Museum scours world for new videos of 9/11 attacks

"None of it makes any sense."

So what makes sense to you, couple guys with box cutters causing that much damamge? Buildings coming apart in freefall speeds? Most protected building in the world, not having any video of airliner hitting it? #7 building misteriously falling? Owner of the WTC doubling his investment within couple months after purchasing the buildings? I can go on.

How simplistic to think that just because they might not be directly getting money, there is nothing to gain. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that these people may just want attention. You still haven't addressed my question as to what significance bulletproof glass could be when dealing with tons of falling building. Nor have you yourself provided any reason why a professional demo crew would be set up so close to ground zero. None of it makes any sense.

ANOTSUSAGAMI,

I don't think you understand me correctly. Please watch this video, it has it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNbH4OLyXt4

And what personal gain are you talking about? None of these people earn a single cent out of this.

Because your scenario is full of holes. The biggest verifiable one is your claim to building #7 being a command post. You say bulletproof glass was installed in the building before the attack. Certainly this has nothing at all to do with the well documented near hurricane force winds that passed through the towers due to their height and size. You imply that it was installed to protect the command post, because everyone knows bulletproof glass can stop a falling building. A professional demo team would NOT setup so close to an implosion in case they miscalculated and the building didn't fall straight down. Again, a large part of one of the towers FELL ON building #7, killing your theory. As for those with the "balls" to come forward, surely they couldn't possibly be lying to get their names in the paper. Who would do such a thing, lie about such a tragedy for personal gain?

Superlib,

Why is it so hard to believe they were able to place thousands of charges in right places for both of the buildings? Nightwork for months is the answer. Did you see the web site of controlled demolutions? Aren't they what they proud of doing for some 60 years? The picture in their site, look at the dust clouds coming off of that building, doesn't it look familiar? What about all those architects and engineers, had balls big enough to come forward and say it's impossible for those buildings to go down the way they did? I know you'll believe what you want to believe. Your little world would be crushed if you had to believe this is not the artwork of couptle guys with boxcutters.

I watched your little video, and the host basically presented my argument for me, which is the argument that all conspiracy theorists ignore. It would take a large team of men to place thousands of charges in order to have Gage's theory be correct. That, to me, is more outlandish than any evidence that he could ever present about the dynamics of metal, especially in a completely unique situation that is unlike any of the fires in a skyscraper before it (ie no planes crashing into it first).

Why not just park a truck in front of the towers with enough TNT to cause a catastrophic event? Wouldn't that be a little easier than a grand plan with possibly hundreds of men planting thousands of charges? Just the planes crashing into the towers alone would be a stark enough image that would warrant military action in Afghanistan. And that could be done with just a handful of people in the loop.

But no....they decided to plant thousands of charges and include hundreds of people into their plan just so the towers could fall anyway?

And this entire operation was pulled off without a single shred of proof being left behind, no evidence of planning, meetings, missing amounts of the supposedly "military grade" charges that would be required, no tapes phone calls, not even a piece of paper showing the twin towers with explosives drawn onto it?

The sheer size of the project that you're claiming increases the likelihood of it being discovered.....yet you have absolutely no proof whatsoever. The motives to start a war can be done without involving possibly hundreds of people that would need to be silenced.

What's your saying is completely and utterly illogical.

ANOTSUSAGAMI,

They admit to not being engineers, then in the same breath claim to be experts on how buildings fall. They cite other building collapses throughout history, conveniently ignoring the fact that neither before nor since has this exact situation been duplicated. True men and women of science will admit to the myriad of things that there are no explaination for, yet these untrained laymen know better

Our knowledge is fed by architects and engineers. http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth Real problem is, neither superlib nor you are interested in the subject enough to research it on your own. See what are the arguments and present your counter opinions.

Quick question. If in fact building #7 was the command post, why would they have picked such a close building from which point inside the building the plane strikes could not be seen?

One of the reason that #7 thought as command center, it's windows was changed couple months before the event to bolleproof glasses. Videos I posted up there, or just a quick search on youtube will expose this and many more points.

SuperLib - fantastic post. For people who seem to enjoy speculating, one wonders why it escapes them to try and play the devil's advocate and attempt to poke holes in thier own theories to test thier plausibility. One would think the holes are obvious. They admit to not being engineers, then in the same breath claim to be experts on how buildings fall. They cite other building collapses throughout history, conveniently ignoring the fact that neither before nor since has this exact situation been duplicated. True men and women of science will admit to the myriad of things that there are no explaination for, yet these untrained laymen know better. The Tower's "freefall" was outlined in the magazine Popular Science and btw is far more plausible than a secret command center in building #7. Quick question. If in fact building #7 was the command post, why would they have picked such a close building from which point inside the building the plane strikes could not be seen? On top of that had there been an error in judgement, debris from the towers could have fallen on the building (it did BTW) injuring the command crew? Proffessionals would not make that mistake.

Superlib,

Please try to keep it short, at least try not to repeat yourself.

Any idea where they would recruit such a large amount of people who were 1) qualified to do the work and 2) agreed to secretly blow up two of the tallest buildings in the world (plus a 3rd building?) and kill Americans in the process?

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/

I'm not going to make up any stories about what happened. Instead, please see this video and let's have a healthy discussion after. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=loose+change&emb=0#

Damien15.....

OK. So this was all planned. Can you fill us in on the theories about how all of it was carried out?

I'm guessing you have the opinion that not only #7 was taken down, but the twin towers as well. That means a construction crews would have to go into buildings to plant the charges. How many people would it take? We're talking about two of the largest buildings in the world. More people = less time, less people = more time. But also, more people means more people are involved which means the odds of being exposed are exponential since one person would be able to provide proof of the entire operation.

So they'd have to get a pretty sizable crew together in order to have the project completed, and said crew would have to do this without being caught. Are there any records from maintenance/cleaning crews which says they were forbidden from entering certain floors during certain times of the night? Are there any logs by the security guards showing construction crews going into the building at night? That would be a small crew for a long time or a very large crew for a short time.

Any idea where they would recruit such a large amount of people who were 1) qualified to do the work and 2) agreed to secretly blow up two of the tallest buildings in the world (plus a 3rd building?) and kill Americans in the process?

Any work would have to be hidden, so they'd have to rip out walls overnight, plant the charges in the right places, then have it all covered up by morning. This would have to happen on every important structural part of the building. Any reports of anyone in any office seeing anything suspicious? Did any manager walk into his office and see a fresh coat of paint anywhere and decide to ask questions about what was going on?

Then, all of the charges would have to be linked together in a way that no one could see them. It's not the standard gutted out structure being collapsed, it's a fully stocked office. They'd have to have all of the wiring perfect in what would be the most complicated demolition even undertaken, done without anyone noticing anything at all, and completed by a group of men who knew what they were doing. Plus, it would have to be done in a way that no one would be able to see any of the charges going off....no domino of explosions down to the bottom like we usually see. They'd have to invent a new technique for that, correct?

But that's just the building. The entire plan would depend on getting planes to hit them, which means that would have to be set up by the government as well. Let's say they're able to find a group of terrorists willing to do that just for the sake of killing Americans. And also for the sake of keeping this post to under 10,000 words.

So now we have the charges in place and the people to fly the planes into the building. Enter Osama. He has to be contacted and agree to take the blame for the crime before any of this happens. He has to be made privy of the situation and agree to release videos after taking responsibility for the attacks. Osama does this despite being able to simple wait for the towers to fall, then show in detail how the US government contacted him to take the blame for it, thereby destroying any and all credibility that the US government could have in any war against him. But instead of goes along with it, refuses to be captured (as per the plan), then watched Afghanistan fall. He agrees to essentially lose his freedom and have his centralized structure destroyed. I'm assuming there's some benefit to him, but it would have to be a pretty large benefit in order to offset what he's giving up. Any idea of what he was promised?

And from top to bottom, everyone from the men who planted the explosives, the people who planned it, to the terrorists themselves, everyone would have to take a vow of silence that they've kept to this day, and successfully take steps that no hard evidence could be found except for questions people ask when watching a video.

Now I know you don't believe the official story, but you expect me to believe the above instead? If I have any information wrong, please point it out. I'm more than happy to hear your theories about how the worlds most complicated demo job could have been pulled off in secret. And as you may have noticed, I like details. I don't want to hear that the buildings were taken down on purpose. I want you to tell me how it could have been done. Go ahead and give it your best guess. That's what I've done above.

Damien: the helecopter is said to defy physics. I can believe the gov did it. I can however believe they may have let it happen. That at least is reasonable and believable. I am not saying they did though. I really don't believe the US has had such an intelligent person to pull off such a thing amongst our elected officials.

Trutherism is so 2006.

I don't think GWB had anything to do with it either. Not even sure if he was involved. Surely I have more questions than answers. I don't like conspiracy theorist, neither anarchists. But when I saw the top of the building is falling with an angle, I was sure it didn't receive any resistance from the floors below. That fact itself is a proof enough. I'm not engineer or arhitect, but I know bit of physics to understand that's not how buildings fall.

Oh, they were big but I didn't take a camera. I did not take a look at how they were placed on the barges, but when taking a ferry to Jersey I think I saw a few that took several barges. But I don't see how that helps you case.

Do you really believe GWB was able to come up with such an idea? I don't.

skipthesong, I'm glad we have someone here that has first hand experience. How big would you say the biggest pieces of the rubble was, when they were being transferred to the barges? How many floors fo the building was still standing?

Fact: Rubble of buildings were cleared in like 10 days, if not quicker. There were no cuttings of the steel columns done on the ground, which is known to be very hard thing to do. You know, the company came and picked up the rubble, has a trademark. When they bring the buildings down by controlled demolution, they gurantee that there will be no need for cuttings steel columns in the ground, because columns will be cut to fit trucks."

Excuse me, but while I was not present at the WTC that day (I was on my honey moon) I was there two days later id-ing bodies (Dental/med Tech, US Army Reserve gave me that priv). I was there on the ground watching those beam being lifted by cranes and pulled on pully like machines. The water is only about a hundred yards from ground zero. they were put on barges and sent to Staten Island where much of the cutting up was done by the department of sanitation. I can't debate you on your facts on the building going down, but I don't believe you as much as I don't believe birthers facts. But I can debate you on what was going on days after.

Please see Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth

open your eyes. Wake up people. You're making it too easy for them.

If sone one can explain, how could the buildings fall in free fall speeds, please do. Because noone else can. Both buildings came down under 9 seconds!!

And what on earth would be the purpose of imploding a secondary building at the WTC? The Twin towers were down. Golly, don't you think that's enough?

Please read previous comments. Dilbert said the only reason for #7 building to come down was to destroy evidence. It was the command center for operations.

Suprtlib,

How long did it take the Twin Towers to fall? And didn't they essentially implode straight down? Why aren't you saying that that was also an inside job?

Read your words, "implode straight down", how can you explain this in physics? What other building in human history has imploded stratight down? There was a scyscraper burned in Spain for some 10 hours and sure enough hadn't fallen. Both buildings were pulverised to dust!! What can explain this other than explosives placed in exact places for weeks in advance. And for your information, there were reports of late night work in those buildings prior to the events. Check this site for the truth. Many architects and engineers, who did not buy governments official explanation gathered here. www.ae911truth.org

These are knowledgeable people, more than you and I. They have no other motivation than finding the truth.

Good post Superlib. It's really no wonder that people believe in any wacked out theory they read.

It was not OBL and Al Quaeda.

What hit pentagon? Was it really an airliner?

purpertrated by Israel and Israeli insiders inside the Bush administration.

Heh. The tin-foil hat brigade is out in full force on this thread. It's actually good to know who believes in these nutter conspiracy theories so you can discount their posts on every other topic as well.

superlib, thats the best post I have ever read on the subject. Nice work.

Dilbert, unanswered questions do not constitute proof.

No buildings fall like that in the human history, even after burning tens of hours.

Really? They have other examples of skyscrapers burning for hours on end? Usually when a skyscraper is on fire there are firefighters who arrive on the scene. A country that has the technology to build a skyscraper also has the ability to have a rescue squad. The only difference was that the area was too dangerous so the building burned for hours without any help. That's a unique situation that can lead to unique results.

Proof#1: Buildings don't fall in freefall speeds. Both buildings came down under 9 seconds.

How long did it take the Twin Towers to fall? And didn't they essentially implode straight down? Why aren't you saying that that was also an inside job?

The fact is that most demolition jobs are handled by a handful of family companies in the US. They're the only ones with the expertise to do it. You can't just hire some guys to perfectly implode a building. It's a science. That's why the companies who handle it are usually families who pass down knowledge from generation to generation.

And don't demo charges have to be put in the exactly the right places? How did they manage to put charges perfectly in place without a single worker in the entire office building knowing about it? That's assuming they did it beforehand. The other option is that a group of guys rushed in right after the Twin Towers were hit, knocked down walls, placed the charges, and did a perfect job in a matter of hours for a job that usually takes weeks to complete.

For your absurd theory to be true you'd need a team of people, plans, explosives, etc. You're saying you can't find a single person to step forward and say that they were part of the job? Not even one? No memos, no conversations, no evidence of this grand plan that you talk about has ever come to light. It would take dozens of people to pull this off, and you can't find a single person to come forward or a single leaked document detailing the plans?

And what on earth would be the purpose of imploding a secondary building at the WTC? The Twin towers were down. Golly, don't you think that's enough? But you're saying Bush wanted to put icing on the cake so he hired a team of dozens of men to secretly implode the building and not get caught in the process?

And not only that, they decided to do it in a way that would perfectly implode a building to which people would be asking questions? They managed to fool the entire world, just about every government on earth, but they didn't think, "Hey, if we perfectly implode it people might ask questions?"

And if they planned for #7 to go down, then they knew that the towers were going to get hit? That means they made plans with Bin Laden so he would take the blame for them? So Bin Laden and the US government worked as a team to create the situation that would begin the worlds largest manhunt in the history of the world for Bin Laden? And when the US government threatened to go into Afghanistan, Bin Laden stuck to his story about him being the mastermind when he knew the net result would be losing Afghanistan as his playground?

Even if the US government was behind all of it, what on earth would motivate Bin Laden to go along with it? His men are being killed now by US troops. That's what he wanted in the end?

I could go on and on forever with this. You have a half-dozen unanswered questions about the official story but there are hundreds of unanswered questions about yours. And for someone who believes an unanswered questions constitutes proof, one could easily say that your story has a lot more to answer for than the US government's story.

"Dilbert14" now on post production. wait a bit more.

"remember! we were victims blablablablabla..." Sad that innocent people paid for insane politics and agendas (read supremacy)

Why can't they release a video of airliner hitting pentagon?

Because no one was standing by with a video camera at that time?

Bobbadett, True. So why the absence of facts? Why can't they release a video of airliner hitting pentagon? Because there isn't any.

Fact: Rubble of buildings were cleared in like 10 days, if not quicker. There were no cuttings of the steel columns done on the ground, which is known to be very hard thing to do. You know, the company came and picked up the rubble, has a trademark. When they bring the buildings down by controlled demolution, they gurantee that there will be no need for cuttings steel columns in the ground, because columns will be cut to fit trucks. If rubble kept for further investigation, it could be proven that there are traces of explsives in the steel. That's why they had to be shipped to china recycling ASAP.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that you can make anything fit your theory in the absence of fact.

Proof#1: Buildings don't fall in freefall speeds. Both buildings came down under 9 seconds.

Proof#2: #7Building going down without any reason. owner admited that it was pulled. Procedure takes weeks to execute, noone walks into a burning building with explosives. Proof#3: What hit Pentagon could not be an airliner. Damage was pictured and it looked nothing like airliner. There was one single hole into the building which airliner could not have caused.

They did a sloppy job and we still buy it. and smithinjapan, I didn't mean to take a crack at you at all. I'm just very sad for the fact that we are who we are, buying this bunch of crap, not demanding to see hard evidence. Like those videos confiscated from gas stations and hotels around pentagon.

Dilbert: I'm not going to get into name-calling based on what one person believes, because without evidence either way that's all it is. Taking a crack at me for believing 'what the media says' as opposed to conspiracy blogs or what have you isn't going to win anyone over. I also would never automatically side with people like seijichuu who clearly buy into things based on emotion alone (ie. the horrible attack on the US).

Proof. Proof, baby. That's what's needed.

stupid

Smithjapan, Sure, let's believe everyting they say in news. I saw the video of the owner of the buildings saying that the fire was too intense so they made the decision to "pull it". His exact words. Pull it means they had to plant exlosives in the columns of the burning building. Controlled demolution, which takes weeks to plan. Did you see it going down, did it look anything other than controlled demolutiuon? I know why it had to go down. Called destroying evidence. That building was the contol center of all operations. Where they remote contolled those planes.

Dilbert: I believe building #7 was damaged from debris somewhat, but the main reason it toppled was because of damage done (possibly to the grid on which they are built, and under) under the structures when the twin towers collapsed. I remember seeing them explain it on the news. Can't recall now exactly, though.

seijichuudo9sha,

I come very close to loose faith on human intelligence because of guys like you. What are your facts? Unconditional faith to your government? Carry on. But know that because of people like you, they are able to execute their plans.

I would like to see documented evidence about what heppend to #7 building? How did it fall? What hit pentagon? Was it really an airliner? No pictures, no video of the one of the most protected buildings in the world? How were those terrorists able to manuver airliners like that? No buildings fall like that in the human history, even after burning tens of hours. Pancake theory is a big lie. Has anyone seen the pistures of those buildings being built? It's impossible for them to fall they way they did. Freefall speeds. Anyone knowing bit of physics would understand that it's impossible for those buildings to fall in those speeds. Wake up people. Is it really possible for couple guys with boxcutters to cause that much damage? Never happened in the history of mankind. And we believe it. They are counting on our stupidty.

OK, some people want to keep their heads in the sand (or up their ...), suit yourself. But to still believe that OBL and Al Quaeda are behind the attacks demonstrates great naivety and ignorance of the facts. With all the cameras that must have captured what hit the Pentagon, they only gave us a few pics that show absolutely nothing. There is just so much pointing to 9/11 being an "inside" job, but most choose to blindly accept what their government tells them (as if they were honest people!)

I came very close to leaving the Democratic party because of people like sabiwabi.Fully a third of my fellow progressives think 9-11 was an inside job.it's sick.And it's embarrassing.Anyone who thinks a missile hit the Pentagon on that day has done waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many drugs.

It was not OBL and Al Quaeda, the truth is probably much more horrifying than that.

Oh, geez. Not this again.

I hope they can also get hold of, and show, all the confiscated footage of the attack on the pentagon. I would like to know what exactly hit that building.

None of this kind of thing should ever be revised to cover up the horror of it.

It should be revised to determine who exactly was behind it. It was not OBL and Al Quaeda, the truth is probably much more horrifying than that.

“I and many family members don’t want revisionist history, and we don’t want this sanitized,” Wolf said. “It is very important that people remember what happened that day: This was civilization, people merely at work, caught up in religious fanaticism.”

None of this kind of thing should ever be revised to cover up the horror of it, and should be seen for the extreme inhumanity it is. I don't care if it's 9/11 footage, massacres in WWII, soldiers dying in foreign wars, or what have you; the truth of it all needs to be on display in the hopes that people will see said horrors and not war or killing as a kind of game.

I hope they can get a lot more footage and pics, as I'm sure it will be one of the most brilliant archives ever assembled on certainly one of the saddest and most tragic of such events in recent history.