leo_da_vinci
peer reviewed
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
debunk unevidenced claims
Are you assuming the points are “unevidenced” without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I’m citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it’s harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn’t see which was his position, and I don’t have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was “What you really do”, and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it’s at least interesting.
Do not make appeals to authority
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
I didn’t know about this one. But this is a very old building and much smaller than the three WTC towers; it’s very understandable that this compromised building fell in the described way. You just adressed one point and proceeded to tell I’m just believing some nonsense. If you read better what I said, you will note I didn’t even say I believe it was a controlled demolition. I said it is much more likely than the official explanations.
As an engineer, I tell you the controlled demolition thing is much more plausible than the theories brought by the official reports. There is footage of incandescent molten steel being spewed from windows. That alone cannot be explained by a fire originated from the combustion of the plane fuel, because of the fusion point of the steal. Besides this, the way the three buildings collapsed, one of them not even being hit by a plane, looks exactly like a controlled demolition (coordinated sequential explosions, symmetrical collapse centered over the base of the building, near free fall acceleration etc.). Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.
We also can’t simply tell that the dozens of engineers and architects from https://www.ae911truth.org/ are all pseudoscience crackpots. There are two other sites analogous to this, one by firefighters and other by pilots. And then there is the research of Niels Harrit.
It’s hard to explain how they would have mannaged to secretly put the charges in the buildings. But the fact is the evidence for controlled demolition does exist.
About hollogram planes: this is not needed in the controlled demolition explanation. The planes could have hit the towers as part of the false flag, and then after some time they would initiate the controlled demolition.
Did you know Michael Jackson was supposed to be in the WTC durring the 911? He had a scheduled meeting there, but he missed it because he overslept. While this might be a mere coincidence, what if they arranged Michael Jackson to be there just to make the “attack” cause more public commotion? (This part is just speculation, of course).
A nice docummentary on the subject: 9/11 - Decade of Deception.
If it’s Warmerican and well known, then it’s full of Warmerican propaganda. Maybe try a Russian or Chinese game.
I believe the USA has “astroturfing squads” for this kind of work. This is one more evidence of it. Social media is likely flooded with astroturfing activity from the USA government. They also likely manipulate the social media software to help in this. For example, YouTube has a comment filter that automatically deletes comments that contain certain words; because of this filter, if you say certain things, the comment gets deleted, and you don’t know it unless you look for the comment. Most comments I make on YouTube about geopolitics get deleted. A way to get the comment delivered is to hide likely banned words or expressions by inserting a space in the middle of the word. For example, the comment “China wages developement. America wages wars.” will likely get deleted. To deliver it, you could write “Chi na wa ges developement. Ame rica wa ges wa rs.”.
The documentary discuss your argument about Soviet Union accusing USA, and if I’m not mistaken the other two as well (there is been a time since I watched it, but I think they discussed every mainstream argument). The presence of the mirror is not a proof by itself, since it could have been placed by a rover (not sure if they had the tech for this, though). The part about being a secret difficult to hide is not a definitive proof either. Note that the documentary is not about proving it was fake; it’s about questioning the official history.
The video starts with a message that includes a warning against flat-earthers using the material in their videos. This warning is included because questioning the moon landing is associated with believing that Earth is flat, inducing people into believing that questioning the moon landings is more absurd than it really is. A theory I have is that, if there really was something staged about Apollo missions, American gov created or impulsionated the flat Earth movement using something like astroturfing, and pulled strings to build an association between questioning moon landing and believing that Earth is flat. In practice, they would combine two astroturfing agents: the skeptical, science-backed and educated agents arguing that there is no question about the moon landing and everything you say otherwise is easily debunked, and uneducated agents saying in child-like language that the moon landing was faked, also saying that Earth is flat while wearing a tinfoil hat. There are real people that really believes the Earth is flat; my theory is not saying they are all astroturfing agents. But it’s just a theory that I not necessarily believe in; I see how such association could emerge naturally, as flat-earthers often deny there is space.
Classical guitar. I bought a digital piano and learned some easy to intermediary pieces, but I have been focusing only on guitar. I made a classical guitar arrangement for the soviet anthem, but I don’t have a set up apropriate to make a nice video. I also compose music for these instruments.
