9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

There will be a caravan/carpool down to the Saturday night, Cambridge showing of Improbable Collapse, with a mini tour of Cambridge (OK, one eatery featured in Good Will Hunting).

We could do a more thorough tour of Cambridge if people wanted to leave more like noon-time, rather than the scheduled 4:45PM departure. It's a very cool place, especially in springtime with all the buskers around Harvard Square, where Bob Dylan and other notables used to perform for change.

Details at the thread about the movie: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7647.0

Cancel the idea about a more thorough tour - I've got work pressures that don't allow me to take off any earlier - maybe soon, though, because the street music scene (and magic and puppets and fire-eaters, etc.) starts really hopping when the weather turns good.

[powerchuter]

We're not talking anything complex.  And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look.  This isn't some big secret.

I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.

www.improbablecollapse.com

Improbable Collapse is definitely the most convincing documentary that I have seen to date.

Although...

As I watched the events of 911 in "real time" there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever...
All three structures crumbled and were reduced to rubble at gravitational free-fall speed...
Buildings do not do this except during precision controlled demolitions...
There has never been a similarly constructed building that has done this "naturally"...

I don't say this to convince those who are still in shock. disbelief, and/or denial...

I only say it for those who have matured in their wisdom of these and similar events...
And who are willing to read, hear, and/or view the evidence and discussions with an open mind, common sense, and a healthy appetite for the truth...

"And by their Exercised and Well Regulated Sovereignty...or lack thereof...ye shall know them as Masters or slaves"

[jaqeboy]

We're not talking anything complex.  And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look.  This isn't some big secret.

I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.

There are 2 remaining showings of Improbable Collapse in the area (Cambridge, Mass. today and Wilton, N.H. Sunday) where you can view a film presentation and question Michael Berger, the filmmaker about his research. Everything in his film is public record stuff, with the exception of some footage shot surreptitiously at the WTC7 site by someone with a hidden camera.

Berger admits that there is a lot that we do not know about these collapses, but from his information, claims that the standard story is "Improbable." From his website:

"The film closely examines one of the world?s worst catastrophes from a civil engineering perspective.  Using photo and video footage as well as expert scientific testimony, the film thoroughly examines the official reports, offering varied criticisms of the official findings, while raising a more plausible hypothesis.  The findings from these scientific experts  have been quietly ignored by both government investigations and the mainstream media. "

He stated at the showing in Concord that we (the non-professionals) won't know and can't possibly know what really happened, but should push for a re-opening of the investigation by professionals (and by a commision not lead by insiders like Henry Kissinger or Phillip Zelikow).

Your answer to getting your questions answered could start with attending tonight's showing (carpool meetup just one exit down from you), or tomorrow's showing in Wilton. All are welcome. Viewing this vid. should be a pre-requisite to being in this discussion, in order to be operating on some common ground.

[Insurgent]

(reposted from Improbable Collapse thread)

What a great time today! Jack, Mark and I drove down to Cambridge and Jack gave tour guide tidbits along the way. We ate at a popular burger place then headed over to the venue for the film.

About 40 people showed up to watch it, and they seemed like a pretty good mix of people. The film went over well with them and people were receptive during Michael's talk and q&a afterwards. They kept asking good questions right up to the time when we had to leave the building to make room for the next group.

We had the privilege of giving Michael a ride up to Manchester and I grilled him with questions the whole way up. He is a veritable wealth of information about 9/11 and related events.

Still two more showings and chances to meet him:

Sunday, April 22, 2007
4:00 PM
WILTON TOWN HALL THEATRE
40 Main Street
Wilton, NH

Monday, April 23, 2007
8:00 PM
HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE - Franklin Patterson Main Lecture Hall
893 West St.
Amherst, MA

[mvpel]

As I watched the events of 911 in "real time" there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever...
All three structures crumbled and were reduced to rubble at gravitational free-fall speed...
Buildings do not do this except during precision controlled demolitions...
There has never been a similarly constructed building that has done this "naturally"...

Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed?  I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.

[Insurgent]

You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.

[MaineShark]

You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.

The folks who made Improbable Collapse are actually paid by the government to promote the notion that hijackers couldn't pull off such an attack, because people would demand to be armed while flying if they knew how simple it was for hijackers to take over planes and use them to destroy buildings.  Guns in the hands of passengers would stop those sort of attacks, and the government doesn't want to allow that.  So, they secretly pay people to make these movies that claim that only explosive charges could demolish buildings, to convince fence-sitters not to support arming passengers.

Really.  I have all the documents, as well as experts who I've paid to testify that they personally talked to a hot dog vendor who knows this guy whose cousin once found a napkin in a bar that had strange writing on it which he translated using methods only he knows, and it said all that.  Of course, he's not a linguist, but all the linguists are in a conspiracy to support Improbably Collapse, so they all say it was a ring from spilled beer, but we know they're just covering for the Improbable Collapse people.

Oh, and I can prove it.  You just have to pay to attend my movie, which is 27 hours long, and the evidence is at the end, but it won't make any sense unless you watch from the beginning.  If I have to pause it so you can go to the bathroom, I charge $9 per second, so go quickly.

C'mon, Insurgent.  He asked a simple question,  Consider it a teaser for the film.

Joe

[Insurgent]

You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.

The folks who made Improbable Collapse are actually paid by the government to promote the notion that hijackers couldn't pull off such an attack, because people would demand to be armed while flying if they knew how simple it was for hijackers to take over planes and use them to destroy buildings.  Guns in the hands of passengers would stop those sort of attacks, and the government doesn't want to allow that.  So, they secretly pay people to make these movies that claim that only explosive charges could demolish buildings, to convince fence-sitters not to support arming passengers.

Really.  I have all the documents, as well as experts who I've paid to testify that they personally talked to a hot dog vendor who knows this guy whose cousin once found a napkin in a bar that had strange writing on it which he translated using methods only he knows, and it said all that.  Of course, he's not a linguist, but all the linguists are in a conspiracy to support Improbably Collapse, so they all say it was a ring from spilled beer, but we know they're just covering for the Improbable Collapse people.

Oh, and I can prove it.  You just have to pay to attend my movie, which is 27 hours long, and the evidence is at the end, but it won't make any sense unless you watch from the beginning.  If I have to pause it so you can go to the bathroom, I charge $9 per second, so go quickly.

C'mon, Insurgent.  He asked a simple question,  Consider it a teaser for the film.

Joe

Heh--I'll take that in good spirit. My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing 

The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.

[MaineShark]

Heh--I'll take that in good spirit.

Good.

My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing 

The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.

Well, why should we?  He's telling us that "it couldn't have happened that way," when basic physics says it could.  Heck, I knew those buildings were coming down the minute I saw the video footage on the news.  And even if we were to say, "well, maybe even though it could, it still might not have," no one seems willing to provide any evidence to support that.  You told mvpel that there were numerous easily-verifiable facts to support your claims, but you haven't been willing to share them.  Saying "people benefitted from this" could be evidence that those people caused it, but it isn't evidence that they used some particular method to cause it.

As I said before, my time is valuable.  If this film actually contains meaningful facts on the subject of the physical failure that people claim was caused by demolition charges, I'd be interested in seeing it.  But I'm not interested in the rest.  It's like framing the guilty.  It's like someone announcing that they have proof that Hilter kicked a dog.  The evidence might or might not hold up, and it's easy enough to believe that he did, but would it actually matter, with everything else he did?

The United States government burned men, women, and children to death on American soil on national television, admitted doing it, and blamed the victims for forcing them to do it.  And what came of that?  They put the survivors in prison and called it a day.  A Federal sniper murdered a woman holding a child, and they gave him a medal for it.  How many people do they kill and otherwise harm every year?  Right here in America, and right in the public spotlight?

I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.  It is plausible, but it wouldn't lower my opinion of them even if you could prove it.  It's well within character.

What I take issue with is the claim that they did it by using demolitions charges or somesuch, rather than simply hiring people to fly the planes into the buildings, which would be more keeping with their typical methods.  If you have evidence to support that claim, post it.

Joe

[error]

I didn't go to the World Trade Center on 9/11. I must be in on it!!!

[Insurgent]

Heh--I'll take that in good spirit.

Good.

My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing 

The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.

Well, why should we?  He's telling us that "it couldn't have happened that way," when basic physics says it could.  Heck, I knew those buildings were coming down the minute I saw the video footage on the news.  And even if we were to say, "well, maybe even though it could, it still might not have," no one seems willing to provide any evidence to support that.  You told mvpel that there were numerous easily-verifiable facts to support your claims, but you haven't been willing to share them.  Saying "people benefitted from this" could be evidence that those people caused it, but it isn't evidence that they used some particular method to cause it.

As I said before, my time is valuable.  If this film actually contains meaningful facts on the subject of the physical failure that people claim was caused by demolition charges, I'd be interested in seeing it.  But I'm not interested in the rest.  It's like framing the guilty.  It's like someone announcing that they have proof that Hilter kicked a dog.  The evidence might or might not hold up, and it's easy enough to believe that he did, but would it actually matter, with everything else he did?

The United States government burned men, women, and children to death on American soil on national television, admitted doing it, and blamed the victims for forcing them to do it.  And what came of that?  They put the survivors in prison and called it a day.  A Federal sniper murdered a woman holding a child, and they gave him a medal for it.  How many people do they kill and otherwise harm every year?  Right here in America, and right in the public spotlight?

I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.  It is plausible, but it wouldn't lower my opinion of them even if you could prove it.  It's well within character.

What I take issue with is the claim that they did it by using demolitions charges or somesuch, rather than simply hiring people to fly the planes into the buildings, which would be more keeping with their typical methods.  If you have evidence to support that claim, post it.

Joe

Basic Physics says that it could, what? That buildings specifically built to withstand the crash of a comparable aircraft and associated fires would collapse at free-fall speed? Which law of Physics is that?

The statement that I made about verifiable facts was in reference to all of the events pertaining to 9/11, not just the building collapses. That being said, the one aspect that no skeptic will be able to explain is the speed at which the buildings fell--including Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. If one buys in to the "pancake theory" then explain why there was no resistance from the lower floors during the collapse.

Again, I need to point out that "the government" murdered the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge, as you referenced. "The government" did not orchestrate 9/11. This is what confuses many people and causes them to cast aside any "conspiracy theories". While we will likely never be able to finger every individual who was involved in the attacks, we can certainly point to rogue figures within the government and intelligence agencies.

The film does go in to great detail about the collapse of the buildings, shredding the "official story". It was a perfect opportunity to view it and take part in a q&a with the film maker afterwards. While that window has closed, the opportunity to watch the video still exists and I strongly encourage everyone to see it. There are few 9/11 "conspiracy videos" that I will recommend, but this is one that I will.

[error]

How about verifiable falsehoods?

[Insurgent]

How about verifiable falsehoods?

I'm interested in verifiable falsehoods as well as verifiable truths. The film maker is, too which is why he steers clear of all the moonbat stuff and only discusses facts which are on the public record. You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards. Easier to just smite me, instead 

[JonM]

The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed.  What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed.  That wasn't part of the design.

[Dreepa]

[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.

He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?