These 9/11 conspiracy videos are worth a look, "but don't take my word for it..."

Let me first say that until this year, I fully beleived that 9/11 was the work of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden...because I had never bothered to look at any of the conspiracy theories. This year, I finally got curious as to why people were still going on about the attacks being a government job, so I spent a few days looking up videos and reviews. Quite a few of them were sketchy and I was able to dismiss the claims because I could conceive of alternative possibilities to many of the allegations. But a few times I saw things for which I simply could not think of a plausible explanation.

 

One of the biggest ones was the way WTC building 7 went down. It was indeed hit with flaming debri from buildings 1 and 2, and it was fairly well filled with flames. BUT...it went down uniformly, in 6.5 seconds, like a textbook demolition. Officially, it was the first instance on record of a skyscraper becoming structurally unstable from fire alone (I mean the support collumns and all). Normally, a fire will consume flooring and walls, and the building will fall apart in chunks, but the structural supports will all be left intact. Those are alloyed steel beams, and no building fire is capable of heating those up enough to bring them crashing down. Plus, a slow-mo video of the collapse shows demolition kicker charges blasting horizontally from each floor of the building as it comes down. Technicians also found nanothermite in all of the dust samples from around the buildings. Nanothermite is only used as an explosive - there is no other use for it - and it does get hot enough to eat through support beams. Remember how much time they spent emphasizing that it was the jetfuel that got hot enough to eat the support beams in buildings 1 and 2? Well, what about building 7? No jet fuel there, but it came down the same way.

 

Another thing was that Bush tripped up in two separate interviews, saying on record that he saw the first plane hit the building on a hallway TV, BEFORE he was told about the incident in the classroom, where he was iconically reading to school children. There were no live news feeds of the first plane hitting, and amateur videos of it were not aired until the next day, so how did he know about it before the dude came into the class and whispered in his ear? Rumsfeld also tripped up in an interview, admitting that flight 93 was shot down. The official Whitehouse story was that the hijackers took the plane down because the civilians onboard had rebeled and were taking the plane back. But it came out later, and Cheney confirms it in a later interview, that the Pentagon ordered it shot out of the sky. If the people were taking the plane back, why shoot it down? Did they know something that the government could not afford to let them reveal by surviving? Perhaps the hijackers were not al-Qaeda, but American G-men, and if there had been survivors they would not have corroborated the Islamist jihad story. That's speculation on my part, but it is not speculation that high-ranking officials contradicted their own official story.

 

There are quite a few other inconsitencies as well, all of which added up in me to a healthy dose of skepticism in the official story. At this point, I lean toward the idea that 9/11 was a US government-orchestrated "terror" attack with the purpose of catalyzing the adoption of the Homeland Security Act, and now the 2012 version of the NDAA, so that the Bill of Rights could be undermined in broad daylight without anyone making too much of a fuss. But as-per Reading Rainbow, don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself. Below are the videos that clinched it for me, arranged in an order that I think puts the pertinent claims together so that it doesn't all feel jumbled and overwhelming. Some of them overlap a bit in content, and keep in mind, there are going to be a number of claims in some of these videos to which you think 'sure, but that could just as easily have been because...' and I had that same reaction to some of it too, but if you can watch all these and come back telling me that the official story doesn't seem like bullshit to you now, I'll be very suprised.

 

I know there are a lot of them, but most are only 3-5 minutes long, and a couple are under a minute. The last one is long, and has the best overall analysis, but is still missing some of the points brought up in the ones that precede it. If you're going to bother watching any of them, you may as well watch them all.

 

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=player_detai...

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL949913DEA87B3666&feature=pl...

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ek-Q0T...

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BztotD...

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QNXmgF...

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rOX-sV...

7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uve5pp...

8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BWZELJ...

9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_nGS9u...

10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=W5ROMk...

11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n9oVAQ...

12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NNuosB...

13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QC1QAR...

14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aWl8mU...

Views: 254

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Drake Everren on January 11, 2012 at 8:19pm

While 9/11 was the catalyst for the War on Terror, it was not the impetus for the laws which followed to sustain that war. It was, quite clearly, the intent to use those new powers for spying and policing which shaped the form and content of the subsequent lawmaking. An event like that simply does not have the causal power to specify the exact content of laws, and it's the details which so often expand political power. It clearly created the right environment for a powergrab, but as you may have noticed "plane hits a tower" and "invade Iraq" (and many similar events since then) is completely non-sequitur logic.

 

Further, do not confuse military authority and policing authority. The primary damage from the War on Terror has been the explosion of spying on and restriction of citizens, not combatants. A military gain would have been within the hierarchy of military power and directed toward combat/territorial control; what we see instead is the rise of the Security agencies, increased power for imprisonment, and circumvention of the civilian court systems, which are all classic police state concerns. At the same time, the bulk of our military forces were sent afield for "occupations," which has been historically used as a way to reduce the political influence of military factions (as they are mostly absent from the capitals and have their forces stretched thin; the Rubicon mandate of Rome prior to Julius Caesar is a perfect example of why this is done). So no, I would not characterize this as military gains at all, but rather the emergence of the security faction as a primary part of American politics.

 

"I watched a video last night of people being arrested for SPEAKING about the NDAA legislation."


Protestors are commonly arrested for doing it in the wrong location. This is consistent with my above identification of increased influence for security factions (extreme: police state) rather than military factions (extreme: military dictatorship).

 

"Building 7, which collapsed in a textbook demolition never before seen to result from a building fire, contained thousands of SEC cases on corporate fraud..."

 

First, have you actually been at a demolition before? Witnessed commercial buildings collapsing from fire damage and, quite unusually, debris damage? As an engineer, I can tell you that even I would not declare so brazenly how things 'always' break-- it's one of the most poorly understood areas of engineering and an intense topic of current research.

 

And quite frankly, the simple fact is that a demolition of that sort could never have been done without an engineer, and no engineer would have violated their professional integrity so egregiously. You can pressure an engineer into neglecting safety sometimes, but to support what could be mass murder? Wouldn't happen. Safety is the very core of the professional respect and power of engineers in industry and politics, and you simply could not get the explosives (a controlled substance), the building plans, the hundreds of hours of access, the miles of detcord, etc etc to do such a job without being busted by the engineering community. And that faction is absolutely dependent on their self-policing to maintain their influence.

 

I understand your anger toward the Wall Street faction and their attempts at obtaining oligarch ("above the 'peasant' laws") status, and that's a generation-wide issue right now. I also understand your resentment toward the Security factions, since they primarily gain power by restricting and undercutting the civilian populace. The problem is that 9/11 was an attack against the Wall Street faction by destroying one of their financial 'capitals', the Security faction hadn't risen up at the time, and the Military faction

Comment by John Camilli on January 8, 2012 at 1:38pm

"And don't forget that laws are written for the future, not the past. Nothing that has already happened can be changed by new laws, so past events are never justification. The NDAA was passed because of present politics and future fears, not a homage to the past, so you shouldn't try to justify it from past events."

 

Okay, I just don't agree with that at all. Our legal system is very epimethean, not promethean. We don't generally enact laws until a problem has arisen that provides a validation for them. 9/11 was very definitely a catalyst for a huge increase in military authority, whether our government was responsible for it or not.

 

I don't get how you can say that the powerbase of American agencies was eroded after 9/11. I'd like to see some evidence of that if you're going to make the assertion. All I've seen, in bill after bill after bill, is an increase in scope, reach and power of myriad agencies, plus the inception of new agencies which have even greater power than those that preceded it. Anything and everything can now be justified in the name of homeland security. I watched a video last night of people being arrested for SPEAKING about the NDAA legislation. People are litterally being hauled away for educating others on what their government is doing. There was no inflamatory rhetoric; there was no call to action; there was only an informative process unfolding and it was quelled by our overzealous government. Legally.

 

"No Americans with sufficient leverage for that kind of covert operation benefited from 9/11. Several foreign factions gained immensely, but no domestic ones did-- doesn't that suggest a clear line of involvement?"

 

Again, I completely disagree. A plethora of Americans stood to benefit from the attacks. Building 7, which collapsed in a textbook demolition never before seen to result from a building fire, contained thousands of SEC cases on corporate fraud, incuding the paperwork that linked Citigroup to the Worldcom collapse (they were later linked to it anyway but the investigation was held up for a long time, and they only ended up paying out about 3% of the money they helped make disappear). Who knows how much they'd have had to pay back if all those records had not been lost, and who knows how many other giant crooks were similarly let off the hook. And that's all in addition to the obvious benefit to our executive branch from a frightened public who has ceded a shit-ton of rights to them.

Comment by Drake Everren on January 8, 2012 at 11:11am

Camilli, I didn't say that it had no benefit to the government as a whole; I said that it had no benefit to the existing factions within the government. While it's true that a whole security-paranoia complex arose afterwards (DHS, new TSA, Gitmo, etc etc), none of those groups were significant players beforehand. So while the powerbase of the govt. as a whole increased, 9/11 actually tended to decrease the powerbase of the major American factions at the time.

 

And don't forget that laws are written for the future, not the past. Nothing that has already happened can be changed by new laws, so past events are never justification. The NDAA was passed because of present politics and future fears, not a homage to the past, so you shouldn't try to justify it from past events.

 

What is this about secrets? Secrets are irrelevant to my eye; I only looked for changes in status, which would be visible regardless of secrecy about the reasons for it. No Americans with sufficient leverage for that kind of covert operation benefited from 9/11. Several foreign factions gained immensely, but no domestic ones did-- doesn't that suggest a clear line of involvement?

 

And I have to ask... why would anyone target this building 7? The real work was done when the first plane hit the first tower, when the attackers showed that aircraft could be weaponized. The second hit, the collapse of both towers, and anything which followed were just icing on the cake. If the destruction of building 7 was part of a plan, then it was targeted separately from the towers. What, then, was inside this building which made it a primary target? No one would waste effort on a minor building at fringe of the attack zone unless there was a major reason to destroy it. So what was it? Why was this building special? ...or was it just a minor building that fell due to collateral damage?

 

So your strong interest in this topic seems to draw from a suspicion of betrayal by someone you trusted (or wanted to distrust?). But who is that "someone"? You might say "the government", but that's not a person, it's a conglomeration of millions of people split across different factions, organizations, and operating domains. Is President Obama the one who ran this conspiracy? Or was it Mitt Romney and Ron Paul working together? Who are the faces of "the government" which betrayed you here? If you can't think of specific people, then what are you actually reacting against? Every thought and feeling has a target, so who or what is the direct subject?

Comment by John Camilli on January 8, 2012 at 9:50am

Well Drake, I wasn't really looking for anything when I first got into this. As I mention originally, I fully accepted the official story up through last year. I forget now what made me watch the first conspiracy video, but then I waded right into them and I just came out with a lot of unanswered questions. I don't just assume that our government is responsible for 9/11, but it does seem likely to me at this point.

 

And I have to disagree that what happened on 9/11 is no longer relevant, or that it had no apparent benefit for the American government. The Homeland Security Act resulted from 9/11, and vicariously so did the treasonous amendments in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. If it was real terrorists that caused 9/11, then it makes the loss of rights a little more justifiable (though not to the extreme of the NDAA, I think), but if it was our government, then I am inclined to revolt against them for killing thousands of people as a diversionary tactic aimed at gaining more power over their own citizens.

 

Also, I just don't think it would have required as many people keeping a secret as you and Matt suggest, or that it would be difficult for them to keep that secret. Those buildings could be laced with explosives without most of the people in them knowing about it. Military personel could have placed them with only the consent of the building owners and/or heads of security (who were former military themselves). And I can easily envision a line of thinking that allowed them to believe it was in the best interest of their country; that they were doing their patriotic duty by catalyzing the vastly increased reach of the executive branch, to which the people would never willingly agree unless something horrible happened to make them afraid.

 

The coverup afterward would be relatively easy too. There are a very limited number of videos, most of which are crap quality, and the rest is heresay (I have read a lot of personal testimonies that conflicts with the official report, but they will never be taken seriously).

 

Take the flight 93 events as an example. For a long time, the official story was that the passengers revolted, so the hijackers took it down. Only after Rumsfeld slipped up and said it was shot down did the story need to be amended. And the fix was easy - Cheney came out with his sad, puppy dog face and said that it was shot down because they mistakenly understood that it was headed toward the White House. No one's gonna argue with logic like that, and very few people are even gonna question why that story wasn't told from the get-go (I mean seriously, there's nothing wrong with that logic, so why not just explain it truthfully from the start. Why risk being found out and encouraging all these wild conspiracies? There's no good reason for that unless it's not true.).

 

Those kind of slip-up cover-ups have happened numerous times now. Bush forgets that he didn't see the first plane hit the tower (which I can't believe, since I can listen to people talk about the Kennedy assassination like it was yesterday, and recall every little detail of their day). The video of glowing, molten metal is scutinized. Oh, that's just aluminum with glass and shit mixed into it (which doesn't happen in the real world, but most people don't know that, and the one's that do, and that question it, well they can be contradicted by other professionals that have been paid off). Newscasters tell us that building 7 is about to collapse before any indication that it's about to. Oh well that's just....wait there's no explanation for that one. Deny, deny, deny.

 

It just all got to be overwhelming to rationale after a while and I can't believe it. I don't know what really happened, but I don't believe the official story, and since our government is responsible for that story, I suspect them.

Comment by Drake Everren on January 7, 2012 at 9:08pm

The real quest I have is... what are you looking for, Camilli? The issue isn't the events of 9/11; those are past and the details are irrelevant to the impact they had on the following decade. Even if everyone suddenly had a great 'revelation' about 9/11, the world wouldn't rewind to how we were then.

 

So what's driving you to search so vehemently for something different in what happened a decade ago? Are you searching for 'evil' in the people we've elected to government? Does the idea of a super-powerful ruling cabal somehow answer the hollowness you feel from recognizing that our nation is riddled with problems and falling apart? My question is why you seek the conspiracy, what was your mindset and drive behind writing this blog post?

 

I'm a trained engineer, but organizational psychology is a key part of my professional work. None of the federal players exhibited individual or group behaviors that would suggest intended or actual involvement in the attacks. The impact of what followed did not substantially increase the power base of any American factions at the time, though it did spur the rise of several new organizations which had no prior presence. If there were any American involvement in the events of that day, it had no visible benefit for the organizations or people who would have put themselves at extreme risk for such interference. Who acts with no reward whatsoever? Nobody.

Comment by Lorien on January 7, 2012 at 9:04pm

Something from one of the randi.org posters(alienentity)

Top 7 reasons AE911Truth is a fraudulent effort....
Here's their current website. Note the following:
'WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:'

1. Rapid onset of collapse False. The onset required 7 or 8 seconds of internal collapse, much of the structure was already destroyed b4 the facade finally fell.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction Complete hearsay, not supported by any video or audio evidence we have.

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration - unsupported by any proper scientific measures. Infact the progressive collapse was asymmetrical, starting on the E side and progressing West. thru the path of LEAST resistance (ie the weakest structure). Only a tiny portion of the overall collapse took place at 'free-fall', yet AE911Truth makes no mention of this. This is essentially pure deception on their part.

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint False - unless its footprint included adjacent buildings, Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Bldg, and two streets. Over $1 billion damage was done to other buildings within WTC 7's footprint (according to AE911Truth! Their words)

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds Dishonest attempt to conflate the dust with some exotic, hot process which is unsupported by any evidence at all. The word 'pyroclastic' has no place here, except to misinform - else why do they back away from just calling it pyroclastic, not 'pyroclastic-like'? And since when (ie never) do CD's produce pyroclastic clouds????? Well, Mr. Gage?? Well??

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional Who looked at a silent video for 5 minutes, and did not perform a detailed analysis. At best this is highly misleading, at worst it's basically fraudulent. The fact is that America's top demolition experts found the opposite - AE911Truth is too dishonest to mention this fact.

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY - this is one of the scummiest parts of their disinformation campaign - to malign NYPD and FDNY by implying they were 'in on it'.

AE911Truth is pushing a fraudulent set of 'facts', and attempting to pin a lot of it on first responders. That's about as low as you can go......

This is a failed organization for failed ideas. Nothing more.

Comment by Lorien on January 7, 2012 at 8:54pm

I still like the double facepalm!

Comment by Lorien on January 7, 2012 at 8:51pm

As you said John, "But don't take my word for it", spend months reading all the 911 debunking at  http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Comment by Matt VDB on January 7, 2012 at 8:27pm

As for what the metal looked like after it cooled, I am unaware of any videos of that stream of metal and its color after it hit the ground, but if you can direct me to any, I'll be happy to watch them and possibly amend my opinion.

We don't have any of them after they hit the ground, however the stream loses speed as it trails on the side of the buildings. It starts solidifying at that point, yet it doesn't turn black.

And by the way, I'm still waiting on the first shred of evidence that a nano-thermite demolition (whatever the fuck that's supposed to look like, since it doesn't actually exist) is going to melt steel as you assert it did. You seem to have very high standards of evidence of other theories (up to the precise tint of an aluminium stream that's been heated to unknown temperatures and has been contaminated in unknown ways) but seem rather keen to accept that this is molten steel based on... nothing at all, and accept that it was molten by some unknown mechanism... also by nothing at all.

Fascinating.

Contaminents do not mix in with molten metals; they stay separate, mostly on the surface and burn where they are. If that falling metal were aluminum and it had glass and other stuff burning in it, we would have seen spots of brightness, but the entire stream would not have been glowing like that.

Which is... exactly what we see.

The color at the center of the fall is orange, certainly. But look at the droplets outside of the center of the fall. It's hard to say exactly what colour that is (I would say gray, which would be precisely what molten aluminium looks like in daylight conditions) but regardless of its exact colour, one thing it's not: it's not "glowing" and certainly not orange the way the rest of the stream is.

That's because the orange you're seeing is a result of oxides and glass, and is indeed somewhat localised over the center of the fall. But on the side it's not.

Comment by Matt VDB on January 7, 2012 at 8:04pm

Matt, I'm convinced that an interview by a Pakistani reporter should be given as much credence as one by an American, or any other nationality for that matter.

Good for you. It's still completely wrong-headed.

But it doesn't matter, because one journalist is not even close to being enough to verify a quote. Especially since we should have dozens and dozens of various prominent Al Qaeda members if they were actually denying culpability.

And don't bother trying to act like you aren't a racist now.

Since the grand total of all people who have called me a racist in my life is ermmm... you, excuse me if I don't feel a burning need to defend myself. But it is certainly amusing that you would stoop to such depths.

Also, why is it less likely that hundreds or thousands of Americans would carry out these attacks than hundreds or thousands of middle easterners? Whoever did it, there were a lot of people involved. Why can't it be Americans. The real question should be 'who has more to gain?' And I think it's clear from the following decade that the American government benefitted much more from the attacks than did al-Qaeda.

Who has how much to gain gets you absolutely nowhere. The Rolling Stones probably benefited a lot from John Lennon being shot? Ergo it's likely that the Rolling Stones had a hand in his death? Of course not.

And if you don't see why it's more absurd that thousands of people would conspire to kill their own country-men but somehow remain totally silent about this, again, you're delusional.

First of all, there is no such thing as "pure steel."

Except I wasn't talking about pure steel, but pure molten steel, as -in this case- a stream composed solely of molten steel. Pure in this case serves an adjective to the words "molten steel".

If there's anything else in your native language that you need help with, don't be afraid to ask.

Second, the report submitted by NIST is suspect because of an obvious bias, as is yours.

And this bias was corrected for by it being peer-reviewed by dozens of engineers, many of them without a stake in the outcome.

And Steven Jones' paper was peer-reviewed by... no-one. Oh except that other conspiracist buddy of his.

So again, you have a peculiar way of checking your sources.

But hang on folks, it gets better.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service