9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Consider this: Bottom-up demolition of tall buildings has long been the gold standard of the take-down industry, and that's precisely the method (regardless of the type of explosives, nuke or not) that the perps had to use to drop the towers and limit peripheral damage.

However, to allow the TV-viewing public to see those buildings come down in a conventional-demolition manner would have created a HUGE contradiction negating the planned, war-propaganda story that the towers' destruction was brought about by plane-crash induced fires starting at the TOP floors.

For any real-time, live witnesses on the ground the actual bottom-up demolitions were effectively concealed behind a massive curtain of strategically generated, pre-collapse smoke, but for the vast viewing public it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to FOOL them with some state-of-the art, CGI animation SIMULATING massive "structral collapses" beginning near the TOP of each tower.

It's well known in the movie industry that much of the landscape of Manhattan had already been 3-D computer mapped several years before 2001, and the fruit of that highly detailed (building-by-building) project had already been displayed in both Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" software AND in some of the big superhero and sci-fi movies of the previous decade.

Yet it turns out that the mapping wasn't letter-perfect, with occasional buildings and intersections either missing entirely or positioned with obvious glitches in their alignment -- and it's these tell-tale "digital errors" that ultimately provided essential (September) clues for the discoveries of Simon Shack and his associates.

And something else was less than perfect in the perps' plotting, too, resulting in the also-planned, bottom-up demolition of the Solomon Brothers' (WTC 7) building being inconveniently delayed until AFTER the strategically generated "smoke curtain" had already dissipated.

Of course, the plotters had laid out some contingency plans for such possible foul-ups, and the one they eventually chose to deploy (probably amidst frenzied, back-channel communications that extended into the late afternoon) was to "brazen it out" and "pull" Building Seven anyway, albeit even later than they instructed their media "assets" (such as CNN and BBC) to begin reporting its "fire damage-caused" collapse.

Views: 774

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sounds like CGI Simon Shack BS to me with no credible proof.

 

Is Simon a Jew???

 

Are you a Jew???

Show us some real proof, scientifically verifiable proof.

The 'smoke curtain' was thermite honing down the columns so the Tower 7 & 2 and even 1 could be much more easily demolished with explosives. It was not CGI as I have pointed out to Jim Fetzer, to his astonished amazement, several years ago on one on my many Real Deal interviews on his radio show which you can listen to if you so chose.

CGI BS and you have near no credibility here with me, at least.

Maybe some other members care to comment on the CGI topic Andy is unimpressively posing to our group.

Members, please comment !!!!

Although I still have my doubts as to whether ANY of the long-distance videos of 9/11 (taken from New Jersey) are genuine, a few of them are so USELESS for "proving" the official myth that they might actually be real.  And in those videos you can, indeed, see an absolutely massive smoke cloud enveloping a large section of lower Manhattan.  It ain't mere "cutting-charge" thermite that's doin' all that smokin', Chuck.  It's much more likely a military-grade smokescreen, like those used in ground combat to blind the enemy.

And what's with all the Jew-baiting?  I'm offended.  Some of my best friends are Jews, and ONE of them even doubts the hijacked-planes story (but he still can't accept the possibility that the Mossad would be involved in a psyop as messy as 9/11!)

Andy,

 

The very forcefully emitted/ejected smoke coming out of building 7, building 1 and building 2,all from one side of each building,  before their demolitions, not during the demolitions, were from slowing cutting chemical incendiarythermite attached to the columns, intentionally, to weaken and to prepare for the demolitions that followed, in all 3 Towers. Check the videos again. While building 1 was collapsing, building 2 was having smoke emitted along its entire height via thermite attached to its internal columns. Check the videos again.

 

This information is old hat established by me years ago via graphics and discussions on Professon James Fetzer's "The Real Deal" show when I was interviewed concerning  my Physics, Chemistry, & Engineering scientific investigations of the evidence that was not being explained by anyone else, to my knowledge, to Jim Fetzer's great surprise and even astonishment, and it all made sense to him as it will to you and your ilk when you review the photos and videos.....

 

Your claims make no sense and are even comical and make you appear foolish, at least to this hard-core Scientist.

You need to come up with some real, actual, authentic, believable scientific facts and proofs.

Give us some real hard-core, believable scientific facts, not fairy tales...

 

All members are encouraged to respond to Andy's assertions, claims, folly and to my established logical interpretations for the directly smoking buildings, not the general smoking spreading over Manhattan.....

 

Chuck Boldwyn

Retired Physics and Chemistry and Engineering Researcher

Chuck, I think you are basically a man of good will, even if a bit triger-happy to hurl invective at someone with whom you disagree. 

Therefore I duly appreciate your intense, sometimes rude resistance to even considering the possibility that the mass media-promoted digital imagery, on which you have heavily based your years of hard study and thoughtful interpretation, is itself of suspect provenance, authenticity and probity.

But it is... as Simon Shack and his associates have repeatedly demonstrated via a myriad of both internal and external contradictions and impossibilities.

Andy,

Your reply did not satisfy any of my/our requirements for unambiguous and convincing hard-core scientific proof. Be more convincing and specific as I have already reviewed and evaluated Simon's work and what "Simon says" does not hold any scientific proof, just unfounded, unscientific speculation for gullible fools...

Sorry but you will have to give us, all of us at this site better replies, far, far more convincing proofs, better information links, credible links. I can blow huge holes through Simon's alleged proofs, especially on the Tower's smoking events. Why would that be fake CGIs?  You are wasting your time trying to convince us of your efforts on CGI at this site, unless some of our members wish to speak up in support of you and your CGI clown antics....

 

Come on members, speak up pro or con for or against Andy Pandy...

Please include all of you links to your proofs in your valiant efforts to convince us of what you are trying to convince us of...

Perhaps the most obvious of the fakery clues in the images of the doomed towers is the Photoshop-style "cloned" (repeating) patterns in the smoke.  Almost as in-your-face obvious is the total lack of vortex behaviour in the smoke as the (fake) choppers sail on by, again and again.  Please point us to your defence of these anomalies, Chuck, for starters.

I believe ALL plane stuff is CGI or some sort of video fakery.  I think some of the fireballs and some of the smoke could be CGI.  The actual "collapse" videos I think are real.  Nuclear demolition with nanothermite incendiaries seems to be the method used.  It's in the dust.  I personally like the Dimitri Khalezov idea of the underground nuke.  The dust has remnants

of fission type nukes.  Is it possible the low rumbling sound is the underground nuke going off, followed 12 seconds later by

a fireball erupting under the floor of lead batteries ... and possibly a reflected shock wave to cause the top-down sequence?

The x-rays would have been stopped by the lead, maybe causing the fireball before the top down.  I can also see the idea of a series of upwardly-directed nukes timed to go off top-down for effect.  You still have to explain the big craters in the ground and the missing lower-level steel.

Chuck: Is it possible the huge fireball at the top just before collapse could have been x-rays from a nuke hitting the lead

batteries and igniting the hydrogen in the acid.  There would have been thousands of gallons of hydrochloric acid.  There has

to be some source of fuel for such a fireball.  Do you have any idea on how the fireball was created?  ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg  ....  www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

Danny, 

Lead Acid batteries use Sulfuric Acid. Hydrogen is liberated during charging, it is non-flammable when in solution. Most likely these were sealed batteries. Any battery that is damaged or shorted can explode or burn.

I would suggest fuel-air explosives were used as part of the pay-op, for simulating jet fuel, or just because people are used to seeing them in Hollywood action films. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW1qkBg8sM

Andy, 

No demolition of a 110 story building can be considered "conventional" or "standard" as no building over 40 floors had ever been demolished in the bottom up fashion. I am not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be flying in the dark as to whether they could count on it to work correctly, twice. There is also the matter of the dearth of steel and rubble that was present. (Which I witnessed personally.) CD's generally leave 15% of the structure's height in rubble and steel sections. 

Interestingly, WTC7 left this ratio of rubble - 7 stories for a 47 story tower.

It is also a contradiction that they would show WTC7's demise if they had all this CGI footage mapped out. Makes no sense to me as this does resemble a Controlled Demo, so much so that when I saw it that day I was convinced immediately that this was not in any way possible from random damage and fires. Why show it?

I am certainly skeptical of all video footage shown on the PV (Propaganda Vision) News, but Simon's and your contention that they showed CGI of pulverizing Twin Towers is self-contradictory. Why not show a Pancake Collapse rather than a CGI of a phenomena even MORE suspicious than a Bottom-up CD? 

The cloned and repeating and mirrored smoke certainly indicates fraud on the part of the media who showed these hoax films and whomever created them, as with the comical plane videos. Criminal fraud!

Chuck, 

This is a scientific forum; you would appear much more credible if you would drop the childish bigotry.

My 2¢,

Blessings, 

Shallel

OK thanks Shallel.  It was just a thought.  X-rays are supposed to account for something like 90% of a nukes output.

Your explanation of the fuel-air explosive makes sense.  It does look like something right out of hollywood.  My dad took

care of a telephone office with battery backup, and the racks of batteries were open-cell type with probably 5 gallons of

acid in each battery and the lead plates were about 18" x 24" and 3/8" thick.

As several researchers have documented, there was a startlingly large number of interlocking "terror drills" all scheduled by the military for the morning of 9/11, thus supporting the fakery theorists' subsequent suspicion that the prepared CGI animations the networks were "obliged" to show (as if they were televising "live" imagery) were initially contracted for creation as mere "drill-support" materials. 

However, the fictional scenario of the towers being struck by hijacked passenger jets (whose explosions supposedly ingited structure-collapsing, top-down fires) was actually intended by the plotters to be a public-outraging cause-for-war.  Therefore this deviously propagandistic narrative needed to be illustrated by some really spectacular special effects -- for maximum psychological impact.   The utterly fantastic, laws-of-physics-defying downing of the towers, initially illustrated for the gullible public via low-res TV pictures (and only much later supported by higher-res "amateur" shots) likely had only marginal similarity to the actual demolitions, begun by basement-level detonations, nuke or not, but ultimately concealed by the very "smoke curtain" which was so poorly simulated (with all those tell-tale cloning patterns and absent vortexes) in the bogus imagery. 

Nevertheless, I must part company with the SeptemberClues crew in regard to the botched (for propaganda purposes) delayed-destruction of WTC 7.  While Shack and Co. still maintain that the building's TV-depicted collapse was ALSO a slice of CGI trickery, I propose that what we've seen of WTC 7's late-afternoon demolition was genuine -- and the sorry end result of the perps' desperate, panicked, behind-the-scenes, imperfect (a la BBC and CNN screw-ups) rescheduling of events that were initially intended to transpire concurrently with the twin towers' destruction some nine hours earlier -- but totally hidden from view until the giant "smoke curtain" had dissipated.  And that's why no CGI footage (or Photoshopped stills) of a plane striking WTC 7 was even fabricated.



Shallel Octavia said:

Danny, 

Lead Acid batteries use Sulfuric Acid. Hydrogen is liberated during charging, it is non-flammable when in solution. Most likely these were sealed batteries. Any battery that is damaged or shorted can explode or burn.

I would suggest fuel-air explosives were used as part of the pay-op, for simulating jet fuel, or just because people are used to seeing them in Hollywood action films. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW1qkBg8sM

Andy, 

No demolition of a 110 story building can be considered "conventional" or "standard" as no building over 40 floors had ever been demolished in the bottom up fashion. I am not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be flying in the dark as to whether they could count on it to work correctly, twice. There is also the matter of the dearth of steel and rubble that was present. (Which I witnessed personally.) CD's generally leave 15% of the structure's height in rubble and steel sections. 

Interestingly, WTC7 left this ratio of rubble - 7 stories for a 47 story tower.

It is also a contradiction that they would show WTC7's demise if they had all this CGI footage mapped out. Makes no sense to me as this does resemble a Controlled Demo, so much so that when I saw it that day I was convinced immediately that this was not in any way possible from random damage and fires. Why show it?

I am certainly skeptical of all video footage shown on the PV (Propaganda Vision) News, but Simon's and your contention that they showed CGI of pulverizing Twin Towers is self-contradictory. Why not show a Pancake Collapse rather than a CGI of a phenomena even MORE suspicious than a Bottom-up CD? 

The cloned and repeating and mirrored smoke certainly indicates fraud on the part of the media who showed these hoax films and whomever created them, as with the comical plane videos. Criminal fraud!

Chuck, 

This is a scientific forum; you would appear much more credible if you would drop the childish bigotry.

My 2¢,

Blessings, 

Shallel

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2018   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service