9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Adele Edisen]

Sat, October 6, 2012 4:04:39 AM
9/11 weekend - Part I
From: Brasscheck TV <news@brasschecktv.com>


We're going to devote the entire
weekend to exploring a 9/11
theory that is:

* new to me (and possibly to you)
* fits the facts very well, and
* comes from a person who clearly
knows what he is talking about

By now, everyone over the mental age
of three knows that the Twin Towers
did not "collapse due to fire."

So what did bring them down?

There are three theories:

1. Advanced conventional weapons
(nano-thermite)

2. A classified high tech "energy
weapon" system.

3. A third method that most
most people - incorrectly - reject
out of hand

Part One of three excerpts. (Prepare
to think.)

Video: 10:00 minutes long

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/20455.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

================================

Visit out partner sites:

Real Econ TV: http://RealEconTV.com
Financial news without the big bank baloney

The Real Food Channel: http://RealFoodChannel.com
The truth about the food you eat

================================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115


Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Sat, October 6, 2012 11:04:04 AM
9/11: "Peaceful" nukes and building demolition
From: Brasscheck TV <news@brasschecktv.com>
What brought down the World Trade
Centers?

The very thing that was designed to bring
them down when they were first being
designed.

Excerpt #2 of "9/11: The Third Option"

Video: 9:59 minutes long

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/20438.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

================================

Visit out partner sites:

Real Econ TV: http://RealEconTV.com
Financial news without the big bank baloney

The Real Food Channel: http://RealFoodChannel.com
The truth about the food you eat

================================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Sun, October 7, 2012 4:03:19 AM
9/11: Underground vs. aboveground
From: Brasscheck TV <news@brasschecktv.com>
There is a world of difference between
the effect of an above ground and
an underground nuclear explosion.

Most people don't have a clue about
this.

Take a minute to educate yourself
and this method and the total,
near-instantaneous vaporization of
the Twin Towers - and Building 7 -
may not be so mysterious.

Video: 9:58 minutes long

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/20457.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

================================

Visit out partner sites:

Real Econ TV: http://RealEconTV.com
Financial news without the big bank baloney

The Real Food Channel: http://RealFoodChannel.com
The truth about the food you eat

================================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Sun, October 7, 2012 11:03:19 AM
9?11: The mysteries of WTC 7 solved
From: Brasscheck TV <news@brasschecktv.com>


Why did WTC building collapse?

And why was it targeted in the first
place?

A surprising - and plausible - answer
to both questions.

Video: 10:00 minutes long

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/20534.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

================================

Visit out partner sites:

Real Econ TV: http://RealEconTV.com
Financial news without the big bank baloney

The Real Food Channel: http://RealFoodChannel.com
The truth about the food you eat

================================
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

Those are all very short excerpts. See the lower part of each to go to the full version and best to watch the YouTube version. He has some interesting ideas....some I agree with, some I reserve judgment on, but need looking into, others I have to say I reject at this point given what I know and better explanations for the same results. That said, his and all other honest alternative ideas of how 9/11 was carried out need to be considered, studied, matched against the evidence and accepted, rejected or put in the 'maybe' file. I think his best work is on the missile strike on the Pentagon - and that it might have been a nuclear one from the Kursk. Well worth watching and considering all nearly four hours though! Like Judy Wood, he has a somewhat unique, but coherent analysis of what happened. Each of these also further tear down various aspects of the official fiction of what happened as impossible. I don't consider him a disinformation agent, but do not see evidence of how a nuclear device would or could have caused the collapse as we saw it happen. I reserve judgment on the planes / no planes - as there seem to be evidence for and against both at this point in time [a problem in itself - proving that NO real official investigation was done; rather only a cover-up.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Sorry, but this is absurd! The guy is claiming the Twin Towers had a nuclear demolition device built-in as part of the original design?

This is not remotely credible and anyone who espouses such an obvious piece of disinfo will look a total fool.

[Peter Lemkin]

Sorry, but this is absurd! The guy is claiming the Twin Towers had a nuclear demolition device built-in as part of the original design?

This is not remotely credible and anyone who espouses such an obvious piece of disinfo will look a total fool.

I'm not inclined to believe that part either....that there were tunnels and nukes that could be moved under the WTC towers to demolish them. However, the more I learn about 'things' we were never to know, the more I don't automatically dismiss what may seem like amazing claims altogether. Again, I think that part is not proven, is speculation, and not even good speculation, but I think needs for others to check on the few leads he gave of others knowing about this within the USA. [we've been lied to about SO much else.] Besides finding it most unlikely anyone would propose or be able to keep secret a nuclear demolition plan, a nuke IMO doesn't explain the way the towers collapsed, with the possible exception of WTC-7. His work on the amount of energy needed to make the ground shake [as reported and felt by many] is however interesting and needs explanation. I'm now inclined to believe that along with pre-planted nanothermate [likely done during the retrofitting of the fire coating on the steel - which was done just before the incident on exactly the floors hit and above], there were also large bombs - likely just conventional explosives - at a few locations in the two towers.

However, his ideas on a missile rather than a plane [along with many others who posit this] hitting the Pentagon; as well as some of his analyses into how the official version is not credible are worth the trouble IMO...ditto Judy Wood and many others who's attempts to explain the unexplained may fall far short of the real answers.

The more I study 9/11 - and currently that is a lot! - the more complex I find it. Are people aware that apparently there was also some flying craft downed near Camp David that day....and many, many, many more things that have been suppressed in the simple and wrong 'official version' of events of the day. We were completely lied to about what happened...and I mean completely.

[Jeffrey Orling]

[QUOTE=Malcolm Pryce;59612.

His work on the amount of energy needed to make the ground shake [as reported and felt by many] is however interesting and needs explanation. I'm now inclined to believe that along with pre-planted nanothermate [likely done during the retrofitting of the fire coating on the steel - which was done just before the incident on exactly the floors hit and above], there were also large bombs - likely just conventional explosives - at a few locations in the two towers.

However, his ideas on a missile rather than a plane [along with many others who posit this] hitting the Pentagon; as well as some of his analyses into how the official version is not credible are worth the trouble IMO...ditto Judy Wood and many others who's attempts to explain the unexplained may fall far short of the real answers.
.

The ground in NYC at street level can shake from the subway rumbling underneath! Many of the streets are equivalent to elevated causeways over the subways and trains which run below. 1.5 million tons of materials dropping from as much as a quarter mile will shake the earth. No mystery there.

The trouble with irresponsible theories is that they taint the legitimate research into what actually happened. And then all who disagree with the official narrative are lumped together as crazy nut job conspiracy theorists. Judy Wood is factually wrong on some of her so *science* and this is not helping with the appearance of credibility and legitimacy. Junk science is not what we need here. Mini nukes, likewise does not even match most of the observables.

Sure you can come up with an energy input which would destroy the towers and build a theory around it. But the cause has to MATCH what was observed... all of what was observed and explain it related to the proposed energy input.

For example... there are claims of eutectic burning in steel. This needs to be explained. But the steel where this is seen is not the core columns which supported the towers, or the truss members at the lower reaches of bldg 7... but they appear to be relatively lighter steel, perhaps bracing or columns even from quite high up. If this is so how would THAT explain the collapse of the towers? It's an observed anomaly which requires an explanation. But it may not relate to a cause as much as a consequence.

Speculation is fine... but it needs to be grounded in the detailed mappings of the observations and the engineering and physics which govern the behavior of materials.

[Peter Lemkin]

[QUOTE=Malcolm Pryce;59612.

His work on the amount of energy needed to make the ground shake [as reported and felt by many] is however interesting and needs explanation. I'm now inclined to believe that along with pre-planted nanothermate [likely done during the retrofitting of the fire coating on the steel - which was done just before the incident on exactly the floors hit and above], there were also large bombs - likely just conventional explosives - at a few locations in the two towers.

However, his ideas on a missile rather than a plane [along with many others who posit this] hitting the Pentagon; as well as some of his analyses into how the official version is not credible are worth the trouble IMO...ditto Judy Wood and many others who's attempts to explain the unexplained may fall far short of the real answers.
.

The ground in NYC at street level can shake from the subway rumbling underneath! Many of the streets are equivalent to elevated causeways over the subways and trains which run below. 1.5 million tons of materials dropping from as much as a quarter mile will shake the earth. No mystery there.

The trouble with irresponsible theories is that they taint the legitimate research into what actually happened. And then all who disagree with the official narrative are lumped together as crazy nut job conspiracy theorists. Judy Wood is factually wrong on some of her so *science* and this is not helping with the appearance of credibility and legitimacy. Junk science is not what we need here. Mini nukes, likewise does not even match most of the observables.

Sure you can come up with an energy input which would destroy the towers and build a theory around it. But the cause has to MATCH what was observed... all of what was observed and explain it related to the proposed energy input.

For example... there are claims of eutectic burning in steel. This needs to be explained. But the steel where this is seen is not the core columns which supported the towers, or the truss members at the lower reaches of bldg 7... but they appear to be relatively lighter steel, perhaps bracing or columns even from quite high up. If this is so how would THAT explain the collapse of the towers? It's an observed anomaly which requires an explanation. But it may not relate to a cause as much as a consequence.

Speculation is fine... but it needs to be grounded in the detailed mappings of the observations and the engineering and physics which govern the behavior of materials.

Orling, IMO, you are no expert - instead you are a Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent or a fool. I challenge you to read Mark H. Gaffney's two books on 911. The first, while written for the layman, has copious footnotes that are at the level of professional architects and scientist to follow-up on. He proves beyond any doubt that not only the official version is wrong [and knowingly so] but your unzip theory is sorely wanting compared to nanothermite plus large explosive charges in a few strategic places. What remains in my mind is if you 'just don't get it' or are here to try to purposely refute the best evidence. Watching your behavior on this Forum over the past two years or so has confirmed IMHO my worst fears and those I got from AE-911 Truth when I asked them about you. There are a thousand [literally] ways I could challenge you and your 'theories', but answer if you can just one - how do YOU explain molten steel for up to 3-4 months after the event?!.....hot zippers, I suppose. As anyone can see, I challenged you from your first posts and from time to time [mostly not wanting to waste my time on nonsense]; now I challenge you to a duel; to expose you as either a fool or a tool of those who work to cover up the truth on 911....which is it? It can be IMHO none other than those two. I'd give more leeway if I didn't think that our posts attempt to 'temper' any real grasp and anger at what really happened. Your 'reasoned moderation' is IMHO a foil to deflect the truth and try to advance the Big Lie. The bull you post above is just that. I'm not an architect, but I am a scientist, and you can not support your bull**** any further here. I see no difference in the 'end game' of your 'theory' and that of the USG. Both dangerous and fatal to our polity, society, future and a way out of the oncoming fascism.

[Lauren Johnson]

Good luck, Peter. Just remember, Orling views himself as the skeptic who uses sound science as opposed to everyone here (and he says he is well aware of our position) as ideologues. He is really good at using the "rope-a-dope" to wear down any opponent. He is here to "inform," never to learn -- ever. I am sure you are aware of this. Just reminding you what you are up against.
:rocker:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1y_lpiGg...re=related