The Empty Towers

[hoi.polloi]

It's not bad speculation I don't think.

Hell - those firetrucks are pretty long. You might be able to fit a good section of I-beam in each one that was rushing to and fro.

Hilarious vision, but entirely possible if you think about how clamped down the place was.

[Heiwa]

This text is extremely speculative, and not based upon observations. It is for research purposes only, with the aim of illustrating:
If we don't know, the reality could have been much different compared to the TV version. A lot of people can easily be made to cooperate. They will keep silent!
You cannot "chock" them, either, by telling them that there where no "Planes". They already know that the video is a fake and also the planes and NIST-reports and all that.

I think the cooperation of Condoleezza Rice played a big part in the 911 'live' show that Simon/SC have convincingly debunked! Condo is/was(??), apart from a presidential national security expert/advisor and secretary of state, mutiple PhDer, also a concert pianist and ice skating princess of world class, all learnt in Alabama, we are told (to believe?). She is/was then 100X more qualified than Obama. When she - on TV 912 or 913 - accused Osama to be the evil brain behind 911, all believed her.
Anyway, they still do not understand that a small weak top of a structure cannot destroy the big strong bottom of same structure by gravity.

[warriorhun]

Dear Tufa,

you say:

The typical main question is all the people, who work at the Towers or a company that rent space. The reality is rather contradictive to the intuitive approach. You simply just ask them to cooperate, and they will!
You tell them some super-traumatic story that an A-bomb is in the building, that will soon blow up most of the N.Y. city. You then tell them that a fake and successful "attack" is to be fabricated to fool "the terrorists" into believing another terrorist group got to the towers first. Make this credible, and make them sign a military secrecy agreement

I like your post in general, but this part is pure science fiction. This will never work, and besides, what is the point? Why involve 3000 civils in your plot when you simply do not have to? Remember this is a clandestine secret operation, with even the low level perps not knowing the full picture. Remember need-to-know and separation of duties!

[artreddin]

Tufa,

To say the least, I find several of your arguments less than convincing, although I am quite willing to accept the empty tower premise in general. You start off badly ("The Empty Towers is something we induce...": surely you mean "deduce"!), get better briefly ("The basis is the fake pictures and the fake video (sic).") but then throw in some very questionable remarks:

The conclusion is that you can take down the Towers any way you like, as long as you complete the work in the allocated time frame... This is a major argument against any/all more esoteric conspiratorial scenarios, such as using UFO-style death ray weapons, using A-bombs in the basement, UFO attack, licorice steel effect, etc.

It's pretty easy to interpret this latter comment as a put-down of the evidence provided by Dr. Judy Wood and by Dimitri Khalezov, but under the light of day in a written forum (rather than a call-in talk show) it's a blatantly Straw-Man. We in all likelihood have empty towers and faked victim databases, but the major problem of 9-11 is the buildings' disintegration itself, illustrated not only on these researchers sites and YouTube videos but in this very early and pretty much forgotten ABC news clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LW6b8JF5ls

You then go on to state

You can take down the towers using conventional means. A controlled demolition use(s) a computer-controlled sequence of shape-charges..." followed by some rather dubious if not laughable explanation of the technique.

The problem, as I've said, is that the buildings were not just demolished but rather pulverized. Under our conventional understanding of physics, the amount of energy required to do so - as several critics of the "molecular polverization theory" have commented - is more than that existing in all forms of manipulatible energy (nuclear, petroleum, hydroelectric, etc.) available at any one time in the world! So why do they and you think that your conventional explosives are somehow adequate to do so?? You'd face the same energy deficit problem. Or are you now going to suggest that the top-down billowing fountains of debris that were WTC1 and WTC2 (as contrasted with WTC7) were just so much fake video imagery?

[artreddin]

Well, ... apparently so!!

A problem is that you need to clear the demolition site really fast afterwards. You don't want any one to show up with a camera!

In considering fake videos, I have no problem whatsoever with the no-planes evidence (in the very early going) nor with the obvious manipulation of vicsims shots and stories done out of public view (probably well before the event).

However, once the Twin Towers were "hit" and smoking, the eyes of the world were on them. Or perhaps you're suggesting that all video cameras within twenty miles of the site were confiscated and the buildings didn't really pulverize after all?!

Simply put, conventional explosives don't account for the phenomena that we all saw - without really seeing - on that day. And we can add to that list other anomalies such as several hundred cars burning on paper- and tree-lined streets (untouched) and even some that were melted on one half and untouched by fire on the other. see drjudywood.com

Your dismissal of this as "UFO-style death ray weapons" is disingenuous, to say the least. We really don't know the physics involved but that is not to say others wouldn't: it's a pretty sure bet that with the $1+ trillion investment in Star Wars technology by the US gov't there are various people and corporations with a serious understanding of this very kind of destructive energy weapon. (Several of these corporations, in fact, have had a fairly prominent role in 9-11 and the Truth movement.)

Now here's where you show your hand: you suggest that this incongruous lack of rubble really doesn't exist because it was carted away super fast.

Some of us thought, that when the towers are on the ground, a photo of the rubble with a fire-fighter could be a genuine photo. This was investigated late in 2010, where all such photos was found to be fake, including overall photos with N.Y. and a small demolition site.

How nice of you to come to that conclusion for the rest of us! Please explain to me once again about confiscating the cameras from prying eyes on other high-rise buildings near Ground Zero... and while you're at it perhaps you'd like to elucidate the mechanism of payoffs to the small media and networks of other countries taking footage on the ground on 9-11 and subsequent days and weeks.

Now, in this discussion there are several other - well, sorry to say it! - laughable theories such as dismantling the building piece by piece and lowering the supporting beams one by one down the elevator shafts and presumably out the front door!

People, where are your heads? The building wasn't built the way it was unless there were very good reasons for it... starting with the fact that the bottom half would have to be capable of supporting over 250 thousand tons of weight and the top hurricane-force winds. "Oh yes, but we'll cut these middle beams out one by one - like cutting so many studs in a one story house - and then when the time comes, the building will be not only empty but ready to fall into itself like a stack of cards!"

I'm not buying it.

[Brutal Metal]

Your linking a Dr Judy Wood website Newbie troll? Mods you know what to do to this clown, BYE BYE!

[simonshack]

Or are you now going to suggest that the top-down billowing fountains of debris that were WTC1 and WTC2 (as contrasted with WTC7) were just so much fake video imagery?

Yes Art,

That is precisely (and a crucial part of) what has been demonstrated by the longstanding September Clues research.
To get up to speed about this matter, please spend a little time at this page of the main September Clues website:
http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

Art, the fundamental part to comprehend about this research is that the ENTIRE 9/11 IMAGE POOL was 'made in Hollywood'.
If this isn't clear to you yet, don't worry - I understand: it takes time and effort to make that part sink in. But see, since you provided a link to an ABC clip (which I am grateful for) I can show you in a flash what our research is all about. At 1:57 in that ABC clip you provided ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LW6b8JF5ls ) we are shown THIS view of what is supposed to represent WTC6 (after the Twin Tower Collapses):



Now, please compare it carefully to these 2 views (which I have previously compiled and compared from the TV archives):


Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov have both been assigned the disinfo-task to 'EXPLAIN' what we saw on TV (the 'dustifying/pulverizing' Twin Tower collapses). That's all! After all, it isn't all that difficult to comprehend. Is it? There were no fancy weapons used to bring down the towers - only conventional demolition charges; the problem is - THE COLLAPSES WERE NEVER RECORDED ON FILM.

And welcome to the forum, Art. You contacted me by e-mail with an interesting finding about the CNN memorial tributes - which I will soon highlight in the Memorial Scams forum topic. Please know, however, that we require new members to introduce themselves in some manner over at this thread : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=838 Thanks!

[simonshack]

Please explain to me once again about confiscating the cameras from prying eyes on other high-rise buildings near Ground Zero... and while you're at it perhaps you'd like to elucidate the mechanism of payoffs to the small media and networks of other countries taking footage on the ground on 9-11 and subsequent days and weeks.

I'll gladly oblige:

I'll hope you will concede that this was a miltary operation staged on 'friendly soil' (entirely owned by Silverstein) which could count on the full might of the US administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, etc. To control the access to the surrounding buildings (first by an early evacuation - then with a militarized blockade) would not have been much of a problem. Perhaps, EMP/HERF devices ensured that no photography was possible (during the notoriously rapid timeframe of the rubble disposal). There is no debate about that: the rubble was wiped away in record time.

Then you mention "The small media and networks of other countries?" ...Oh, come on now. Give us a break.

The thing is, dear Arthur, we have proved that the rubble imagery is - yes, that too - entirely forged (firefighters wandering over the rubble and all!).
Here's the link to the relevant thread ( http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=458 ) but to save you time, here are a couple of 'Occam's Razor' pictures which prove this fact:

The objects named A, B and D are three WTC beams present in the picture.
The red "C" is a precise spot of the backdrop (please get familiar with "C" and its surrounding rubble).


Now we have a slightly different angle: A, B and D are your perspective references to gauge just how little the
photographer's vantage point has changed in space. But look where "C" is now!! This is simply impossible. Full stop.


I also did a Gradient Map test using a 'sister' picture from this FEMA series. The Gradient Map is a photo-processing tool that selects chromatic tonalities within a photograph and alters the RGB balance accordingly. In any normal picture, it will of course alter every element equally. Not in this case, though:


In fact, the firefighters appear to be on wholly different/crisper chroma levels - no grade/amount of chroma alteration will make them blur/or disappear.
They have EVIDENTLY been inserted digitally into this Ground Zero scenery.
Clearly, the entire foreground (lower part of this picture) has been pasted over the background rubble scenery.

(the above 3 alleged 'Ground Zero' pictures are all credited to the 'persecuted Argentina refugee photographer' Kurt Sonnenfeld)

[brianv]

I've just listened to a recording of Andrew Johnson being interviewed recently! If you can call it that! He didnt stop talking about Judy Woody - you see, she has a new book that she can't get published! And, I've never heard such a load of crap! He touched bases on all paths leading away from what we would consider the truth! Airplanes, Freefall Collapse, Space Beams, Thermite, The Burnt Cars, The Seismic Readings, The Dustification of Steel, UFOs' yadda yadda yadda. Near the end, he was asked if he knew anyone who died? "No, but I did talk to one man whose father was dustifi...sorry died -- mumble mumble... - ...no, can't go there too painful". Whatever you do don't ask me the man's name! Quickly changes the subject. What a total arsewipe!

[simonshack]

Yes Brian - it would seem that they are a bunch of clowns.

Now, where may these Ground Zero Rubble sceneries (released in 2007) possibly have been filmed - in the first place?

OLIVER STONE'S "RUBBLE FIELD" - site of his "World Trade Center" movie (2006)

Ok - so Oliver Stone made a 9/11 movie ("World Trade Center") and filmed it in a "1 acre big rubble field" in Los Angeles...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1hmntCeLoY

Watch/listen at 1min30sec: Oliver Stone informs us that:
"We shot the rest in Los Angeles in...at the rubble field, WE BUILT ONE - 1 acre big - and we built two gigantic holes complexes with holes in them..."
Now, Oliver Stone's movie "World Trade Center" was made in 2006 - while the most notable images of the rubble at Ground Zero (credited to FEMA and Kurt Sonnenfeld) were released no earlier than 2009 - and in fact, all those images feature EXIF data showing that they were "last modified" in 2009...

So is the currently available imagery of the Ground Zero rubble just a by-product of Oliver Stone's Hollywood movie? It certainly seems to be a possibility.

Here are some rubble views from a trailer of Oliver Stone's 9/11 movie. Does this rubble look familiar?




SONY (the camera maker) praises the movie:

"World Trade Center" is the most un-Oliver- Stone-like film by Oliver Stone: no ideologies, no conspiracy theories, just a very heart-wrenching portrayal of two policemen trapped among the ruins. (...)
Sony KDL32D3000 colour bit depth and noise reduction prowess was demonstrated amply too: smoke swirling around the rubble was rendered cleanly without the slightest trace of dithering or banding, reinforcing the lingering sense of chaos and dread.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Sony-KDL32D30 ... y.php#nogo

"The lingering sense of chaos and dread" ...indeed !

[artreddin]

Thanks for taking the time for your extensive reply, Simon.

I do, however, still find it impossible to believe that post-event photography in front of the eyes of the world could have been that controlled. Your suggestion:

Perhaps, EMP/HERF devices ensured that no photography was possible (during the notoriously rapid timeframe of the rubble disposal).

needs to be re-thought because frankly it sounds pretty feeble. Maybe you'd like to elaborate on how this technology works on the mixture of digital and film recording devices in use at that time.

The clearly fabricated pictures of the rubble were interesting but not a propos. My argument was that no rubble existed because no rubble existed, not that someone had f*kd up a composite picture showing rubble and firemen.

I would apologize to others for apparently being in breach of protocol and mentioning off-site research. I would... but I won't because I really don't believe that such research and perspectives have been given their proper due, neither here nor elsewhere. What's worse, I find it deplorable that criticism of this particular scientist's work is attacked both in this thread and in a second one in this forum ad hominem. You don't know how poorly this all makes you look.

Furthermore, and getting directly back to the topic, the taking down of all three skyscrapers in the WTC would have presented a MAJOR problem for the owners. As detailed in this thread, they were, by all appearances, enormous white elephants.

But not just that. They needed to be cleaned off this prime real estate and the job had to be done without damaging costly surrounding buildings. This is an absolutely essential consideration. How, in fact, do you take down 110 story skyscrapers in the middle of Manhattan? How do you ensure that they fall into their footprint? The risk of their toppling over in a controlled demolision, especially after initial explosions on the upper floors, is inconceivably great.

I find the idea of destructive energy technology compelling as it is simply the type of weaponry one would think that the US quite capable of developing under the trillion dollars plus that had been poured into Star Wars research over the previous decades.

Finally, I find it ironic that so-called proof is given in this forum via photographic evidence (e.g., shots showing interiors of WTC suites, which really could be taken anywhere). An outsider could well question why he or she should believe your (i.e., the forum members') photos when the same techniques for photoshopping that you rightly draw attention to in faked images are also available to any contributor here.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is an assessment of whether people are acting in good faith. Ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and an immediate threat to ban me from this forum for only speaking what I believe to be possible and not possible, have left me to wonder whether I am, indeed, wasting my time here.

... and that despite my also believing that you have come up with some of the most interesting research on 9-11 to date.

[Heiwa]

How, in fact, do you take down 110 story skyscrapers in the middle of Manhattan? How do you ensure that they fall into their footprint? The risk of their toppling over in a controlled demolision, especially after initial explosions on the upper floors, is inconceivably great.

Only way is from bottom up using some controlled demolition method! You can fly as many planes you like into the tops and nothing happens below the top, e.g. weak, light top cannot crush down strong, heavy bottom by gravity (as I have explained before). Any footage showing top crushing bottom is a fake.

[nonhocapito]

I find the idea of destructive energy technology compelling as it is simply the type of weaponry one would think that the US quite capable of developing under the trillion dollars plus that had been poured into Star Wars research over the previous decades.

Finally, I find it ironic that so-called proof is given in this forum via photographic evidence (e.g., shots showing interiors of WTC suites, which really could be taken anywhere). An outsider could well question why he or she should believe your (i.e., the forum members') photos when the same techniques for photoshopping that you rightly draw attention to in faked images are also available to any contributor here.

I don't understand exactly what you are about. Here are three points that seem to sum your arguments:

1) visual control, whether via disturbance signal for digital equipment, requisition of analog films or evacuation of lower Manhattan was not really possible (why not?)
2) imagery of the WTC demolition is real (like Heiwa said, the demolition that we are shown is impossible so much so that it needs far-fetched ideas like nukes or energy beams to be accepted at face value; also, too much of the photographic evidence shows alteration, manipulation, but also dullness and repetition in how the collapsing and the rubble are presented across the official and the amateur imagery alike)
3) some energy star-wars beams were used to accomplish the demolition (this isn't supported by anything at all expect the "beauty" of the idea. Too bad it is "Hollywoodian" beauty...)

Once again: it is not up to us to tell you how things went. What we can all do is to point out the lies and the cover-up, by gathering the clues that so obviously make the lies manifest. I was not in Manhattan that day, and I never met anyone who was there and actually saw the towers collapsing. All I saw was some video. Who knows what people in Manhattan were really allowed to see? In this age, just saying "someone was there and saw it so it can't be faked" doesn't do it.

Hey maybe you're right, maybe there is a "Star-Wars-like" energy weapon that can -lol- turn giant skyscrapers into dust. Maybe it exists. Sure thing, when the American military get their ass kicked in places like Somalia or Afghanistan, they forget to use it, they have to use white phosphorous instead, which is so messy -- maybe the satellites are not always aligned -- but sure. It could exist. But whether or not this technology truly exists is total speculation, isn't it? You don't have any documents to back it up and not a shred of evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, electromagnetic weaponry seem to exist (at least documents exist that support it) as advanced software simulators of fire, smoke and fluid effects for cinema also existed before 2001... and the capability to evacuate entire portions of vast cities certainly exist. When trying to imagine how things went, I'd go with what I know, or what is most likely.

As to the ban threats, what do you expect? There are so many forums out there that are probably most welcome to read your theories and complaints. We, on the other hand, have a need to focus on media fakery, which is what this forum is mostly about. Especially regarding 9/11 because 9/11 was a TV event more than anything else.

Last point: your paragraph about WTC photos that we supposedly could have doctored is so absurd and badly put. First off, do not just say that. Point us to the imagery that you think is photoshopped, show us why and how it is photoshopped, and we can have a discussion about something. Generally, if you read this forum you would know, we don't take at face value any imagery at all. If anything we take the opposite path, and when it comes to media events we tend to believe everything is photoshopped. This is useful though, because our arguments are not proved by this or that image, but by the relation among the different images. If "image A" contradicts "story line B" and "video C", things have been faked. This is usually a method, not: "this picture contradicts this other picture which means that one of the two is real". Pictures of empty offices allegedly taken inside the WTC don't prove anything, but they certainly don't help the cause of buildings bustling with activity either.

[Brutal Metal]

Just using the name Dr Judy Wood, the poster girl for disinformation got artreddin off on the wrong foot for sure!
Don't tell us about seismic research done by Fakes and all that other bullshit!

[Tufa]

Many posts go back to that, if lot of people are told a secret, someone eventually always talk. This is not the case. For the "911" it imply that many workers, or as may people as necessary, can be told a full and complete Secret. I find it natural that The Secret shall include the fact that The Pictures is, or will, be faked. I find it natural that The Secret shall aim at Terrorists. I find it natural that it shall be extremely traumatic. And, to make this clear, I also find it natural that this "The Secret" is also a lie!

A puzzling thing is that we still have some of these "directive energy" argument around. Well, it is indeed speculative to assume some new kind of weapon no one have ever seen. But, you see, it simply don't work, even if such a weapon existed!

I'll agree with Heiwa that a bottom-up controlled demolition is possibly the best way of getting the work done, but would like to see a comparison of a bottom-up and a top-down demolition in terms of technical efficiency. If you go bottom-up, I'll guess that you should demolish both towers at the same time. Another aspect is that, if you take one tower first, any accident can cut a cable or any in the other tower and make trouble there. Please kindly avoid sending missiles or drones into the towers, the problems you have if you cut a cable can easily be much worse compared to any gain in psychological impact. Much more easy to simply say: A while ago the second plane hit...

The demolition site, in pictures above, also cannot be real as there are "beams" that are not connected, and they have not been ripped apart using force. They have also not been cut with shape-charges. They have not been mechanically sawn apart! They where simply not connected in the first place, so the photo is bogus, and the steel beams has been inserted or animated.

The REAL thing is very different from the TV story. They are not SIMILAR!

Oh, YES, I don't believe in the "dustifying" of the concrete floors. This is also to say that I don't believe in a small low-height crash site either. It should be approx 35m above ground-level. A super-mountain of trouble to clean up!