I understand the NIST report.

Hmmm, okay everybody it really happened. A handful of inexperienced arabs hijacked planes and with such precision managed to crash into the twin towers and the pentagon. WTC7 collapsed even though a plane didn't hit the building, but we have an engineer here who has read the NIST report and fully understands what is being conveyed within said report.

Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire. Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

reply to post by SirMike

The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was?

I have nothing to say about Charlie Veitch flipping. But I want to comment about one thing he said in this video...

He said they tried cutting steel with thermate and he learned that it's practically impossible.

This is how it's done Charlie...

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
However, WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane so.........

WTC7 was hit by multiple pieces of burning debris from the other buildings, caught fire, and eventually collapsed after burning for many hours.

Look at the videos on YouTube and you will see the damage. It's extensive.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire.

Are you kidding me? So you've never even seen or heard of a house burning down?

I guess they didn't cover the burning of Washington at your school.

Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

Huge damage from falling debris, and many hours of intense burning, as already stated.

It is highly questionable that he won't give the exact reasons why he changed his mind.

With that said, I take great offense to the notion that those who entertain conspiracy theories have "mental defects and personality disorders". There may be some that do, but the majority do not.


As far as the NIST report is concerned, some of the authors flat-out lied about there not being any evidence or anyone who who claimed there was molten steel in the debris pile.

One of the disclaimers of the NIST report also state:

In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

That means they cannot disclose a substantial portion of what evidence it is that they collected, or who they got the evidence from. We just have to take their word for it.

Sorry, but if an organization such as NIST is going to claim that for the first and only time in history, three steel-structured highrises collapsed completely to the ground due to office fires, you would think they would be a little more open and forthcoming about what evidence they collected and from whom.

If their members are going to flat-out lie, and if they can't disclose a "substantial portion" of their evidence due to non-disclosure agreements, they have no credibility. No matter how much their report makes sense or not.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Sorry, but if an organization such as NIST is going to claim that for the first and only time in history, three steel-structured highrises collapsed completely to the ground due to office fires

(a) There's a first time for everything.

(b) The NIST report makes it clear that the collapse was not solely the result of office fires. There were multiple factors.

Originally posted by Sankari
Look at the videos on YouTube and you will see the damage. It's extensive.

The damage to WTC 7 was not extensive. There were far more damaged buildings on 9/11 that never collapsed. NIST also stated that the damage to WTC 7 had no bearing on the building's collapse.

Originally posted by Sankari
The NIST report makes it clear that the collapse was not solely the result of office fires.

Regarding WTC 7, the collapse was solely due to office fires according to NIST.

edit on 29-5-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire. Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

Unlike most every other skyscraper which has a frame, the structure of the building was (basically) two concentric tubes. This gave it large open floors with no internal columns in the way. The floors trusses were supported by the walls and center elevator core and the outer and inner core supported each other via the floor trusses.

Take a straw, put some compressive force on it, and it buckles. Support it laterally where it wants to buckle and it can support a much greater load.

With the WTC, the impact of the planes damaged the outer support column and ignited a fire. When an engineered truss is subjected to heat in a nonuniform manner (like an office fire) it will distort, breaking welds and connection points to the outer and inner core. Additionally, when steel meets 1000 degrees F, it loses about 50% of its tensile strength.

So with the WTC we have the following:
Impact, destroying a small but not insignificant portion of the structural columns.
Impact, destroying a larger portion of the engineered trusses designed to laterally support the center core and the outer core columns.
Fire, causing thermal distortion in the engineered trusses and breaking them free from their attachments to the columns.
Fire, causing thermal fatigue in all the columns and trusses.

Once this go to a certain point, we go back to the straw .. too many lateral supports became compromised and the column collapsed.

reply to post by Sankari


The burning of Washington? No, I'm from the U.K.

We had the Great fire of London, but that was due to all the houses being made from wood.

As a consequence they re-built using bricks and mortar, there's never been a repeat!!

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire. Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

Unlike most every other skyscraper which has a frame, the structure of the building was (basically) two concentric tubes. This gave it large open floors with no internal columns in the way. The floors trusses were supported by the walls and center elevator core and the outer and inner core supported each other via the floor trusses.

Take a straw, put some compressive force on it, and it buckles. Support it laterally where it wants to buckle and it can support a much greater load.

With the WTC, the impact of the planes damaged the outer support column and ignited a fire. When an engineered truss is subjected to heat in a nonuniform manner (like an office fire) it will distort, breaking welds and connection points to the outer and inner core. Additionally, when steel meets 1000 degrees F, it loses about 50% of its tensile strength.

So with the WTC we have the following:
Impact, destroying a small but not insignificant portion of the structural columns.
Impact, destroying a larger portion of the engineered trusses designed to laterally support the center core and the outer core columns.
Fire, causing thermal distortion in the engineered trusses and breaking them free from their attachments to the columns.
Fire, causing thermal fatigue in all the columns and trusses.

Once this go to a certain point, we go back to the straw .. too many lateral supports became compromised and the column collapsed.

dear dear dear dear dear dear ....

so what engineering course did you study exactly ?

Originally posted by SirMike
The article doesn't mention what specific information changed his mind .. any guesses what it was? The NIST report is probably the best most detailed piece of forensic engineering I have ever seen but that's been available on the web for years. Did someone just take the time to sit him down and explain it?

edit on 29-5-2013 by SirMike because: (no reason given)

If I'm thinking of the right guy, the BBC took him on a road trip so he (and a few other truthers) could do some hands-on science and meet some witnesses. The complete video is on YouTube.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Sankari

 

The burning of Washington? No, I'm from the U.K.

If we burned your capital down, we would remember it.

Why Dont we Put this into some Perspective.

This Charlie fellow has changed his Views on 911, he now believes the Official Story. This ONE Guy.

Now. How many People Daily, are questioning the OS, and want the Truth to Come Out? Bet more than ONE.

Interesting. The OP's post seems to be the only one on topic.

As usual, the rest is typical "Huurrr it cant have.." and back and forth hoohaa about nothing to do with the guy changing his mind.

Ahh well, it's the 9/11 forums after all.

The one thing I think said in the op that is important to remember is, truth should always be respected. And truth most of the time is a personal thing. Conjecture. however, is open slather.