TerrorStorm: Free movie

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue:From every other soldier that has gone there they are more then proud to have gone over there, and in fact a member of my trade got shot in the head while in Afganistan

It is something to be proud of but that doesn't change the fact that Canadian electorate is largely unaware of the issues and that fact is why people died and had to go there. Canadian electorate should be ashamed.

Our society has a habit of worshipping dead soldiers and considering live ones worthless cannon fodder. Thats what I am against.

[PolyNewbie]

Michael Hardner:There was no stand down.

There were no computer guided jets.

The powers that be could have drummed up support for war in Iraq without 911. They didn't want to control the heroin trade.

I don't think you will ever be convinced, though.

A few people that were in the room with Cheney have come forward to say that in fact there was a stand down order. Its the only thing that could prevent the jet from being shot down - if it was a jet. The physical evidence of the crash scene shows that this target was not an airliner. That is plain to see from the fact that there is a little hole in the building and no bits of airplane on the lawn. Therefore that whole plane must have been sucked through that little hole - impossible. Also an aluminum fusalage doesn't crash through 3 thick concrete rings whilke the engines barely leave a mark.

If they were interested in protecting the Pentagon they would have put fighters up immediately after the second wtc building was hit.

In Oklahoma Murrah bombing, local news and cops reported three additional bombs in the building - how could that be ? You can see police reports on whatreallyhappened.com, and actual news reports in the movie 911: Road To Tyranny.

Road To Tyranny is scary at the end where you see cops being trained that the constitution is a document written by terrorists. Don't just believe me - really watch it and see for yourself.

I'm really only convinced by facts and I have read lots of the official story and visited the debunker sites. There are more people and they are more qualified and citing evidence to show 911 was an inside job when compared to actual supporters of the official version.

How about Philip Zelikow ?, the guy that wrote the 911 commission report. Look him up on wiki. His only qualification is that he is a master of propoganda. Read it for yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

A few people that were in the room with Cheney have come forward to say that in fact there was a stand down order. Its the only thing that could prevent the jet from being shot down - if it was a jet. The physical evidence of the crash scene shows that this target was not an airliner. That is plain to see from the fact that there is a little hole in the building and no bits of airplane on the lawn. Therefore that whole plane must have been sucked through that little hole - impossible. Also an aluminum fusalage doesn't crash through 3 thick concrete rings whilke the engines barely leave a mark.

Can we have a link with those testimonials ?

This means that the people on the jet were made up ? That their families are all just actors ?

If they were interested in protecting the Pentagon they would have put fighters up immediately after the second wtc building was hit.

Fighters were dispatched. Again, go to 911myths.com

In Oklahoma Murrah bombing, local news and cops reported three additional bombs in the building - how could that be ? You can see police reports on whatreallyhappened.com, and actual news reports in the movie 911: Road To Tyranny.

Sometimes, reports are wrong. There was a report of a distress call from the small plane that crashed on 10/11 a few days ago, but it was wrong.

Road To Tyranny is scary at the end where you see cops being trained that the constitution is a document written by terrorists. Don't just believe me - really watch it and see for yourself.

I'm really only convinced by facts and I have read lots of the official story and visited the debunker sites. There are more people and they are more qualified and citing evidence to show 911 was an inside job when compared to actual supporters of the official version.

The difference between the debunker sites, and 911myths.com is that 911myths.com tells both sides of the story.

How about Philip Zelikow ?, the guy that wrote the 911 commission report. Look him up on wiki. His only qualification is that he is a master of propoganda. Read it for yourself.

I did read it. It says no such thing. How can you expect people to be truthful when you post misleading information such as that yourself ?

[Canadian Blue]

It is something to be proud of but that doesn't change the fact that Canadian electorate is largely unaware of the issues and that fact is why people died and had to go there. Canadian electorate should be ashamed.

Allright, well why don't you and the other 1% of people that wear tin foil hats run for political office and expose the truth. It is a free society after all.

[PolyNewbie]

Philip Zelikow (from wiki)

"Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene"

[kimmy]

Ok. So, PolyNewbie said...

The idea that the US gov did 911 is the only idea that fits the facts. The rediculous idea that Bin Laden did this from a cave in Afganistan is both rediculous in itself and does not fit facts in any way.

and I asked...

As for Bin Laden's cave... why is it ridiculous? what doesn't fit the facts? Is anybody claiming that Bin Laden never left the cave during the planning, or that his allies never met him at his cave?

and PolyNewbie responds...

I do not believe that Bin Laden could get Norad to stand down and have those planes fly the way they did on 911 from a computer in Afganistan. The planes had to have flown with autopilots/computer assistance or guidance that would have to be prearranged. The maneuver at the Pentagon could not have happened without guidance or assistance. It hit the safest/strongest and least populated area of the Pentagon and the physical evidence of a plane even being there in many ways is non existent.

So, even supposing that the planes were remotely flown, you don't consider Bin Laden to have been directly responsible unless he himself was the guy remotely flying the planes? Like, even if he had subordinates travel to the US to carry out the attack, Bin Laden wasn't responsible because the operation wasn't controlled from his cave in Afghanistan?

And aside from that, the assumptions you're making are what's ridiculous.

The "stand down order" has been debunked.

The "no plane hit the Pentagon" stuff has been debunked.

"The planes were flown by remote control" is ridiculous on the face of it.

You keep saying how it should be obvious to everybody who saw it that it was staged, and yet you can't seem to identify a single compelling feature and start going on about remote controlled planes and anonymous insiders who saw Dick Cheney that day and so on. What about this stuff do you consider "obvious" or even credible?

When GostHacked posted some messages about how the WTC collapse doesn't match up with observational experience, I did some basic math (which should be easily reproduceable by anybody with a highschool education) to demonstrate why observational experience doesn't mean much in the face of a 500,000 ton building collapsing. To show that what's "obvious" isn't obvious at all in this situation.

And then you jumped in and said "Well I am an Engineer, and I too have done calculations! Verily, there are at least 5 ways to prove that the collapse was a controlled demolition! Why, any cretin can see that the collapse violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"

And when I asked you to elaborate on any of this, you explained that you might be an engineer, but not a civil or mechanical engineer. And you declined to describe any of your calculations. Or enumerate the 5+ proofs that it was a controlled demolition. Or explain how the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves it was a controlled demolition. And you add that it doesn't matter that you can't do any of that, because "it's obvious!" what really happened.

In response to debunkers, you've said "anybody who disagrees is obviously in on it!"

In response to requests for plausible evidence you've offered theories about remote controlled planes and stand-down orders.

In response to my request to justify your claims of scientific proof, you say that you don't need any because anybody can see that "it's obvious!"

It's circular and frankly getting lame.

-k

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:I did some basic math (which should be easily reproduceable by anybody with a highschool education) to demonstrate why observational experience doesn't mean much in the face of a 500,000 ton building collapsing.

Interesting, what kind of calculation did you do to arrive at this conclusion ?

Lots of evidence shows it was explosives that brought the building down:

(1) Straight down collapse into itself - symmetrical- this instead of building top going over the side- ie path of least resistance. The top of the building should not have collapsed through the remaining parts

(2) Really big 200 ton beams found sticking out of nearby buildings like arrows.

(3) Hot spots found months later, partially evaporated iron beams. Burning fuel cannot explain this.

(4) Straight linear cuts on basement beams.

(5) Energy of collapse: energy pulverized over half the weight of the building, including phones, computers and concrete. The energy expended for all this would slow the collapse down to a time duration far greater than that oberved: 12 seconds & 14 seconds.

(6) Collapse of wtc7 looked exactly like a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition and Larry Silverstein even said "...pulled the building". Experts observing video of wtc7 collapse say it was a controlled demolition. Anyone that has ever seen a controlled demolition can identify the collapse of wtc7 as such.

(7) Tons of circumstantial evidence and coincidences such as inability of NORAD to respond. There are always excercises going on when they do terrorist attacks.

(8) Completely pathetic and misleading investigation that strictly avoids key issues such as the collapse of wtc7 entirely.

Most of this is in the movie 911 Mysteries: Part1 Demolition

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:And aside from that, the assumptions you're making are what's ridiculous.

The "stand down order" has been debunked.

The "no plane hit the Pentagon" stuff has been debunked.

"The planes were flown by remote control" is ridiculous on the face of it.

The debunking going on isn't really debunking. Popular mechanics hasn't debunked anything and Chertoff is a relative of Bush. Bushes brother was in charge of security at wtc's.

[Riverwind]

((1) Straight down collapse into itself - symmetrical- this instead of building top going over the side- ie path of least resistance. The top of the building should not have collapsed through the remaining parts

The path of 'least resistance' is straight down. Going to the side would require a huge force acting on the building pushing it to the side. Can you provide even one example of a building that collapsed on its side when there was no outside force such as an earthquake? I am pretty sure you can't because scientifically speaking your assuptions are wrong.

(6) Collapse of wtc7 looked exactly like a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition and Larry Silverstein even said "...pulled the building". Experts observing video of wtc7 collapse say it was a controlled demolition. Anyone that has ever seen a controlled demolition can identify the collapse of wtc7 as such.

Stating that the collapse of WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition does not in anyway prove that it must be a controlled demolition. The fact is there are many conditions that could lead to a collapse that looks like a controlled demolition because of the way these buildings are designed.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: The path of 'least resistance' is straight down. Going to the side would require a huge force acting on the building pushing it to the side. Can you provide even one example of a building that collapsed on its side when there was no outside force such as an earthquake? I am pretty sure you can't because scientifically speaking your assuptions are wrong.

Lets just say you and I dissagree on that fundamental point then. It was a huge coincidence that all of the floors collapsed at the same time that way then. Jeff King says that is a violation of the second law of thermo dynamics. Something is wrong.

Riverwind: Stating that the collapse of WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition does not in anyway prove that it must be a controlled demolition. The fact is there are many conditions that could lead to a collapse that looks like a controlled demolition because of the way these buildings are designed.

No way. Thats BS. Nothing collapses so "neatly" by itself. It had to be a contolled event to collapse straight down like that. Anyone can watch the video at www.wtc7.net. Jim Hoffman offers $1000.00 reward to anyone that can build a structure that will collapse straight down - with an even load applied !, Its impossible to do.

The other neat collapses were due to uniform shearing forces and faulty construction. Even in those cases pancaking did not convert the building and its contents to fine pyrocrastic dust.

Plus there is all those other points I listed. If you don't believe those buildings collapsed by CD then its because you don't want to believe it, not because of lack of evidence. There is *no evidence* that supports the official version except that planes crashed into the towers.

[Riverwind]

Lets just say you and I dissagree on that fundamental point then. It was a huge coincidence that all of the floors collapsed at the same time that way then. Jeff King says that is a violation of the second law of thermo dynamics. Something is wrong.

Why don't you try reading the second law of thermodynamics yourself instead of repeating BS you read somewhere. The second law states that the entropy (randomness) of a system always increases. It does not say anything about how fast or in what way the entropy increases - just that it must increase. The collapsed towers represent a system with higher entropy that the standinding towers. During the collapse the entropy of the system was always increasing - the huge plumes of dust and smoke are evidence of this.

More importantly, if an orderly collapse of the towers violated the second law then a controlled demolition must also violate the second law. In other words, the second law argument is bogus and does not even stand up to a simple test of logic never mind the actual science.

No way. Thats BS. Nothing collapses so "neatly" by itself.

Try proving that it is impossible for a building to collapse into itself. You won't be able to because the way buildings are designed makes it possible for them to collapse that way under the right conditions. Until know many people assumed a controlled demolition was the only way to produce those conditions. We now know that it is possible to produce the same conditions with a combination of structural damage and out of control fires.

There is *no evidence* that supports the official version except that planes crashed into the towers.

You are assuming that it is up to officials to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the planes lead to the collapse. I beg to differ - the official explanation is plausible given the evidence which means the onus is on others to prove beyond an reasonable doubt that the planes did not cause the collapse -> none of the conspiracy theorists have come close to doing this.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Why don't you try reading the second law of thermodynamics yourself instead of repeating BS you read somewhere. The second law states that the entropy (randomness) of a system always increases. It does not say anything about how fast or in what way the entropy increases - just that it must increase. The collapsed towers represent a system with higher entropy that the standinding towers. During the collapse the entropy of the system was always increasing - the huge plumes of dust and smoke are evidence of this.

More importantly, if an orderly collapse of the towers violated the second law then a controlled demolition must also violate the second law. In other words, the second law argument is bogus and does not even stand up to a simple test of logic never mind the actual science.

For the building to collapse that way, every steel beam on each floor would have to collapse at the same time. If it was fire and heat that did it, one side would have collapsed before the other causing the top to tip off the building. This would have happened at some point early during the collapse if not during it.

There wasn't enough potential energy in the parts above the crash to do the damage to the part below the crash.

As far as the second law of thermo, its been ten years since I have been in school and I am an EE, so I'm not up on thermodynamics the way others are. I have heard plenty of people say that the collapse violates this law that are very qualified to say.

There are some people with some impressive qualifications that say the collaps could not have been from an airplane crash. People like Fetzer, Hoffman, Bowman, etc are all very qualified to say this.

Besides that, video recreations of accidents are done all the time. Why can't we see opne of the collapses ? answer: no initial conditions could make that happen. Only carefully placed explosives could make that happen.

Besides this, wtc7 was obviously CD. wtc1 & wtc 2 were blown apart from the top down. They did not "pancake" that is obvious from the videos. If you don't see that the buildings were being blown apart then you don't want to.

What are your qualifications to discuss this ? Do you have a great deal of experience dealing with non linear chaotic events or are you too speaking from an engineering degree ?.

[Riverwind]

For the building to collapse that way, every steel beam on each floor would have to collapse at the same time. If it was fire and heat that did it, one side would have collapsed before the other causing the top to tip off the building. This would have happened at some point early during the collapse if not during it.

These buildings are built with a limited amount of redundancy. If one support is weakened by fire and fails then the load will shift to the other supports. This additional load would likely cause at least one other support to fail which, in turn, increases the load on the remaining supports. The net result is a cascade failure where all supports fail within seconds of each other. This is the most rational explanation for the events observed on 9/11.

As far as the second law of thermo, its been ten years since I have been in school and I am an EE, so I'm not up on thermodynamics the way others are. I have heard plenty of people say that the collapse violates this law that are very qualified to say.

Anyone who claims that the collapse violates the second law but at the same time claims that a collapse caused by a controlled demolition would not violate the second law is, IMO, clueless and unqualified. Adding explosives to the mix does not suddenly make a system that 'loses' entropy into a system that 'gains' entropy.

Besides this, wtc7 was obviously CD. wtc1 & wtc 2 were blown apart from the top down. They did not "pancake" that is obvious from the videos. If you don't see that the buildings were being blown apart then you don't want to.

There you go again with your blanket - "its obvious" proofs. Such statements prove nothing. To me it should be obvious that the logistics required to plan and carry out such a demolition make it the least plausible explanation. Such a plot would require so many people to collaborate that I can virtually guarantee that at least one person would have come forward for their 15 minutes of fame by now.

What are your qualifications to discuss this ? Do you have a great deal of experience dealing with non linear chaotic events or are you too speaking from an engineering degree ?.

My background in engineering is sufficient for me to read the pseudo science offered by the conspiracy theorists and recognize the omissions and separate the leaps of faith from fact.

[PolyNewbie]

RiverWind:To me it should be obvious that the logistics required to plan and carry out such a demolition make it the least plausible explanation. Such a plot would require so many people to collaborate that I can virtually guarantee that at least one person would have come forward for their 15 minutes of fame by now

Thats not a very good arguement. The wiring and fixtures and everything else that needed to be done to demolish the building could be all set up without the people doing the work even knowing what is being set up.

This could take years if they wanted it to. The explosives would be planted when they are needed by people in the know. Everyone else involved with the project may still not even know they were setting up the building for CD. They could have been told that the wiring was put in place for another reason entirely or for national security reasons.

Ten or twenty people could be employed to place the explosives. They wouldn't even have to be Americans.

If a magician can make it look like a woman is being sawed into four pieces in front of thousands of observers then the wtc's could be wired for4 CD with only a few people in the know.

Scott Forbes and others describe a very unusual power shut down and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs from the buildings a week before the collapse.

[PolyNewbie]

Besides this arguement, you have to ignore a lot of physical evidence pointing to controlled demolition to believe that official version.

- Beams that were obviously cut by explosives in pictures of the aftermath- 45 degree angles - cut just like they are cut in CD.

- super hot pools of molten metal that stayed hot for months afterward.

- sulfidization of beams

- melted & burned cars from the parking lots

- 200 ton pieces of steel sticking out of buildings like arrows - 500 feet away from the towers.

- obvious CD of wtc7.

- the video 911 Eyewitness shows explosives at the building base immediately preceeding the collapses - in agreement with what would be seen in CD.

The NIST report even ignores a lot of this.

[Michael Hardner]

Poly,

Thats not a very good arguement. The wiring and fixtures and everything else that needed to be done to demolish the building could be all set up without the people doing the work even knowing what is being set up.

This could take years if they wanted it to. The explosives would be planted when they are needed by people in the know. Everyone else involved with the project may still not even know they were setting up the building for CD. They could have been told that the wiring was put in place for another reason entirely or for national security reasons.

Ten or twenty people could be employed to place the explosives. They wouldn't even have to be Americans.

If a magician can make it look like a woman is being sawed into four pieces in front of thousands of observers then the wtc's could be wired for4 CD with only a few people in the know.

Scott Forbes and others describe a very unusual power shut down and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs from the buildings a week before the collapse.

So... all of this extra effort and risk was added why ? Because it would not have been terrifying enough for the planes to just hit the buildings ? The assessments I have read were that the hijacking teams ran a few test runs, boarding planes to determine how they would take control of them. They also had received flight training. The exposure to the public at large was sufficiently limited with this plan, so as to minimize the risk of detection.

Now, to add the collapse of the building as the icing on the cake would require infiltrating building security, subverting security systems in order to sneak contractors in to plan the explosives. That's a much more complicated plan, for not much more payoff.

The bomb-sniffing dogs issue is addressed here;

911 Myths

It's not that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings, but that security removed to normal levels from a level of heightened security. The dogs might not have been taken out but moved to the other tower.

[Michael Hardner]

Exploded Beams

[PolyNewbie]

You can take each one of the odd things about these "collapses" and explain them away individually but things never add up when you start putting things togather.

Energy was there to creat the powder & eject these beams at the velocities determined + cause the building to pancake in the allotted 12 - 14 seconds ? Its a far reach because if you add up these energies using simplistic methods the result is close. These simple approximations undersestimate the amount of energy used. For instance one could calculate the kinetic energy of the beam being ejected out of the building (mv^2) but in that result not include the deformation energy of the impact that caused the beam to be ejected. Hoffman says that a thermo dynamic analysis shows an energy expenditure during the collapse of ten times the potential energy of the building.

Someone else put up a set of claims refuting Hoffman based on poor assumtions, but that link, like your link has no name associated with the information. This is where you lose credibility - it shows that the sources you link to make your arguement have no credibility. Popular Mechanics was edited by Bushes cousin- a relation similar, I believe it was his first cousin. The above 911Myths site has no name associated with it.

FEMA and NIST are not reponsible for their work legally. The work of FEMA and NIST cannot be used in a court of law. The usual authorities, fire marshall & FAA who should have conducted the investigations did not. They were replaced with organizations that could not be held legally responsible for their work. An official investigation took over 400 days to launch. FEMA is just a list of questions.

The NIST analysis skips over some evidence that cannot be explained. It simply isn't worth mentioning according to NIST - things like the collapse of wtc7 in its entirety.

A close look at all the things that support the official version results in a bad smell.

If you look at the truth movement, you see a set of highly qualified and independent researchers who are willing to associate their names with their work and have exposed something at great risk to their careers. Some have lost their jobs. You cannot say that these people are gaining something from all this. There is no motivation on the part of these people to lie and make their own lives difficult in doing so.

[PolyNewbie]

911 Mysteries: Part1 Demolition is by far the best documentary ever done on the events of 911 at the towers. This is a thorough piece of investigative journalism based on evidence and many eyewitness accounts and is very well narrated. This video is free on Google or can be ordered on DVD.

Have you watched this Michael ?

[sharkman]

This just in. All the 9/11 conspiracy websites are run by the U.S. government. That's right, the 9/11 conspiracy is a GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! South Park says so.

[PolyNewbie]

From your site at 911 Myths, I found this statement:

"Did firefighters abandon their fallen brothers to help real estate developer Larry Silverstein demolish a skyscraper?

Conspiracist Alex Jones and other 9/11 “Truth Movement” leaders gather at Ground Zero and accuse Silverstein of murder and FDNY heroes of heinous crimes, lies and cover-ups.

Do their claims stand up to examination?"

No one is saying that firefighters put explosives into wtc7. No one is saying that anyone died as a result of wtc7 collapsing because no one was in or around the building when it did collapse. This is a set of false claims put forth by whoever wrote this site to attempt to falsely discredit the 911 truth movement.

[PolyNewbie]

Michael Hardner: So... all of this extra effort and risk was added why ? Because it would not have been terrifying enough for the planes to just hit the buildings ? The assessments I have read were that the hijacking teams ran a few test runs, boarding planes to determine how they would take control of them. They also had received flight training. The exposure to the public at large was sufficiently limited with this plan, so as to minimize the risk of detection.

If the planes hit the buildings and the buildings did not fall it would affirm Americas strength rather than show weakness and therefore not have the same psychological impact as total destruction. The motive for 911 was to create fear and the need for a police state as well as to start a series of wars (all while leaving the borders wide open).

If terrorists were a real fear, there is no way the Mexican border would be left open.

[Michael Hardner]

Poly, the observation that the crash itself woudn't engender enough terror is completely fantastic. If you remember the shock you felt after the crash, but before the collapse you might know what I mean.

Here's an example of a conspiracy lie that has been copied all over the internet.

Popular Mechanics was edited by Bushes cousin- a relation similar, I believe it was his first cousin.

The man in question was not a cousin, let alone a first cousin yet try to find that fact from a google search. This is an example of people claiming that officials 'won't let the truth out' on one hand, while propagating rumours and misinformation on the other.

I have not watched the video because I think it's better to read something where there is some interactivity. Videos tend to broadcast a single point of view. 911myths contains some charges, responses, then reiterated counter charges. It is from reading these exchanges that you can form a good opinion.

There may be gaps in the official story, but they're nothing like the gaps, omissions and even intentional disinformation that comes from the conspiracy folks. If you want to claim that the officials aren't telling the truth, then it's quite hypocritical to misinform your audience at the same time.

[PolyNewbie]

The stuff about Chertoff is really only secondary to the actual evidence in the case of 911.

You cannot believe the official story without ignoring key evidence. The hypothesis of controlled demolition and 911 being an inside job addresses and explains all the evidence. There is virtually no evidence that supports the official version. Its all supposition, hypothesis and coincidence. Much of the actual evidence has been destroyed or it is hidden from view.

Who do you think shot Kennedy ? Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald did it ?

You cannot be safer by not knowing the truth. Sooner or later the truth will find its way to you. Don't be the last person to see it.

84 % now see 911 as an inside job, New York Times/CBS News poll

You need to buy yourself a tin foil hat.

[PolyNewbie]

It was Chertoffs cousin that wrote the 911 debunker stuff for Popular Mechanics. But again, its not central to the arguement. I like to be more connected with physical evidence.

Chertoff Cousin

Before you go and discredit Alex Jones, he has millions of listeners and if you want to discredit him, call him up during his show. You will be put top the front of the line for call ins.

Jones has been doing this for ten years and pissing off a lot of people. If he was wrong about things his credibility would be destroyed. He cannot afford to be wrong about things like this.