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: 258

Comment

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

Join Atheist Nexus

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

It matter not in the least whether the blasting/ cutting agent was nanothermite or a frickin' laser, the main point stands that all that glowing, molten metal COULD NOT have come from a building fire, even with jet fuel in the mix. Explain that, sir. Explain that big fucking stream of glowing metal that drops from the south tower.

More very confident assertions from someone who hasn't worked with different alloys in his life. For the record, there are different types of metals used in buildings (gasp), many of which are composed out of different alloys and many of them have very low melting temperatures.

Now, nobody knows for sure what kind of metal these molten substances were, and anyone who says they do know for sure is talking out of their ass until they have the lab results to back it up. 

Now what's the most likely explanation of this metal? Aluminium. The planes were made of aluminium (and it's telling that the flow comes from the side of the building were the majority of the plane would have been after impact). Aluminium melts at extremely low temperatures - usually around 600° (well below the achieved temperatures in the fire) and has been known to melt simply during airplane crashes on tarmac itself, let alone when crashing on impact with a fucking sky-scraper.

The only strange thing here is that the flow appears orange. Molten aluminium is not orange (it has a silvery color) but the stream is unlikely to be simply aluminium. There was furniture of all kinds in the building as well, and electronics of all kinds, as well as the plate glass of the windows. That means there were certainly various forms of oxides melting as well, along with glass and electronical equipment. And an aluminium stream with considerable oxides and plate glass would likely appear orange.

However since whatever metal that stream is, it's a cocktail of various other non-metal substances as well, which means visually judging its composition is nigh impossible in the first place.

You can't do it with a building fire and jet fuel. Go ahead...try. I'll be waiting with my lips puckered, to kiss your ass if you manage the feat. Something much hotter than jet fuel was burning inside those buildings. P.E.R.I.O.D. 

No shit something hotter than jet fuel was burning inside those buildings. This is only news to conspiracy theorists who have no fucking clue about (i) how a fire works and (ii) how temperature propagates inside a building. Regular prolonged fires have been known to reach 1000°C and that's without any jet fuel present at all. NIST simulations easily reached temperatures as high as 1100°, hundreds of degrees beyond what's necessary to melt aluminium and multiple other substances.

Jones actually knows all this (or at least, it was brought to his attention) and despite several summersaults and dodges - mainly through some bullshit about how the aluminium could never have remained static for long enough to melt (but steel somehow would be able to, or something).

Comment by Matt VDB on January 6, 2012 at 8:07am

And btw, if you want the sources for my quotes, highlight the direct quote and paste it into a search engine. Presto, sources arise! Magic of the internet, my friend.


I've done all of that homework years ago when I first having these conversations.

Had you actually checked the source, you would know that it was a Pakistani reporter who published that story (and we know how reliable they are). Ditto with an Al Jazeera e-mail published earlier.

Funny how exclamations of his innocence disappeared after that, no? You'd think that a man chased by US armed forces for 10 years would be more strident about claims like that, perhaps get in contact with some of the 9/11 Truthers? A youtube video spelling it out more clearly? Not like there's any shortage of those.

So some sourcing there.

They'd be the only ones with full knowledge of the proceedings of such matters as this. Everyone else would be on a need-to-know basis.


I'd like to know about the need-to-know basis about the people who planted the fucking bombs. And the liaison officers. The people who shot the cruise missile. The scientists calculating the thing. Etcetera etcetera.

However much you boast or dance around, you're still dealing with hundreds of people who have a huge amount of knowledge in this event. Yet none of them have come out. Strange.


Physics is the most fundamental science of them all; the seed from whence all other branches grow. Engineers rely on physics, do they not? Yes, yes they do. So who is in whose land?


Wow, that was utterly pathetic.

So physicists can comment on everything now since everything is based on atoms? Biology? Structural engineering? Sociology?

Unbelievable.

It's still an un-peer-reviewed piece of crap about someone who has no clue about how to do half the stuff he confidently writes about. A disgrace to the profession.


Speaking of logical fallacies; denouncing a Professor as unqualified for a peer-review and calling him a cook is a bit of an ad hominem, don'tcha think?


The moment you start working outside of your profession without getting your writings peer-reviewed by the actual people who do the profession, you've become a cook. And so have you for preferring this one guy to a collaboration of engineers producing a peer-reviewed report.


From my experience (There are three professors in my family), a University will simply not endorse works with which they disagree, not flat out fire the author. Sounds to me like someone wanted him to shut up.


When someone writes a kooky theory completely outside of his field, a university has every right to put him on leave.

As for "shutting him up", hah! How's that working out in the age of the internet?


Rest of the reply (the more technical stuff) forthcoming.

Comment by John Camilli on January 6, 2012 at 7:06am

I want you to keep something in mind when you're talking about evidence here. Both of us are dealing entirely with heresay (the 5th video on my list demonstrates why even video evidence is heresay in this matter). Unless you have your own home videos of 9/11 that you can prove you took and that you can prove have never been tampered with, which you can't, then you and I are both relying on sources that are at least second-hand, if not further removed. Therefore, the only way to dispute any of the claims is by comparing their relative logical consistency. And btw, if you want the sources for my quotes, highlight the direct quote and paste it into a search engine. Presto, sources arise! Magic of the internet, my friend. That's why I sometimes don't bother. It's not laziness; I just want you to look for yourself.

 

As to Citigroup and any other possible corporate involvement, you forget the hierarchy of money in this world. 40% of the world's wealth is attributable to 147 super-corporations (1). With money and power, there are always just a few people at the top. They'd be the only ones with full knowledge of the proceedings of such matters as this. Everyone else would be on a need-to-know basis. And do I really need to demonstrate hard evidence for a viable link between corporations and governments? Really? Do I really?

 

No appeal to authority; I never purposely deal in logical fallacies. It is merely a qualifier. If you bother to read his work, you will find that the assertions are quite well-suited to his qualifications. Besides, a physicist is never outside his bailiwick (except on dualist matters, to which we at the A/N lend no credence). Physics is the most fundamental science of them all; the seed from whence all other branches grow. Engineers rely on physics, do they not? Yes, yes they do. So who is in whose land? Also, as an engineeer, you wouldn't necessarily know bullshit reasoning when you saw it. If you were a logician, then you might be qualified to make that assertion.

 

Speaking of logical fallacies; denouncing a Professor as unqualified for a peer-review and calling him a cook is a bit of an ad hominem, don'tcha think? You got any particular reason for assuming that his education is less worthy than yours? I didn't see any; I just saw a lot of dismissive anger. Also, don't you find it strange that Dr. Jones would be fired for writing a paper? From my experience (There are three professors in my family), a University will simply not endorse works with which they disagree, not flat out fire the author. Sounds to me like someone wanted him to shut up.

 

You keep insisting that someone provide a design for a device that would allow nanothermite to cut sideways, but you are missing all the other science here. It matter not in the least whether the blasting/ cutting agent was nanothermite or a frickin' laser, the main point stands that all that glowing, molten metal COULD NOT have come from a building fire, even with jet fuel in the mix. Explain that, sir. Explain that big fucking stream of glowing metal that drops from the south tower. You can't do it with a building fire and jet fuel. Go ahead...try. I'll be waiting with my lips puckered, to kiss your ass if you manage the feat. Something much hotter than jet fuel was burning inside those buildings. P.E.R.I.O.D. 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. The onus falls on you, and any others who support the official story to provide evidence for how that shit could result from the acknowledged events.

Comment by Matt VDB on January 6, 2012 at 3:59am

Really? Well, how about this quote from Bin Ladin:


A quote you say. How about you source it for me and we'll see how far you get.


Whose to say Citigroup didn't have a nice little buy-in to the 9/11 attacks, earning themselves a relatively clean slate after their involvement in the Worldcom scandle?


Another assertion with zero evidence!

Of course it doesn't matter. Why take the risk for a few billion dollars? And why would the White house (or whoever else orchestrated this) involve Citigroup in this top secret military plan? Did they call them up saying "Hey, we're going to do an attack on the Twin towers to get ourselves involved in the Middle East. Do you want us to blow up anything else in Manhattan while we're at it?" And did they do the same with other corporations? That's easily dozens more people in your little conspiracy.


The people who know the facts are the people who were involved in orchestrating it. 


So these guys also planted the bombs with their own bare hands? And hi-jacked the planes? And shot a cruise missile at the Pentagon? And discussed it in the White house? And were the engineers who calculated how to take down a building of this size? And had men inside the traffic control system, military and emergency services to oversee all of this?

You're easily talking about hundreds of people involved in this, yet none of them have come forward. Why? Because this story is total crap.


It is a peer-reviewed paper written by Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist and archaeometrist.


You actually think an appeal to authority is going to impress me? I have a diploma in engineering; I know bullshit reasoning when I see it (what the hell is a physicist doing wandering into the land of structural engineering in the first place?) and this is just the thing. He doesn't have any explanations about how thermite could be used to cut pillars any more than you do, which means he's just bluffing his way through all the way.

It's no coincidence that he was fired and criticised by the engineering section of his university: he doesn't have much of a clue of what he is doing.


Of course, that's not necessary, because that report isn't peer-reviewed (unless we count that other kook, Griffin) and isn't published in scientific review papers. So yes, you're absolutely right, you and me are not experts on this subject. But neither is Jones, and because he didn't peer-review it, actual experts aren't able to weigh in.

Meanwhile we have the NIST report which is a peer-reviewed tour de force by dozens of engineers... but that of course, could be just a work of fiction by those filthy Jews, I guess.

Comment by John Camilli on January 5, 2012 at 11:00pm

Oh boy, Matt, you do sound quite sure of yourself.

 

"...Al Qaeda somehow gladly took the guilt for this whole scam instead of telling us that the US government had done this."

Really? Well, how about this quote from Bin Ladin: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

 

That doesn't sound to me like al-Qaeda taking credit for 9/11, Matt. As for why you would blow up WTC building 7, it doesn't take much ingenuity to figure that out. Building 7 housed a shit-ton of financial records, including the records of several thousand SEC cases, among which were documents relating to Citigroup and the Worldcom bankruptcy. Worldcom lost billions of investor dollars in fraudulent operations, and Citigroup was involved to the extent that they ended up paying nearly 3 billion of it back to investors in a settlement that was greatly postponed because of the loss of the documents in building 7. But 3 billion is a paltry sum compared to what was lost, or should I say stolen? Whose to say Citigroup didn't have a nice little buy-in to the 9/11 attacks, earning themselves a relatively clean slate after their involvement in the Worldcom scandle? And considering that there were thousands of other cases of that ilk, it's probably a safe bet that a number of financial giants stood to benefit from the collapse of building 7. Oldest jounalistic rule in the book: follow the money. And it's no secret why none of these people wouldn't have come forward about the whole plot: it serves their self interest to keep mum. The people who know the facts are the people who were involved in orchestrating it. Why would they tell on themselves and admit to commiting grievous crimes against humanity?

 

Look, I know you'll have objections to some or all of what I just said, but you and I aren't experts on this. So here is the most thoroughly and scientifically written report I have yet found on some of the conspiracy theories. It is a peer-reviewed paper written by Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist and archaeometrist. It's long because he performs quite a few experiments to disprove the official NIST explanations of the events on 9/11. If you don't want to read it all, then just read the first of the thirteen sections, titled Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools. It starts on page 5 of the document, and is an experimentally verified commentary on the many pictures and videos of molten metal flowing from the main towers, and found later in the basements of towers 1,2 and 7. It is irrefutable evidence of the non-accidental use of lab-grade nanothermites in the collapse.

Comment by Matt VDB on January 5, 2012 at 5:46pm
So why is it WTC-7 is focused on? The other buildings were hit and some damaged severely by debris, and none were as large as wtc-7, that would have presented a much larger target. WTC-3 was the largest and suffered the worst of the non-1,2 and 7 buildings and it's no coincidence it was the fourth tallest at 22 stories. The others were 8-9 stories tall. This seems to have saved them from even worse damage from debris, but made little difference after the collapses of 1 and 2.
Furthermore, why blow up building 7 in the first place? Were the twin towers not enough? Why use a controlled demolition right next to the crime scene, if you're trying to convince people that planes are what's bringing these buildings down.
You have to be completely retarded to do that.
And through all of this, we're supposed to believe that a group of hundreds of people remains aware of all of this yet isn't stepping forward (even though it took Watergate only a few weeks to be exposed), and that Al Qaeda somehow gladly took the guilt for this whole scam instead of telling us that the US government had done this. I mean, what better recipe for anarchy and uprising?
But no, none of these things ever happened, and none of them will ever happen. These gaping holes in the conspiracy theory are still as insurmountable as ever, yet we're supposed to ogle silently at fluff arguments like "Ooooh look how strange this building fell!" and "Oooooh Cheney sorta kinda maybe is tripping up on his words here, not because people sometimes trip up over their words, but because he's retarded enough to not get his story straight on the greatest conspiracy ever known to mankind!"
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are garbage.
Comment by Matt VDB on January 5, 2012 at 5:39pm

Sigh.

This is the problem when people who don't have much of a clue about engineering or architecture, get on the internet and think they know things better than a whole host of professional engineers and architects. They quickly find themselves falling into much the same traps as your average creationist.

Take just one of those points: nanothermite supposedly being found at the sites. Well fuck me, that sounds pretty damn impressive. Except nanothermite is simply a fancy name for a set of rather innocuous chemical compounds containing aluminium, copper, mangante, and other common chemicals.

Now anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of thermo-dynamics knows that it's not the least bit unlikely that under extreme heat and pressure circumstances, chemical reactions can take place to create small portions of all kinds of unexpected materials.
Now, if they had found traces of TONS of nano-thermite (which would be required to take down a building that large), I would've been really impressed.

But that's not even the real argument against nano-thermite.
1) The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut to go through the pillar, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device this is possible, but no working device has been proven to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. In fact if you look up videos of thermite testing, you'll see it burns extremely chaotically.
2)  Now, nano-thermite specifically (rather than regular thermite) has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "9/11 scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. "There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "

 

Then there's Building 7.

First of all, every single treatise of the issue seems to forget that there was some pretty

substantial fucking damage on this building:

Now why WTC 7 is focused on in the first place, I really have no idea. Many other smaller buildings around the Twin Towers collapsed as well, or sustained such damage that they later had to be destroyed:

WTC-3 had a landing gear smash into it. The south tower collapse smashed it in two and the collapse of the other destroyed it almost completely.

WTC-4 was damaged beyond repair and later demolished.

WTC-5 suffered partial collapse and fire damage. A section of fuselage from flight 175 landed on it. The steel structural beams failed in the fire. Internal collapse caused most of the damage.

WTC-6 was severely damaged from debris of the north tower and dug a deep crater in the basement area. It was later demolished.

Comment by John Camilli on January 5, 2012 at 4:44pm

I checked out the site. It's well-designed and flashy, but not very thorough. A lot of the issues people bring up aren't even discussed (Bush saying twice that he knew about the first plane hitting before he was told in the classroom, Rumsfeld and Cheney changing the story on how flight 93 was brought down, and the odd examples of prescience of the corporate news media, in addition to a few others). Also, the explanatory animation of the building 7 collapse does not show a homologous collapse, whereas in the actual videos it collapsed all at once. The whole thing went down in one big clump. No way a fire would do that. The theory in this explanation is that a good deal of damage was done to the south face of the building by the falling debri, but that just suggests even more strongly to me that the collapse would not have happened in such a synchronized manner.

 

I do recommend that people check this website out though. Skepticism is indeed the basis of a healthy inquiry, and by no means do I claim to know for sure that our government was responsible. It's just the direction I lean toward after seeing the things in the videos I linked. Aside from the popular mechanic website, I took quite a bit of time to look at other debunking claims as well. Many of the theories can indeed be doubted, but several very conspicuous matter remain unresolved for me, and the only explanation I can think of for them is that the attacks were not orchestrated in the way that reports suggest.

Comment by Rich on January 5, 2012 at 4:10pm

Skepticism rules the heart of an atheist.

Comment by Rich on January 5, 2012 at 4:09pm

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Todd Crispin replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
29 minutes ago
Jennie updated their profile
33 minutes ago
Jennie posted a photo
36 minutes ago
Todd Crispin posted discussions
37 minutes ago
mark fitzgibbon liked Ivy's group Atheist Humor
1 hour ago
mark fitzgibbon posted a status
"giving my daughter breakfast :)"
2 hours ago
mark fitzgibbon updated their profile
2 hours ago
mark fitzgibbon replied to Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
3 hours ago
mark fitzgibbon liked Todd Crispin's discussion New member, first post anywhere of this type
3 hours ago
abdulrahman aliyu posted a status
"How I wish things were different....... And I am in open society, not living in the midst of Muslims and couldn't express my views openly."
3 hours ago
Joan Denoo commented on Daniel W's group Food!
3 hours ago
Connor Galletly replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Pope Francis confesses that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are right: God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand' in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
3 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service