9/11 - The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

[sam]

So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.

Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?

Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn?

[John White]

So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.

Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?

Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn?

When will you learn that pulling people up on their incorrect terminology does not change the underlying facts of the theory:

Its thermite used to cut the beams: explosives used to then explode the building

You are demonstrating that you do not understand the theory being put forward!

If you did, you would realise your objection was spurious and irrelevant

[Stefan]

So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.

Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?

Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn?

Or better still - read my post properly - I'm perfectly aware that thermaite/mate is not an explosive.

Where your quote starts I've just finished explaining the role of explosives in Ross' theory, then go on to explain why thermite would be used in adition - because the explosives would not break the corner sections.

You've responded to things I've written twice now sam, and both times made a prime ass of your self.

Try reading before posting next time.

[Stefan]

Micpsi,
His findings are supported by the majority of the scientists and engineers within 9/11 truth circles - ae911truth, journalof911studies and stj911truth.

His theory is not a "thermite" theory - it is primarily an explosives theory with at thermate-like-substance playing a limited role on the corner sections of the towers.

That you *sigh* regarding the "scientific method" and then go onto link to Judy Wood's site is beyond a joke.

Ross has put forward a working theory which meets all of the empirical evidence. It's a theory. It doesn't mean it's 100% correct but he is the first person (including those in support of the official story) who has put forward a theory which matches every bit of physical and empirical evidence there is.

You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis.

[John White]

You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis

You forgot the character assanation: shes gunning for Fetzer now as well as Jones

Can't say I'm too troubled by that in terms of what Fetzer is like, but it shows her character all too well

[Micpsi]

Micpsi,
His findings are supported by the majority of the scientists and engineers within 9/11 truth circles - ae911truth, journalof911studies and stj911truth.

So what? I am equally as academically qualified and experienced as they, so the fact they make the same scientific error in endorsing Jones hardly impresses me.

His theory is not a "thermite" theory - it is primarily an explosives theory with at thermate-like-substance playing a limited role on the corner sections of the towers.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. My point stands, despite your nit-picking over titles of theories.

That you *sigh* regarding the "scientific method" and then go onto link to Judy Wood's site is beyond a joke.

Does, then, every article written by different people and posted on a website that is owned by someone whose approach you deem unscientific have, automatically, to be tarred with the same brush of being 'unscientific'? I fail to share your prejudiced way of thinking.

Ross has put forward a working theory which meets all of the empirical evidence. It's a theory. It doesn't mean it's 100% correct but he is the first person (including those in support of the official story) who has put forward a theory which matches every bit of physical and empirical evidence there is.

You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis.

Whatever you have seen is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because making a link (as I did) to a paper published on someone's website in no way endorses the views of that person. Why you should think it does is a mystery to me.

[utopiated]

So how does a photograph indicating explosives refute that?

Is it simply becuase it means you would have to concede, both to us and to yourself, that you are parroting stuff without realising you are being lied to?

Whats your motivation mate?

Wheres the Truth, huh?

In my experience complex situations, especially involving shady covert-ops type actions, mean you have to remove yourself from the main thrust of debate and scout round the edges a look for clues. With just looking at the WTC evidence we have no-one is going to agree and more to the point we should not be drawing conclusions as a lot of people here have decided to do.

So a photograph showing a thermate led destruction may say one thing to you but if you then look elsewhere you find images taken further away from ground zero that in no way shape or form can have been caused by a localised, conventional demolition system.

Here's my theory:

After much confusion, anger and bewilderment between 2001-05, Steve Jones turns up as saviour of 9/11 "truth" and provides a SOLUTION to all this anger and resentment by offering his "conclusive" thermate theory.

Many researchers were still in a state of neurological susceptibility at this point - latent shock from finally finding out that some factions of government will kill their own for wider aims and objectives. Thus nervous systems everywhere were "imprinted" with Steve Jones as finally settling things and as some believed at the time - this would allow us to take all the naughty perps to jail or the Hague.

Then it became obvious that Jones' idea did not account for other, wider WTC anomalies such as madly burned cars and bizarre effects on differing materials. However, the imprint was set and some ppl don't like having to update their realities or accomodate more than one idea at the same time so we get a backlash from the conventional demo theorists that ends up looking like something from Stalinist control and PR mechanisms after WWII.

So you ask where the "truth" is Mr White. Well I'm not prescribing anything to anyone at this point. Just the flaws in your arguments - it just seems that even this is too much for some.

[chek]

Here's my theory:

After much confusion, anger and bewilderment between 2001-05, Steve Jones turns up as saviour of 9/11 "truth" and provides a SOLUTION to all this anger and resentment by offering his "conclusive" thermate theory.

This is incorrect - Jones provided (by means of physical evidence) a working theory, not a conclusive one. That was his first major contribution

Many researchers were still in a state of neurological susceptibility at this point ..... Thus nervous systems everywhere were "imprinted" ....

This might be somewhat interesting if you were talking about some variety of petunia or whatever, but otherwise give the station bookstall type pop-psychology a rest, please.

Then it became obvious that Jones' idea did not account for other, wider WTC anomalies such as madly burned cars and bizarre effects on differing materials.

Oh? Why's that then?

However, the imprint was set and some ppl don't like having to update their realities or accomodate more than one idea at the same time so we get a backlash from the conventional demo theorists that ends up looking like something from Stalinist control and PR mechanisms after WWII.

Pointing out rubbish claims is a required act, no matter what names the pointer gets called. If 'stalinist' is the best comeback the pointee has got then that confirms the validity of the pointer's point.

So you ask where the "truth" is Mr White. Well I'm not prescribing anything to anyone at this point. Just the flaws in your arguments - it just seems that even this is too much for some.

Flaws? What flaws?

[Contrarian]

My 2p

I think it is possible that TV feeds were manipulated. Also possible that planes were switched. If planes were used at all remote control is the strongest suit to attain the precision required since 'computers and PSU' floors were targeted in both buildings.

Also is possible that airliners were diverted and no planes used, Instead, the (computer upgrades) were actually the placing of stunt effects to make it LOOK like planes struck.

Who has another explanation for such heavy work on those specific floors pre 911+ Demolishing buildings required placements throughout the buildings, not a single specific floor area. The work done on those floors was specific to requirements for those floors. A homing beacon? Could be the size of and RFID chip. No, those floors were prepared for industrial-strength floor-specific purpose ie something to do with making planes appear to have hit, or enhancing the effect of the hit. Hollywoodizing it.

But if planes really hit why the need for this? To keep fires burning?

Certainly stunt effects have been proven to be a part of the crime in the case of Shanksville, where the 'crash site' has been identified has already having had the 'wing' marks pre-911 - on backdated Google Earth views.

We are left to work out the exact 'how' in the presence of evidence having been removed form the crime scene (but not all). And we can probably get close.

HOW is an interesting question, WHO and WHY are more urgently understood

A good outline of the facts ma'am

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=5367

[fish5133]

Northwoods Document considered using drone unmanned remote control planes painted in suitable livery. It also considered switching planes, it also considered staging mock funerals. It also considered killing (real or imaginary), it also considered using the world media in its plans. This was all back in the 1960s. goodness knows what these same minds could dream up today.
Within the ideological minds of globalists the world population no longer consists of us and them so they have fewer qualms to purposefully kill their "own" people if it achieves their aims.
To involve TV fakery is just adding another layer of unnecessary secrecy

[Thermate911]

To involve TV fakery is just adding another layer of unnecessary secrecy

Arranging the initial shape of the damage to the curtain walls would also have taxed the very best of 'smoke & mirror' surveyors and demolition experts!

Ockhams Razor rooolz, OK!

[Contrarian]

So far I have seen no convincing explanation at all for why heavy stuff was done to the floors allegedly hit by aircraft. Maybe to contain the damage above a certain floor level so that the subsequent demolition sequence would not be compromised by burning fuel spilling down inside the building?

Go to Part 2

http://brasschecktv.com/page/108.html

Watch from '9.30' to '9.00'

Half a minute, forget the rest

We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent

case closed

TV footage is faked

also check out this analysis of the famous 'Zapruder' film

http://brasschecktv.com/page/385.html

clearly faked. The lamp-post is a deal breaker.

I am sure the fact Zapruder is Jewish is a coincidence

[Micpsi]

We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent

case closed

TV footage is faked

No, it does not. There is no inconsistency between the two feeds. As usual, the no-planers cannot understand differences of perspective.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Go to Part 2

http://brasschecktv.com/page/108.html

Watch from '9.30' to '9.00'

Half a minute, forget the rest

We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent

case closed

TV footage is faked

The thread below may help you understand more about how your judgement may be incorrect.

Remember, you will have to look at all the evidence involved.

You may have many an illusion shattered.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468

[rodin]

That Contrarian goy doesn't know his ass from is oxbow s'all I'm sayin'

[046920618]

I'm a computer

[Christophera]

yet again npt/tvfakery has been proven to be based on misleading evidence that only has one purpose in mind, to fool its audience and believers.

That is the case.

Because of the impact/fall sequence, the NPT and video fakery notion have no logical basis. They explain nothing. They marginalize 9-11 truth severely.

I can recall the impact/sequence being downplayed on september11th.org I think in 2004, and I had a hard tme believing that serious truth seekers would do that. What I now realize is that they were preparing the soil for NPT and vid fakery.

On the icke board I trashed the NPT/fakery crowd with a simple, reasonable question repeated until its simple logic pierced the veil of nonsense belief NPT is founded on.

Here it is.

Why did the perps make people think WTC 1 was hit first with a plane then demolish WTC 2 first?

Clearly, if there are no planes, there is remote control of detonations. The perps created a huge problem for themselves when the tower first hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, fell last.

The same logic dispels the notion of remote controlled planes at the WTC. If remote control planes were used the pilots would have been organized and disciplined.
From the behavior of planes, it can be very logically speculated that flight 11 hit the wrong tower. The direction of fall of the tops of the towers corroborates this.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitione ... hor1207667[/b]

[outsider]

More evidence videos faked:


Ace Baker's videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexa ... ature=mhee


Watch parts 06 & 07 for plane video fakery evidence.

I think these are very convincing; I have believed the plane videos were faked since seeing Jimmy Walter's 'Confronting the Evidence', and 'Loose Change 2'.

On other parts, he gives some credence to Dr. Judy Wood's theories, which I don't agree with, but he rubbishes the 'Hutchison Effect' videos.

Also, according to ACARS messages, United Fl. 175 was still in the air 20 minutes after it had supposedly crashed into South Tower of WTC:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONF ... CRASH.html

[outsider]

Evidence Fl 175 didn't hit South Tower from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONF ... CRASH.html

Well, maybe they're disinfo as well, did I hear someone say??

[outsider]

Aw, come on, we all saw the 'planes' hit the Twin Towers, now, didn't we?
Well, I'm old enough to have 'seen King Kong' personally, I only wish I had had the presence of mind to have got his autograph, in case people didn't believe I'd seen him. I'm not old enough to have met any Martians, from the radio show 'Martian Invasion', or whatever it was called.

CGI VFX Showreels HD: "Compositing Reel" - by IXOR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyts_mT1RlI


And by the way, nano thermite/thermite IS an explosive, though ordinary thermite isn't:

'FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?':
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section ... apers.html