PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job

reply to post by exponent

You realise they've put nothing forward yet right? They campaign to make money while calling for a 'new investigation'. Their backers have been duped and they are not attempting to resolve any of the issues. They exist to take money off you.

How is it you never mention Randi forums when talking about "scamming websites"? Lifetime membership only $5000!! AE911Truth only ask for donations. J.Randi makes R.Gage look like a rank amateur in the "ripping people off" stakes.....

Originally posted by Flatcoat
How is it you never mention Randi forums when talking about "scamming websites"? Lifetime membership only $5000!! AE911Truth only ask for donations. J.Randi makes R.Gage look like a rank amateur in the "ripping people off" stakes.....

Why would I mention Randi? His work is nothing to do with 911. There's a 911 subforum but it has nothing to do with donations or products or anything.

Randi offered $1,000,000 for evidence that would defeat his beliefs (unrelated to 911). I think ae911truth could learn a few things.

One word....

Bollocks !

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I discovered something interesting about 911 Mysteries (the source of BoneZ claims).

First was that a 'raw' edition DVD used to be sold by Rick, the advertised point of which is that there was no audio editing. This DVD doesn't actually seem to have sold as I can find no reference to anyone having it and all the 'Raw' versions appear to be identical.

Second is that the collapse of WTC2 appears twice, but the audio is actually quite different:

First, at the beginning of the video:


Second, after collapse and inbetween narration/multimedia:


It's clear that some audio processing has been applied here to cut out wind noise. In fact if you look closely you can even see where this filter has been turned down just before the collapse of WTC2.

What's perhaps more instructive is that parts of the spectrum around the collapse which don't appear to be filtered are quieter in the second version. This indicates that they are both probably sourced from a master track with enhancements to the audio track.

There's more odd cropping elsewhere. This is the collapse of WTC1:


Considering we know the camera mic he's using picks up wind noise from the first image linked above, isn't it strange that this noise seems to have been filtered out on other clips?

Also, could you point out the apparently 9 pre-collapse explosions for me? All times are offset by 1:20


Try as I might, I can only see 7 peaks here, all with different characteristics and sudden amplification. I wonder if this is why wind noise has been totally cut out after collapse, so you can't notice how common these peaks are unamplified.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Flatcoat
How is it you never mention Randi forums when talking about "scamming websites"? Lifetime membership only $5000!! AE911Truth only ask for donations. J.Randi makes R.Gage look like a rank amateur in the "ripping people off" stakes.....

Why would I mention Randi? His work is nothing to do with 911. There's a 911 subforum but it has nothing to do with donations or products or anything.

Randi offered $1,000,000 for evidence that would defeat his beliefs (unrelated to 911). I think ae911truth could learn a few things.

I mention it because JREFers are among the most vocal when it comes to slandering Richard Gage, and I find it hypocritical to the extreme.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
I mention it because JREFers are among the most vocal when it comes to slandering Richard Gage, and I find it hypocritical to the extreme.

How can it be hypocritical? You're talking about the JREF forum, not the JREF itself. The two are not the same thing. I don't know of any interaction between Randi and 911 conspiracy theorists at all.

AE911Truth on the other hand exist soley to advocate a 911 related position. They're totally different things. ATS make money too but again they don't advocate a position and simply provide forums for discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

reply to post by exponent


So? That applies to any and every website/forum that offers an opinion and asks for donations. Your dislike of Richard Gage stems solely from the fact that his opinion differs from yours. If he'd come out in support of the O.S. he'd be a "credible source".

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by spooky24

 

Get 64,000 Kg's of explosives into each building. Requiring 8 charge relays per floor, over 150 miles of wire with a team of 18 experts 3 weeks to do the job consisting of over 600 cuts to the sub and super structure for placement of charges in a building that is never empty. Maintenance, security and cleaning staffs of 600 or more employees occupied both towers during non business hours. Complete radio silence for last 8 days of preparations. Forgetting, of course, that the micro-manager from hell John O'Neill was in charge of security.

Just curious, how did you arrive at those figures?

British authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book "The Eleventh Day" cites demolition experts who said that it was impossible to implode either tower however the did put together a minimum of what would be needed to 'even attempt' the implosion.

I don't have the book with me so I can't cite the exact documents but they were from 3 different demolition companies in Europe with no connection whatsoever to the US government.

Also, they quote the much higher figures that the 9/11 commission got from experts in America and those documents are in the Archives. They list the file numbers for the documents however you must go to the Archives to see them.

Originally posted by exponent
What is difficult to comprehend is how You think that 'looks similar' is proof

The ejections don't just have to look similar to be proof. The ejections coupled with explosions or "booms" as the towers are collapsing, also coupled with flashes (light sources) reported by several first responders and by-standers, all equate to explosives being detonated.

Flashes, booms, and ejections = explosive demolition. Those three can be seen in explosive demolitions. Can you show me a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes, booms, and ejections? No, you cannot.

Originally posted by exponent
The 'fact' here is that there's never been a remotely comparable collapse caught on video. So we have nothing to compare it against. It's a little dishonest to say you don't see it in other collapses when there have been no other collapses

Actually, there are plenty of other collapses we can compare to: explosive controlled demolitions. As I already stated, you can see ejections from explosive controlled demolitions all day long.

Originally posted by exponent
The wind was blowing constantly and by cutting out sections pre collapse Rick can infer they are 'pre-collapse explosions'.

They are not, they are wind.

That is an absolutely false claim. As I already stated, there were a certain number of pre-collapse explosions before the south tower collapsed. That is corroborated by at least one firefighter's testimony.

Then guess what? There were no more "wind" or pre-collapse explosions until the north tower collapsed. Seconds before the north tower collapsed, there were a few explosions, which were corroborated by the disturbance of the smoke coming out of the building. And then you can only hear the "wind" or explosion sounds during the collapse of the north tower. Once both towers are down, the magical "wind" or explosion sounds stop.

From the time the south tower collapsed until the north tower collapsed was about 30 minutes. There is no "wind" or pre-collapse explosion sounds in that 30 minutes. That means the "wind" was not continuously blowing. This magical "wind" you speak of only blew at the times of just before and just during the collapses. Not in-between.

And it doesn't even remotely sound like wind. It sounds like low-level booms from very far away. It sounds exactly like thunder from thunderstorms that are very far away.


You're obviously not going to change your mind. But, the idea that wind is the noise we're hearing in the video is false and dishonest when the pre-collapse explosions in both towers can be corroborated, and the only other "wind" sounds are during and only during the collapses.

Wind that only blows during the three collapses... magically outstanding!

Originally posted by exponent
Name one who has a coherent theory that matches yours please. SE or at least well cited please.

One only needs visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, etc., to see plenty of qualified individuals.

You can also see many of those experts speaking for themselves here.

Originally posted by exponent
I asked for evidence of disinformation

Myself and others have provided the evidence of disinformation in those threads, and my thread here. That's one of the reasons why those threads were moved to the HOAX bin in the first place.



Now, to save this needless repetition of facts and information, I'll ask this: unless you can provide evidence of any other building collapse that exhibits ejections, there is no need for further discussion about the ejections. They have only ever been seen in explosive demolitions, and can be assumed they are from explosives at the WTC as well when coupled with the visible flashes and explosion sounds heard as both towers collapsed.

As far as this magical "wind" in Rick's video, there's no way that anyone will be convinced that it's wind when this magical wind only blows just before and just during the collapses and nowhere else.



On a final note, when a building collapse exhibits all the signs of an explosive controlled demolition:

• Ejections
  
• Flashes
  
• Explosions or "booms"

...then it has to be an explosive controlled demolition. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

There's absolutely no other plausible explanation that when a building collapse exhibits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, that it has to be something other than controlled demolition because someone chooses to remain in denial or ignorance.

Originally posted by exponent
I wonder if this is why wind noise has been totally cut out after collapse, so you can't notice how common these peaks are unamplified.

You sure are trying desperately. The problem is, they don't even remotely sound like wind noise. They sound like very far away low-level booms. Just as thunder from thunderstorms sounds when they are very far away as well.

And when the south tower pre-collapse explosions are corroborated by a credible witness, and the north tower pre-collapse explosions are corroborated by the disturbance of the smoke coming from the tower just before collapse, you're not going to convince anyone who has any kind of intelligence or logic. Sorry.

reply to post by spooky24


Thanks for the information, but I have to ask, do you honestly think office fires on a few floors could accomplish what would otherwise require 64,000 kg of explosives?

Originally posted by spooky24
British authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book "The Eleventh Day" cites demolition experts who said that it was impossible to implode either tower

While I agree it would be extremely difficult to use explosive demolition to bring the towers down properly without any collateral damage to surrounding buildings, the 9/11 perpetrators weren't worried about collateral damage. And they did use explosive (un)controlled demolition.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The ejections don't just have to look similar to be proof. The ejections coupled with explosions or "booms" as the towers are collapsing, also coupled with flashes (light sources) reported by several first responders and by-standers, all equate to explosives being detonated.

Flashes, booms, and ejections = explosive demolition. Those three can be seen in explosive demolitions. Can you show me a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes, booms, and ejections? No, you cannot.

Yes, I can. All fire induced collapses included the first two, any sufficiently large show the latter.

You keep claiming this doesn't occur in a 'real collapse' but you fail to mention there are no examples of collapse at this scale.

Furthermore, you say they "don't just have to look similar", but then list no other evidence but their similarity. You've literally just told me that you haven't proved something you are using as proof.

Actually, there are plenty of other collapses we can compare to: explosive controlled demolitions. As I already stated, you can see ejections from explosive controlled demolitions all day long.

A demolition is not a collapse, you say you don't see these ejections in a collapse, but you have no examples.

That is an absolutely false claim. As I already stated, there were a certain number of pre-collapse explosions before the south tower collapsed. That is corroborated by at least one firefighter's testimony.

Nonsense, no firefighter describes large booming explosions over this period. Your 'corroboration' is that a firefighter said a number under 10. That is nonsense.

Then guess what? There were no more "wind" or pre-collapse explosions until the north tower collapsed. Seconds before the north tower collapsed, there were a few explosions, which were corroborated by the disturbance of the smoke coming out of the building. And then you can only hear the "wind" or explosion sounds during the collapse of the north tower. Once both towers are down, the magical "wind" or explosion sounds stop.

More nonsense. The audio has been obviously edited as I have proven. The reason you don't hear anything else is that Rick didn't want you to.

From the time the south tower collapsed until the north tower collapsed was about 30 minutes. There is no "wind" or pre-collapse explosion sounds in that 30 minutes. That means the "wind" was not continuously blowing.

I'm afraid not, there's plenty of wind noise in the unedited clip, just Rick doesn't bother to amplify them.

This magical "wind" you speak of only blew at the times of just before and just during the collapses. Not in-between.

And it doesn't even remotely sound like wind. It sounds like low-level booms from very far away. It sounds exactly like thunder from thunderstorms that are very far away.

The ability of the mind to convince itself is astounding.

One only needs visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, etc., to see plenty of qualified individuals.

So why have they yet to even figure out their list of evidence? How come literally everything is trying to sell something. Even the youtube link you sent includes a 'Buy this DVD' link. You really can't tell when someone is fleecing you can you?

Myself and others have provided the evidence of disinformation in those threads, and my thread here. That's one of the reasons why those threads were moved to the HOAX bin in the first place.

More fantasies, this is getting rather embarassing.

There's absolutely no other plausible explanation that when a building collapse exhibits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, that it has to be something other than controlled demolition because someone chooses to remain in denial or ignorance.

The entirety of the building professional world apparently 'chooses to remain in denial' according to you Bonez. I've never met someone with such a delusional view of their own superiority. You've proven nothing and have relied purely on your own ability to know a controlled demolition from a collapse. A collapse you've never seen, and demolitions you know nothing about.

You sure are trying desperately. The problem is, they don't even remotely sound like wind noise. They sound like very far away low-level booms. Just as thunder from thunderstorms sounds when they are very far away as well.

So let me get this right. "Looks similar" is proof, but actual spectrographs showing dishonest editing is just 'trying desperately'.

Explain this bonez:



Why is this edited so? What reason would there be?

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by exponent

 

So? That applies to any and every website/forum that offers an opinion and asks for donations. Your dislike of Richard Gage stems solely from the fact that his opinion differs from yours. If he'd come out in support of the O.S. he'd be a "credible source".

Not at all, what is important is honesty and integrity. Richard Gage has been informed of errors by his own members who he has entirely ignored. Even today the list of evidence they have contradicts itself and makes no sense to an educated person.

They simply don't care, he was a bottom end architect not making a fortune. He now flies around the world having people fawn over him. I know which one I'd prefer.

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, I can.

Ok, well "yes" implies actually providing something then.

Originally posted by exponent
All fire induced collapses included the first two

All fire-induced collapses exhibit flashing going up, down and around the building like would be seen in a controlled demolition? All fire-induced collapses exhibit explosions or timed "booms" as they're collapsing like would be seen in controlled demolitions? Really?

Can you provide all of these fire-induced collapses that exhibit these characteristics please? While you're at it, please provide a fire-induced steel-structured highrise that has completely collapsed to the ground as well. Oh, and 9/11 doesn't count.

Originally posted by exponent
any sufficiently large show the latter.

Please provide a "sufficiently large" collapse (not 9/11) that exhibits ejections outside of a controlled demolition.


This is like having two realities here. In your reality, "all" fire-induced collapses exhibit signs and characteristics of controlled demolitions: flashes, booms, and ejections. But in this reality, the real world, not one single fire-induced collapse ever exhibits signs or characteristics of a controlled demolition. When they do, they are controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by exponent
A demolition is not a collapse

Since when? In most demolitions, explosives take out the supports, the building collapses.

Originally posted by exponent
Nonsense, no firefighter describes large booming explosions over this period.

Firefighter Craig Carlsen:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. ... We then realized the building started to come down."

He says "about" ten. It was nine according to "9/11 Eyewitness". Close enough:

Originally posted by exponent
The audio has been obviously edited as I have proven.

Nobody is denying the sloppy production of the video, but you haven't proven the noises are wind. I've done enough video editing, and am experienced enough of a human being to know what wind noise sounds like on a microphone.

This sounds nothing like wind noise. Not even remotely. I have two different high-end sound systems, both with subwoofers. Those explosions are noticeably far away, echoing across the Hudson river. Again, sounding like thunder booming from far away. Thunder from miles away and these explosions sound very similar. Neither sound like wind noise.

Originally posted by exponent
I'm afraid not, there's plenty of wind noise in the unedited clip, just Rick doesn't bother to amplify them.

I guess that will be your opinion then. When listening on two different sound systems, there's no wind audible anywhere in the entire movie. It's not surprising since there were light winds forecasted for that day anyway.

Not to mention, Rick says the wind was at his back. If he was behind his camera, his body would be blocking those light winds from hitting the microphone anyway. Every single thing is stacked against your magical wind "theory". It's not happening.


What you haven't done, and what I and others have repeatedly asked you for, is to:

• Explain how your magical wind knows to start blowing during the entire length of all three collapses, and then stops.
  
  
• Provide some evidence of a fire-induced collapse (not 9/11) that exhibits all the signs and characteristics of controlled demolitions (flashes, booms, ejections), but that aren't controlled demolitions.

Until you provide the requested information or evidence, anything else you say is moot. Pointless. The pre-collapse explosions in the south tower are corroborated by at least one witness, and the pre-collapse explosions just before the north tower collapsed are corroborated by the disturbance in the smoke coming from the building.

And ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, period. Anything else is made-up, unprovable falsities.


Unless you have anything new to add to this discussion that resembles a broken record, then this conversation ends here.

Ok, I'm going to interject my two cents on this. And I'm sure someone has said this, HOWEVER, Lets look at the Law of Probability. To have one building go down like that, Ok, I can see that, the second, Ok, that raises an eyebrow, and a Hmmmm, now WTC 7 was supposedly "pulled" a controlled demolition, due to the damage that was caused by WTC 1 &2. Sooo, someone went in WTC 7 and rigged explosives in a matter of hours, when something like that takes months to plan?

I just think, to have 3 buildings go down in their own footprint in one day, defies the Law of Probability. the only explanation is that all three were controlled demolitions.

And why was all the steel shipped off to China??? We have totally capable steel processing plants here in the US? I have never commented in a 9/11 forum, to my recollection. But just those two things have bugged me from the beginning.

reply to post by spooky24


One of my favorite things to hear from the reality disbelievers, or OS’ers, is the strange idea that the towers demolished into piles of dust all by themselves. They actually believe that.
HOWEVER, and this is the clincher, had they been demolished by CONTROLS, then wait wait wait, they would have required sooooo much pre-wiring with millions of pounds of explosives that it would be impossible to do it undetected and with so few men.

Yeah, that’s their logic. Unassisted complete collapse makes sense. But throw in some cutting charges to accomplish the same thing and it becomes impossible.

I’ll say it a third time because I love the thinking behind it: The building is capable of falling down on it’s own. BUT NOT IF YOU ASSIST IT.

Originally posted by thepolish1
Ok, I'm going to interject my two cents on this. And I'm sure someone has said this, HOWEVER, Lets look at the Law of Probability. To have one building go down like that, Ok, I can see that, the second, Ok, that raises an eyebrow, and a Hmmmm, now WTC 7 was supposedly "pulled" a controlled demolition, due to the damage that was caused by WTC 1 &2. Sooo, someone went in WTC 7 and rigged explosives in a matter of hours, when something like that takes months to plan?

I just think, to have 3 buildings go down in their own footprint in one day, defies the Law of Probability. the only explanation is that all three were controlled demolitions.

And why was all the steel shipped off to China??? We have totally capable steel processing plants here in the US? I have never commented in a 9/11 forum, to my recollection. But just those two things have bugged me from the beginning.

No, it does NOT take months to plan if (as was the case) the building - like WTC1 and WTC2 - was designed to be brought down quickly by controlled demolition. This was a closely guarded secret for obvious reasons until Paul Laffoley, who briefly worked on the design of the South Tower, revealed all in 2007:
kentroversypapers.blogspot.co.uk...
The buildings were PRE-WIRED - gottit? - for their eventual controlled demolition (no building lasts for ever). All that had to be done was to insert all the sticks of high explosives, which could be done secretly by a team of men in a few hours, and then to detonate the charges remotely with a radio signal.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by thepolish1
Ok, I'm going to interject my two cents on this. And I'm sure someone has said this, HOWEVER, Lets look at the Law of Probability. To have one building go down like that, Ok, I can see that, the second, Ok, that raises an eyebrow, and a Hmmmm, now WTC 7 was supposedly "pulled" a controlled demolition, due to the damage that was caused by WTC 1 &2. Sooo, someone went in WTC 7 and rigged explosives in a matter of hours, when something like that takes months to plan?

I just think, to have 3 buildings go down in their own footprint in one day, defies the Law of Probability. the only explanation is that all three were controlled demolitions.

And why was all the steel shipped off to China??? We have totally capable steel processing plants here in the US? I have never commented in a 9/11 forum, to my recollection. But just those two things have bugged me from the beginning.

No, it does NOT take months to plan if (as was the case) the building - like WTC1 and WTC2 - was designed to be brought down quickly by controlled demolition. This was a closely guarded secret for obvious reasons until Paul Laffoley, who briefly worked on the design of the South Tower, revealed all in 2007:
kentroversypapers.blogspot.co.uk...
The buildings were PRE-WIRED - gottit? - for their eventual controlled demolition (no building lasts for ever). All that had to be done was to insert all the sticks of high explosives, which could be done secretly by a team of men in a few hours, and then to detonate the charges remotely with a radio signal.

If the buildings were pre-wired as they were built, by the companies that were in the article, then, we do have a master plan that was years in the making. I gottit.....just because my name is the polish1 doesn't mean I'm stupid. And like I said, I haven't commented in the 9/11 forums, because, I couldn't, I haven't read many 9/11 threads, because IMO, they are nothing more than pi$$ing contests.

However, we do agree that they were controlled demolitions, I used common sense, and you, facts.

Originally posted by micpsi
The buildings were PRE-WIRED - gottit? - for their eventual controlled demolition (no building lasts for ever).

Really? We've got buildings around the world that are hundreds and thousands of years old. Besides, he only says he believes explosives were built into the buildings. He has no proof or evidence. Only is opinion.

And I'm not buying it. There's no reason for the Bush family to have anything to do with electronic security at the WTC if the buildings didn't need prepped in advance.

Besides, you can't risk any parts of the buildings catching on fire with built-in explosives being set off. And one of the WTC twin towers did catch fire in 1975.

Not to mention, explosives have a shelf-life. And I believe it's 10 years or less.