9/11 Discussion Thread

Now let us look at the evidence.

Keep in mind, what we are dealing with is an illusion.

"It's just a big magic trick," "It's an illusion."

---

Just because it is an illusion we have to be careful. Anything can be real, anything can be a decoy or a deception.

Let us examine our real factual assumptions. I borrow two images to represent them.

#A1
The visual appearance of the so called twin towers.


then something happened, (the event)

and then #A1 looks like this
#A2
The visual appearance of the rubble pile.


There is nothing strange here.
We understand that #A1 only changes form into #A2,
and #A2 constitutes the same material as once looked like #A1.

We understand that the twin towers was a construct with a facade, and nothing more. The twin towers was a decoy. Something made up to look like a building. This becomes obvious when we examine the content of the rubble pile.

---

All the rest of it was a production.
All these cameras and actors were used to produce the illusion. Some of it is factual, some of it is false and staged.

---

While keeping in mind that the twin towers were a facade supported by a framework, and there was made a Hollywood type of production on the event of bringing them down, we can look at any of the produced evidence and understand what was going on.
 
Now let us look at the evidence.

Keep in mind, what we are dealing with is an illusion.

"It's just a big magic trick," "It's an illusion."

---

Just because it is an illusion we have to be careful. Anything can be real, anything can be a decoy or a deception.

Let us examine our real factual assumptions. I borrow two images to represent them.

#A1
The visual appearance of the so called twin towers.


then something happened, (the event)

and then #A1 looks like this
#A2
The visual appearance of the rubble pile.


There is nothing strange here.
We understand that #A1 only changes form into #A2,
and #A2 constitutes the same material as once looked like #A1.

We understand that the twin towers was a construct with a facade, and nothing more. The twin towers was a decoy. Something made up to look like a building. This becomes obvious when we examine the content of the rubble pile.

---

All the rest of it was a production.
All these cameras and actors were used to produce the illusion. Some of it is factual, some of it is false and staged.

---

While keeping in mind that the twin towers were a facade supported by a framework, and there was made a Hollywood type of production on the event of bringing them down, we can look at any of the produced evidence and understand what was going on.
Well done you for 'having a go'. 10/10 for pluck.
 
Now, are there other ways of telling a decoy apart from the real thing?
We should expect this framework supported facade to be lighter than a building.

Can we tell the weight of the twin towers?
When they stood there, and when they fell?
 
Anything you hear and see in the production is meant to crate an image in your mind. It is meant to create and strengthen the illusion. The illusion of there being planes that are hijacked, planes that fly into buildings, and that there actually are people inside of the buildings.

There were no planes. There were no people inside the decoy.

Now test yourselves.
Keep in mind that it is an illusion and a production, and listen to this video.
You will understand what they are doing. They are creating an image in your mind.
 
Now let us look at the evidence.

Keep in mind, what we are dealing with is an illusion.

"It's just a big magic trick," "It's an illusion."

---

Just because it is an illusion we have to be careful. Anything can be real, anything can be a decoy or a deception.

Let us examine our real factual assumptions. I borrow two images to represent them.

#A1
The visual appearance of the so called twin towers.


then something happened, (the event)

and then #A1 looks like this
#A2
The visual appearance of the rubble pile.


There is nothing strange here.
We understand that #A1 only changes form into #A2,
and #A2 constitutes the same material as once looked like #A1.

We understand that the twin towers was a construct with a facade, and nothing more. The twin towers was a decoy. Something made up to look like a building. This becomes obvious when we examine the content of the rubble pile.

---

All the rest of it was a production.
All these cameras and actors were used to produce the illusion. Some of it is factual, some of it is false and staged.

---

While keeping in mind that the twin towers were a facade supported by a framework, and there was made a Hollywood type of production on the event of bringing them down, we can look at any of the produced evidence and understand what was going on.
Now we can have a look at this video where Gerard Holmgren is explaining how the powers that be used the power of suggestion to pull-off 9/11.

The sound in the video is a bit poor, but the message is important, and it is audible.


---

And now let us consider a method they might have used to bring the twin towers down.

There were not more material than we see in the rubble pile, enough for the frame, the facade, the ground and top level lobbies, and the elevator.

On every second "floor" they attached shaped charges to the steel beams, all around the frame; And then they attached large "dust paddings" over the shaped charges.

These "dust paddings" served two purposes: They dampened the sound of the explosions, and they produced a large amount of dust going in all directions, effectively hiding the demolition.
 
A bit of proof that the twin towers were empty decoys.

Here is a video taken from the Millennium hotel, just in front of, across the street from the wtc. The 35th floor.

The video starts at 8:51. That is 5 minutes after the wtc 1 explosion. It runs fairly continuously for 20 minutes, with some interruptions. At 7:05 the wtc 2 explosion happens.

Following the timer on the video we can see the ground / the Plaza at 0:50 and at 6:39, and then at various intervals after the second explosion.

We can see that, on this side, there is no one on the ground. No one exiting from the tower. No rescuers going into the tower. No movement inside the lobby. There is no one there at all during the time we can monitor it.

(The person talking on the TV in the background is Tony Arrigo, the first witness. He lived 3 km away. He saw the plane as he was taking out the garbage. Just another false witness to plant the idea of there being planes hitting the towers.)

Also the performance of the two actors inside the hotel is not convincing.

 
Here is an image marked as being taken on the 18th (7 days later).

https://flic.kr/p/cF5hS

What is left of the WTC after it was demolished.
Tower one is in the centre of the image. A pile of steel beams. Some has shattered out a bit, but most has fallen straight down and landed on the footprint of where the tower stood.

Can anyone argue that there is more material there then there is?

If not, then this is what the towers were made of. Steel beams, and a couple of concrete floors, one for each lobby.

By now it is evident to me that these towers were decoys. And also building 7 by the looks of it. Possibly also building 3, the Marriott hotel. Not #4, #5 and #6.

Straight ahead to the back in that image is the Millennium hotel, from where the video was taken.
 
It is that time of year, as Einstein's birthday approaches, for the 3rd Annual 9/11 Physics Debate. Dr. David Griscom retired undefeated for 2014 and 2015. This year's 9/11 Physics Challenger is Dr. Crockett Grabbe (PhD, Physics, CalTech) the author of books on 9/11 and physics. We are looking for some PhD in Physics from an accredited university with a Hirsch Index >=10 to debate Dr. Grabbe. We contacted over 30 top university professors, including Nobel Prize winner Dr. Sheldon Glashow of Harvard. No PhD in Physics yet wants to defend the Bush Story of 9/11 (BS911) even for .911 Bitcoin (currently worth about $400) for a 1 hour phone call from his/her home or office on Dr. Kevin Barrett's No Lies Radio show, sponsored by the Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness. www.911Debate.org
 
" 9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks
Larry Silverstein was caught admitting on camera that he planned to build an entirely new World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) building one year before the 9/11 attacks had occurred."

" Back in April 2000, one year and five months before the attacks, “Lucky Larry” held a meeting to discuss plans to replace building 7 in 2002. As reported by Veterans Today:

“We got the designs. And the first design meeting was in April of 2000. And construction began shortly thereafter, in 2002.”


"And so, next thing you know, this building was under full construction." -Just like that! :mad:
 
They did it! The Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 Truth petition now has more than 2 500 professional signers (and the number of layperson signers is quickliy reaching 21 000).

I think, they should renovate their original petition and issue its second "edition" (to call it so), with this greatly increased professional and popular support. Soon it will be 15 years after the 9/11 attacks - the moment is ideal.
 
They did it! The Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 Truth petition now has more than 2 500 professional signers (and the number of layperson signers is quickliy reaching 21 000).

I think, they should renovate their original petition and issue its second "edition" (to call it so), with this greatly increased professional and popular support. Soon it will be 15 years after the 9/11 attacks - the moment is ideal.
I didn't know there was a place for lay people to sign a petition. Where does one do that at?
 
Top