Great post. Thanks!
Besides the blatantly clear points stated in the video, another point that I noticed is that there is a tremendously greater amount of pulverization in controlled demolitions than in accidental building collapse, maybe 100 times more.

This issue is no theory. It is a conspiracy!

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

I noticed is that there is a tremendously greater amount of pulverization in controlled demolitions than in accidental building collapse, maybe 100 times more.

An excellent point !!!

Of course it was a controlled demolition. In fact, the first plane that hit wasn't even a plane. It was a cruise missile that looked something like this.

Uhuh... And G W Bush pushed the button....

TMOTS

Quote from themanonthestreet

Uhuh... And G W Bush pushed the button....

TMOTS

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
Henry Kissinger.


And you trust these people ?

Quote from RobYork

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
Henry Kissinger.


And you trust these people ?

No, but I'm sure the Obama worshipers do. Even though the military will be the ones enforcing the mark.

Quote from themanonthestreet

Uhuh... And G W Bush pushed the button....

TMOTS

That's not an argument.

round missiles don't make square holes and the ingress point on the Penatagon sure did not leave a 50 metre wide wings ingress more like some sort of missile!

the FBI confiscated every bit of footage after the impact on the Pentagon !

the third building that collapsed neatly on to its base near the towers was not even hit by a plane

The 7th building is definitely under a controlled demolition. If you watch videos of buildings being demolished, you will see them fall in the same fashion.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today’s security state" remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated by government agents while attempting to conduct objective analyses of buildings that collapsed on 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of events for that tragic day.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government "jet fuel" theory include:

— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning.

—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.

—FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

..............

Further complicating the matter is hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break. In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that ‘beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.’ Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."

Link.

The towers were built to withstand such a plane impact, and the quick removal of all debris without investigation means they have much to keep hidden from the public. It very unlikely to have disintegrated as quickly like a controlled demolition under such circumstances. This never happened in the past either.

Bush was just a spokesperson who worked for the interests of big banks, the federal reserve, wall street who control the USA by controlling the money supply, economy and governmental slavery through debt. They have financed the political careers of countless of US presidents and decide which candidates can be elected to be president.

John F Kennedy was the last American president who wanted to restore the printing of money in the hands of US government, away from the privately owned federal reserve. Guess what happened, he got killed just like any previous president who stood up against the private Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is no more federal then federal express.
Andrew Jackson was killed for similar reasons.

The British could not conquer the USA through direct war, so the private bankers (Rothchild) conquered the US by privatizing its monetary system via the creation of a privately owned "federal" reserve bank.

One of the problems with 9/11 investigations is that, instead of concentrating on determining what the facts are, people tend to view a few isolated pieces of data to draw amateur conclusions - normally to prove a pre-conceived agenda. (Does this sound familiar on this board?)

Undoubtedly, the government version of what happened is suspect and, at times, laughingly ridiculous (e.g. the fully-intact passport that just happened to float out of a plane that blew up when it smashed into a tower). Unfortunately, with everyone and his pet dog coming up with a theory and then hunting for facts (or inventing them) to fit that theory, we are no closer to the truth than we were a decade ago.

As with feminism, I urge people not to keep repeating "facts" that they have not checked, or that are not accredited by an appropriate, large, group of professionals who have conducted independent studies and released full conclusions.

Now, I know that things aren't all square about 9/11 but let me highlight some things from my own, amateur, part-time research of over three years into 9/11, just to give some indication of what I'm talking about:

Quote from Tyrael

The towers were built to withstand such a plane impact...

Not quite, no. The designers did take into account the idea that such high buildings could accidentally be flown into, given the proximity of two airports. Their computations were based on the largest planes at the time, assuming landing conditions: that's lighter, much slower and with a lot less fuel than the planes which are said to have hit the towers - and based on theory without any experience to back it up.

Quote from Tyrael

...and the quick removal of all debris without investigation means they have much to keep hidden from the public.

Not necessarily. Many people were involved and we're talking about ground whose rent would keep me in cheeseburgers very comfortably. It might have just been commercial interests driving a quick clearance. I have not seen any research into why the ground was cleared so fast but the police, FBI and CIA all cleared it from being a crime scene.

Quote from Tyrael

It very unlikely to have disintegrated as quickly like a controlled demolition under such circumstances. This never happened in the past either.

Yes, it is unlikely. However it has happened in the past (the first instance I saw on film was a university building around 1990, I think it was, another was a taller but much older building somewhere in Japan but most of the evidence is written and not available on film on the Internet).[/QUOTE]

I won't be trying to keep up with this thread - I don't suppose it will be better than any other discussion I have found about 9/11. Only a concentration on facts, without any proposition of a conclusion until all facts are known, can lead to the truth. When people start with a political agenda and quote lies to prove their point, chaos, not order, is the inevitable result.

Of course 9/11 was an inside job. I no longer care to argue it but I am glad it is becoming common knowledge. Let me just say that 9/11 has taken many freedoms from US Citizens in the name of security, 9/11 has been too beneficial to the powers that be to be coincidental.

Quote from Tyrael

Bush was just a spokesperson who worked for the interests of big banks, the federal reserve, wall street who control the USA by controlling the money supply, economy and governmental slavery through debt. They have financed the political careers of countless of US presidents and decide which candidates can be elected to be president.

Hi Tyrael,


Every point you make is “Excellent” indeed, the Official account of 9-11 is “Ridiculous.”


One reason that there was very little metal left to analyse, is that most of it had been turned to dust, please do watch this short video, less than three minutes....
VIDEO.

Quote from Douglas

Not quite, no. The designers did take into account the idea that such high buildings could accidentally be flown into, given the proximity of two airports. Their computations were based on the largest planes at the time, assuming landing conditions: that's lighter, much slower and with a lot less fuel than the planes which are said to have hit the towers - and based on theory without any experience to back it up.

Even if the planes were larger then they anticipated back then, these steel and concrete massive skyscrapers, could not have come down as quickly and turn into a huge dust cloud with most of the debry smashed into a thin pile of rubble. This has never happened in the past to similar large structures.

Not necessarily. Many people were involved and we're talking about ground whose rent would keep me in cheeseburgers very comfortably. It might have just been commercial interests driving a quick clearance. I have not seen any research into why the ground was cleared so fast but the police, FBI and CIA all cleared it from being a crime scene.

The US government still keeps a lot of details hidden, didn't allow proper research to find out everything there is to be found. So clearly they have things to cover up.

Quote from Douglas

Yes, it is unlikely. However it has happened in the past (the first instance I saw on film was a university building around 1990, I think it was, another was a taller but much older building somewhere in Japan but most of the evidence is written and not available on film on the Internet).

Just listen to the thousands of experts who disagree with the official gov explanation for the disintegration (which awfully looks like a controlled demolition). There's enough experts who have pretty solid explanations which trump your amateurish research. Isn't it odd how they were barely able to voice their opinions on US corporate controlled television.

Quote from Douglas

When people start with a political agenda and quote lies to prove their point, chaos, not order, is the inevitable result.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that such a controlled demolition-like vertical implosion in a matter of a few minutes, could have never occurred with a few big airplanes crashing into huge skyscrapers. Then there's building 7 which mysteriously imploded in similar demolition like speed, without any staged attacks.

The most likely conclusion: it was an unconvincing massive, orchestrated disaster to get world-wide support for a costly and losing war for oil, strategic military bases and to set up Central Banks to incorporate those infiltrated countries into the existing world financial/government system. Meanwhile scare citizens to give up their freedom for perceived security.