The Empty Towers

[Raven]

I don't believe planes hit the towers or the Pentagon or Shanksville.

Before I found this forum I'd been a huge fan of September Clues.

Since I found this forum I'd been thinking it's possible that some or all of the media-reported victims may be faked.

But here's my dead end. The empty towers.

What I'm getting in inference here, without any direct statements, is that the towers were empty and nobody died.

So, help me out here. Tell me that you can document thousands of fake people going to work in the towers BEFORE 9/11, which sounds ridiculous as I type it... or tell me how long the towers had been empty. Tell me how people called fake people in the towers, ordered fake food in the fake restaurants there, shipped fake business forms and fake french fries up the elevators to the fake people filling fake orders and eating fake fries. How long did this fake environment exist? Did they ship millions of rolls of toilet paper up the elevators and then throw it down the toilet unused? Who was in charge of the fake environment? How long was this hoaxed environment created?

In other words, you're telling me that over the years, only workers went into the towers to dismantle everything and carry it out, and the office arranged leases with fictitious corporations with no employees, and the entire complex in the middle of New York was abandoned... tell me how long ago it was abandoned.

So my dead end came from initially buying the lack of planes, and the simple conviction that the perps would kill thousands of people to maintain control of the oil. So far so good. Once I got here, and read Hoi's presentation, for a while I was on board with fake victims, but the logical string led me into this dead end.

So, so simple answers here...

1.) Were the towers empty, and if so, how did they do it?

2.) How long had the towers been empty?

3.) How is it that nobody has come forward to tell us about the empty towers?

I'm sorry for violating protocol, but I can't buy the empty towers. You had me at September Clues, but you lost me in the empty towers. I believe that that your research made perfect sense until it led you into the empty towers.

If I've made an error in understanding, I believe you'll point it out. But since this post challenges a basic tenet of your overall concept, it may never see the light of day. At best may it serve as some kind of teaching moment for others, because I'm stuck in the empty towers.

[fbenario]

On the spur of the moment I can't point to you exactly where on this forum they are located, but a while back some collective work was done showing the towers were empty, all the financial firms had moved out long beforehand, etc., leaving only Windows On The World to bring in the public on a daily basis. I thought that collective work was pretty convincing, especially since it included docs handled by other city depts. such as permits for building code compliance, including expected renovations, fire prevention and asbestos remediation.

Think about it - if you were managing a financial firm, and you'd survived the 93 bombing intact, wouldn't you do anything to move elsewhere, no matter what rent incentives you'd been offered?

EDIT: Actually, who cares if the buildings were empty? You've got no evidence that any of the 'victims' was ever a real person who actually passed away on 9/11. You've also ignored the credible reports that no one, employee or visitor, was allowed inside the buildings that morning.

Please read the Vicsim Report.

[brianv]

1.) Were the towers empty, and if so, how did they do it? Does it matter?

[Kinda like the media's constant asking of "conspiracy theorists" "how did they get the explosives into the towers"! Answer. In the front fucking door on palettes of course] Likewise the reverse!!

2.) How long had the towers been empty? Does it matter?

3.) How is it that nobody has come forward to tell us about the empty towers? Because there was nobody in the Towers!

I think the clue you might have overlooked is the fact that the external steel walls were load-bearing - meaning you could remove the interior and leave the walls. A shell!

Speaking of the lifts you just mentioned, did you see anything of the 88 lifts in the rubble photos? Thats 88 x multi [200-500] ton motors, ^800 miles of steel cabling and 88 lift-carriages?

[hoi.polloi]

1) The towers were emptied of anything that would point to the real culprit, so that would probably mean not a lot of people got genuine calls to "stay home today" and other such rumored stories. I suspect the lobby and the top of each tower were constantly filled to "normal" levels to make those public areas seem "normal" whereas the more secure areas were emptied.

[speculative questions]Have you ever heard of an FBI office where you can walk right in and ask questions? How about a floor above an FBI office? How many buildings away from an FBI office do you think you'd have to be before they stop securing every square inch of the place? The World Trade Center was alleged to contain FBI, CIA and other security documents and personnel. You can bet your bottom dollar they knew about the plan and were out of there long in advance -- and most likely helped set up the illusion that they remained for a long time after.[/speculative questions]

2) The towers were probably slowly, leisurely emptied over time from the first 1993 WTC bombing (when many companies allegedly evacuated) up until the summer of 2001. If they needed Bush family Securacom company to get some kind of construction client to do extra work post-evacuation, they probably evacuated even earlier and had all the necessary physical work done by summer of 2001. Wouldn't you?

3) Nobody will ever "come forward" to destroy their relationship to their cushy position with the perps. We are expected by the perps to either understand what happened or continue following their bullshit fake news -- but it doesn't matter what you choose. There will always be enough people to call for the hanging of any sort of attempted "whistle blower".

Just look at their straw-man pariah Julian Ass-angel - probably created specifically as a barometer of feelings about "government secrecy". We are in the minority because most people are as untrusting and scared of the truth as the government seems to assume they are. For the most part, we get the government (and its related contractors) we deserve.

[Brutal Metal]

Damm this stuff is DEEP and DIABOLICAL!! If true the biggest Duping in the history of mankind has taken place...
Wow since the first bombing the Twins have been systematically dismantled from the inside out? All those Worldknown financial institutions housed there in the late 90's where FAKE? The estimates of 100,000 people a day entering and leaving is a pipe dream? DAMM I wished I could have been a doorman to observe this wool being pulled over all of New Yorks eyes? Is it even possible?

[Raven]

The entire premise of September Clues came from debunking the live video of September 11, along with an examination of the media's culpability in the affair. Simple If-Then logic followed: If the video was faked, then there were no planes. If there were no planes, the towers had to have been imploded. I'm down with that.

The logic then turned to the "victims." If there were no planes, then there were no people in the planes, ergo the reported victims in the planes did not exist. Fake video, fake planes, fake victims, imploded towers. I'm down with that.

Then, for me, the logic starts to fail. If there were no planes, then not only were there no people in the towers, but the towers had been systematically and totally emptied over an eight year period. Really? This forum has debunked virtually every piece of 9/11 evidence, be it visual or literary. Was the "empty towers" evidence given the same withering attention the other concepts did? Or was it a continued logical stream based on the original premise and unquestionably accepted as the end result of the stream?

If nobody was allowed into the towers on 9/11, that kills the "fake people" idea because the thrust of theory here was that NOBODY EXISTED to go into the towers, so how could they stop imaginary people from entering the towers?

You totally trash the rubble photos as faked, but hold them up to me as evidence that elevator parts weren't there? Hello?

All your original work on the process - which as I said earlier, I'm down with - stands firm and logical in my mind. If your movement is to gather any kind of steam, you're going to have to apply the same depth of study to the empty towers as you did the original video.

[nonhocapito]

The entire premise of September Clues came from debunking the live video of September 11, along with an examination of the media's culpability in the affair. Simple If-Then logic followed: If the video was faked, then there were no planes. If there were no planes, the towers had to have been imploded. I'm down with that.

The logic then turned to the "victims." If there were no planes, then there were no people in the planes, ergo the reported victims in the planes did not exist. Fake video, fake planes, fake victims, imploded towers. I'm down with that.

Then, for me, the logic starts to fail. If there were no planes, then not only were there no people in the towers, but the towers had been systematically and totally emptied over an eight year period. Really? This forum has debunked virtually every piece of 9/11 evidence, be it visual or literary. Was the "empty towers" evidence given the same withering attention the other concepts did? Or was it a continued logical stream based on the original premise and unquestionably accepted as the end result of the stream?

If nobody was allowed into the towers on 9/11, that kills the "fake people" idea because the thrust of theory here was that NOBODY EXISTED to go into the towers, so how could they stop imaginary people from entering the towers?

You totally trash the rubble photos as faked, but hold them up to me as evidence that elevator parts weren't there? Hello?

All your original work on the process - which as I said earlier, I'm down with - stands firm and logical in my mind. If your movement is to gather any kind of steam, you're going to have to apply the same depth of study to the empty towers as you did the original video.

Raven, these supposed contradictions of "our" arguments are there mainly for two reasons:

1) you are not addressing one single individual or one cult where everyone think alike, but different individuals who all got to this story from different angles and like to think about it, as you do, from their special point of view of preference. Like in all forums, it's up to you to follow the "threads" that are most interesting to you.

2) it is not up to us to describe exactly what happened, but rather to point out the absurdities of the cover up. I cannot tell you how many if any died in the tower, but I can tell you that the official list of victims and the memorials are entirely fake. I think that's enough to call shenanigans, don't you think?

Stephen Warran, a former member of this forum that like others got banned because he started to behave like a dick, has done a lot of research on the subject of the WTC tenants prior 9/11 (here's one of his recent posts for example). I don't know and can't say if he is a shill or not, i wasn't even here when he was here (traces of his passages can be found in the archives of this forum). But I think his research demonstrates, like we do on this forum, that it is not far-fetched to think that mock-offices and fake companies were set up to occupy the spaces inside the WTC. This allowed for a high level of control on any possible post-aftermath pressure from family members, lawyers, organizations, companies involved and so on and so forth.

You gotta ask yourself why the architects of the twin towers were never indicted even though they are obviously guilty for having constructed a building so weak that it would dissolve under its own weight. But the truth is that there were no entities or individuals out there asking for a thorough examination of the dynamics of the event, because they had suffered direct damages from it. Funny like that.

It must be obvious to you and anyone else that we cannot know for sure what happened, and that it is not up to us to tell what exactly happened. The idea that the twin towers were empty is just the most likely possibility, when we consider that the lists of victims are completely fake. See what I mean? If you have a better explanation for the apparent non existence of any real victim of 9/11, please be my guest and enlighten us

[brianv]

Instead of directing your efforts at disproving us, do something positive! Produce one victim family member and bring them here, we'll have a chat!

You should have no trouble!

Our Movement?? We don't need no stinking movement!

[Raven]

I m not "disproving" anything. I read the Warren piece before, and it does raise questions about the corporate/government entities claimed to be in the towers. But I am still failing to understand the logic behind vicsims = empty, dismantled-in-advanced towers. I am not saying this did not happen. I just can't understand how it did.

I do appreciate the thoughtful replies, and I'll continue to look at and research the parts of the issue I'm most interested in/confused about. As I have said, the depth and consistency of the original research does demand props, and I guess the resulting threads of logic can be looked at through different eyes without throwing it out.

[21stcenturybreakdown]

I m not "disproving" anything. I read the Warren piece before, and it does raise questions about the corporate/government entities claimed to be in the towers. But I am still failing to understand the logic behind vicsims = empty, dismantled-in-advanced towers. I am not saying this did not happen. I just can't understand how it did.

I do appreciate the thoughtful replies, and I'll continue to look at and research the parts of the issue I'm most interested in/confused about. As I have said, the depth and consistency of the original research does demand props, and I guess the resulting threads of logic can be looked at through different eyes without throwing it out.

The victims are fake so obviously they were not in the buildings were they? If you think about it, it makes sense the towers were pretty much unoccupied, there is virtually no risk of any sharp eyed employees reporting something strange going on as the buildings were prepared for demolition.

[hoi.polloi]

I see why this is so challenging. But consider the fact that we will never know what actually took place. Ever.

Nobody will ever ever ever ever tell us. Period. Basta. It's meant to be a secret and they did a good job.

HOW DID THEY DO IT?

We will never know.

Ever.

Never!!!

Look at the number of people who think giant jet-liners (that they didn't hear) flew across the sky immediately above them (that they didn't see) and collided with some of the most enormous sky-scrapers in the world (that were passe) - causing humongous explosions and both towers to collapse (in a physically impossible manner). This surreal event would be engraved in people's memories far more effectively than it seems to be now -- if it had actually happened. It didn't happen, which is why they have to show so many ridiculous unlikely videos of the fiction and remind us on a monthly basis of the fake villain gang they are chasing down to prevent more surreal non-events from happening.

So ... you're willing to consider people are confused about this arguably memorable - even traumatizing - event ... but you're not willing to consider that something nobody pays much attention to - such as average joes and jills entering and exiting thousands of buildings in a city - was "overlooked"?

Who even knows where exactly their closest friends and family go every day? How about the millions of anonymous strangers and tourists that occupy a big city?

We are not obligated to figure out if the "emptied over 8 years" theory is plausible because we don't know if anyone died. All we know is that the evidence of deaths is fabricated sloppily. If there were real deaths, what would be the reason for this? Perhaps they were abandoned even before 1993. Maybe right before September 2001. Who knows? Not me!

Okay, so now we have a topic called "the empty towers" as if that were some kind of well-established theory. It isn't really. It's just a logical thought based on the possibility of a completely controlled event. So instead of just saying, "alright this seems hard to swallow" (as most people would agree with you) present some contrary evidence. Do some research.

I personally don't care that much. I can't. The event is nearly 10 years old now and if anyone really died, we certainly can't be bothered to dig them up and exhume them for a laboratory. And anyway where would they be?

My speculative assumption is that the amount of fake evidence of fake deaths exists because nobody died and they didn't want anyone to assume there was some kind of generally agreed upon decision to officially remove the towers.

But perhaps - just maybe - all the fakery exists to cover up real deaths that went unreported. I find that harder to believe than an abandoned block of buildings on a valuable piece of land being carefully destroyed. Prove us wrong, I guess. Give me a reason to worry.

[Brutal Metal]

It would be cool if we could track down some people that have proof they worked at the Twins in let's say the summer of 2000
(paycheck stubs,W-2's,tax forms, etc..) There HAS to be AT LEAST ONE we can find right?? How about that HERO Willie,Roberto,whatever that dude's name was that pulled people out of the rubble in the stairways.. His backstory was something like "being a doorman/maintanence guy for 20 years at the TT's" haha!

[21stcenturybreakdown]

It would be cool if we could track down some people that have proof they worked at the Twins in let's say the summer of 2000
(paycheck stubs,W-2's,tax forms, etc..) There HAS to be AT LEAST ONE we can find right?? How about that HERO Willie,Roberto,whatever that dude's name was that pulled people out of the rubble in the stairways.. His backstory was something like "being a doorman/maintanence guy for 20 years at the TT's" haha!

I think you mean William Rodriguez, who changes his story every 5 minutes.

My cousin worked on the observation decks in summer 2001. All that would prove is that the public facilities remained open.The chance of people being up on the south tower observation areas wasn't a problem on 9/11, they were not open that morning.

[warriorhun]

Dear Raven,

I like your questions. Only clashing of opinions and argument and thinking together leads to real results.
If we would accept any theory as the gospel, without thinking it over ourselves, we might as well accept the official story, no?
What we must bear in mind, we know two things:
1. The Twin Towers are not standing today.
2. The pictures and videos, the imagery of the 9/11 attacks are faked.
This is what we know. What really happened? We can NOT tell what really happened by watching fake videos. We can only tell what NOT happened. What NOT happened is what we all saw in the Media that day. And like all the non-perp population of the Earth, Media is the only source of information for us regarding 9/11. What would make any part of the official Media story credible knowing what we know about the 9/11fakery? "Any part" includes the vicsims, too.
So what can we do? We can speculate only on what happened. We can speculate, we can try to figure out what may have happened, but we will never know for sure. We try to apply logic, simple peasant common sense, Occam's razor, our combined thinking and research.
Let me give you my opinion.
You say:

1.) Were the towers empty, and if so, how did they do it?

You really do not need any elaborate play-acting of a lot of people beforehand, occupying the Towers, pretending to work, going in and out and whatnot. After the Twin Towers fell, you do not need to have physical evidence and proof of life of peoples and firms and their previous physical activities in the towers. All you need to show, and all you would have in case even if 9/11 would have been for real, are paper files and computer files of tenants, invoices, lists of names, etcetera. And you can even say a lot of files were destroyed in the attacks, so you do not even have to produce full and intact records.
And you need an automatic system turning on and off lights in the building randomly, the way people do with their homes if they leave home but want the burglars to think they are at home.
You say:

2.) How long had the towers been empty?

At the latest when the perps started to prepare the building for 9/11 it was empty. When was that, which year? That we do not know and can not say.
But on 9/11 I think it was empty. Why would they kill 3000 Americans when they can achieve the same psychological effect on the TV-viewers minds and emotions by simply saying 3000 died? Why would they risk people not in the know being in the building? Those people may find the explosives, would know there were no planes, etcetera. How would the perps know that not a single one of them would survive by mistake and blow the cover-story totally? The perps would have had to kill the 3000 before the taking down of the Twin Towers to make it sure nobody leaves alive. Why bothering when an empty tower means no messy murders and no extra risks and headache?
You say:

3.) How is it that nobody has come forward to tell us about the empty towers?

If the Towers were empty, that means nobody was there, so that means nobody can tell that others were not there either.
On a more general level, do not imagine the 9/11 operation as lots of perpetrators with full knowledge. It does not work that way, it was and is a clandestine operation.
This works only if there is a strict need-to-know basis, compartmentalization and breaking down of activities, with strictly limited information flow, separation of duties between people not knowing each other personally. Only a handful of people may know the whole picture, and lots of people may not even know that they are participating in the project.

9/11 as a Media psyops was done for achieving a planned and designed impact on the minds of the population, to provoke calculated mass reactions, that means each part of it was calculated. The 3000 vicsims of the official story are built in as a psychological barrier. People are afraid of that barrier, because they do not know for sure what happened-never forget, we are speculating only what really happened-and are afraid that if we are mistaken, that means we are de-secrating the memories of innocent people who died a terrible death and then we are on the moral levels of grave-robbers or something. This psychological barrier can be used as a weapon: if someone brings up TV fakery of 9/11 on forums, there always comes somebody claiming he witnessed it all, there were planes, and his friends/relatives died in the towers, so the no-planer should shut the fuck up. So, instead of arguments and facts, they bring up an emotional statement without any further proof needed, because of the psychological barrier, and this makes the no-planer look like a bad grave-robber guy. (This is typical hasbara tactics by the way...)
An example:

TheThunderbird63: I watched all of this from a Brooklyn rooftop. I watched the second plane smash into the South Tower, and saw both collapses an hour later.
I know what I saw that day, and it was a plane that slammed into that building. Now please, in honor of my friends and family that were lost that day please, kindly fuck off kthx.

By claiming a hypothetical moral highground with emotion manipulation of supposed friends and family lost, he does not have to prove his claim, but in the eyes of other readers, the no-planer will appear a cruel, immoral and inconsiderate, heartless bastard. This is about third-party awareness and manipulation: these people do not want to convince you really but want to convince the third-party reader, however, they are counting on the psychological barrier, they want you to think that you are just speculatig but you are wrong and you just spat on the graves of innocents. In this case, his claim of being a witness AND being vicsim family member AND having lost friends in WTC is what seems to be a bit too much of a real possibility.

And I hope we are right: the psychological barrier works with me, too... However, finding the Daniel Lewin/David E. Retik vicsim discrepancy myself was the strongest convincing factor for me regarding the vicsim-theory.

[Raven]

Dear Raven,

I like your questions. Only clashing of opinions and argument and thinking together leads to real results.
If we would accept any theory as the gospel, without thinking it over ourselves, we might as well accept the official story, no?
What we must bear in mind, we know two things:
1. The Twin Towers are not standing today.
2. The pictures and videos, the imagery of the 9/11 attacks are faked.
This is what we know. What really happened? We can NOT tell what really happened by watching fake videos. We can only tell what NOT happened. What NOT happened is what we all saw in the Media that day. And like all the non-perp population of the Earth, Media is the only source of information for us regarding 9/11. What would make any part of the official Media story credible knowing what we know about the 9/11fakery? "Any part" includes the vicsims, too.
So what can we do? We can speculate only on what happened. We can speculate, we can try to figure out what may have happened, but we will never know for sure. We try to apply logic, simple peasant common sense, Occam's razor, our combined thinking and research.
Let me give you my opinion.
You say:

1.) Were the towers empty, and if so, how did they do it?

You really do not need any elaborate play-acting of a lot of people beforehand, occupying the Towers, pretending to work, going in and out and whatnot. After the Twin Towers fell, you do not need to have physical evidence and proof of life of peoples and firms and their previous physical activities in the towers. All you need to show, and all you would have in case even if 9/11 would have been for real, are paper files and computer files of tenants, invoices, lists of names, etcetera. And you can even say a lot of files were destroyed in the attacks, so you do not even have to produce full and intact records.
And you need an automatic system turning on and off lights in the building randomly, the way people do with their homes if they leave home but want the burglars to think they are at home.
You say:

2.) How long had the towers been empty?

At the latest when the perps started to prepare the building for 9/11 it was empty. When was that, which year? That we do not know and can not say.
But on 9/11 I think it was empty. Why would they kill 3000 Americans when they can achieve the same psychological effect on the TV-viewers minds and emotions by simply saying 3000 died? Why would they risk people not in the know being in the building? Those people may find the explosives, would know there were no planes, etcetera. How would the perps know that not a single one of them would survive by mistake and blow the cover-story totally? The perps would have had to kill the 3000 before the taking down of the Twin Towers to make it sure nobody leaves alive. Why bothering when an empty tower means no messy murders and no extra risks and headache?
You say:

3.) How is it that nobody has come forward to tell us about the empty towers?

If the Towers were empty, that means nobody was there, so that means nobody can tell that others were not there either.
On a more general level, do not imagine the 9/11 operation as lots of perpetrators with full knowledge. It does not work that way, it was and is a clandestine operation.
This works only if there is a strict need-to-know basis, compartmentalization and breaking down of activities, with strictly limited information flow, separation of duties between people not knowing each other personally. Only a handful of people may know the whole picture, and lots of people may not even know that they are participating in the project.

9/11 as a Media psyops was done for achieving a planned and designed impact on the minds of the population, to provoke calculated mass reactions, that means each part of it was calculated. The 3000 vicsims of the official story are built in as a psychological barrier. People are afraid of that barrier, because they do not know for sure what happened-never forget, we are speculating only what really happened-and are afraid that if we are mistaken, that means we are de-secrating the memories of innocent people who died a terrible death and then we are on the moral levels of grave-robbers or something. This psychological barrier can be used as a weapon: if someone brings up TV fakery of 9/11 on forums, there always comes somebody claiming he witnessed it all, there were planes, and his friends/relatives died in the towers, so the no-planer should shut the fuck up. So, instead of arguments and facts, they bring up an emotional statement without any further proof needed, because of the psychological barrier, and this makes the no-planer look like a bad grave-robber guy. (This is typical hasbara tactics by the way...)
An example:

TheThunderbird63: I watched all of this from a Brooklyn rooftop. I watched the second plane smash into the South Tower, and saw both collapses an hour later.
I know what I saw that day, and it was a plane that slammed into that building. Now please, in honor of my friends and family that were lost that day please, kindly fuck off kthx.

By claiming a hypothetical moral highground with emotion manipulation of supposed friends and family lost, he does not have to prove his claim, but in the eyes of other readers, the no-planer will appear a cruel, immoral and inconsiderate, heartless bastard. This is about third-party awareness and manipulation: these people do not want to convince you really but want to convince the third-party reader, however, they are counting on the psychological barrier, they want you to think that you are just speculatig but you are wrong and you just spat on the graves of innocents. In this case, his claim of being a witness AND being vicsim family member AND having lost friends in WTC is what seems to be a bit too much of a real possibility.

And I hope we are right: the psychological barrier works with me, too... However, finding the Daniel Lewin/David E. Retik vicsim discrepancy myself was the strongest convincing factor for me regarding the vicsim-theory.

Thanks. You just made it a lot easier for me to understand. A long way to go yet, but the "psychological barrier" is a tall one indeed.