super thermite found in 9/11 dust from WTC towers: Part 3
Wed, 2009-04-29 18:37
#1
super thermite found in 9/11 dust from WTC towers: Part 3
Wed, 2009-04-29 19:16
#2
For Heywood (and anyone who may be supportive of the official crazy George II government coverup)...
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=80]WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'[/url]
Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpEwWhh8Sec&feature=related]9/11 witness to WTC-7explosion, Barry Jennings, threatened with his job and pension, died last year at the age of 53[/url]
Wed, 2009-04-29 20:19
#3
Fidel, what do you think about Hekmatyar going to a Soviet school?
Wed, 2009-04-29 20:35
#4
No Yards
This is HANDS DOWN my favourite. Morans who seem to think that a giant concrete and steel box is going to topple at ground level like a tree being felled. That anyone hasn't figured this out yet, eight years later, boggles my mind. It's honestly up there with Creationism for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j53U1So&NR=1
This one is fake, but it's very cool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtb5Vndo2g&feature=related
Can fire bring down a skyscraper?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gU9ekxo3CY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtVRma5QS6k&NR=1
Hint - that one is still standing.
Wed, 2009-04-29 21:41
#5
Fidel, what do you think about Hekmatyar going to a Soviet school?
That's news to me. It says [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar#Early_life]here[/url] that he attended Mahtab Qala military academy in 1968, and then
Kabul University but failed to earn an engineering degree. Looks like he's an engineering school dropout and a long-time pawn of the ISI/CIA in Central Asia.
Wed, 2009-04-29 21:55
#6
He attended four years of Soviet back education programs, the Wiki article also states he was pro-soviet for several years.
Look into all the current power figures in Afghanistan, a majorityof them have good connections to the USSR.
I do not see how this is is new to you, you have been talking about him for years.
Thu, 2009-04-30 02:02
#7
I see where it says he was pro-Soviet for a brief period before becoming radicalized. Nothing about Soviet schools though. Hekmatyar distributed billions of dollars worth of CIA and Saudi funding to anti-Soviet jihadis in the 1980s and 90s. On and again off again relations with the Taliban, but definitely a CIA-ISI asset.
Otoh, Hafizullah Amin began his political career in the Marxist government of NM Taraki. Retired Canadian professor John Ryan says Afghans told him that Hafizullah switched allegiances to the west after spending some time in the US.
And Ahmed Shah Massood, the "Lion of Panjshir", lost his CIA funding in 1992 when he declared war on the Taliban. And after switching sides to the SCO alliance, he was murdered by "al Qa'eda"
eta: What would you say if someone said the Russians have been accused of perpetrating false flag black ops in relatively recent times? Would you consider the possibility for it happening then?
Thu, 2009-04-30 13:04
#8
[url=http://www.911blogger.com/node/2582]In a 2006 interview(911blogger.com), Daniele Ganser[/url] was asked:
If an internationally acknowledged criminal investigation was carried out on the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, where would be the best place to begin the investigation?
I think the most controversial piece of evidence that is being debated between these three theories, between Surprise, LIHOP and MIHOP, is data from the World Trade Centre 7. It is crucial that this is kept apart from WTC 1 and WTC 2 which were hit by a plane at 8:45 and 9:05 am in the morning. They collapsed at 10:00 am and 10:30 am, less than two hours later. But people are very confused about the details of the September 11th attacks in New York. Many think only two skyscrapers came down. But the fact is that three collapsed. The third one is WTC7. It collapsed on September 11th at 5:20 pm and it is a building of 170 meters but it was not hit by a plane! Then there [are] two possibilities: either it was brought down by controlled demolition, or it was brought down by fire. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, published a report in early 2002 which stated that it was brought down by fire.
But then several professors [of] building safety, to whom I presented this claim here in Switzerland, said it was not possible. It was just a small fire - it could not bring down this big building as fast as 7 seconds. [My students and I] were waiting [during the years that followed], to see how the official Keane report, which was published in 2004, deals with the question. But what surprised us was that the Keane report does not even mention the existence of WTC 7. This delicate question was simply done away with.
LIHOP - let it happen on purpose MIHOP - made it happen on purpose
And being the pragmatist and middle of the road type that I am, I tend to lean toward an explanation that is something in between, as in: Let it and made it happen on purpose by collaborating with high ranking Pakistani army intelligence officers as well as "al-Qaeda" in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11.
Thu, 2009-04-30 13:48
#9
...A rehash of completely discredited positions and statments....
I'm not going to waste time debating these anymore Fidel. You love to repost and repost the same discredited stuff. You will never come around to looking at it rationally so I don't see any need to try and discuss it rationally.
Have fun, and say hi to Von Daniken for me.
Thu, 2009-04-30 15:09
#10
I'm not going to waste time debating these anymore Fidel.
Nobody asked you to. And I'm not even going to post a snide counter remark in kind.
Thu, 2009-04-30 16:32
#11
Thu, 2009-04-30 17:31
#12
I find it mystifying as to why Chomsky makes so many excuses for the CIA and suggesting that rogue agency is a scapegoat. He says nothing of its Nazi affiliation stemming from the war, and nothing of the CIA's various interventions in other countries sovereign affairs. And the CIA's deep state involvement in the "Afghan-Soviet" war, or the Clinton admin's guilt in transforming Bosnia into a militant Islamic base seem to be more than he cares to comment on. His co-author on "Manufacturing Consent", Edward Herman, is much more vocal of the US as the world's largest exporter of terrorism. And Herman admits that torture is nothing new for the CIA as news media seem to be telling the public. The CIA has used torture and other cruel methods pretty consistently since WWII.
Thu, 2009-04-30 17:37
#13
Noam Chomsky's credibility lies buried under a pile of human skulls in Democratic Kampuchea.
Thu, 2009-04-30 17:44
#14
Agent 204
I don't recall Chomsky denying the atrocities in Cambodia/Kampuchea. What I recall was that he was pointing out the fact that all the attention was focused on those atrocities while ignoring comparable atrocities in East Timor. But it's been a while since I saw the Manufacturing Consent film, so I could be mistaken.
Thu, 2009-04-30 18:03
#15
You're quite right, 204. Krago, your comment makes no sense. All Chomsky did was compare the reporting of the two atrocities. He didn't try to compare the atrocities themselves, and he certainly wasn't trying to deny one of them or emphasise one over the other.
His hypothesis was that if the news media are actually neutral organs of information, then the attention paid to both atrocities would be roughly equivalent. If they are, on the other hand, propaganda machines, then we can expect the attention paid to those atrocities committed by hostile regimes to be far in excess of the attention paid to those committed by friendly regimes. As was the case, of course, in comparing the atrocities in Cambodia to those in East Timor, So the facts fit the propanganda hypothesis better than the objective information hypothesis.
Thu, 2009-04-30 19:01
#16
That's right, the immoral war in South-East Asia was a total US military mind-phuck. Thanks to writers like Chomsky, and Herman, and investigative news correspondents like John Pilger who were there to observe and tell the world what happened, we'd probably never know about the doctor and the madman's off the books bombing campaign in Cambodia and Vietnam and covert US and Chinese support for Pol Pot and his dreaded Khmer Rouge.
Fri, 2009-05-01 02:39
#17
Interesting factoid:
The North Tower Survived A Serious Fire in 1975
Seldom mentioned in the literature about the September 11th attack is the fact that the North Tower experienced a serious fire in 1975, when it was only sparsely occupied. On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
Fri, 2009-05-01 02:41
#18
True. It takes unfought fires, an odd structure, and significant damage from the impact of parts of the twin towers.
Unfought fires? I thought that the order to "pull" WTC7 referred to "pulling" the firefighters out of there (an improbable claim, but we'll leave that alone for now) to reduce further loss of life. So what do you mean by "unfought" fires?
And what do you mean by "odd structure"? What was odd about WTC 7?
In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology was tasked with studying and explaining the collapse of WTC7 after FEMA, previously charged with the task, openly stated they could not produce any realistic hypothesis. source
Here is the imploded WTC 7.
Fri, 2009-05-01 07:56
#19
So you're saying that the custodian may well have planted the nano-thermite back in 1975? That's incredible - it explains everything.
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:12
#20
75 was a good year. I won best all-round student in grade 6 and I started Junior High School. It's been all downhill since...
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:17
#21
Belated congrats on acing Grade 6!
You didn't do a janitorial stint in NYC that year, did you Caissa?
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:20
#22
Nah, but the elementary school I did grade 6 in is now a senior citizens home...
I worked as a janitor at the Port of Saint John during the summers of the early 80s. Could there be a lnk, Unionist?
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:22
#23
Caissa, it's naive to think the authorities aren't watching this, and we're treading on dangerous ground. I suggest that any further posts in this thread be encrypted.
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:31
#24
I suppose since I'm an ex-union president and the son of an ex-union president, I'm a marked individual.
Fri, 2009-05-01 08:41
#25
Too funny! This thread has given me some laughs on a grumpy Friday morning....
Caissa, I would go further than unionist - don't use you phone unless speaking in code.
Fidel: None of this will matter in 2012, right?
Fri, 2009-05-01 09:22
#26
I suppose since I'm an ex-union president and the son of an ex-union president, I'm a marked individual.
You obviously were marked very generously in Grade 6.
Fri, 2009-05-01 09:25
#27
Speaking of marked. I once lived at 666 Lorne Ave in London, On.
Fri, 2009-05-01 09:26
#28
Beastly neighbourhood.
Fri, 2009-05-01 10:30
#29
No Yards
If you're not interested in discussing anything related to the topic of the thread, maybe you could have the good manners to shut the fuck up?
Fri, 2009-05-01 10:42
#30
Oh, but No Yards, these folks are the self-appointed gatekeepers of Appropriate Leftist discussion. They view 9/11 topics as diversionary and possibly a neo-con plot. Possibly even an anti-semitic conspiracy. Never mind that they seem to have lots and lots - and lots - of time, despite their pressing progressive concerns, to trash other people's threads. Just don't trash theirs or they'll be squawking to the mods.
Fri, 2009-05-01 10:45
#31
Beastly neighbourhood.
That's right, only their Islamic gladios were clever enough to pull this off. They were cruisin for a bruisin.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/gladio.jpg[/img]
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/gladio.jpg[/img]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/gladio.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Fri, 2009-05-01 11:56
#32
No Yards wrote:
If you're not interested in discussing anything related to the topic of the thread, maybe you could have the good manners to shut the fuck up?
Why don't you take your "good manners" back to EnMasse? 
Fri, 2009-05-01 12:43
#33
Oh, but No Yards, these folks are the self-appointed gatekeepers of Appropriate Leftist discussion. They view 9/11 topics as diversionary and possibly a neo-con plot. Possibly even an anti-semitic conspiracy. Never mind that they seem to have lots and lots - and lots - of time, despite their pressing progressive concerns, to trash other people's threads. Just don't trash theirs or they'll be squawking to the mods.
Darn right. Mods advised.
Fri, 2009-05-01 12:45
#34
If you're not interested in discussing anything related to the topic of the thread, maybe you could have the good manners to shut the fuck up?
Who knew that a single day of terrorism on home soil could be so useful as the basis for waging a war on democracy at home and abroad, and be so humourous at the same time?
"al Qaeda" is a legit colder war enemy!! It would be racist and counter-productive for the phony enemy for us lefties to undermine their cred in this way!!
Fri, 2009-05-01 12:49
#35
Flagged as inappropriate.
Fri, 2009-05-01 12:52
#36
Flagged as inappropriate.
Thanks Caissa, and I've notified the mods. It's important not to engage baiting directly, no matter how filthy it is.
Fri, 2009-05-01 12:59
#37
I guess that blew the crap out of this thread.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:13
#38
Oh, now I understand. Unionist really is a gatekeeper. I think we may have a job for him after all, chasing snowmobilers away in the Rockies.Darn right. Mods advised.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:17
#39
jas you don't get to control the natural direction that threads take. I you don't like semi off topic humour just ignore and post around it. Your comments about Unionist and Caissa are unfounded, and the point about anti-semitism particularly inappropriate. Cut it out.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:24
#40
I guess that blew the crap out of this thread.
No such luck, SJ, there was enough crap here for several threads.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:34
#41
Oldgoat, I just pm'ed you, actually. Caissa and Unionist are deliberately disrupting the conversation. If that kind of disrespect is allowed on Babble, then I will feel free to post loads of inane and off-topic comments in whatever threads I choose, as well.
The comment about anti-semitism is taken from a number of blanket critiques of the Truther movement, so there's a history to that that you probably aren't aware of. Since the pancake theorists here aren't able to actually articulate what their objection is to the subject at hand, I was making a general comment.
I noted in my PM that this kind of disruptive posting would not be tolerated in other threads (unless, of course, it is now), so perhaps Babble moderators should make up their minds whether they want to allow 9/11 threads here or not. Is it appropriate discussion for a progressive board or not? If so, then posting etiquette and guidelines should apply the same to these threads as to any others, should they not?
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:36
#42
I will await your answer, because I have lots of completely irrelevant material that I would like to drop in a number of different threads in sufficient quantities as to disrupt discussion.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:38
#43
Oldgoat, I appreciate your efforts, but the message hasn't sunk in. Unless jas retracts his comment about anti-semitism, he should really go post on some site more suited to filthy comments of that nature. Caissa and I may have been having fun in this thread, but the only one who launched filthy attacks on individuals was jas. It must stop.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:40
#44
What was my "filthy" attack on individuals?
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:40
#45
And which individuals?
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:41
#46
I prefer Occam's razor to conspiracy theories.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:48
#47
Yes, citing "Occam's razor" in any internet discussion automatically bestows on the poster an aura of all-knowingness.
Fri, 2009-05-01 13:52
#48
oldgoat, why dont you just close the thread down now. These thread gladios wont stop until you do. And remember this when they squawk like hell about alternative contributions to their favourite topics of discussion.
Fri, 2009-05-01 14:00
#49
I simply answered JAS question re. my objections to the topic. Note his response. Carry on, Fidel. Regularly scheduled programming returned
Fri, 2009-05-01 14:05
#50
FAA reports the skies are clear for this thread, Truthers. Carry on. Thanks Caissa
Fri, 2009-05-01 15:09
#51
First, Jas, my comments directed at you stand. Second, you do have a point about people who may not take a subject seriously spamming or disrupting (for lack of better words) a thread by those who do take a subject seriously. The whole 911 thing is going to keep cropping up. Discussing this is not contrary to babble policy. jokes within threads is not against babble policy. Being disrespectful, and bantering to the point where it disrupts threads for others is against babble policy.
It can be a fine line thing, but at least in this thread lines were stepped over. Please carry on discussing 911 theories, and hold to your hearts how much fun you'll have if ever publicly proven to be right.