General

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

onebornfree — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:09:37 GMT

onebornfree:

"WTC “Boeing landing gear”: Lamest planted evidence ever?"

Regards, onebornfree

regards, onebornfree.

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

onebornfree — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:33:41 GMT

Orthogonal:

So what do you folks think of the recent find of landing gear from one of the Boeing planes found between some buildings in lower manhatten?

http://news.yahoo.com/part-9-11-planes-landing-gear-found-nyc-211517007.html

"WTC “Boeing landing gear”: Lamest planted evidence ever?"

Regards, onebornfree

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Orthogonal — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:31:40 GMT

So what do you folks think of the recent find of landing gear from one of the Boeing planes found between some buildings in lower manhatten?

http://news.yahoo.com/part-9-11-planes-landing-gear-found-nyc-211517007.html

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

onebornfree — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:31:52 GMT

Orthogonal said: "I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It's clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn't made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside."

Although I am not an "official" representative of either "September Clues" or of its author/creator, Simon Shack, I have spoken with both him and his partner Hoi Polloi via Skype and email and on various message boards, and have followed Mr Shacks research since around 2008 on a daily basis. so I consider myself fairly conversant with his 9/11 research to date.

My present understanding of his position is that because all of the original so-called "live" MSM footage of the plane strikes [i.e. the various MSM network "live feeds"] is demonstrably false/not live, and was instead 100% digitally pre-fabricated computer generated simulations that were then deliberately broadcast on 9/11 as live footage [including, but not limited to,both of the plane strikes themselves and the resultant impact "explosions"], it is impossible to know for sure whether or not missiles or planes were really used, whether or not actual impact explosions ever actually occurred [the ones seen in the videos are all faked, digitally created,Hollywood-style explosions], or whether or not actual impact/penetration holes [or even the fires] ever actually existed in the real 9/11 world, pre-demolition.

In his "September Clues" presentation he is merely raising the possibility for consideration that missiles might have been deployed , but he does not [and cannot ] know for sure at this point in time, and freely admits to this. He has even thought about doing an updated "September Clues" with the entire missile strike hypothesis removed.

So Simon Shack would himself tell you that he does not know for sure if anything actually hit the towers in the real world.

All he [and I] know for sure is that the footage showing both plane strike events and resultant impact explosions was faked on computers and then broadcast on 9/11 as live footage; real planes may or may not have been in the NYC area, and missiles may or may not have been deployed; because the MSM footage showing those events is fake, it is impossible to know for sure, and it is a minor point in any case.

[And of course, we know for certain that the WTC complex was there on the morning of 9/11, but by the end of that day had ceased to exist/been deliberately demolished.]

The main point he is trying to make us aware of is that the media knowingly broadcast 100% digitally faked "live " footage for 102 minutes on 09/11/01 [i.e. of plane strikes and of WTC buildings collapsing].

Regards, onebornfree.

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Orthogonal — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:59:01 GMT

Wow, lots of information here. I've been completely unaware the level of skepticism folks have leveled at the 9/11 events. I've never given it much thought either way, but have never really considered the skeptics case. I watched several of the video's and wasn't very impressed. I am impressed at the depth of analysis in some of the arguments presented, but they are not fully convincing.

I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It's clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn't made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside.

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

onebornfree — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:06:22 GMT

The wtc 7 collapse footage was all faked [i.e.prefabricated on computers prior to 9/11]. Therefor it is impossible to glean anything useful about its demolition from any of the videos that purportedly show that event .

WTC 7's demolition could even have occurred _before_ those of WTC1 or 2 or other WTC complex buildings [9 in total], but it is impossible to know for sure.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

Regards, onebornfree

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Clayton — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:57:30 GMT

Well, the outer walls should tend to fall outward because there is no resistance in that direction, but there is resistance in the other direction. Of course, the outer walls are also attached to the floors and inner walls (and, thus, support columns) so you could argue that the internal structure could "pull the walls in with it". However, it can't do this in every direction at once - if the building is collapsing towards the West, it might pull the Eastern outer wall in and push the Western outer wall out. In the case of WTC7, all four walls are pulled in. Such an event is impossible without demolition, or at least, astronomically improbable. And this is precisely why a person would want to look at the NIST model of the WTC7 collapse. If you can change any one of the model parameters by an infinitesimal amount and get a completely different collapse, then that would be evidence that NIST had fine-tuned the collapse model until they got the desired, astronomically improbable result.

But the NIST model is classified because, as James Corbett notes, releasing it would Jeopardize Public Safety.

Clayton -

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Buzz Killington — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:41:19 GMT

Wouldn't a building as wide as that fall more or less into its own footprint?

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Clayton — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:16:55 GMT

Also, I noticed that the 5-minute 9/11 video (thx James Corbett of the Corbett Report) was not linked in this thread:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Clayton -

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Clayton — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:15:38 GMT

What's the official excuse that it did implode that way?

Fire! LOL, no seriously: uncontrolled fires leading to "thermal expansion" of floor joists, which led to shearing of the support bolts on all 24 columns in near simultaneity (milliseconds), and which then somehow led to the symmetrical, straight-down collapse seen in the video.

Clayton -

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Torsten — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:47:11 GMT

The 9-11 Story in 5 Minutes

Nice!

I've posted this before but I think it's a good "wedge" to help get a toehold of doubt in the minds of "true believers" in the official 9/11 story:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

If I recall it rightly no plane flew into building 7, yet the building imploded?!

What's the official excuse that it did implode that way?

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

DanielMuff — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:19:41 GMT

Clayton:
I don't know their names but you could start by looking at chivalric orders such as the Order of the Golden Fleece to begin to get the idea.

I finally got around to reading that article.

Interesting bits:

They couldn't go to war without permission.

Undermines the official reason behind pretty much any war since the discovery of the new world. Of particular import are the US Civil War and WWII. For example, what if Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 that TPTB devised to get their subjects to accept war? Mind you, the Emperor of Japan is a member of the order.

Non-royals could not be a member of another order.

No loyalty to anyone else. But it makes you wonder of other order/societies and their members. For example, Skull & Bones also requires exclusive loyalty and portrayed as pretty high up the food chain, but maybe because it is not the ultimate order, the Bushes are used as fall guys because it diverts attention from the OOTGF.

The order itself.

It's ancap.

Does anyone know what this means: "at each chapter the deeds of each knight were held in review, and punishments and admonitions were dealt out to offenders"?

Lastly: Noooooooooo!

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Maynard — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:08:32 GMT

Clayton:

Valuable post. Thank you. I apologize for quasi-derailing your thread. Back to finding 9/11 truth:

I watched an unhealthy amount of footage last night on YouTube. It occurred to me that the explosion of the plane flying into the Pentagon was minuscule compared to the enormous balls of flame that erupted from the WTC crashes. As far as I know, this hasn't been brought up in any discussion. Is there a way to explain the discrepancy that would fit in the official story?

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Malachi — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:21:50 GMT

Its logical to form opinions on people based on their actions, i.e. demonstrated preferences. You would know that if you got into a few economics discussions. As to what assumptions you had or had not made about your audience, well, you should know better than to assume things like that on the internet. What is your purpose for coming to this forum?

Re: 9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

onebornfree — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:14:23 GMT

Malachi:
But you have to be really REALLY confused not to understand why people might think you were a disinfo troll.

I guess that would all depend on whether I had assumed that I was dealing with rational, intelligent, thinking individuals, or not, now, wouldn't it?

Are you also claiming that it is somehow logical to deliberately dismiss an opinion because a person does not post often enough, or on not enough subjects?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

Regards, onebornfree.