FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Uncovered: The Rat's Nest of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rumpl4skn,


I have not watched Tee-Vee in about nine years now, except for watching the Twin-Tower debacle that morning and day...or the very very rare occasion of some short something at times.

What is Oliver North's trip these days anyway?

Otherwise, yes...'worth the watch' there...

Some 'newsmen', huh?

Glad the 9-11 research fellow did as well as he did with them!
Back to top

Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:06 am    Post subject: Remember the need to demolish the WTC 1 & 2? Reply with quote

Just after 9/11 I was intrigued by a lengthy story that claimed to be written by an (engineer?) who worked at WTC. He claimed that they had discovered that the two towers had reached the end of their safe lifespan and had to be demolished. This would have cost far more than the cost of their construction and was a huge problem that needed to be solved: "how do we demolish the twin towers?"

He went on to present his fears that something "funny" was going on and in the end, he was released from his job.

Then the towers were leased by Silverberg and insured (for the first time) against terrorist attack in July of 2001. Of course, two months later, the three towers imploded and one presumes that the (8 billion?) insurance claim was collected. Investigation that should have happened did not and so the insurance claim would have been forced to acceptance due to a lack of evidence of wrongdoing by the property owner. And of course, now Mayor Juliani is a fine candidate for president. So in a nutshell, this could be a simple crime-of-greed if you follow this thread.

Can anyone remember who this man was? Memory is funny and I want to reread his story in light of what has happened since. God only knows how far my membory has deviated from what I actually read at the time.

I have heard nothing further about any "we need to demolish the twin towers" angle to this story. Anybody have anything to add here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Several people have eluded to the fact that the towers had reached the end of their life span, both structurally (I doubt that) and due to asbestos problems (more likely), some even claim that, due to asbestos legislation passed during the construction of the towers, the upper portions were built with explosives preplaced for future demolition (highly doubtful). Asbestos problems are verified, the rest is highly speculative, and most likely a mix of truth and uninformed/ deliberate disinformation. I don't know which man you are specifically referring to, but quite a few has mentioned it.

Economic paper trails surrounding 911 (put options, documents pertaining to important trials, wire transfers, potential insurance frauds, money missing from the pentagon, money laundrying, business deals, tech investments, security contracts, etc) certainly are worth investigating, but much, I think, is put there as investigative traps and dead ends to obfuscate the core truths and facilitate a desired transition to the next level of control and forced globalization.

Many people of power and money may have been used as canon fodder to conceil the nature and purpose of the operation of 9/11-2001, and some have certainly benefited from it, but they are more than likely just pawns to facilitate the execution of a operation most likely planned, pulled off and covered up by 'intelligence' that knows no national borders, on the behest of social, economic and political entrepeneurs we are not privy to become intimately aquainted with. Wink Since intelligence agencies must have known what was in process that day, in fact most likely pulled it off, and given the fact that intelligence agencies generally know more than me or you about pretty much everything, it is natural to go after them for the necessary information as to what really happened. How to do this and how to obtain the necessary proof is what is important, and many on this forum feels that listening to all kinds of 'whistleblowers' may in some cases be counter-productive. Some are more credible than others. though, but is that a good or bad thing...Wink Knowing the inner workings of how a human being and groups/tribes work, and thus getting an outline of how counter-intelligence may exploit this in their methodology to achieve a desired outcome is of vital importance. The creation of confusion and fear was at the core of the aftermath of 911, and by discussing goat-book reading and WTC cellar explosions we have placed our feet firmly on the receiving end of this confusion and fear. Meanwhile, things are moving ahead as "planned" (more or less). To quote Lennon: "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans". There's some truth in that...

As to Silverstein and key persons surrounding him, they might have known that something was in the making, but I do not think they were privy to any specifics. It certainly wasn't the reason for 911 happening. It would have been best if he didn't know. The "pull it" comment was most likely carefully placed in the documentary about 911 (America Remembers), and carfully explained away later. Further I don't think Giuliani will be president, that would cause too much trubble. He might run as a candidate, though...


"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been reading these posts for a while and finally signed up for an account. Have you people viewed the 911 eyewitness video?


What are your thoughts on this. It seems to show the existance of pre-collapse explosions. Is this disinfo or for real? Almost seems too good to be real, but if real, this would have good value as evidence.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to spend too much time on the explosions themselves and the fall of the towers, whcih were both real and a diversion (overwhelming and too much for people to grasp deductively), they were of course meant for that very purpose, replay after replay (Mr Rodrigues, policemen, firemen, other "spectators") The explosions/ demolition that brought down the towers were not meant to be conceiled, simply because no one in their right minds [sic] would believe that official governments would conspire do something like that, and the fact that too obvious evidence eventually would lead people into the trap of picking up the many "loony" theories out there as part of their arsenal, and could thus easily be discredited later. Every aspect of 911 contains disinfo, that's the way such an opration must work. If you were to do something in secret, what would be most effective thing to do concerning such an operation, hiding everything completely or putting a mix of disinfo and "the real story" out there for people to investigate in perpetuity? A few fall guys, a new administration, a better economy, the new "the Hobbit" film and even more porn (not that porn is bad in itself) and almost everyone in our "perfectly western" world would be happy, wouldn't they? What would happen to people who goes deeper into the material and try to deduct what, in their opinion, must be the ultimate fundament of what happened at 911? Many of them throws out the baby with the bath water in conviction, others eat eveything up raw and others shut copletely off. How do you look for truth when it is all around you?

Understanding 911 is easy, and the multitude of things that doesn't make sense is certainly partly deliberate. Do not get stuck in trying to prove the case based on things that no one knows for certain (some whistleblowers and "agents" of disinfo). Do not get caught up in the visuals of it (believe me, I've been there) to begin with. Be very critical of info that is very easily deductable. Do not focus on Bush and the like (Silverstein, PNAC, etc). Do not focus on the readily availible documents and "proof" (Northwoods, put options, etx). But... Know that intelligence must have known what was in the making. Know that it must have been through "instances" that approved of the chosen method of changing society rapidly. Know that intelligence, as most people conceive of it, is only a fraction of what it really is, know that "old school" opposing intelligence agencies is a saga (top level) amongst the western countries, know that intelligence agencies answers to other "interests" besides official "authorities". Know that psychological operations take place every time you turn on your mainstream and alternative news souces. Know that the official story of what happened on 911 is the real conspiracy theory, whereas the the opposing views (most of them) creates the hidden synthesis, false or not, that plays into the overall "perfection" of the operation.

Further, asking the right questions is what is important, and the one you ask is important as it pertains to what is distracting us. Creating "interesting" things for us to investigate is an intrinsic part of the operation, whereas questioning the things that by way of "method" leave distinct traces, almost allways leads to a deeper understanding of the workings of created events.

On the other hand, these are not facts as such, but a compilation of conjecture that should be taken just as much as disinfo as the things you have read pertaining to operation 911 before this. If you can make sense of the fact that the explosions are both real and fake, and that they are actively "used", then you are on the right track, as it pertaines to understanding the things you initially commented upon.


"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:22 am    Post subject: Been There, Done That Reply with quote

krammer wrote:
I have been reading these posts for a while and finally signed up for an account. Have you people viewed the 911 eyewitness video?
What are your thoughts on this. It seems to show the existance of pre-collapse explosions. Is this disinfo or for real? Almost seems too good to be real, but if real, this would have good value as evidence.

Most here do not care to figure out what is real. They are focused on what is fake. If it's fake, it leads. So, just a heads up. Good questions on reality usually get ignored. They are more interested in how Rense and Jones are fakes than on what may be true in alternative and mainstream news sources. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One kind of thought which I have about this...is...

What do I know?

How do I know it?

I have what I saw on tv the morning of Sept 11th...

And, of course some reading since.
Back to top
Damian Flynn

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the google film 9/11 eyewitness was worth watching. The video footage with adjusted audio, and live radio commentary seemed nice.

Unfortunately the acting was terrible. Richard Siegel obviously didn't practice much. Why was he talking about air force planes ffs? Siegel is so spooky it's not funny. This film is definately booby trapped.

Rick Siegel was a child prodigy who was recruited by numerous Fortune 500 companies for his problem solving and computer skills in the years leading up to 2001

He's supposed to be smart, but why is he acting so stupid?

'cause it's just acting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Decent enough Video presentation...

Rick was maybe not the best person for this job, but it was 'his' footage appearently, which is being shown and analysed, so...

Seems like a very decent guy anyway...that seems to show through well, even if he is a little unprepared for being a film persona.

And too, he may have wished to err on the side of being careful and gentle so as not to alienate some members of the potential audience, and also to let the story be told without his 'telling' anyone what to think...but letting the evidence which is being presented, be presented without him getting in the way.

This is not an easy task really, at all...

I am sure I would totally suck as a film personna, for that matter...even in areas where I might know my subject very well...

Back to top

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 477

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the google film was well done also. It is something that I would have someone who still believed that Islamic terrorists attacked watch. Potential trip ups in my opinion were:

#1- It was on google

#2- The whole thing with the helicopter, how it was woven like a thread throughout the entire piece. FEMA, FEMA, FEMA.

#3- Siegel himself...a lot of babbling from him. Maybe he was just a classic "New Yorker" or maybe he was acting like one. I know computer geeks who still act like everyday joe's. Mark Cuban also comes to mind...

#4- Why did they go to all the trouble of proving that #7 was demolished if we have the owner of the building later saying it was demolished. The better question would be why were there enough explosives in there to demolish it to begin with? Surely these werent set up while the building was on fire.

#5- Why did they not name any of their websites when they used them? Names like "a physics website" seemed a little strange. Maybe they cited some of them at the end, I didnt watch the last couple minutes.

#6- When the narrator said "evildoers." Seemed out of place, although true.

Other things were good and very convincing. The presentation showed very well how the attack was like a "magic trick." I only watched it once so I could have missed some things or exaggerated some concerns but that is basically what I got out of it.

p.s. Paulo, I think the reason fakes are emphasized on this site is because it is more instructive to see what is fake, so we don't get fooled again by the same people and we can figure out who it is that is fooling us. I think the rat's nest analogy that Fintan used was very good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The matter of how, when, and at what liesure, explosive charges, cutting charges, thermites and so on would have had to have been placed in advance, has interested me from the beginning.

The day after '9-11', I called an Architech/Structural Engineer friend, and I invited him to lunch. Naturally, the subject of the 'towers' and of building '7' came up, and I let him bring them up.

I asked him if he saw anything he felt was odd or curious, or 'funny', and it went on from there.

I asserted my opinion of controlled demolition, and he could not accept it because it was too shocking as an idea...he almost got angry at first.

He had not see building 7 fall like a freight elevator, like I did, so all he had to go on were the two towers themselves...

He kept shaking his head, literally, shaking 'off' his better intelligence and knowledge and saying, "It must have been the floor pans joists sagging from the heat, then starting a pan-cake effect if their ends slipped or pulled out..."

And me saying, "Yes, but even then, the Core was too massive...it would still never 'fall' like 'that' even IF some few floor pans had sagged....if a few of them let go at their outer edges or inner edges or both even...the next floor would have held it...a floor pan would not 'fall' anyway, it would slowly give way in some areas while remaining attactehd in others...the fires were not wholly on any floor anyway to heat any floor pan the same and completely...or, a few floor pans might have sagged a little, and that would have been it...with nothing more..."

He'd say, "That was a lot of heat and damage from those Jets...but the Building WAS overbuilt in various ways to stand something LIKE that, which the designers knew 'could' happen some day in accident..."

I'd say, "The fires were reduction fires, starving for Oxygen, there was not much heat there really, lots of smoke, lots of how the fires were chokeing, but heat wise, and time wise, there as not enough there to mean much...say, you ever tried heating even some small I-Beam with an Acetylene Torch? Ever done any Brazing?..."

He'd say, "Hmmmmm...I don't know...uhhhhh...."

And I'd say, "The buildings fell into their own footprints...nothing fell sideays or fell partially from the asymetrical damage profile and how gravity and weight would behave if the planes and fires did it..."

And he'd keep trying to shake it off...thinking hard, trying to grasp it, yet being clogged by 'belief' that the planes HAD to have done it...and because the buildings fell like they did, it MUST be be-cause of the planes impacts and fires...

He is a very intelligent and sincere person...very bright...yet, because he 'believed' the planes did it, he was stuck with having to oblige the restpofpit as 'told' on the tee vee...

When I was watching the events on teevee that morning, the first thing I 'saw' or felt strongly or in some way accepted, was that this was a phoney deal...a fake, a set-up...a theater drama where the view of the audience and the voew from the stage right or left, would differ greatly...and that the 'story' was already 'there' being unwound like a ball of string...a 'curtain raiser'...even dan rather's narrations seemed fake, how could HE not comment on building 7, by saying something like, "Whoa! Did I just see what I think I saw???? What the hell??? Ladys and gentlemen, now a large 47 story building, has JUST fallen like a god damned Freight Elevator, and what I'd like to know, is what the hell is going on here????"

But of course, nothing was 'said' that was anything like that...

When the camera and narration ( live on tee vee the morning of 9-11, or maybe not live, but close to real time anyway, ) turned in an incidental casual and hardly at all interested way, to see building 7 fall ( 'like a freight elevator', I thought "My god, this is SO Blatant and sloppy! ) ...

Yet, no one I knew 'saw' that part...no one I knew 'saw' the clues to these Buildings falling because of controlled demolition.

In the weeks afterward, I continued to talk with various people I knew, and they all discounted what they DID 'see' and or what I 'saw' on the basis of 'How could anyone put demolition charges into these buildings in advance, with no one else getting wise to it?"

This was many people's hang up...they lacked an 'explaination' for the details of the event's characteristics variously, so they elected to believe a silly cover story which neglected the inconvenient details...in order to 'solve' the problem...or to solve their own anxiety 'about' what otherwise would BE the 'problem'


"Say, I hate to say it, but your wife/husband is sleeping around..."

"Well...why would she/he do that?"

"Forget 'why', and note the behavior, note the actual behavoir...
pay attention to what she/he actually DOES...the clues and signs..."

"Yea but, why would she/he do that? Wouldn't she/he get caught? Wouldn't she/he be worried about getting caught?"

You know?

People will discount what they ( could ) 'see' while saying they need some facile 'explaination' FOR what-they-see, so they can somehow accept what they see AS one thing or another of import...

This, is a salient component, not only of what the perpetrators were counting on, but also which afflicts almost everybody for others TO count on it...


And how 'anxiety' is managed...
Back to top

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:08 pm    Post subject: Perfectly Executed Ambiguous PsyOp! Reply with quote

Take notice of the responses ... one out of two experts agree ...



"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Page 25 of 42

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.