The Empty Towers

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby fbenario on May 12th, 2011, 2:07 am

artreddin wrote:Not trying to be smart ass about it, but are we not so enamoured of our cleverness in exposing the major media's collusion in the events of 9-11 that we are carrying to the extreme the "virtual reality only" argument?

So far your comments have remained marginally acceptable, mostly because of their respectful nature. By contrast, this sentence crosses the line.

On this forum it is NEVER acceptable to post comments that are personally insulting or question the good faith of any regular contributor. Don't ever again use 'we' on this forum, since you speak for no one but yourself.

You think one of us is wrong on something, or the forum is wrong on any collective conclusion? PROVE IT - or remain silent on that point. Your vague skepticism just wastes everyone's time, and has no place here. Take your passive-aggressive rhetoric elsewhere.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby DHD on May 12th, 2011, 2:27 am

Fbenario- Good point. There are infiltrators here galore and on youtube and everywhere else in my opinion. I'm frustrated to some extent at the progress being made to the extent that I believe that the perpetrators are winning.

We've got to get the message strongly outside of this forum as it is strongly inside this forum in my opinion. Sadly I don't think the truth (here on this site) is being carried forward like I thought it would be. It just seems to sit on this site and like a prisoner, is trapped within the forum.

The average American has the attention span of a bird and cannot sit for even a few minutes to begin to focus on the treachery and brainwashing that we've all been the victims of. I wish I had the solution. I cannot thank Simon enough for waking me up.
I'm an INTP personality (introverted, intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). It takes a special personality to gravitate to this type of stuff in the first place.

The only solution that comes to mind is for each of us to use our DVD-R slots and record a DVD friendly version of Simon's work and slip it into every neighbor's mailbox within 2 miles of where we all live.
DHD
 

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby artreddin on May 12th, 2011, 2:52 am

Well, I stop for lunch and to have a nap and when I come back there are five posts waiting for me to reply. And, thank you, Simon, it is very kind of you to say "we are all ears"!

It's a bit hard to know where to start but maybe I should reiterate or clarify certain points already mentioned. First of all, at no point, not even on Day One, have I believed the official story. Thus any comment criticizing me for thinking that the "unseen, unheard jumbo jets with their 80 cent per gallon fuel did it" has come from someone who hasn't taken the time to actually read what I've written.

Yes, I - along with probably 70% of the American public - do disagree with the official story, but I also disagree vociferously with the "conventional controlled demolition" story that the Powers That Be would prefer as the common alternative viewpoint under debate, for reasons that may not be obvious but nevertheless are real. In particular, I find Steven Jones' defence of his work with thermite quite unconvincing and Dr. Judy Wood's on pulverization quite compelling.

Going directly to the posts, I'll start with Simon's first one. Here the definition of "an outsider" as I'd used it in my posts is questioned. I honestly don't think that most people here have had the same problem as you, Simon, in understanding the concept but maybe I'm wrong.

An outsider is simply someone in some position of authority who hasn't studied or thought about the events of 9-11 very much; yet, because of that authority, is able to question those presenting a case. You could think of a newsanchor, or a judge or politician at a specially called trial or commission into the matter. By this definition I'm not an outsider, but by other interpretations I suppose I very much am, at least to this forum.

Then - and I'm sorry to have to put it like this, Simon - you seem to have intentionally muddied the waters with your statement
As I can gather it seems that, for instance, you still believe that the WTC collapses shown on TV (still viewable on the official TV archives - and therefore totally beyond the control of anyone on this forum or elsewhere) are real and legit images of what took place in Manhattan on 9/11... To even fleetingly hint to the possibility that WE are the 'fakers' of the 9/11 TV networks' images is a quite juvenile statement and, frankly, makes me think that you are either a troll or a fool.


Where in hell did you get that idea?? My point about the legitimacy of photography was simply that we are not immune to accusations from an outsider that our photographic imagery might equally be faked, however unfounded that accusation may be in fact. (Nonhotepito quite adequately discusses the ins and outs of this above.)

It's a little bizarre that this now gets interpreted into my saying that September Clues are the fakers of the 9/11 TV networks' images. Why did you misinterpret my original statement? Surely it wasn't that poorly articulated.
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby artreddin on May 12th, 2011, 2:59 am

Anyway, as an example - and note that I don't for one minute dispute the "empty tower" theory (on the contrary, it explains several points I hadn't resolved before) - I mentioned the photographs of the vacant offices claimed to be from WTC. There were numerous photos posted here (the sources have just been given once again), which would initially indicate large vacancy... that is, until compared with the millions of square feet of actual office space of the towers.

Do you see what I am saying? While it should never stop us from searching for the real truth of the matter, we'd do well to question everything, including any interpretation of data or any evidence provided by supposedly trustworthy people.
Simon, in a second commentary you've provided the total of damaged buildings plus an interesting link to the Bilderberg forum. In that only two buildings were supposedly hit by planes and only three went into controlled demolition, it is revealing that nine buildings in total were destroyed. The Bilderberg forum includes this quote on conventional controlled demolition:
Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations... Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges.

Even bigger skeptics - myself, for example - would say that the risk for error would be too great for conventional explosives and that the "smokestacking" of WTC was not simply a matter of luck. (Indeed, have any of you actually seen the interior of a building when it's all wired for destruction? For the WTC we'd be talking tens of thousands of charges and a tremendous, tremendous noise that these would make upon exploding. Simon's South Padre Island building, at about a tenth the size, is illustrative.) If the tower were detonated starting at the bottom and it began to topple sideways it could easily and completely take out other capitalists' buildings out to a radius of perhaps a sixth of a mile, resulting in litigative investigation and very costly law suits. Very, very conveniently, Silverstein was the owner of almost all of those buildings destroyed and, according to Wikipedia, seems to have done very well on this dirty business, thank you very much.

Further to the demolition, as quoted above:
The contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! Their WTC cleanup contract is worth over $7 Billion.
Why is this significant? For several reasons, including the amount involved. I'm sure construction firms back home would have been ecstatic to tackle it for a hundredth of that price! $7,000,000,000 is a hell of a lot of money... and certainly enough to cover the expenses of any directed energy technology that one might imagine. BTW, this fabulous contract was awarded almost immediately, without any bidding competition, and machinery just happened to be waiting to go into action.

Before leaving the Bilderberg forum, there was another quote worth mentioning in passing:
No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that... a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.....It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby artreddin on May 12th, 2011, 3:01 am

This leads us back into discussion on the type of demolition used and who saw it on that fateful day. Nonhocapito states:
Sure, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine how they achieved image control on the whole city. The story is bound to have such holes. But "energy beams" are even more unreal...We heard this claim a number of times before and it never goes further than that.

My question for you who've been patient with me and have read to this point is simple: What exactly would be an attempt to "go further than that" entail? It is true that John Hutchison has shown some repeatable, apparently simple experiments showing the principles involved. Take them for what they're worth. (BTW, lest I be so accused, I'm not attesting to their legitimacy as I've not yet looked at this material and probably never will: any destructive energy weapons technology coming out of this physics would most certainly be immensely grander in scale and sophistication.)

The only other "going further" then, would be in a government commision with powers to supoena workers in the Defence Department or its contractors and to receive their testimony under oath. Of course, even then, this doesn't guarantee anything, especially under the regime of either of the two ruling parties in government.

So, failing an insider defection or a whistleblower working under what must surely be the most tightly restricted area in technology and warfare, further advances in investigation on this front by nature are impossible.

OK. Let me catch my breath and then sum up. I stated previously - and have yet to read a substantive rebuttal - that
The burning towers of 9-11 could have easily been seen from up to twenty miles away, as the WTC was located on a point of land surrounded by water. Furthermore, the top-down style of demolition would also have been easily visible, as would the tremendous plumes of fine dust rising in the air and covering everything in Manhattan.

Given extreme measures, perhaps the observations of people within Manhattan could have been controlled. But the metropolitan area of New York City has a huge population and if they had a view at all towards Ground Zero most would be watching, at least off and on.

I see that Heiwa is offering a million euros to anyone who can successfully complete a certain demolition experiment (though what he’s asking has nothing to do with destructive energy technology).

So, what would it take to motivate a research effort on the observations on that day of people across the Hudson river? A fund of about a thousand bucks? Two thousand? Would that be enough to pay for door-to-door survey takers asking 100 people what they saw with their own eyes (i.e., not on TV) on 9-11, at what time, and from exactly what physical vantage point (their backyard, a seventh storey window, etc.)? And hell, why not?... in passing, they could also be asked for any photographic record.

My prediction is that few if any one would testify as to having seen the planes, but an overwhelmingly large percentage would indeed testify to having seen the other three phenomena described. Admittedly, a fair amount of brainwashing has gone on over the years, but the events were dramatic and I’d trust people’s memory on these very basic facts. Furthermore, no one would testify that the twin towers had come down in a normal controlled demolition starting at the bottom, a la WTC7.

Shall we start the fund?
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby Heiwa on May 12th, 2011, 3:56 am

artreddin wrote:I see that Heiwa is offering a million euros to anyone who can successfully complete a certain demolition experiment (though what he’s asking has nothing to do with destructive energy technology).

Have a go at reproducing a top crush down of anything by gravity! Just drop the top on the bottom and the bottom disappears in a plume or fountain of smoke, dust and debrise. You know, the top down destructions of WTC1/2 shown on all (faked) footage of 911 are a natural phenomenom according US expert authorities and agencies like FEMA, NIST, FBI and CIA, etc.
However, that natural phenomenom is simply impossible to explain and reproduce in reality. Not even Osama could have done it! So Obama killed the wrong person.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby nonhocapito on May 12th, 2011, 4:22 am

artreddin wrote:failing an insider defection or a whistleblower working under what must surely be the most tightly restricted area in technology and warfare, further advances in investigation on this front by nature are impossible.


See, that's what I am trying to get through to you. I imagine that your intentions are good, but you waste your time and everyone else's with this. There is no interest in embracing a theory that it is impossible to explore any further than its own initial premises. The only reason I am saying that I don't dismiss it, is that because there are no elements whatsoever to dismiss or accept anything. It is pure speculation. Sure, everything is possible, but I don't know what to do with it.
Besides, while damaging the research bringing it on a terrain where it becomes more and more difficult to present it rationally, it changes nothing on the essential structure of the events as we understand it. We don't know how the towers were demolished. The footage we are shown is obviously fake. Whatever happened, it happened backstage.

'Cause you see there are other major problems here: If you think that the fountain of dust is real, you gotta think that a number of "amateur" and official videos, showing the towers collapsing in a fountain of dust, are depicting reality. But they are doctored, CGI products that have nothing real to them. They have actors, screenplays, green screens (or frontal screen projection), composition, fake glitches, CGI. They have it all. For what, to depict reality? So even if the energy beam was real and we had elements to say it is real, the footage of the collapse is and remains FAKE. A copy-and-paste sequence good for all videos we know.

artreddin wrote:Given extreme measures, perhaps the observations of people within Manhattan could have been controlled. But the metropolitan area of New York City has a huge population and if they had a view at all towards Ground Zero most would be watching, at least off and on.
(...) My prediction is that few if any one would testify as to having seen the planes, but an overwhelmingly large percentage would indeed testify to having seen the other three phenomena described. Admittedly, a fair amount of brainwashing has gone on over the years, but the events were dramatic and I’d trust people’s memory on these very basic facts. Furthermore, no one would testify that the twin towers had come down in a normal controlled demolition starting at the bottom, a la WTC7.


Sure this is an interesting prediction, I would be very curious to know the results of such a survey. The media though have probably polluted the images people have in their heads. A writer I greatly admire, Peter Handke, has written a few years ago a beautiful (to me) novel entitled "the disappearance of images", where, among other things, he narrates on how the ability to evoke images from direct experiences is vanishing, because the world of artificial images is much more powerful. I have doubts on the ability of people that lived a collective trauma to retain images that diverge in any way from the sanctioned truth of the events, already hard to accept as it is. But, as I said, I would gladly back up such a survey.

Regardless, all that it was needed to con people watching from afar was the smoke gushing out of the towers (easily achieved with the explosions set in the towers to simulate planes) and a cloud of dusty smoke at the moment of the collapse. Maybe initially coming out of the top of the towers to pretend that's were the demolition started from. That's just speculation. However, it doesn't seem too hard to achieve. Once again, no need to bother with energy beams.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2540
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby Brutal Metal on May 12th, 2011, 4:55 am

This jabbing back and forth has run out of gas! Planes didn't hit the buildings and it would be Wonderful if there was authentic footage of the Twins falling by controlled demolition or even a few still pictures, maybe the Government has some locked away somewhere who knows...
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby brianv on May 12th, 2011, 12:04 pm

"(though what he’s asking has nothing to do with destructive energy technology). "

Care to elaborate? DET? DEW?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby simonshack on May 12th, 2011, 5:36 pm

artreddin wrote:
So, what would it take to motivate a research effort on the observations on that day of people across the Hudson river? A fund of about a thousand bucks? Two thousand? Would that be enough to pay for door-to-door survey takers asking 100 people what they saw with their own eyes (i.e., not on TV) on 9-11, at what time, and from exactly what physical vantage point (their backyard, a seventh storey window, etc.)? And hell, why not?... in passing, they could also be asked for any photographic record.


Here is an alleged photographic record from across the river, Arthur. It was sent to me by former cluesforum member 'Surcouf', a French guy who has visited me twice here in my house in Rome, who sells military helicopters (Eurocopters - an EADS company) to the Norwegian Army (and has now estranged himself from what seemed like a friendship we had going...) He said this picture was shot by a lady aquaintance of his...

Image

Now, Surcouf aside: do you think anyone watching the collapses on 9/11 from such a distance would have any interesting statements to submit?
Would any firsthand witnesses ever be able to tell us that the towers collapsed in a different way than this?
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby artreddin on May 12th, 2011, 6:35 pm

Simon wrote:
Would any firsthand witnesses ever be able to tell us that the towers collapsed in a different way than this?

Probably not!

BTW, where was the first photo taken from? It's only a little over a mile across the river at the point of the second shot... and the area appears from Google Maps to have a fair population density.

Do any forum members live in NYC or on the nearby Jersey shore?
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby artreddin on May 12th, 2011, 6:37 pm

Oops! By Jersey shore I meant the waterfront across from Manhattan (probably not the case). Shows how much I know geographically about the area...!
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby simonshack on May 12th, 2011, 7:01 pm

Here's the (alleged) same moment (WTC1 collapse) allegedly filmed by Rick Siegel:

Image

Can you see that very distinct, black fly-by chopper in the MSNBC shot posted above? Please tell me if you can see it. Thanks.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby Heiwa on May 12th, 2011, 8:13 pm

simonshack wrote:Here's the (alleged) same moment (WTC1 collapse) allegedly filmed by Rick Siegel:

Image

Can you see that very distinct, black fly-by chopper in the MSNBC shot posted above? Please tell me if you can see it. Thanks.


I always focus on the big steel wall panel (6 floors tall, 30 m wide) that always flies away on the left side followed by smoke/dust and drops down beside the tower before the tower itself collapses and wonder how it, the wall panel, could get loose and drop down like that. Gravity? Gravity cuts off a wall panel top/bottom/right/left sides and pushes it sideways followed by dust/smoke? LOL! Nice animation,though!
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Postby simonshack on May 12th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests