Skip to content

Good Document on the WTC Towers Collapse

November 26, 2010

I, like many sensible and critically thinking people, can not comprehend why there is still a vocal movement who denies the truth of what happened on that awful September 11th, when the WTC towers were struck by passenger planes, in a terrorist attack.

In the last few weeks I have found myself discussing these events on a couple of blog posts. The detail went further than I anticipated, but then I should have realised that, given the level of denial by those who insist on calling themselves ‘truthers’. Truth, is the last thing they are peddling.

During some research on the topic of the collapse of the buildings I found the following PDF document which I had not seem before. It’s a few years old, dating from 2006. As a result it does not address a new form of demolition that I had not encountered before, that of milli nukes.

I found the document easy to read, and it does a good job of explaining why the collapse of the buildings, as seen by millions on TV, is a natural collapse. This is done simply and without recourse to technical jargon.

I am sure it’ll never convince a hard lined truth denier, but it ought to help put straight anyone who is prepared to consider the real truth and not constantly look for ulterior motives and underhand tactics.

Advertisements

From → comment, conspiracy

2 Comments
  1. el Once permalink

    Added by limey:
    To anyone who would read the following comment by elOnce, the blog entry he is referring to is this one: https://vteclimey.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/maybe-sometimes-its-good-to-be-a-dick/, which was written, partially as a result of an exchange between el Once and myself on this blog: http://mrrational88.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/911-theories-fell-into-its-own-footprint/.

    In that exchange I lost patience (along with any desire to continue dialog) with el Once when he posited the view that the planes that crashed into WTC1 and 2 where not in fact passenger liners and the footage screened throughout the world was CGI enhanced.

    I still maintain that this is utter nonsense and I still refuse to converse with el Once, see the blog exchange linked for the reasons.

    If any casual reader feels the desire to read and even comment on el Once’s contribution below they are welcome to.

    The unedited contribution by el Once follows:


    Dear Mr. Limey,

    Allow me to offer you encouragement to make more frequent postings to your blog. They are very representative and hold up well, but not quite in the direction that you would surmise.

    In one of your previous postings, you lamented:

    How (do you) deal with the incorrectly held view that refuses to be educated, and worse still, continues to peddle its nonsense to others?

    The onus is on you to prove that the adverb incorrectly and the noun nonsense apply. As for the phrase refuses to be educated, does this branding apply to you?

    Mr. Limey wrote:

    I, like many sensible and critically thinking people, can not comprehend why there is still a vocal movement who denies the truth of what happened on that awful September 11th, when the WTC towers were struck by passenger planes, in a terrorist attack.

    We have points of agreement.

    Yes, it was a terrorist attack. But as our own government regularly proves, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, so that definition is rather arbitrary. And your definition seems to focus on foreigners, when domestic terrorists would have had a better chance of succeeding. Patriotic Americans swear to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic, yet the domestic ones — whose legislative actions at home and empirical actions abroad really have imperiled the Constitution — have gotten a free pass.

    Yes, something struck each tower. Yes, you and I and the whole world saw on the telly the pixels resembling commercial planes. But when you actually scratch below the surface of the 9/11 Hollywood production, the doubt of commercial planes starts with the last plane [Pennsylvania, with no luggage, seats, bodies, or plane parts, just a hole in the ground], increases with the 2nd to last plane [Pentagon, also with no luggage, seats, bodies, and a hole smaller than expected], and reaches a crescendo with the towers [exhibiting no crash physics, having inconsistent flight paths, flying at sea level unrealistic speeds]. And before the tight control of the media — a typical military objective for the PYSOPS team — cranked into high gear with the endless looping of the fake plane crashes to challenge and change everyone’s perceptions, eye witnesses were saying it was a small plane or even a cruise missile. (You would be well served to study http://www.SeptemberClues.info)

    Thus, when you banty about those who deny the truth, it is paramount that you not only state the truth but also prove it and have it align with the laws of physics. An obvious example is 2.25 seconds of free-fall (that even NIST acknowledges) that WTC-7 experienced over the course of 100+ feet (8 stories). Despite the asymmetric damage from falling debris and despite the asymmetric fires on at least 3 floors, WTC-7 fell pretty damn symmetrical, neatly, and completely.

    A not-so-obvious example is the energy requirement of the observed destruction that pulverized structure and content, that ejected content horizontally at high speeds (to lodge even the steel “chex” sections into neighboring buildings, that vaporized the “commercial planes” and humans within the towers, that had buried fires burning foundry-hot for months, that burned or melted anomalous patterns into vehicles but not combustible debris like paper, … these energy requirements can be Occam Razor explained with milli-nukes.

    The thing about sensible and critically thinking people is that in their education — whether or not willing — into considering these facts does not leave out connecting the dot with the tenants (and owners) of WTC-7. Aren’t Means, Motive, and Opportunity three main factors in determining likelihood that some suspect did a crime?

    Mr. Limey wrote:

    In the last few weeks I have found myself discussing these events on a couple of blog posts. The detail went further than I anticipated, but then I should have realised that, given the level of denial by those who insist on calling themselves ‘truthers’. Truth, is the last thing they are peddling.

    Let us also peddle the truth about those discussions. Subsequent to you not anticipating how far the details would go, you were unprepared and possibly even uneducated. Thus, when we suppose about which side of the discussion is in denial, let us consider your response when “the detail went further than you anticipated”: silence. You stopped engaging me. You’ve ignored all my questions, even the easy ones like: “Of all the pictures of EMP damaged vehicles that Dr. Judy Woods collects on her website, which one(s) were you favorite?” You’ve played little sophomoric repetitive games and asking for busy-research about distracting topics that you are too lazy to do.

    Mr. Limey wrote:

    During some research on the topic of the collapse of the buildings I found the following PDF document which I had not seem before. It’s a few years old, dating from 2006. As a result it does not address a new form of demolition that I had not encountered before, that of milli nukes.

    If it does not address milli-nukes, then it is practically irrelevant. Why are you peddling it?

    Mr. Limey wrote:

    I found the document easy to read, and it does a good job of explaining why the collapse of the buildings, as seen by millions on TV, is a natural collapse. This is done simply and without recourse to technical jargon.

    I applaud you for your Kindergarten book review. Allow me to remind the sensible and critically thinking people that the phrase “as seen by millions on TV” becomes a critical piece of the PYSOPS for the pixel forgery it depicts. Moreover, while the PDF jumps through hoops to lamely explain a gravitational collapse, it “simply and without recourse to technical jargon” omits explanations for under-rubble fires burning foundry-hot for months forgery and damage to vehicles.

    Mr. Limey wrote:

    I am sure it’ll never convince a hard lined truth denier, but it ought to help put straight anyone who is prepared to consider the real truth and not constantly look for ulterior motives and underhand tactics.

    When you sell it with such convincing language, Mr. Limey, what ironically comes to mind for me is that I look forward to many more your witty postings here on your “A limey’s ramblings” blog. Please. Do continue, good sir. If it survives, database archeologists and scholars in the future will be eager to hold it up as a representative example relating to (but not being) the Zeitgeist of our time and its manipulation.

    I am particularly fond of your mesmerizing assertion straight to “anyone who is prepared to … not constantly look for ulterior motives and underhand tactics”: nothing to see beyond this; ignore the man behind the curtains; move along now; nothing (more) to see here, folks.

    Thank you for the straight humor!

    Senor el Once

  2. Senor El Once permalink

    Dear Mr. Limey wrote:

    [El Once] posited the view that the planes that crashed into WTC1 and 2 where not in fact passenger liners and the footage screened throughout the world was CGI enhanced. I still maintain that this is utter nonsense and I still refuse to converse with el Once.

    Mr. Limey’s childish stance on refusing to converse with me applies not only to CGI, but also to selecting his favorite burned out 9/11 vehicle, as amassed on Dr. Judy Woods website.

    Please ignore the limited hangout titles and subtitles for the pages referring to spaced based weapons and directed energy weapons (DEW). Just focus on the evidence. On the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

    Mr. McKee and I love the fire truck.

    I also like:
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image165.jpg (fire truck)
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image184.jpg (another fire truck)
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image18swamp.jpg (police car)
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image9.jpg (another polic car)

    Why does Mr. Limey refuse to pick out his favorite burned out vehicle? I believe that the starting point for his refusal is that he does not want to even acknowledge the pictorial evidence of these burned out cars, because to do so means that he has to dig for the official govt explanation regarding how gravitational collapse and fires from jet fuel and office furniture (80+ stories up) explains this. But this is something that the govt ignored and had no official explanation for. Ergo, better to come up with a lame excuse for not engaging Senor El Once than to expose this major weakness in the OGCT.

    What does Senor El Once say on this subject despite these images being found on a limited hangout website for DEW? I say (1) that milli-nukes pulverized the content of the towers, (2) that unspent but fizzling nuclear material burned under the rubble for months, and (3) that the EMP from the milli-nukes slipped out line-of-sight and caused the damage to vehicles.

    Of course, milli-nukes is only tangentially related to 9/11 media fakery on the boob tube. Those with the means, motive, and opportunity to level the WTC complex (and embed an exploding projectile into the Pentagon) would have a military objective to control the media and spin the message. Although the destruction screams for nukes, the perpetrators knew that revelation of nukes could escalate into the public demanding a knee-jerk nuclear response, which would then spoil the prizes they wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    To go directly into the evidence of 9/11 media fakery would require reviewing September Clues. Mr. Limey can’t be bothered by that. He can’t be bother into explaining why the commercial passenger aircraft of the OGCT exhibited no crash physics in the form of deformation and deceleration; how the lighter weaker material of the plane was able to slice the heavier stronger material of the towers into a cartoonish outline of the planes; why the aircraft approach was inconsistent from video to video; why the OGCT down to the Osama bin Laden culprit and the how-to of the towers’ destruction was paraded on TV before the dust had even settled.

    Nope. Instead of addressing my points and fixing the errors in my understanding, he’d rather sit there and act all aghast by my claims.

    I don’t blame you, Mr. Limey. You should continue this tactic of avoiding me and these very uncomfortable 9/11 milli-nuke and CGI discussion topics. Thomas Pynchon wrote:

    If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you won’t have to worry about the answers.

    But when they start asking the right questions, if you don’t have your bogus answers lined up and ready to deflect and misdirect, silence — although deafening — will be golden.

    I encourage you to keep writing blog postings to really beef up this body of work. It’ll be a real treasure for database archeologists of the future to measure the Zeitgeist of our times… and how it was manipulated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: