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: 259

Comment

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

Join Atheist Nexus

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

John, it isn't worth my time to debate with you because I don't need to find the conspiracy where none exists. As I said, check out Randi.org for all the truth you can handle. (all the conspiracies wrt 9/11 are debunked there).  It may make you a better skeptic in the end.

PS, I am a Professional Engineer too Donald if that means anything to you.

Comment by John Camilli on January 7, 2012 at 7:08pm

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. And don't bother trying to act like you aren't a racist now. You're true colors already showed through, son. There is no misinterpretting that you have no respect for the Pakistani people, and I'm betting they aren't the only ones. Also don't bother trying to say taht I am using that as an ad hominem to discredit you because it's not an ad hominem. Whether or not you are a racist is very pertinent to this discussion, and you clearly are, so you have discredited yourself.

 

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.

 

Your analysis of the metal continues to embarass you. First of all, there is no such thing as "pure steel." Second, the report submitted by NIST is suspect because of an obvious bias, as is yours. 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. Your hypothesis about the aluminum being incandescent because of contaminents is not viable. Jones did several experiments to test that exact possibility, and whether or not you think he is credible as a person is irrelevant because the experiments are sound. 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. That was a dense metal that was well over 1000 C. It stayed orange-yellow hot for several hundred feet of cooling in the open air.

 

Lastly, you are obviously mis-interpretting my comment about the skyscraper becoming a smelting furnace. You were suggesting that the dynamics of a building fire could have resulted in a sufficient heat to make a metal glow orange-yellow, and that is pure nonsense.

 

Lorien, I will check out your link. Thank you for posting something useful.

Comment by Rob van Senten on January 7, 2012 at 6:16pm

Let me take the opportunity to tell Matthieu that nothing he said here was even remotely racist. John, I could repeat what I said earlier in the NDAA topic, but I don't think that any rationality can reach you where you at now. 

I wish you the best of happiness with your new found truths, and hope that they continue to give you the same feeling of excitement and accomplishment as this "truth" has obviously given you. 

In regards to calling Matthieu a racist, that was pretty damn low dude, that was unbecoming of a rational person. Maybe it's time to step away from these topics and take some time to figure it out?

Comment by John Camilli on January 7, 2012 at 6:04pm

Lorien, I welcome you to add to the discussion, but if you're just going to post inflamatory shit, I'm going to continue deleting. We'll see who lasts longer

Comment by Donald R Wright, P.E. on January 7, 2012 at 1:23pm

Thanks John for posting this. I am a member of AE911TRUTH and we need more people like you that will examine the circumstances surrounding this tragedy and have the courage to speak out. I think this was an inside job, the Neocons' New Pearl Harbor. I suggest reading about the Project for New American Century (PNAC) for political background as to why the events on 911 had to happen.

Comment by Lorien on January 7, 2012 at 11:54am

Here is their conspiracy section that you should go through thoroughly.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Comment by Matt VDB on January 7, 2012 at 11:10am

I hope you meet some nice Pakistani people some day, as I have, and that they change your mind about how evil they are.

So because you've met some nice people from Pakistan, you're convinced that a single unreplicated citation coming from a single Pakistani journalist has to be true, whereas you have no trouble at all imagining a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of Americans killing their own country-men to get some rich guys out of trouble?

Perhaps you should meet some nice Americans as well.

I know someone who shouldn't bother with a rebuttal to preserve his reputation, but it sure as heck isn't me.

Comment by Matt VDB on January 7, 2012 at 11:09am

Really Matt, do we know how reliable all Pakistanis are? Not a theist, just a racist eh?


So to say that a report coming from a single Pakistani journalist and by no-one else, coincidentally the very country famous for sponsoring Islamic terrorism and its militant madrassas, is to be a racist?

Whatever you say bro. It's not like I'm part of an international association of engineers that gets me in touch with people from all over the world and of all races or anything.


I think I can see why you defend the al-Qaeda story so vehemently now. You hate them, and white people can do no wrong in your eyes.


Hah! Pathetic.

Right around the point where I berated Steven Jones for becoming a cook, you should have realised that I don't actually whether the person talking shit is black, white or orange.

Your assertion that the dripping metal could have been alluminum is fallacious because of the color and incadescent appearance, and the possibility of a building fire reducing steal to a yellow-hot liquid is just laughable.


What? That's not just my conclusion, it's the conclusion of every single engineer in the NIST squad, as well as countless of others. And as for the color invalidating it being aluminium... if we're going to dismiss it being aluminium on the basis that pure molten aluminium is not yellow, we might as well say it's not steel either, since pure molten steel is black once it solidifies (as it did on the end of its trail, and the result was not black).

The fact is that the stream is unlikely to be pure steel or aluminium; since neither of the colors fit anyway. It's likely to be a mixture of various substances that the stream accumulated first as it melted, and then when it streamed out of the building. Molten aluminium enhanced with oxides and glass (which is exactly what would be lying around there, sky-scraper remember) does give a yellow-orange color; precisely what we see.


and the possibility of a building fire reducing steal to a yellow-hot liquid is just laughable.


Well I'm not quite sure what 'steal' is supposed to be, but if you're talking about steel, the only ones who claim that there was a stream of molten steel at all is your buddy Steven Jones and his acolytes...


Are we to expect that a spacious office building somehow became a smelting furnace?


So now you're saying there was no molten metal at all? Just yesterday you asked me to explain where that stream of molten metal came from.

That there was a stream of molten metal is simply a fact; the only question is what kind of metal it was - steel or aluminium. Or are you under the impression that this experimental nanothermite that uses some unknown device to cut pillars sideways, also melts steel on its own?


Anyway, don't bother with a rebuttal.


Ah yes, the old "Let's run away at full speed while proclaiming victory!" tactic. Beloved by debaters who are way out of their depth and getting their ass handed to them on a silver platter.


I hope you meet some nice Pakistani

Comment by John Camilli on January 7, 2012 at 10:38am

Really Matt, do we know how reliable all Pakistanis are? Not a theist, just a racist eh?

 

I think I can see why you defend the al-Qaeda story so vehemently now. You hate them, and white people can do no wrong in your eyes. It is impossible for you to even consider anything I'm saying because you reject the notions before you even finish reading them. I think that means we're done here. Why don't you go burn a cross or something. Anyway, you clearly lack an appropriate education for addressing the issues you are trying to debunk. Your assertion that the dripping metal could have been alluminum is fallacious because of the color and incadescent appearance, and the possibility of a building fire reducing steal to a yellow-hot liquid is just laughable. Are we to expect that a spacious office building somehow became a smelting furnace? Anyway, don't bother with a rebuttal. I've seen what you're about, and it certainly isn't unbiased skepticism. I hope you meet some nice Pakistani people some day, as I have, and that they change your mind about how evil they are. You only harm yourself with your bigotry.

Comment by Matt VDB on January 6, 2012 at 9:18am


Doesn't matter what it was, and insisting on a device is just a diversionary tactic. The glowing metal is all the evidence required to dispute the NIST fairytale.

Yes! How dare we insist on something more than fatuous hand-waving about nano-thermite! How dare we point out that the only small traces of an explosive found are nano-thermite, the one kind of explosive that you can't actually use to perform the required controlled demolition that is claimed! How dare we point out that there is no device known to man that can make nano-thermite make the kind of cuts (characteristic of a building under load) evident on the support beams! How dare we point out that there isn't an incendiary source on the planet which can actually suvive a plane crash and its subsequent fire, but instead go off half an hour later!

Let's all have selective amnesia and forget that thermite can't burn sideways to cut those pillars in the first place because otherwise... well, otherwise your pet theory collapses, and we can't have that.

Fucking fantasy.

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service