This in response to a long post on YouTube from Roscoe Travis in response to the below video:

Roscoe wrote:

That is exactly what I was referring to which paints you into a corner.

I found lots of the points in both the pieces interesting but it’s not really news that the ‘moral compass’ of some of these top business people is totally askew and they are, in terms of moral value, truly bottom feeders. But simply because they are the type of people who wouldn’t think twice before doing something like this, and might have the facilities to make it happen, it doesn’t mean they did.

In answer to your question, no. I hadn’t considered whether the buildings were empty because I’ve seen the footage of people jumping from the windows of the floors above the burning levels, I’ve seen the footage filmed in the reception area while fire fighters a heading to their peril and you can clearly hear the ‘thump’ ‘thump’ of bodies landing on the concrete floor above that area. I’ve seen people talking to camera in enormous distress having seen people waving before jumping to certain death. Was all this part of the “fraudulent video” & these people nothing more than ‘crisis actors’ or was it only the plane collisions that were fraudulent?

The problem (to me) with all of this is that I find the type & shape of the blast to be inexplicable in any other way than I have outlined above, a moving object carrying thousands of litres of ‘fuel oil’ that would have been released on initial impact and continued through the building in virtual aerosol form and probably ignited by the exploding engines as they also made their inexorable journey through the building. It’s the directional nature of the blast that makes all explanations (that I’m aware) of impossible, this coupled with the vast amount of fuel required to create the ‘effect’ (to use your description)

Forget high explosives, they simply don’t ‘go off’ in that way, in fact it’s the blast wave of high explosives that would more likely put any fire out, and in fact the very thing that suggests that the only explosion in each tower that day was from kerosene and all claims of demolition explosives totally spurious and without foundation.

If you can explain the type of explosion and how it was made directional, predominantly in the forward direction but also proportionately less to the (visible side) and less still and slightly (microsecond only) delayed to the rear in exactly the way I would expect in just such an aeroplane strike.

Explain that & I will ‘take my hat off to you’!!!

One thing I will admit, is that before 9 11 I wouldn’t have expected a passenger aircraft to simple disappear into a building in the way it did, twice. But given the unique architecture of the towers and the lack of density in relation to it’s enormous volume, I fully believe that the film footage is real and those planes did precisely what was illustrated in all the available footage from ‘the day’. The main difference between myself and you, you supporters and conspiracy theorists at large, is that I’m still prepared to listen, give consideration, to opinions counter to my own and furthermore open minded enough to still have my opinion swayed by a convincing and compelling explanation of my points. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just a middle aged engineer with an opinion. Your under no obligation to try to explain anything to someone you’ve never met but I believe my points are important & need explaining if your conclusions are to be taken seriously. By me at least.

Thanks for the feedback ,

My pointing out the fact that the character of the people behind the WTC is less than savory does not mean they actually did it – of course not. I add that information because most people are GOOD, and would never consider doing such a thing, and often make the mistake of assuming everyone else shares their altruism; but nothing could be further from the truth. That ‘bottom feeding’ character, coupled with the history of the construction industry being corrupted by the Mob everywhere, but especially in NYC, added to the fact that the PANYNJ is a quasi-governmental body that can seize property under eminent domain, has finance and debt capacity comparable to other government bodies, and can pretty much do as it pleases without having to answer to anyone except the governors of New York and New Jersey, we are left with a banquet of corruption, that to believe the criminal class of the area didn’t gorge themselves on, requires a huge leap of faith. Discussing their character only sets the context for readers who would never even consider behavior like this, and consequently find it difficult to imagine anyone else could engage in such activity. Means, motive and opportunity were there, but so was the corruption, making the prime suspects closer to home than some cave in Afghanistan.

You say you haven’t considered the buildings to be gutted and empty, based on the footage of jumpers, and the footage of the staging area where “fire fighters were heading to their peril”. You ask “was all this part of the fraudulent video”? I have already explained how none (zero) of the “jumper” footage is synched with the footage of the day – all of it is “cut in” to other live footage, making it pretty simple to point out where and how the footage was faked. There is also ZERO mention of the jumpers on the T.V. footage, that occurred DURING the event (in which case the jumpers would have been visible), the only comment about the jumpers (that was said while they were allegedly jumping), came from a RADIO station (NPR I believe). The grim conclusion is that the jumper footage was released after the event to allow the fraudsters time to edit the jumper sequences into the live shots taken earlier in the morning.

Every now and then you’ll find someone who claims to have witnessed the jumpers but when pressed for details their stories always crumble, here’s an example:

http://yankee451.com/2013/02/16/eye-witness/

Another one is James Grillo, an NYPD fireman who was interviewed on 9/11.

He was the dude who had his nose basically hanging off his face and conducted his interview punctuated by spitting out blood every now and then – he spoke of the terrorists as “animals” and that he personally witnessed many people jump to their deaths. Is he a crisis actor? Well no, he’s a real fire fighter with the FDNY (still is) so why was he wearing a rubber nose and stage blood on 9/11? There are several reasons that prove he was wearing makeup – his pupils aren’t dilated proving he’s not in pain, he has to add stage blood to his face at least once during the scene, he jokes about bloodying up the reporter’s phone and gives his sister’s number (which has been proved to never have belonged to his sister) but the most obvious reason is that the next day his nose wasn’t swollen and hanging off his face anymore – he has a fine, sharp nose with only the hint of black eyes. Now, I’ve been injured similarly in a bicycle accident and I can say that I looked much worse on the next day – the swelling takes DAYS to subside but here he is on Larry King live not 24 hours later:

I also happen to have a childish fondness of Halloween with an affinity for gruesome costumes so I know how simple it is to do with stage makeup, here’s yours truly from a couple years ago:

Is it possible Grillo was a mole planted by the security services or is that something that only happens on CSI?

Since we were discussing character – let’s point out the character of over 100 of New York’s finest:

“NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535352/NYPD-officers-firefighters-arrested-9-11-disability-fraud-crackdown.html#ixzz3Is1qtQnR
It was the police who gave us the bogus claim that the fires were so intense the concrete melted in its path. They even created a museum exhibit to indoctrinate school children:

http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/

It was the FDNY that gave us the bogus stories of rivers of molten steel:

So I can’t really say if they are crisis actors or just spooks pretending to be firefighters – what do you think?

Now, the Naudet film “9/11” is where you get the firefighters staging in the lobby with the sounds of jumpers “thudding” on the roof. For this you MUST read the Leslie Raphael piece which exposes the entire Naudet film as a staged propaganda piece central to the continuing success of the whole operation. It makes “Triumph of the Will” pale in comparison. Highly recommended reading, but even more highly recommended that you purchase the Naudet film and use the Raphael piece as a study guide:

http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20Home%20Page.htm

You wrote:

The problem (to me) with all of this is that I find the type & shape of the blast to be inexplicable in any other way than I have outlined above, a moving object carrying thousands of litres of ‘fuel oil’ that would have been released on initial impact and continued through the building in virtual aerosol form and probably ignited by the exploding engines as they also made their inexorable journey through the building. It’s the directional nature of the blast that makes all explanations (that I’m aware) of impossible, this coupled with the vast amount of fuel required to create the ‘effect’ (to use your description)

Remember – my video deals with evidence from Tower One, and when viewing the fireball from flight 11, it doesn’t follow the trajectory of the travel of the jet:

But in answer to your conclusion that the fireball from the Flight 175 impact on Tower Two proves it came from the jet fuel in aerosol – from my understanding of a fuel air explosion (such as that caused by fuel in aerosol) any forward momentum of fuel in aerosol would be negated when the aerosol explodes – it would explode in all directions regardless of the direction of travel of the fuel. This means the fireball erupting as it did was a special effect explosion designed to match the video of the jet, a feat easily accomplished with an empty building and planted explosives but not easily explained by a jet even if the directional damage evidence was consistent with a large jet.

You wrote:

Forget high explosives, they simply don’t ‘go off’ in that way, in fact it’s the blast wave of high explosives that would more likely put any fire out, and in fact the very thing that suggests that the only explosion in each tower that day was from kerosene and all claims of demolition explosives totally spurious and without foundation.

If you can explain the type of explosion and how it was made directional, predominantly in the forward direction but also proportionately less to the (visible side) and less still and slightly (microsecond only) delayed to the rear in exactly the way I would expect in just such an aeroplane strike.

The explosive was a fuel bomb and its directional nature (for the second strike, not the first) was planned to match the T.V. show. It’s the GASH that is important, not the shock and awe explosion. The gash indicates something completely different struck from a completely different direction. Only kinetic weapons with bunker busting capabilities can explain it and then it’s just a matter of finding what kinds of weapons of that size and capability were available at the time. JASSMs used off the shelf technology, looked like planes and fit the damage evidence perfectly. If missiles were used then this means the media are involved, the government is involved, the NYPD, FEMA, FDNY, etc. – all involved. The implications are staggering, which is why it’s so much easier for the vast majority of humanity to keep coming up with some other explanation – but the damage evidence tells it all, and with the benefit of 13 years of hindsight, we can see who had the best means, motive and opportunity to pull it off.

You wrote:

 “One thing I will admit, is that before 9 11 I wouldn’t have expected a passenger aircraft to simple disappear into a building in the way it did, twice. But given the unique architecture of the towers and the lack of density in relation to it’s enormous volume, I fully believe that the film footage is real and those planes did precisely what was illustrated in all the available footage from ‘the day’. The main difference between myself and you, you supporters and conspiracy theorists at large, is that I’m still prepared to listen, give consideration, to opinions counter to my own and furthermore open minded enough to still have my opinion swayed by a convincing and compelling explanation of my points. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just a middle aged engineer with an opinion. Your under no obligation to try to explain anything to someone you’ve never met but I believe my points are important & need explaining if your conclusions are to be taken seriously. By me at least.”

I once believed it all – bought the whole story for years – like you do now, but I don’t know how you can lump every “conspiracy theorist” into a group nor how you can consider yourself to be open minded when you state that you “fully believe the film footage is real and those planes did precisely what was illustrated”, although I applaud your efforts on keeping the dialogue open, however much you like to label me. I do my own research and as you noted much of that is critical of truthers you are grouping me with. No, I am under no obligation to try to explain anything to anyone but considering my goal is to learn and share the truth, I figure the best way to do so is to be exposed to all the information I can get my hands on. If you share the same motivation then I look forward to hearing your response.

Steve