Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[Crankitup]

That’s a lot of words for you to simply say “I missed your post where you clarified that it wasn’t directed at me”.

But that's almost a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying isn't it? If you want earnest discussion on the issue but deal with other people who want to do likewise, in this manner, I'm surprised anyone discusses it with you in length at all. It would be true to say I haven't been perfect myself. I'm at least humble enough to concede that. I also said earlier if I could go back in time there are some things I would have said differently or not said at all. I don't see any concession likely to emanate from you in similar vein. I wish that wasn't the case, I'd love to discuss the issue further, despite my relative newbness on it.

But again, all this doesn’t matter at all. So let’s drop it totally.

I’m still happy to discuss 9/11 with you - so if you’re interested, back to my original question....

You say the official story has holes. I feel that it’s very likely I disagree with your opinion on any alleged “holes”, as you see them.

What’s the biggest hole, in your opinion? Perhaps I can change your mind, or show you something you haven’t seen before that may change it?

I can't see there being much chance of going there now. I don't want to spend time discussing issues on the internet with people who are prepared to misrepresent and twist in order to be perceived by others to be winning an argument. I'd rather spend time with people who readily admit they're human and occasionally make mistakes and whose ultimate goal is the truth.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

Pretty 'out there' statement I must say.

So the presence of people in the towers would have affected demolition how??

Not 'out there' once you examine the evidence. It is very likely that no one was present in the World
Trade Center at the time of the vertical demolition implosion.

The presence of any internal structure impedes
the smooth vertical drop in any controlled demolition.
Every vertical demolition expert will confirm that buildings must have all internal structures (all but the
floors) removed prior to the planned implosion.

The reason for this being that the building has to drop evenly at the same speed on all four corners.
For example , the bathroom fixture and plumbing are removed. So that the building will not collapse slower
on the corner where the bathrooms are located and topple sideways.

It is standard procedure to remove all internal structures before vertical implosion demolitions.

The World Trade Center implosion was a near-flawless vertical demolition. Indicating that it was prepped
in advance. Indicating that the World Trade Center was unoccupied the day it was demolished.


listen here:

The Hollow World Trade Center Towers - Questions of Logic

In tonights show, hosted by Larry McWilliams and Phil Jayhan, we will be discussing the Hollow Tower at WTC, their missing floors and contents and discussing the logic of this. Please refer to the threads below for visuals of material being discussed...

www.blogtalkradio.com

Since

 

[Crankitup]

Not 'out there' once you examine the evidence. It is very likely that no one was present in the World
Trade Center at the time of the vertical demolition implosion.

The presence of any internal structure impedes
the smooth vertical drop in any controlled demolition.
Every vertical demolition expert will confirm that buildings must have all internal structures (all but the
floors) removed prior to the planned implosion.

The reason for this being that the building has to drop evenly at the same speed on all four corners.
For example , the bathroom fixture and plumbing are removed. So that the building will not collapse slower
on the corner where the bathrooms are located and topple sideways.

It is standard procedure to remove all internal structures before vertical implosion demolitions.

The World Trade Center implosion was a near-flawless vertical demolition. Indicating that it was prepped
in advance. Indicating that the World Trade Center was unoccupied the day it was demolished.


listen here:

The Hollow World Trade Center Towers - Questions of Logic

In tonights show, hosted by Larry McWilliams and Phil Jayhan, we will be discussing the Hollow Tower at WTC, their missing floors and contents and discussing the logic of this. Please refer to the threads below for visuals of material being discussed...

www.blogtalkradio.com

Since

Sorry, still not following. You're telling me that the twin towers which on an average working day had 50,000 people working in them for 430 different companies and 140,000 visitors on an average day, were empty that day? You're also asking us to believe that this information has been kept secret from the public by those 430 companies and 50,000 individuals for almost 20 years? Not to mention the firefighters and jumpers etc. Although I think there's some holes in the official story, I think this story of the 'hollow towers' has many more. The link you posted directed me to a 2 hour long radio broadcast. I don't have the time to listen to it, have you? If so, perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

twin towers which on an average working day had 50,000 people working in them for 430 different companies and 140,000 visitors on an average day, were empty that day?

Yes they were empty. It is absurd to assert that 50,000 people worked in just those
two towers. The WTC complex was large (seven buildings) and included a hotel, included the entrance to an underground
NY subway terminal, and included the entrance to an underground mall, etc.

That is where those statistics derive from. The pedestrian foot traffic to the WTC
complex was high. Creating the probable illusion that there was high occupancy of the towers.
The towers were completed in 1973. They had probably never been fully occupied.
They certainly could have been gradually (covertly) emptied of tenants in the years prior to the demolition.
Same goes for the WT7 tower. It could easily have been virtually empty. Lower floors occupied
on a very limited basis. Expertly evacuated in advance of the demolition.

A lying , complicit media owned and run by intel ...and you have to believe what they tell you.

Very well-planned, so that the 'fireworks' of the initial attack and fire created the perfect pretext for
a planned , organized evacuation of the entire complex/neighboring buildings.

And no one noticed that there were no bodies? There were purportedly 3,000 dead bodies there.
Show me the pics/footage of the 3,000 mangled bodies with their computers and their purses and their
microwaves and fridges and toilets and desks and carpets etc.

All that was there was dust, steel beams, concrete, and paper. Lots and lots of paper and nothing else.

 

[Crankitup]

Hmmmm... my father in-law is a science jounro. Very rigorous mind and delves deeply. Was going on about how he had been following a recent report that appeared in a peer-reviewed European journal by some respected people about 9/11 being a controlled demolition. Said it was interesting. and interesting that that journal had published it too.

Gunna look it up now. Anyone else read it?

Here's an exceprt from some site:

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.
The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#OH1pSR5U16xxdpdF.99

In the conclusion of that article is this line ....

"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11."

Does anyone know if this is indeed true?

 

[Crankitup]

Yes they were empty. It is absurd to assert that 50,000 people worked in just those
two towers.

From https://www.history.com/topics/landmarks/world-trade-center - "The iconic twin towers of downtown Manhattan’s World Trade Center were a triumph of human imagination and will. Completed in 1973, the towers stood at 110 stories each, accommodating 50,000 workers ..."

Very well-planned, so that the 'fireworks' of the initial attack and fire created the perfect pretext for a planned , organized evacuation of the entire complex/neighboring buildings.

Starting to understand what your argument is a little better now.

And no one noticed that there were no bodies? There were purportedly 3,000 dead bodies there.
Show me the pics of the 3,000 mangled bodies with their computers and their purses and their
microwaves and fridges and toilets and desks and carpets etc.

From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/18/usa.terrorism - "Number of body parts collected: 19,500 - Number of bodies discovered intact: 291"

 

[Doc_]

So the 3000 odd dead, their families were just faking it?
C'mon dude, think about the logistics of what you're saying.

 

[Crankitup]

412 emergency workers died.

From Wikipedia

• 343 firefighters (including a chaplain and two paramedics) of the New York City Fire Department (FDNY);[1]
• 37 police officers of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department (PAPD);[2]
• 23 police officers of the New York City Police Department (NYPD);[3] and
• 8 emergency medical technicians and paramedics from private emergency medical services[4]
• 1 patrolman from the New York Fire Patrol[5]

 

[ThunkaHunka]

QUOTE

New York City on 9/11: Where Did All the Rubble Go?

by Morgan Reynolds September 11, 2012 Today is the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and every thinking American must realize something is seriously amiss with the government’s account of that murderous day…

nomoregames.net

'observers marveled at how little debris was left.
Striking confirmation occurred at 12:44 pm on September 12, 2001, when ABC anchor, Peter Jennings, asked ABC reporter George Stephanopoulos on the street at the WTC: “Jackie Judd and several other people keep asking us, when you look at where the towers used to stand, there is surprisingly so little rubble. Where did all the rubble go?”



Stephanopoulos: “That’s a very good question Peter…one volunteer, Robert Grelinsky, explained to me the reason there is so little rubble is that all of it simply fell down, into the ground and was pulverized, evaporated.”


Stephanopoulos’ explanation is nonsense, although understandable because it was a mystery yet he needed to come up with something. Solids from a pulverized building do not somehow change into vapors, a gaseous state.


What happened? Short answer: each quarter-mile high tower turned to dust in mid-air. An unprecedented event but a fact nonetheless. Remember how dust blocked out the sun for 10 minutes? And dust an inch deep covered downtown? And fine dust wafted into the upper atmosphere? Those were the towers! Videos, eyewitnesses, seismic data, an undamaged “bathtub” (slurry wall) keeping the waters of the Hudson river back, and all other forensic evidence confirm the towers turned to dust rather than crashing to the earth.'

 

[ThunkaHunka]

QUOTE

Towers Of Lies, page 1

Towers Of Lies, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link

Here is a picture of the twin towers from 1978.
Some are visible, but where are the rest of the floors?

Do you realise the implications of this?

I bet you don't!

Looking at this photograph, is it any wonder that 110 (x2)steel and concrete floors
were not found piled up in the rubble? Or do you think that all the floors
were installed after 1978, and were pulverised to dust by a gravity collapse?

Were the towers purposely built to be collapsed on 9/11?
Bob Kerrey, 9/11 commissioner slips up and admits that 9/11 was
a 30 year conspiracy.



Missing Contents of the World Trade Center Debris Pile:
14, 700 Toilets, Sinks, Urinals (1,2,& 7)
45,000 desks
45,000 chairs
245 Acres of Carpeting
40,000 File Cabinets
40,000 Cubicles
75,000 Telephones
50,000 Staplers
20,000 miles of wiring
300 Mainframe computers
45,000 Computer monitors
45,000 Keyboards
45,000 mice/computer aid
650 Fire Extinguishers
3000 Copy Machines
2000 Water Coolers
3000 Printers
20,000 doors
40,000 door knobs
22,000 Stainless Steel Elevator Doors
450 Refrigerators
5000 Snack and Soda vending machines
3000 Wallets & purses
3000 Employee ID cards (Required after 1993 bombing)
3000 Employee personal cell phones

Not to mention thousands of bodies and body parts!

Well over 1000 people were reported trapped above floor 91 North tower when it collapsed.
Shouldn't all of those bodies and body parts have been found at the top of the
rubble pile pretty much in tact, since there was nothing above them to account
for their pulverisation?

Or were none of these things found because they weren't there in the first place?
Before you answer, take another look at the photograph above.

Look at all the changes 9/11 helped to bring about. We were duped I am afraid,
and they had 30 years + to devise their plan on how to dupe us so completely.


The whole 9/11 officially presented narrative is complete fiction, and like the
towers, filled with fakeness and emptiness.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

412 emergency workers died.

No. The media told you that 412 emergency workers died. And you were not there,
so you don't know if it is true or not.

 

[BustedWing]

But that's almost a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying isn't it?

Ok...lets go through this step by step, with evidence shall we?

Step one: you insert yourself into a two year old conversation. In a manner that might have been slightly more friendly if you had your time over, I suspect. Just my opinion of course...

Found time yet? Why are you silent in this thread from this point? What weren't you able to refute?

Step two: You misinterpreted a post I made to be directed at you, when it was in fact directed at Nut. Could I have been a little clearer? Sure! Remember, though, it was YOU who inserted yourself into a two year old conversation.

Meaning me?

Step three: I ask you if you're a 9/11 truther. I didnt say "yes, I meant you!" nor did I say in THIS POST "No, not you".

Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Step four: You reply stating you're agnostic, and then go on the attack IMMEDIATELY with a silly jab at a spelling error... A SPELLING ERROR....why you decided to do that, I have no idea. It is here you started to go off the deep end.

Had I been a 'hardcore believer' as you initially thought, I'm not sure how earnest any discussion might've been since you can't spell the word and were willing to label me as a 'hardcore believer on the basis of me merely asking a question.

Step five: I clarify that I was referring to Nut, NOT YOU. This should have been the end of the matter.

In the interest of clarity - I was referring to the other poster your tagged, Nut, and I was being somewhat sarcastic. We had some great chats over the years, but the guy clearly takes his bigfooty handle a little too literally.

Step six: you completely miss this post, and go right off the deep end:

Excuse me??

Arguments put to me? So your statement 'looking forward to some earnest discussion with a hardcore believer' was an argument I needed to rebut now?

Mate, I didn't rebut any argument. You didn't make one. I merely pointed out that since you'd labeled me as a hardcore believer based on nothing, I wasn't sure how earnest such a discussion would have been. To flesh out what I was alluding to a little, in order to make it clearer, what I was saying was, if you're willing to jump to such hasty conclusions about a person so early in the piece and attach labels to them when you have no evidence for doing so, I wouldn't trust any professions to earnestness on your part in the slightest.

So thats that. The whole sordid course of events that you have your knickers in a twist over.

It would be true to say I haven't been perfect myself. I'm at least humble enough to concede that. I also said earlier if I could go back in time there are some things I would have said differently or not said at all.

Ive seen vague concessions from you of unspecific transgressions from you in the past. Nothing that specifically says "oooh, yeah BustedWing, I may have overreacted there, my bad."

Tell you what, if it makes you feel better:

I'm sorry I wasnt 100% crystal clear from our very first interaction that I wasnt referring you as a tin foil nutjob. I should have been clearer from the first post.

Hows that?

I can't see there being much chance of going there now. I don't want to spend time discussing issues on the internet with people who are prepared to misrepresent and twist in order to be perceived by others to be winning an argument.

Let me know where in the above walk through of our interactions I went awry. Happy to correct the record.

I'd rather spend time with people who readily admit they're human and occasionally make mistakes and whose ultimate goal is the truth.

Me too....Why I'm here in these forums is a good question then!

One last time...for sh*ts and gigles: Whats the biggest thing for you that makes you wonder if 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[Crankitup]

Step one: you insert yourself into a two year old conversation. In a manner that might have been slightly more friendly if you had your time over, I suspect. Just my opinion of course...

All I did was ask a question, if that makes me unfriendly so be it. Does it matter how old the conversation was? I'll admit I became unfriendly later and I apologise, but we'll cover the reason why I did so soon.

Step two: You misinterpreted a post I made to be directed at you, when it was in fact directed at Nut. Could I have been a little clearer? Sure! Remember, though, it was YOU who inserted yourself into a two year old conversation.

Forgive me. Wasn't aware it was a criminal offence.

You say I misinterpreted, but before I acted on the alleged misinterpretation I asked for clarification. Your answer to that request for clarification, or should I say your non-answer and deflection was what set me off. I then by my own admission went a bit overboard attacking you to the extent I pointed out the irony of someone saying they wanted an earnest discussion and yet couldn't spell the word and appeared to be far from earnest in their dealings. The spelling mistake just added to the irony it wasn't my main focus.

I'm sorry I wasnt 100% crystal clear from our very first interaction that I wasnt referring you as a tin foil nutjob. I should have been clearer from the first post.

I disagree. You are exaggerating for effect. All you needed to do was answer my question rather than avoid it and ask me a question instead like you did. You appeared to be deflecting or at least justifying your original statement, depending on my answer.

Let me know where in the above walk through of our interactions I went awry. Happy to correct the record.

As you requested - I think I've done that. There are some points you made above I also totally agree with, but you didn't ask me to deal with those.

One last time...for sh*ts and gigles: Whats the biggest thing for you that makes you wonder if 9/11 was an inside job?

Hope we are done with our posting history now and can get back on topic, because I'm now going to make a liar of myself by acceding to your request for an answer to the above question. I said I didn't want to waste my time on this issue with someone I think doesn't deal straight but I've decided that there's enough doubt on that point now to waste at least a little of my time.

What is my biggest concern about 9/11? To me the speed and neatness of the collapse of both of the twin towers, the presence of thermite or compounds associated with thermite found in the rubble, the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse and a strange device that you wouldn't expect underneath a commercial plane, that was seen on one of the planes as it flew into one of the towers.

That probably sums up most of my problems with the official story. I could outline for you all of the problems I have with some of the conspiracy theories as well, but I'll sum it up by saying that I find many of them to be contradictory. You may have noticed I'm dealing with one issue as we speak. The 'hollow tower' theory.

 

[BustedWing]

Hope we are done with our posting history now and can get back on topic

Agree - lets let bygones be bygones.

To me the speed and neatness of the collapse of both of the twin towers, the presence of thermite or compounds associated with thermite found in the rubble, the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse and a strange device that you wouldn't expect underneath a commercial plane, that seen on one of the planes as it flew into one of the towers.

Thank you!

So thats four different things.

Which one would you like to discuss first?

I hope you dont mind, I like to try to keep things to one topic at a time. We attack one together, and dont move from that until we are either at a standstill, or one side agrees that the other's viewpoint has more merit.

Otherwise we flip flop around, constantly changing topics, and we never get anywhere.

Thoughts on this? Agree with it?

If yes, which one would you like to hit up first? Which of the four you mention would you rank at number one on the smell test?

 

[Crankitup]

Agree - lets let bygones be bygones.

Thank you!

So thats four different things.

Which one would you like to discuss first?

I hope you dont mind, I like to try to keep things to one topic at a time. We attack one together, and dont move from that until we are either at a standstill, or one side agrees that the other's viewpoint has more merit.

Otherwise we flip flop around, constantly changing topics, and we never get anywhere.

Thoughts on this? Agree with it?

If yes, which one would you like to hit up first? Which of the four you mention would you rank at number one on the smell test?

Fair enough, but there is some crossover I think. Anyway, forced to rank them I would probably put the molten steel at the top.

 

[BustedWing]

Probably the molten steel if I was forced to rank them.

Ok cool - lets start there with the molten steel.

You say:

the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse

I presume you're meaning this?


If so, my first question to you is:

Why do you think (know?) the molten material is steel?

 

[Crankitup]

Ok cool - lets start there with the molten steel.

You say:


I presume you're meaning this?
View attachment 760023

If so, my first question to you is:

Why do you think (know?) the molten material is steel?

It was my understanding the Towers had 244 perimeter columns made of structural steel along with steel plates etc. Why would you think the molten metal pictured would be anything else? Or if you prefer, what metal other than steel do you think it was?

 

[BustedWing]

It was my understanding the Towers had 244 perimeter columns made of structural steel along with steel plates etc. Why would you think the molten metal pictured would be anything else? Or if you prefer, what metal other than steel do you think it was?

I’ll respond with more detail tomorrow (I live OS and its beauty sleep time) but I think it’s not steel, but aluminium.

Main reasons:

- the fire temps wouldn’t have been hot enough to melt the steel at that time, just weaken it.
- the fires were hot enough to melt aluminum however.
- there was a plane inside the building
- a plane is 70-80% aluminum
- the colour of the molten metal is consistent with the colour of melted aluminum at temps that would have been possible/likely under those conditions.

Tomorrow I’ll submit evidence for these points.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Procrastinator35]

QUOTE

Towers Of Lies, page 1

Towers Of Lies, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link

Here is a picture of the twin towers from 1978.
Some are visible, but where are the rest of the floors?

Do you realise the implications of this?

I bet you don't!

Looking at this photograph, is it any wonder that 110 (x2)steel and concrete floors
were not found piled up in the rubble? Or do you think that all the floors
were installed after 1978, and were pulverised to dust by a gravity collapse?

Were the towers purposely built to be collapsed on 9/11?
Bob Kerrey, 9/11 commissioner slips up and admits that 9/11 was
a 30 year conspiracy.



Missing Contents of the World Trade Center Debris Pile:
14, 700 Toilets, Sinks, Urinals (1,2,& 7)
45,000 desks
45,000 chairs
245 Acres of Carpeting
40,000 File Cabinets
40,000 Cubicles
75,000 Telephones
50,000 Staplers
20,000 miles of wiring
300 Mainframe computers
45,000 Computer monitors
45,000 Keyboards
45,000 mice/computer aid
650 Fire Extinguishers
3000 Copy Machines
2000 Water Coolers
3000 Printers
20,000 doors
40,000 door knobs
22,000 Stainless Steel Elevator Doors
450 Refrigerators
5000 Snack and Soda vending machines
3000 Wallets & purses
3000 Employee ID cards (Required after 1993 bombing)
3000 Employee personal cell phones

Not to mention thousands of bodies and body parts!

Well over 1000 people were reported trapped above floor 91 North tower when it collapsed.
Shouldn't all of those bodies and body parts have been found at the top of the
rubble pile pretty much in tact, since there was nothing above them to account
for their pulverisation?

Or were none of these things found because they weren't there in the first place?
Before you answer, take another look at the photograph above.

Look at all the changes 9/11 helped to bring about. We were duped I am afraid,
and they had 30 years + to devise their plan on how to dupe us so completely.


The whole 9/11 officially presented narrative is complete fiction, and like the
towers, filled with fakeness and emptiness.

Nukes in the basements dude, combined with high-grade military thermite drilled into every concrete floor, corner & beam in both buildings.

The empty-building thesis is a nonsense & merely gives the perpetrators of this crime another 'out'....That's why & how these buildings imploded like a pyroclastic flow.....The heat generated melted & fused everything, turning even 4 inch thick reinforced concrete into molten dust.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

nukes in downtown NY. Rubbish, dude. The empty buildings plot explains it all. Better.
Very easy to carry out. The buildings were complete in 1973, which means
that they had decades to mess around with the occupancy of these places.
They could have started gradually emptying whatever occupied floors there were
in the 1980s, and by 2001 had pretty well all the tenants out and had completed
the last of whatever internal alterations were necessary to enable a near perfect
vertical demolition.

 

[Procrastinator35]

nukes in downtown NY. Rubbish, dude. The empty buildings plot explains it all. Better.
Very easy to carry out. The buildings were complete in 1973, which means
that they had decades to mess around with the occupancy of these places.
They could have started gradually emptying whatever occupied floors there were
in the 1980s, and by 2001 had pretty well all the tenants out and had completed
the last of whatever internal alterations were necessary to enable a near perfect
vertical demolition.

And I suppose all those people jumping out of both buildings to their deaths on live Telly, where just empty props.

Next time, try to engage your brain prior to posting your garbage.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

And I suppose all those people jumping out of both buildings to their deaths on live Telly, where just empty props.

Next time, try to engage your brain prior to posting your garbage.

The fake moon landings were purportedly live. And weren't.

And I suppose that King Kong existed too , because after all it was on telly, and yes we all did see
a gigantic African climb the Empire State Building. Which is not far from the World Trade Center, btw.

If we don't get it yet that our media is one big lie , one big illusion....we have a lot to learn.
The entire media is centrally owned and controlled.

If they had told us that King Kong was 'live' , being broadcast from New York, would we have
felt a whole lot better about believing it to be true? "oh well, it MUST be true. It's on daytime television news
and everything."

Infusing our pathetic, mediocre existences with some sense of self-importance I suppose.
A moment we all don't want sullied for us.

Bottom line is that unless we are there to witness events with our very own eyes, no event
broadcast on television can be trusted.
Every TV network (in the world) were using the 'master feed' of their main affiliates
in New York. Given central media conglomerations, chances are that most of us watched
the 'live footage' you mention courtesy of about a whole maybe 4 or 5 different live news feeds
from NY.
namely

CBS (Columbia)
Fox (Newscorp)
NBC (Disney)
ABC (Comcast)
CNN (TBS) - now Time-Warner

So we had essentially four or five purportedly 'independent media moguls' at the levers of our TV feed that day.
Or cattle feed.
How difficult would it be to 'make arrangements'?

Lets say said moguls are 'assets' , installed and ready to
link-in whatever 'exciting new footage of jumpers' is supplied them. No questions asked.
And what do you know the footage is from CBS's affiliate local TV news chopper or from CBS's 'ground crew' in NY.

What no one mentions is that CBS also owns a few movie studios. (Paramount Pictures). And Fox news owns
Twentieth Century Fox, another move studio.

And the ownership of all these entities is shuffled around in mergers
and aquisitions machinations every few years, keeping everyone confused. ie Columbia owned Columbia Studios, then
Sony Corporation bought that. But not to worry, Columbia buys Paramount Pictures. So everything gets jumbled up.
May as well put a halt to the charade, already. We know that the govt. owns it all. (not these fake mogul intel
spooks like Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone)

But anyway, we've got like five people atop the TV feed that day. They are all sharing resources. And they all own
movie studios.
Studios are pretty damn good at making fake things look real. Like creating and broadcasting the illusion of falling
jumpers etc.

And the footage didn't have to be all that good for people to believe it. Because , after all , it was 'live' , right.
Which is why the footage of the purported jumpers was pathetic.
And where are all the pics of the bodies on the pavement?

 

[Procrastinator35]

If we don't get it yet that our media is one big lie , one big illusion....we have a lot to learn.
The entire media is centrally owned and controlled.

There is quite literally a world of difference between the moon landings & real-life identifiable people falling out of sky-scrapers in front-of thousands of eye-witnesses; Who can independently verify & corroborate the evidence of their own senses.....Tv cameras can't fake that....And nor can they fake 3 World Trade centre buildings collapsing like a house of cards in free-fall.

Yes, traditional squib demolition techniques were obviously employed in order to bring all 3 buildings down.....But the melting away of all the steel, internals & re-enforced concrete, happened due to nuclear fission & high-grade military nano-thermite, of which there are microscopic traces found in every piece of the Twin Towers sampled.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Jeff Prager`s PowerPoint presentation from the 9/11

Free essays, homework help, flashcards, research papers, book reports, term papers, history, science, politics

studylib.net

 

[Procrastinator35]

When their report was not made public, the team released the highly classified photographs showing the huge nuclear crater with melted swirls of granite bedrock. The first nuclear explosion turned the Nevada desert to glass. Jet fuel cannot do this, neither can nano-thermite.

The bedrock was used to both encase & funnel the nuclear energy up & out through the buildings.

There was molten lava at both Towers ground zero for 3 months still, after 9/11.

Thousands of first respondents have since died from multiple types of cancer.....A convenient way of eliminating all eye-witnesses thereafter.