Sunday, 25 January 2009

911 MYSTERIES: PART 1

911 Mysteries demolishes the 'official' 911 conspiracy theory more graphically than any movie previously released ...


Part 1/10 (9:47)

This is a absolute MUST SEE video for anyone new to the 911 controversy. At the heart of this documentary is information that constitutes hard forensic evidence revealing the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Centre were brought down using explosive charges. In the face of the this damning evidence the official story is simply unbelievable.

What needs to occur now is for everyone to become aware of these facts so that a real and very public criminal investigation can occur - no more cover up exercises by the authorities ! Let justice be done !!

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 25th, 2009.]

3 comments:

Nickname unavailable said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nickname unavailable said...

Steve... *sigh*

This is Simon here :)

I just watched the first part 9min of this video and it is just emotive hogwash from start to finish with NOTHING to back up anything it says.

* The Structural engineer who designed it saying they designed it for a smaller craft traveling slowly. All well and good. Except for a few things:
a) They DESIGNED it... designing things to act in one way NEVER guarantees it to act the way they plan.
b) It was designed in the 60s, with the limited resources they had for modeling what might happen.
c) He had nothing to do with taking into account fuel etc. (he says so himself, I love how the video takes one part of what he says as THEIR version and another part as the 'OFFICIAL' version, what tripe)
d) The fire proofing that he had no part in didn't work,

* Taking what ONE fireman says in the heat of the action as the FACT of what state the fires were in is absolute nonsense. That ONE fireman may have believed it to be the case, or they may have used words which you can INTERPRET to mean that something is controllable... doesn't mean they've seen all there is.

* A smoking fire = not hot? Really? *sigh*... this is the standard non educated attack... take something you know (a little fire), and something you know about that (if a little fire burns with smoke then it's not as hot as one without much smoke) and try to apply it to something that you don't understand.

Ever seen a tire fire? Loooots of smoke.
Ever seen plastic burn? Loooots of smoke.
Ever considered some parts can be burning hot while others create smoke?

As soon as crap like this works its way into a show you KNOW it's a load of hogwash because it is not using science in any way shape or form.

* Poking a hole in a screen net is like poking a hole in the WTC... this just isn't even worth mentioning... just try to think about how much weight is sitting on top of the holes on the WTC, and the shape of it (a column, not a screen), and the forces involved, and it's a WHOLE different ball game than a fly screen... this goes back to the last point... take something you know (fly screen) and apply it to something that makes no sense to apply it to (a ridiculously tall building).

* Trying to suggest that other buildings have stayed up while the WTC fell... ARGH... this page sums it up very nicely: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm not only does it point to the number of extenuating circumstances here, but it ALSO points out other steel buildings that have collapsed due to FIRE ALONE... not even with huge damage from a 767 colliding with them.


You keep trying to apply OTHER things to something that has a collection of conditions that HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and try to make it fit to what you know.

You've seen a building fall down due to a demolition, this looked like that... ergo you want to believe this is a demolition.


Steve... how can you spend so much time on this? It's incredibly frustrating to see you wasting so much time attempting to prove something that never happened.

I know that all I've written will fly by you like every other debunking site and piece of evidence... but really, the number of things that have to be in place for your version of events to be the true ones is just insane... whereas in this version we just have a bunch of guys hijacking planes (been done many times before) and flying them into buildings.

That's hard enough to believe, except that we saw it happen, so we know it to be true. Your position STARTS at agreeing that it happened, but you add SO much other stuff on top of that, and SO many other things that just have to fit into place just so...

Argh... it's just very frustrating Steve...

SpookyPunkos said...

Simon,

Still on your high horse of ignorance I see. Regurgitating the misperceptions and lies fed to you by the debunkers.

You don't really understand that this is about a war of information, that you are dealing with lies and clever disinformation and that you have been misled.

... *sigh* ;)

In reality, your brush off comments here have nothing to do with scientific (ie knowledgable) reasoning. You are too quick to judge by half.

In reference to your ideas about how hot the WTC fires were: we have examples of really hot fires- like what we are told the WTC fires were- that look NOTHING like what we saw on 911.

I suspect you don't have any clue about how hot tires might burn, or how hot office furniture might burn, and what sort fuel load and resulting inferno would be necessary to have any significant effect against high rise beams and trusses made of steel.

Dude, when taken in comparison against real examples of hot fires the smoke feature in the towers does count against the temperatures. Furthermore, the lack of a radiant orange glow, as opposed to simply flame, is another telling feature that this fire was not so hot despite your wish that there was an inferno hidden inside the building.

Furthermore, NIST cannot find ANY EVIDENCE to show that there were fires above 700 degrees. They speculated (against their own evidence that the fires were much weaker) that there MIGHT have been areas up to 1000 degrees celsius. The problem here is they cannot support this contention with any hypothesis based on scientific facts or observation. They leave out any reasoning for the high temperatures, it just magically appears when needed later in their study.

It is YOU that currently live in a fantasy land in terms of estimating the fire intensity. It's disinformation you have been fed, and you need to wake up and think about what is really possible based on REAL RESEARCH.

Yes, plastic and furniture burns pretty hot but you don't see barbeques sagging after you have lit a roaring fire. And note: a fire, to redden the steel here would need to almost completely consume the fire grating to have a decent effect. Think about it.

Yet, on 911 we have clear evidence of Molten Steel all over the place (a later post of mine deals with this evidence) which could not have occurred due to the fires in the towers (or in the rubble pile). Furthermore, iron spheres and slag taken from beams showed melting (1500 C) and a composition that indicated action by the incendiary thermate. Fancy office fires my foot.

I think it might be useful for you to think about the fact that the debunkers are disinfo artists pushing pseudo science loaded with tons of ridicule.

You have been swept up by the ridicule and the "clever" arguments (false analogies) they use and have thusly been caught up in the deception.

You have speculated based on false assumptions. In direct response to all your points:

a) Although design does not guarantee actions you can certainly say definite things about the properties of steel, the heat of obsevered fires etc. For instance steel will not have the melting point of aluminium. It seems with your view, we can't use any real scientific facts to make observations, only the unsubstantiated and misleading claims of the debunkers !

b) Do you know what they did in the 60s when they had "limited" modelling available ? They over engineered things by a considerable degree.

c) "He had nothing to do with taking into account of the fuel etc" Huh ? The jet fuel here is pretty much irrelevant as regards to the fires, nevertheless it is VERY ODD that they would not account for this circumstance. Most debunkers would admit that the jet fuel is not an issue (except pathological disinfo clowns sowing confusion among the uninformed). The fuel burnt off very quickly and not very hotly. Go look up temps of jet fuel in open air. ie not compressed.

d) The fireproofing is largely irrelevant in terms of the steel structure being affected by the WEAK fires. Plus the rest of the building was undamaged by fires and ready to halt any "fire induced collapse" (see replies to Bazant et al on collapse features).

*No, we should not believe everything ONE fireman says but you also need to include the observational information that shows the fires were not catestrophic. The firefighter statement by itself should be considered as an indicator of the situation rather than hard fact. Notice that the firefighter didn't say "the whole floor is an inferno" or "we're gonna need everything you can get up here".

*I dealt with your ignorance about fire temps at the top. You're making bold claims about "crap" but your comparisons are not valid.

*About the off-the-cuff comment concerning the building as a wire screen. Here your extreme arrogance comes out (no offence intended). I'm sure this architect's opinion is totally invalid and yours is so much more informed. The man is implying that the building is designed to be heavily redundant.

*That video link you showed with other steel framed buildings collapsing from fire is a joke. In reference to the text under it; Do you have any idea how DIFFERENT the McCormick Centre is in construction compared to the WTC ? It was a giant warehouse with a weak roof, and not all the roof collapsed. The fire was much hotter too.

To the video analogies: They are grossly misleading:

1. The bridge I-580 collapse was arrested by the second level, the steel plates and bolts used here are relatively small and there are no redundant supports if the structure is strained, gasolene burns hotter than kero, it was exposed open air fire so max temps were very likely to weaken the steel, other bridges have fallen by themselves in the area due to structural weakeness caused by earthquake damage when there were no fires, no evidence of melted steel here was ever found, plus there are big questions regarding the whole incident (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/04/30/18406977.php?show_comments=1). The case here is suspect in terms of a refutation to the complete collapse and pulverisations of WTC 1 2 and 7.

2. The Kader Factory fire in THAILAND (not Singapore) was in 1993 NOT 1997. This building was poorly constructed and didn't meet the building code standards. The steel used was thin, unlike the massively over engineered buildings in the US. These structures in Thailand were completely ablaze and warping in the intense heat caused them to collapse. There is valid no comparison here.

3. Dogwood Elementary school. Once again we see the roof caves in but as usual the whole building is on fire and roof is not built all that strong. No deal.

4. The platform fire is another severe, VERY well fuelled fire. The analogy is not consistent with the 911 fires.

5. The Madrid Fire WAS an inferno. The WTC 1 2 and 7 fires were far cry from matching its intensity. Yes, I agree that it was a concrete core construction, and different from the WTCs, that its steel framed upper section warped and collapsed in SEVERE fire conditions. However, the jury should still be out on full framed steel buildings, with weak fires, considering the recent fire in the all steel building in China. There was not even a partial collapse there and that fire was obviously more severe than what was seen on 911.

You should consider that there is a huge difference in lighting a fire on top of a steel structure or plate or what have you, and engulfing a steel object in a hot fire. Steel will conduct heat. A large hot fire will not allow this to occur and some sagging will occur as the metal slowly heats (takes on energy).

Note too: there are also physical reasons for the WTC collapses to be seen as suspect in themselves just from the collapse rates and horizonal projection of materials (replies to Bazant's paper show the impossibilty of the official story here).

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

The question raised about the page you linked and the vids is this; why do they include dodgy cases (McCormick + others) and present these misleading analogies as hard evidence ? Why are the Debunkers trying to present dodgy evidence and false analogies as if it were a reasonable explanation ? Are they simply very very wrong (ie mistaken), or is it deliberate ?

Fact: No fire has yet fully brought down a steel framed skyscraper except on 911.

Fact: the WTC steel suffered VERY HIGH temperature damage & effects NOT at all consistant with the 911 fires.

Fact: Thermate signatures were uncovered.

Simon, the 911 mysteries video is entirely reasonable. The problem is you have been brainwashed so that, by using a set of false beliefs, you are completely misreading everything.

By now I thought you would be getting suspicious by the fact that EVERYTHING you are sending me is getting thoroughly dismantled.

As for the fact that I supposedly "add SO much other stuff on top of that, and SO many other things that just have to fit into place just so.."

You are being naive as I said before. You can only come to this conclusion because you haven't any concept of how corrupt these people are and what is possible with a budget of a billion dollars, years to plan, like minded people etc.

If you can think clearly on this matter then it's obvious 911 was an inside job. Knowing this fact I believe I should speak out rather than stay silent.

I do not want to see another 911 and/or more senseless wars in the Middle East.