Monday, January 5, 2015

More about "Visible Explosion at World Trade Center"

This rant has to do with the scene shown in a September 11 video of one of the Twin Towers. Sometimes called a man, sometimes a coat or a jumper or a dummy or a CGI effect, it is also called

Visible Explosion at World Trade Center

The next video which needs to be watched is this one:

September 11, 2001, World Trade Center Twin Towers PROOF OF

Pay attention please, everyone. This little mystery has been definitely solved for [at least] two years.  By itself it is strong enough evidence to prove demolition of this Twin Tower by explosive charges.

 That is a radical claim, but it is true. 

Not that the law enforcement people will do anything about it. 

But any policeman or police force in the country, from Barney Fife to the FBI,  can look at this and see that it is  proof of demolition, and that therefore, 9/11 was prepared beforehand, and that therefore,  the destruction of the Twin Towers was CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES along with incendiary material,  and NOT BY ANY OTHER CAUSE.
by any other cause, NOTot by the plane, and NOT by the office fire. Explosives, and probably a thermitic or other aluminothermic incendiary material.
But mainly high explosive, JUST LIKE A BUILDING DEMOLITION.  

Not a DEW. (Direced Energy Weapon)  Not a nuclear weapon.  It's simpler than that.

I worked 35 years in construction. I've cut steel and concrete and tried to break concrete and steel in various ways and it is damned hard stuff and you cannot just cut it with your little saw or break it with your little hammer.  

I am tired of America, in the sense of a group of maybe about a hundred million adults,  being so stupid as a group organism,  that it can't see, or maybe just refuses to notice,  the HUGE difference between a skyscraper falling DOWN and a skyscraper blowing UP.

 It is a mass delusion or hypnosis, the likes of which has never occurred in my lifetime - that is, this illusion that the Towers were not blown up, when any child can see- even my CAT could understand- that the Twin Towers were blown up

We all walk on concrete, and use steel in many ways; everyone is familiar with it.   And so, every day, we trust our lives to steel and concrete.  It is absurd to believe that it can just turn itself to dust in a few seconds for no good reason- UNLESS, that is,  EXPLOSIVES ARE USED.  
 And then by THAT means, steel and concrete can instantly be can be blown into dust and small fragments and molten droplets, but by no other known means. (excluding things like volcanoes, asteroid strikes, or nuclear explosives)

It's time for the whole country to quit lying to itself about this.   
One person at a time. For those who do not love war.

 Are you one of those? 

Or do you want to keep on having continual war justified by the lies of the government as to the cause of 9/11?

I want the United States to quit being the country with either the stupidest, or the most in denial, population on Earth. 

There is no need for more speculation or theories about dummies or any other crazy ideas. We need answers that are accurate, understandable, and not flaky but solid and unassailable. 

Pay attention please, everyone. The topic is the event in the little video entitled 
"Visible Explosion at World Trade Center".

 First, a small letdown, perhaps.
 You don't have to solve it.  Just understand the solution. 
This should not be at all difficult or confusing. 

This understanding can, and should be definite, not a bit ambiguous or uncertain, for this is solid proof. 

  Please read on. 

This little mystery has been solved for over two years.  

ALL BY ITSELF,  the answer to the flying black thing called "Visible Explosion.."  is strong enough evidence to prove demolition of the Tower by explosive charges. 

That is a radical claim, but it is true. 

Not that the law enforcement people will do anything about it. 

But any policeman or police force in the country could look at this, and see that  it is  proof of demolition, and that therefore, 9/11 was prepared beforehand;  and the destruction of the Towers was caused by explosives,  and not by any other cause, not by the plane and not by the fire.

 And probably incendiaries, some kind of thermitic, but mainly high explosive, just like a regular demolition.

 Not a DEW. Not a nuclear weapon. 

I worked 30 years in construction, and am tired of Americans being so  willfully ignorant that they  cannot see, or refuse to notice,  the unmistakable difference between skyscrapers falling DOWN and skyscrapers blowing UP. 

It is a mass delusion or hypnosis the likes of which has never occurred in my lifetime - that is, this illusion that the Towers were not blown up, when any child can see they are blown up. 

We all walk on concrete and trust our lives to steel and concrete every day, and it is absurd to believe that it can just turn itself to dust in a few seconds for no good reason- UNLESS EXPLOSIVES ARE USED, and then it can be blown into dust, but by almost no other known means. 

It's time for the whole country to quit lying to itself about this. 

There is no need for more speculation or theories about dummies, holograms, jumpers, or whatever. 

These unsupportable and most often absurd theories do more harm than good for the 9/11 truth movement. 

Such  fantasies might have well have been created by disinformation specialists, (although I'm not claiming they were) since bizarre theories work so well to paint the truth movement as a bunch of wackos. 
However, geotextile fabric is quite real, and it is really used in demolitions, and here is real photographic evidence of its real use in one explosion of many that were taking place as the tower collapsed. 

What else is needed? 

 This is, as I wrote, proof.

Not "maybe proof",  or "YOUR proof",  or "MY proof".  

It's  more like this:  rock-solid proof.

 It's not true on some "conditional basis",  or "possibly true", or "partly true" or "relatively true" or "halfway true".  

It's not a case of "Oh well, that's YOUR reality, but I have MY reality." 

No. Open your eyes and see.

It's just true. 100 percent, with no room for any other explanation, none of which work anyway.

 Why not stick with the right answer for once,
ince we can never have enough right answers about what really happened, and as of now more than 13 years after the event, we still have too few. 
It's simple. It's "smoking gun" proof, and should not be ignored. 

People should stop trying to pretend or imagine that  it is something like a gelatin dummy or a 3D projection or a CGI effect added later. 

The real explanation is simpler, and even better, it  works perfectly.  Why? Because it is the right answer  to this particular 9/11 mystery. 

It is very easy to understand, and once understood, the conclusion of explosive demolition cannot be evaded.

I challenge anyone in the world to prove that what I am saying is incorrect.

 Is it geotextile,  typical of demolition use, or is it not? 
I say it is. 
Prove me wrong. 
And if it is geotextile, then the conclusion is inevitable that 9/11 was an inside job.

 It's a 2 + 2= 4 kind of answer. It is that definite, and that simple and easy to comprehend. 

 That means, in a courtroom, this alone could convict the people who set the explosives.

 IF it ever gets to a courtroom, and the only way that will happen is if Americans wake up and demand a REAL investigation of the the greatest domestic crime of the new century, which is unsolved. 

The fact of demolition is proven. Who did it? I don't know.
 Back to this flying object in the video here. It is a definite thing, a commercially availble thing, commonly used, well-known, and in the encyclopedia. 

Demolition workers know what it is and use it on demolitions by the hundreds of pieces, and it always behaves and looks EXACTLY like this thing in the video above. 

Ergo, again: this flying black thing proves demolition all by itself. 

It's a fabric used in building demolitions and it is distinctive, and is blown out in a straight line leading an explosive squib from a shaped charge blowing either a steel column or steel beam. 

Concrete columns are treated differently, but the WTC didn't have concrete columns, it had steel ones, and this geotextile is a signature of blowing up structural steel.  

"In building demolition, geotextile fabrics in combination with steel wire fencing can contain explosive debris"

 WGBH Boston (December 1996). "Interview with Stacey Loizeaux". NOVA Online. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2009-04-29. Other preparatory operations involve covering/wrapping the columns first with chain link fences and then with geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. 

NOW go watch THIS VIDEO  

 which shows the identical nature of the item here,  and also in 2 other, different, building demolitions done by CDI, Inc (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) 


Saturday, January 3, 2015

A Necessary Concept about September 11, 2001, and the World Trade Center Destruction

Suppose an arson occurs, in the following fashion. An arsonist touches a lit match to flammable- say paper and cardboard-  inside a building. 

The fire begins to grow and if not put out will certainly cause the whole building to burn to the ground. 

The arsonist, however, goes into another room, and lights another fire, and then another, and then still another-  any of which, alone, would be certain to destroy the whole building, if not extinguished. 

Then the arsonist leaves and walks off down the street. He stops and gets something to eat at a food stand; he makes one or two cell phone calls unrelated to the arson; he sits on a park bench, and sees a partially full bag of peanuts on the ground, picks it up, and throws several peanuts in the direction of some nearby pigeons. An old woman walking a Pomeranian sits on the adjacent bench and speaks to the arsonist about the fine weather. 

Sirens are heard as the firemen respond to the arson down the street, but it is too late to save the building; the firefighters watch it burn while making sure the fire doesn't jump to any other nearby structures. The firemen are wearing blue and gray and gold uniforms, bright green safety vests, and some have Scott air packs hanging from a strap in case of need.


Okay. Ridiculous story. Too much detail.  What's the point? 

So let me jump ahead some weeks or months, to a courtroom. 

The man we last saw feeding pigeons and discussing the weather with a Pomeranian-owning old woman is now the defendant in a criminal case. 

Two witnesses testify to seeing the defendant clearly, for several minutes, from less than fifty feet away, with matches in his hand, entering the building in question and then lighting some old newspaper and cardboard along an interior wall.
  The witnesses are sober, reliable, and trusted in the community. The act of arson could be seen very well through a window, with virtually no possibility of mistake or mistaken identity, and this fact is  demonstrated to the Court.
The testimony is accepted, for it appears,  to both judge and jury, to be unassailable. A  conviction for arson is handed down, and the arsonist is sent to prison.

Here comes the point:

It can be seen that no witnesses were produced, nor were any necessary, who had (for example) seen the man stop at the food stand, or make his phone calls, or pick up the  bag of peanuts.

 No witnesses showed up in court to state that the man had made any comment about the weather or anything else to the old woman on the other park bench. 

No witness saw, and none testified, to observing the accused lighting the three or four other fires.

It is only necessary to prove ONE arson, and the proof of arson is complete.

 It has nothing to do with anything else. It just needs to be proved that a single fire was set.  
A fire burned the building; the man purposely set the fire; in court, corroborating the witnesses against him, he even confesses, agreeing point by point with witnesses and the claims of the prosecutor. 


The above is meant to be a parable (though an imperfect analogy)  about the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

It can be proven, by any number of means, that the Twin Towers and WTC #7 were destroyed by the use of explosives and incendiaries. There is testimony from eyewitnesses, photographic evidence, video evidence, and other evidence proving that no other known mechanism could have destroyed the buildings in the way it actually happened, which can be confirmed by reviewing the various types of evidence.  An inevitable conclusion (barring dishonesty, including cognitive dissonance "denial") is that the Towers and WTC #7 were loaded with demolition explosives and whatever incendiaries were used, days, weeks, or months before the September 11, 2001, date of the actual destruction.

From the scientifically established fact of 
a. demolition, leading to 
b. conclusion that preparation for destruction was prior to 9/11/01,
 a question naturally follows.

 Actually, many questions naturally follow, but one in particular would be this:

"What is the likelihood that this preparation was carried out by foreign nationals who had sufficient access to the World Trade Center Towers and WTC #7 to be able to prepare the structures for demolition, a noisy, time-consuming process that can take weeks to prepare- and to be able to carry out this preparatory process without being confronted by tenants, guards,  police, building code officials, or anyone else?"

The next question  would be the flip side of the first one:

"What is the likelihood that such a process was carried out by people with permission, access, keys, and a guarantee of immunity, who are not foreign nationals but American citizens?"

Which possibility seems more reasonable?

 More than that, which scenario is possible, and which is IMpossible?

It is not necessary to know what was said about the weather by the man talking to the old woman walking a Pomeranian. 

It's just necessary to prove one thing which, once proven,  is sufficient to prove the whole case. 

A murder might be committed in which the victim is riddled with bullets, after the first bullet to the head, clearly a premeditated homicide, causes death, in order to convict for murder. 

The 9/11 Truth movement needs that one hook, that one thing which ALL Americans can accept, which cannot be disproved or denied, and which leads inevitably to the conclusion of explosive demolition.

The proof, as stated above, is  already established. 

The stumbling block is not that, but the unwillingness of the public to accept it.  

That  needed "hook", [or rather one possible example of such a hook- there are others]-  might be the way that thousands of tons of reinforced concrete were violently and explosively turned to dust and sand and small bits in only a few seconds. 

This is a fact that anyone can review by means of video and photographs available to all. 
Nearly everyone has considerable experience with both concrete and steel from daily life, and has a general sense of the strength, durability, safety,  and behavior under normal stress, or the stress of normal use, of these materials.

No one- until Sept. 11, 2001-  has ever seen concrete break itself into powder while falling in mid-air, or a reinforced concrete floor crushed to powder and violently thrown laterally  and then cascading like a waterfall from the interior of a skyscraper, unless the effect has been the result of high explosive charges, whether demolition charges, rocket warheads, or  bombs. 

That is the only way it happens, and anyone with a grain of sense knows it, or we all would be  terrified to walk under a ceiling with steel in the framing, or walk on a concrete pavement, or drive  across a bridge with concrete under our car wheels, for if we believe the official story of 9/11, then any bridge, highway, house foundation, or sidewalk becomes an extremely dangerous thing, which any person with a working survival instinct people would definitely avoid. 

But people continue to drive on concrete, and step on floors of it, and so forth.

Building codes have not been rewritten to deal with the "discovery" that reinforced concrete and structural steel can do what is claimed  by the government that they did on 9/11/01. 

 People continue to drive in vehicles made of steel with no fear that the car could suddenly melt into droplets. 

No one is afraid that the gasoline will melt the engine from the inside out, and destroy the car and burn everyone up.

 Such ideas are absurd, as well they should be. 

The official story of 9/11 is just as absurd, or more so, than the idea of a car spontaneously melting or a concrete road suddenly turning to powder and flying off into the fields alongside it.

People need to start thinking about this, because not enough people get it yet.