Documentary: "9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions"

If you haven't seen it yet, Cryptogon.com just referenced the newest citizen investigative documentary on 9/11, and it's definitely the most focused and professional one yet. "9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions" was produced by a self-styled "conservative republican" and "amateur demolition expert" who purportedly set out to debunk the conspiracy myths and wound up creating a 90-minute expose on why it's even more unreasonable to believe these buildings were not intentionally demolished.

"9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions" was launched on Google Video on 9/11/2006, just a week and a half after I noted that the 9/11 Truth Movement seemed to have acquired a renewed force in recent months, and was fast becoming a rallying point for anti-establishment passions of all kinds. I think this social renewal is worth making note of, and that it can be attributed to two things.

One is that the formerly disorganized and disbursed 9/11 Truth Movement of old--the one that even Michael Ruppert finally lamented was a dead horse that could run no more--has now done what it's most stauch advocates have long been pleading for it to do, and found it's center of gravity around one fundamental point: the questionable "collapse" of the three WTC buildings. And I suspect that's an effective and fitting place to circle the wagons, because it's a nexus that resonates with a great many people on a very visceral level. I can still to this day recall the absolute mystification I had while watching events unfold on that fateful day that the collapse of not just one but both towers had happened so "perfectly". Several of the people I stood with throughout that morning remarked how it seemed like we were watching a Hollywood movie. I can even remember wrestling with the suspicion that perhaps the singular and strange "beauty" to these collapses might hint there really were perhaps some kind of higher forces behind them. Of course I never stopped to imagine there might actually be lower forces at work...

And the other factor that's most significantly responsible for the reawakening of the 9/11 Truth Movement is the development of services like YouTube and Google Video. I don't think anyone can argue anymore that, at bottom, we as a society give our attention much more readily to things which are presented to us in TV form. Indeed it's been acknowledged long ago that the highly centralized "control of the airwaves" is the primary reason why our world has so quickly become so monoculture--and "monoculture", as every permaculturalist is aware, is defined as a sustained battle against Nature. In this respect, unless the "establishment" can come up with an even more enticing way to communicate with people, internet video may very well be the "killer app" needed to usher in a truly global cultural revolution.

Anyway, on with the show:

9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 1 of 3)

9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 2 of 3)

9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 3 of 3)

Comments

[Peter]

"internet video may very well be the "killer app" needed to usher in a truly global cultural revolution."

As long as the powers-that-be don't start censoring it. There is already a movement a foot to do so. http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[EnoughAlready]

I don't disagree w/you, but the dead giveaway that it was a state political police operation, at least for those familiar w/such things, was when Everything was pulverized except for the intact passports of one of the so-called "hijackers" that survived the crash, fire & collapse, to float in one piece down to the ground on top of all that rubble...c'mon how gullible can people be.

[Roger]

It still surprises me how some of my more intelligent friends snicker at these "conspiracy theories". I usually reply that for all their intelligence, they are pretty narrow-minded. And even when they are listening, they get bored after 30 minutes or so and continu with their lives. They cannot and will not cope with the idea that 9/11 was organised/endorsed by the US government (and probably Mossad, ISI or other secret service agency's). It so profoundly alters the way you'd have to look at everything that has been done in the name of "Al Qaeda" and "Spreading democracy" that it's like hearing that the earth really is flat. It's not flat. It's round, like a donut ;). Bad analogy. I'm glad people ARE waking up very s l o w l y to the idea that things are not what they seem.

Evidence of complicity or even the simple question "who stood to gain from this attack?" is so clear, but only to those who want to see. In the coming months/years when all the shit is going to hit the fans people will wake up. When the US economy blows up and people see their wallets are empty, then they will start caring. And when Peak Oil hits, people will start feeling they're fvcked. And when natural disasters and global warming are going to hit and people will get hungry they will start rioting.

Hmmmmmm....

/watches Dr. Strangelove again..

[lespi]

Une fois de plus , lisez Crossing the Rubicon: l'affaire est entendue.
On ne peut pas prendre au sérieux une personne qui parle de ce sujet sans immédiatement citer Mike Ruppert .

[Rob]

The only way that the top floor of the towers could have hit the deck in in 10 seconds was by freefall. Einstein said so. This means everything beneath them had to have been vapourised, and that is a 100% incontrovertible fact. Say 'bang'as fast as you can 110 times to simulate the floor on floor theory, if you can't do it under 10 seconds then you have proved to yourself that thermite must have been used.

[Gary]

Arguing the time of the fall seems to me to be one of the weaker elements of the counter theory's argument.

First, how accurately is the timing of the fall established? In the videos I remember everything gets obscured with dust pretty quickly so can you really get a good measurement? You are trying to compare the amount of time it fell in with a freefall time. Even most of the 9/11 truth guys will say that it wasn't freefall, but near freefall speed. So you have some tolerance in your measurement, and then you are allowing an arbitrary amount of time for "near freefall" which is based on somebody's guess and saying jeez the numbers don't add up right.

Do a test. Take a nail and hit it with a hammer. Now time how long the head of the hammer was in contact with the head of the nail. Not very long right? Well really it shouldn't take very long for the floors to break in the official pancaking theory. I mean you basically have an entire building falling on them (i.e. the portion of the building from the impact upwards). That is a huge force. It shouldn't take very long to break through floors in the official theory, and if we can't measure the fall time very accurately, ho can we differentiate between an official pancake theory difference from freefall, and a 9/11 truth movement accepted "near freefall" time.

I don't think the time to fall is that strong of an argument. For reference, I am a Mechanical Engineer.

I think its more interesting to see that you have two very similar failures even though the impacts were different in height and alignment.

Another problem I have with the controlled demolition argument is that I haven't seen much talked about the specifics of placing the charges and where the wires run. In particular, how high up a building do charges usually go? I've seen documentaries on demolitions and they are always gravely concearned about a wire getting cut and some of the explosives not going off. So if this was a destruction did the charges not need to go up to the height of the impact? Could they be tolerant of variable impact height? If a plane impacted at a level where charges were placed couldn't that damage the circuit? The second plane was lower, wouldn't a demolition need to account for that? Like if a plane impacted at a floor where charges were couldn that damage the whole circuit? Or would it be worse to not damage the circuit and wind up with charges above the impact going off.

I guess I need to look at the videos again and see where relative to the impact it looks like the building started falling.

[Gary]

ah hell forgot the main reason I was going to post. don't slight Newton. you don't use any of Einstein's stuff to figure out freefall.

[Steven Lagavulin]

Gary,

My own problems with the demolition theory are that 1) I don't really understand how a complex demolition wiring could have occurred without involving too many experienced people to keep the story under wraps for long, and 2) as you mentioned the serious risk would be that the "wired" floor detonations would not match up in any way with the actual plane impact areas. The film analysis research sort of claims that this is what happened, but the evidence isn't completely convincing IMHO.

However, that said things aren't that straightforward either. For instance, there are eyewitness reports that the first explosions actually began in the basement...how does this apply to the collapse of the upper levels of the building? Also, it's been firmly acknowledged that the WTC building had been completely evacuated the weekend before 9/11 for an "unprecedented" security system check-up or update. All electricity was cut to the buildings as part of the project.

But as I tried to argue in the piece, I think the central point is both very simple and very visceral: how could BOTH buildings collapsed straight downward (and a third collapsed for apparently no reason at all)? It's never been my position to argue that I know what really happened one way or the other, but on a fundamental level I absolutely know that those collapses didn't "feel" right. And I believe most people, if they're sincere with themselves, would agree with that statement.

And the central argument to the "demolition theory" is not so much about the "free fall" of the structures. It's that neither the impact of the aircraft nor the arguable heat of the fires could ever in any reasonable world have caused every single steel support in the structural grid of the towers to fail at the exactly same moment.

THIS is what the "straight downward at the speed of gravity" argument is refuting.

If the aircraft had been the sole cause of the collapse the collapse should have happened "unevenly", beginning on one side of the building, causing a sideways toppling effect which "pulled" on the still viable supports throughout the rest of the structure until they were compromised (which the film quotes WTC architects and engineers as saying it was designed so that that wouldn't happen). In other words, the top of the buildings, if they fell at all, should have toppled sideways. And the resistance created by the still-structurally-sound lower levels would have been sufficient to retard the fall significantly, and further push the upper structure outward in one respect or another.

I don't believe the "Hollywood perfect" collapse of not one but TWO massive structures rings true to anyone. I think it takes considerable self-convincing to make it seem like it does. And added to this is the plain fact that such a collapse has never occurred before in any similar building fire or building impact situations.

[auntiegrav]

Watch the video again. The third segment clearly shows the box beam section from the center of the towers, cut at a 45 degree angle just as with thermite. The rest of the story supports this fact, with closed off floors, power outages to maneuver material around the power cabling and shut down security for the weekend, the removal of dogs, the witnesses to strange workmen and cabling, the noises of construction going on. It's all there.

lespi said "On ne peut pas prendre au sérieux une personne qui parle de ce sujet sans immédiatement citer Mike Ruppert."

I agree, lespi, I read "Crossing the Rubicon" first, while I was reading about IranContra "The Conspirators" by Al Martin. In addition, I recommend "Empire of Oil" by Harvey OConnor (circa 1955). If the oil industry controlled the entire state of Texas and heavily influenced the US government in 1955 when the world was only using one million barrels per day, how much power do you think they have today, with a flow of 100 million bbl/day?
The next, I think most important recent work is "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. The redlining of Iraq's oil fields to keep them from producing clears up a lot of questions about "why" the war had to take place, why it was Rumsfeld and Cheney who orchestrated it, and why the prices were allowed to overshoot the target of 40 dollars per barrel (the last is from incompetence).
There are even more secrets than most of you can imagine. The ones I can imagine are almost unbelievable to me, and I believe almost anything because I'm cynical.

[right said fred]

Wires are no longer required to synchronise detonations. Advanced systems exist for charges to be set off by seismic sensing devices. Charges can also be triggered through wireless communication. A combination of both could have been used on 9/11 and placed during the power down the weekend before....

[Michael]

The movie, "911 Mysteries" was not done by a conservative Republican. People assume that from the opening sequence in which a conservative Republican (and what he says is true in his case) talks about how he came 'into' the 911 truth issue.

I'm a person who aided the producer by critiquing preliminary versions of the movie. The producer is a woman in San Diego who is a professional writer and wanted to make a movie of the evidence of 911 that was more adult and thoughtful. She has 2 more sections planned - (1) Planes and Hijackers and (2) Who Benefits.

'911 Mysteries - Demolitions' is clearly the best movie that's been made of the evidence to date. It is emotionally powerful as well as factually compelling. You can buy DVD's (very cheaply in bulk) at: www.911weknow.com/

[Al Davidson]

Is there any doubt that WTC-7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition? It wasn't struck by a plane, had sustained little damage, and fell in perfect symmetry.

If you accept that it *was* destroyed by a controlled demolition, then by simple logic you can deduce that the twin towers were also destroyed by controlled demolitions. What if the planes had hit the towers and they didn't collapse? but building 7, which wasn't hit, *did* collapse. How could that scenario possibly be explained away? It would be so, so immediately obvious to everyone that it was an inside job. If the conspirators wanted to bring down building 7, they also had to take down the towers. And they would not have left their collapse to the astronomically slim chance that the planes would bring them down. They would have made absolutely sure that they would collapse.

But, even *with* the collapse of the towers, the collapse of building 7 is still obviously suspicious. Why didn't they crash a plane into building 7, too? Hmm ... well there was a fourth plane, wasn't there? The media tell us it was headed for the White House or the Capitol building. Was it?

[tgorman]

Why hasn't any of the 'conspirators' or their 'demolition workers' talked?

[NRut.]

After watching the video, the thing I find interesting is that the buildings fell perfectly. Especially since they were hit by the planes in different areas. That alone would make them fall differently, if at all.

If it was a demolition, why are people not suspecting the terrorists of planting the demolition equipment...I wouldn't put it by them...Think about it...They went through months and months of flight training school to just kill themselves and others in one flight. Why couldnt they learn about demolition and get jobs in it...hmmmm

I find it extremely hard to believe that the govermnent or "inside people" could be responsible for coordinating a mass murder of their own people and be able to keep it a secret, especially with so many people knowing about it or potentially helping. People are too guilt ridden, conscience driven or even pround to not talk about what they participated in.

[Barry]

I'm guessing that the security system, video logging and backups were in the B2 basement area that blew up first. Maybe the internal radio infrastructure that Motorola got sued over (because the radio comms in the building didn't work) was there too ?

Video - In order for workmen to come and go while setting up the explosives, I imagine that the security company was told to ignore certain people, but the recording of cameras would have continued (so as not to arouse suspicion) - makes sense to destroy any backups (of events in days proceeding the collapse first) just in case the building collapse doesn't. It's worth looking into to see where recordings of internal cameras were stored

Radio/Telephones - Wouldn't be good if someone went up to rescue people (such as a emergency service workers or employees) and found explosives would it? Even worse if they could call someone on the ground and tell them about it before they got killed...

I have thought about how the building could have been prepared with explosives so as to be tolerant of variance of impact site for the planes - it is quite possible. The television tower falling into the building before the collapse begins is VERY suspicious and definatelty suggests core failure before floor failure - puts a big dent in the pancake theory. I am totally convinced that WTC buildings were 'pulled'

There are so many other things related to 911 that don't make sense either....

I am involved in electronic engineering, value the truth and will not easily accept that such structures could possibly be damaged by aeroplanes badly enough to fall down!

[Barry]

Mind You, there are so many questions and so few answers. Because most of us weren't there we can only rely on the information from the sources on the internet, and knowing the way some people like to present things to glorify their point of view there is always a slim chance that there is another answer other than conspiracy!

[From Sweden]

Hi
this documentary was shown yesterday on swedish television. Where can I get the movie, can I download it somewhere. Please help, thank you.