Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

The only logical explanation is a static charge.

Two things of note.

One, it's rather very large, and two, it appears more firey than electrical in nature.

I'm not saying that it isn't a static discharge, but if not, what else could it possibly be?

You see, if the explanatory hypothesis "model" I'm using, working backwards through the event, based on proof of CD of the buildings, including advanced prep of the buildings, with particular attention to the area of impact and subsequent "collapse" initiation (see OP), is valid, then really the only other possibility is that it's some sort of flame-throwing device.

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

In none of the videos have I been able to tell that it came from the fuselage, and not closer to the nose. It's hard to tell in that shot, just as it was hard to tell on the day it happened.

It happened in such a fraction of a split second that I don't think anyone would have been able to tell on the day it happened..

It appears to be emanating from the lower right fuselage area, to the right of and back from the nose itself, surely you can see that.

Here it is again in another slomo vid, but it's probably the same camera shot, can't be sure.

The other vid is a little clearer I think

The CNN photo is I think a still photo that just happened to get lucky and not a frame from a vid

It's not coming from the nose, anyone can see that, but from a location well back from the nose and to the lower right, which certainly doesn't correspond with the location of the crew oxygen cylinder.

_BoneZ_

That is the crew oxygen bottle igniting:

Full-size PDF here

If you watch any video from that angle, you'll see the flash come from the exact location as the oxygen bottle.

_BoneZ_

That is the crew oxygen bottle igniting:

Full-size PDF here

If you watch any video from that angle, you'll see the flash come from the exact location as the oxygen bottle.

_BoneZ_

That is the crew oxygen bottle igniting:

Full-size PDF here

If you watch any video from that angle, you'll see the flash come from the exact location as the oxygen bottle. [endquote]

edit on 3-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

SkepticOverlord

Noam Chomsky: "There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that."

For a whole host of reasons that I don't have the time to get into right now, I thought that that little speech and "thought process" (seemingly prepared in advance for just such a question, since he was getting peppered with it over and again) by Noam Chomsky, as it relates to evidence of CD, in this case, that of Building 7, was intellectually dishonest, as if he was covering for the official story, and had drawn a line for himself in terms of a place he dare not tread.

NewAgeMan
was intellectually dishonest

So then… using long accepted methods for scientific analysis is intellectually dishonest. Got it.

NewAgeMan
I'm not saying that it isn't a static discharge, but if not, what else could it possibly be?

Sparks from a metal object hitting a metal surface with high velocity.

Or… even… maybe, Kinetic Energy?
Smaller version of the type of flash that happens here:

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


What I'm suggesting is that it looks more firey than electrical in nature, including the color, whereby electrical discharges would be white and glowy, not yellow-orangey-reddish in color, which is highlighted in that CNN photoframe which I don't believe is a frame from a video, more likely a high speed camera series wherefrom that particular image was selected. It also appears to be firing forward from a location on the lower right fuselage well back from the nose of the aircraft.

At CNN the file name for the image is "unimaginable" which, although this could be a mere coincidence, is the same type of wording that Philip Zelikow used prior to 9/11, to describe an event involving the destruction of the twin towers ie: if the 1993 bombing was a "success" (meaning, buildings toppled).

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. ..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with..

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

~ Philip Zelikow, pre-9/11

Catastrophic Terrorism:

Elements of a National Policy

by Philip D. Zelikow, December 1998
www.hks.harvard.edu...

double post.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


There is nothing in that area of the fuselage that could flash like that. As SO said it could be impact sparks as well.

SkepticOverlord

NewAgeMan
was intellectually dishonest

So then… using long accepted methods for scientific analysis is intellectually dishonest. Got it.

Check out some of these articles for your review and consideration.

www.journalof911studies.com...

There have also been peer reviewed publications by physicists and engineers.

But as to the evidence of CD of the twin towers, it's self evident based on the most rudimentary understanding of the laws of motion when we consider that the buildings, the steel buildings, came down from top to bottom to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height if dropped through nothing but air alone. One, two, three. Not much time for every weld and bolt, from the impact area to the ground, to break apart..



I presume it's ok in the case of the twin towers and building 7, to use the youtube videos of the destruction of the twin towers and building 7 as first hand, physical, "eye witness" video testimony, or will we be needing providence on those as well to prove the case?

Long range history can't not get this right, looking back on it in hindsight, particularly when framed in the context of everything that ensued as a result, precisely according to Philip D. Zelikow's "prophecy".

The only question then, for those with the available knowledge and information will be, what side of history were we on, and why?

Me I just cannot bring myself to be found protecting and standing guard for the official story public myth about what happened there, which from what I can tell would be like trying to protect, the devil. It wouldn't do the victims or the cause of history any justice, imho, to take that position, although I can understand the psychological barriers involved including the hijacking of one's own nationalistic patriotism, but how patriotic in that case would it be to help aid in covering up what can only be described as "The Crime of the Century"? I mean we all know or most of us do who are clued in, that the Zelikow authored official story "narrative" while loosely based in truths and partial truths is a BIG LIE of the farthest reaching historical importance, implications, and significance.

The only thing that I can think of as to the reasoning involved in perpetrating such an event would be if NYC were understood to be the "city surrounded by many waters" in The Revelation of John, with the prophecy involving what could only be considered the detonation of a nuke, with the 9/11 event being an attempt to get ahead of the curve and re-script the prophecy. That and the desire to "take over the world", but the whole thing has been nothing but an abysmal FAIL as we can now see looking back on this entire historical episode of insanity, in the rear view mirror of near 20/20 hindsight.

Best regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
What I'm suggesting is that it looks more firey than electrical in nature,

Given the utterly horrible resolution of the video, and stills pulled from the video, it's impossible to know anything other than something bright happened.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Have you ever spent so much time in the [HOAX] bin SO?, and would it be possible to put this thread back into the 9/11 Conspiracies Forum for a more thorough analysis, investigation, and debunking?

It's just an explanatory hypothesis or theory, based on the self evident fact of CD along with some recently uncovered material showing strange upgrades to the buildings around the future impact areas (and point of "collapse" initiation), and then basically taking another look at the whole event including the south tower plane on approach through impact, with CD in mind ie: impacts would not be left to chance (successful hijackings, and piloting, to targets), with the plane impacts operating as the apparent causal mechanism for the subsequent total destruction of the buildings, all for the maximal "shock and awe" (Rumsfeld) effect for the black-op, psy-op, that was, and still is, 9/11, as it's traditionally viewed or held as a "public presumption believed or thought to be true, about it's immediate past" (Zelikow, pre-9/11).

It's a "Conspiracy Theory" in other words, nothing more nothing less.


Best Regards, and thank you for your consideration as I put a LOT of work into this thread, not just now from a few hours of surfing the net and watching some youtube videos, but over the years.

NAM aka Bob

OneFreeMan

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.

Didn't see much of any of that from the rubble photographs
or subsequent testimonies. Where did it all go?

Really did you look in the right place

Once the picture loads click on it for full size!

willyloman.files.wordpress.com...

One area of the debris field!!!

NewAgeMan
Me I just cannot bring myself to be discovered protecting and standing guard for the official story public myth about what happened there.

But why venture into absurd territory that requires hundreds, if not thousands of people to "look the other way" or "keep quiet"?

Why not go into the obvious? Seriously.

On September 13th, 2001, NY1 (the local equivalent of CNN, specific to NYC news) covered a New York Times exposé on the corruption surrounding the construction of the WTC. At the time, construction throughout the region was 100% controlled by organized crime. There were many interviews with construction workers (identities kept secret) at the time, complaining of the steel not being up to standards, shoddy welds being approved, poor fire-proofing, and other inspection shortcuts. The city "re-inspected" (by a corrupt city buildings inspection department) much of the under-construction buildings after the story, and reported no real problems other than a few welds needed to be done.

The implication being that the buildings were much weaker and more fire-prone than intended.

And to no one's surprise, the rubble was rushed out of Manhattan nearly three-times faster than anyone expected by organized crime control waste management companies to organized crime controlled land on Staten Island and recycled by organized crime controlled recycling companies. --hmmm--

Real conspiracies there. But, sadly, too mundane for "truthers." No explosions.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I presume that you're familiar with the laws of motion, including the one that states "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and "an object in motion will tend to remain in motion unless it encounters a force of resistance" and have SEEN the videos of the destruction of those buildings, and have noted the timeframe within which that destruction took place, right? "Truther"? Really? Is that necessary to use a disparaging or derogatory label or nickname for those among who simply cannot, according to our rational faculty, accept the official story in regards to what happened to the twin towers, and building 7? First hand accounts by firefighters and reporters on the day of the event did not have them assuming for a moment that the buildings "collapsed" naturally.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

SkepticOverlord

Real conspiracies there. But, sadly, too mundane for "truthers." No explosions.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by maxella1

 

Here's a couple more dealing with the first hand accounts.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by maxella1
What would they (rescue workers at Ground Zero) find in the wreckage if bombs were used Dave?

Active thermitic material, and high temperatures, maybe..?

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
from www.benthamscience.com...

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
(pdf) www.journalof911studies.com...

Additional research also worthy of evaluation

The Journal of 9/11 Studies

"History is nothing but assisted and recorded memory. It might almost be said to be no science at all, if memory and faith in memory were not what science necessarily rest on. In order to sift evidence we must rely on some witness, and we must trust experience before we proceed to expand it."
~ George Santayana

I really don't know why I even bother with this nonsense anymore, but here we go.

IF all of this was some big false flag perpetrated by our government, using airplanes loaded with fuel (instead of the actual planes that hit the buildings in real life land) and after that, said conspirators CD'd the towers to finish their plan, why in hell would they not have simply blown the bejeezus out of the towers with no regard for how they fell? What a little more damage and a little more chaos at that point?

Why bother with the nice controlled demolition you all insist happened? There is no point! Hell, there is no point in bringing down the buildings at all! Flying a couple planes into the buildings and another into the Pentagon would certainly be enough.

Just blowing up the buildings without flying planes into them would achieve the same goal.

Every single "inside job" conspiracy theory falls flat just due to the sheer complexity of the theory itself. This discussion is a perfect example. More crap about switching out real planes for the "tanker" planes. Making all those passengers disappear. Bringing down two towers. Overly complicated. Overly burdensome. Not realistic. Not even probable.

mazzroth
12 Years after the event you can see clearly that 911 was a false flag event because of the systematic Nazification of the USA. The Gestapo has risen once again to control the masses for a Military Superpower, the scary bit is why ? the answer lies in the years ahead with WW3 being the clue.

Yes, indeed, we need to also look at the larger historical context as well, both before, and after.

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded (ie: buildings toppled), the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."

~ Philip Zelikow, pre-9/11

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Catastrophic Terrorism:
Elements of a National Policy

by Philip D. Zelikow, (future 9/11 Commission Chairman), December 1998
www.hks.harvard.edu...

You may note how his language found it's way into the following think tank policy report led by Dick Cheney.

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of the Project for the New American Century
September 2000
www.newamericancentury.org...

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his journal: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." He was echoing the summary of a September, 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana, 1863-1952

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.

Thanks for your reply. This link says 1,500,000 is the weight (of the two?) towers. Others say 500,000 tons each. Morgan Reynolds says 1,000,000.

WTC stats

leostokes

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.

Thanks for your reply. This link says 1,500,000 is the weight (of the two?) towers. Others say 500,000 tons each. Morgan Reynolds says 1,000,000.

WTC stats

Most of the 1,000,000 plus guesstimates are based on info regarding the cubic mtrs of concrete delivered to the site BUT that included things like the BATHTUB which is not part of the buildings also the floorslabs had a less dense mix of concrete than say would be used for a structural mix so the 220-235,000 ton estimates will be more accurate.

wmd_2008

leostokes

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes

 

Sure approx 96,000 tons of steel and about 80-90,000 tons of concrete for the floor slabs in each tower add in services ie pipework, cables, h&v, glazing and cladding it works out at about 220-235,000 tons in each tower.

Thanks for your reply. This link says 1,500,000 is the weight (of the two?) towers. Others say 500,000 tons each. Morgan Reynolds says 1,000,000.

WTC stats

Most of the 1,000,000 plus guesstimates are based on info regarding the cubic mtrs of concrete delivered to the site BUT that included things like the BATHTUB which is not part of the buildings also the floorslabs had a less dense mix of concrete than say would be used for a structural mix so the 220-235,000 ton estimates will be more accurate.

Ok. Next question is what did the structure weigh when it fell? Including all of the furnishings of the tenants?

I understand that there are powerful psychological mechanisms (that the nature of the Big Lie counts on) which would prevent a person from being able to come to grips with such a monstrosity and such an evil, but there comes a time when we, or whoever is able, simply must summon the courage to face it, and face it down, to in effect grab the devil by the beard and give it a knee slam, instead of kissing it's ass in the hope of gaining some small favor or winning its approval. What's important in the final analysis and at the end of the day, is to win approval and recognition in the sight of God, not wicked and "powerful" men with VIP ip's.


“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
― Adolf Hitler

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
— Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X



"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
— Arthur Schopenhauer


"There is nothing the universe likes more, than courage."
~ Terrance McKenna