super thermite found in 9/11 dust from WTC towers: Part 3

oldgoat wrote:

 Please carry on discussing 911 theories, and hold to your hearts how much fun you'll have if ever publicly proven to be right.

Man, people are so weird about the WTC attacks. There are no end of conspiracy theories thrown around on this board (as it should be), and many of them kookier than anything in this thread, but only this topic seems to generate this level of scorn.

Oldgoat, won't you be happy if those who allege complicity of the Bush administration are proven right? Won't you be pleased that the truth came out? Or proven wrong for that matter? If we finally have a credible investigation then we can all stop speculating, can't we? Because that's all you're doing when you reject these theories, as much as they are when they construct them.

Personally, I never thought much of the demolition hypothesis. Not that they wouldn't do it, but it seemed complicated and unnecessary. Wouldn't it be enough for the planes to hit the towers? Would they have to be utterly destroyed to get the political lever that they publically stated they needed to carry out their agenda? On the other hand, the Bush administration demonstrated time and again that they believed they could get away with absolutely anything (and so far, it seems they are right). So why not? If you want to make a big statement, make it as big as possible.

If these researchers are correct about the presence of explosive materials in the WTC dust, however, it gives the theory a lot more credence to my mind. I can't think of any rational explanation for that, except the obvious one: the towers were blown up with explosives. I hope this is followed up on. I'm curious to see how it evolves.

I think the point needs to be made, strongly, that in the last thread about 9-11 (which was closed before I noticed), there was some major trolling of the thread by Caissa and Unionist.  I understand jas's frustration in that light, and Caissa and Unionist, if you don't want to discuss the topic, then how about just staying out of the thread instead of mocking everyone participating in it to the point where no discussion at all can be had.

However, jas, your remark about "anti-semitism" here seems to have also come out of nowhere and seems to be aimed in particular at Unionist.  It's understandable that he feels targeted by your gratuitious mention of anti-semitism when he hasn't been discussing it in this thread.  So you were out of line too.

This is one of those cases where it all comes down to tone.  If everyone wasn't so busy pissing all over each other and ridiculing each other, you could actually have a real discussion.

Quote:

I think the point needs to be made, strongly, that in the last thread about 9-11 (which was closed before I noticed), there was some major trolling of the thread by Caissa and Unionist.  I understand jas's frustration in that light,

Come to think of it, his contributions to this thread aren't much more sophisticated.

Michelle wrote:

  I understand jas's frustration in that light, and Caissa and Unionist, if you don't want to discuss the topic, then how about just staying out of the thread instead of mocking everyone participating in it to the point where no discussion at all can be had.

[/quote]

I [b]do[/b] want to discuss the topic. I have discussed it many times, offering my view that the conspiracy theories:

1. Are premised on the omnipotence and omniscience of the U.S. ruling elites.

2. Are contemptuous of the view that a handful of adventurers could actually wreak damage on the colossus.

3. Are often inherently chauvinistic, by stressing that the deaths of Americans going about their business is some world-changing catastrophe, by contrast with the deaths of Amerika's victims around the world.

4. Are major distractions from the worst crimes of the U.S. against its own people and people abroad.

I make serious points, and I also ridicule the most exaggerated and ludicrous paranoid claims of some of the truthers.

If you don't consider that as appropriate commentary on this issue, let me know - I'll disagree with you vehemently, but I won't defy moderators' decisions the way jas has done. Jas's comments are personal and filthy, and s/he refuses to retract them. This is not the first time or the first thread where this has happened.

Webgear wrote:

What I find amazing with all the detail planning conducted for 9/11, that some organization was sloppy enough to not create a good cover story or speaking points of why WTC 7 building collapse.

It is my belief something/someone was in building #7. The north and south towers were part of the deception plan, something to keep everyone away from the real target which was building #7.

Perhaps the Nano-Thermite factory was in the basement of Number 7?

Marvin Bush's scabby private security outfit perhaps?

That'd be FSB nowadays, webgear. And, what if the Russians were accused of perpetrating false flag terrorism in recent years? Would it make this  phenomenon any more believable as far youre concerned?

Webgear, are you trying to tell us that your reply to Cueball above: "Perhaps, there was a Thermite factory was there" required pains-taking effort on your part? Are you saying there was a thermite factory there, or that perhaps there was a thermite factory there?

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As Unionist and Cassia are displaying quite ably, people will not only not require explanations, but show overt hostility towards those who seek them.

You are shockingly confused. Check the hostility in this thread and who it came from (HINT: [b]jas, No Yards, and YOU[/b]). My stand is: 1) purely political, showing how the wacko conspiracy theories help U.S. imperialism; and 2) mocking and ridicule of the more zany aspects (like, the view that every single member of Congress is "in" on the plot - wow, good one).

The hostility comes from those who have only questions, no answers, and who don't like the obvious answers - the answer that Sunera Thobani gave in October 2001, for which she suffered persecution. Let me know if you've forgotten what she said. It is as true today as it was then.

Okay, so we think you non-truthers are all whackos who swallowed the imperialist koolaid side of things during the cold war and are too ashamed to admit it now. So there, we've saved you from having to beat around the BUSH much furrrrther.

Unionist wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As Unionist and Cassia are displaying quite ably, people will not only not require explanations, but show overt hostility towards those who seek them.

 My stand is: 1) purely political, showing how the wacko conspiracy theories help U.S. imperialism;

How you people have come to understand this I'll never know.  You people might as well suggest that you disagree with two of the 9/11 panelists - that they are wrong - and that the sham of a 9/11 investigation was legit. Nothing about why you think the 9/11 panelists, including the chairperson leading the investigation - thinks there was obstruction of justice and evidence withheld by the Pentagon and FBI. Nothing.

There are lawyers for 9/11 truth telling you that basic procedures for producing evidence were not followed as required by US constitutional provisions.

Of course, all this could be rolled into one legal proceeding against the war criminals who gave the a-okay for the renditions, the military to use torture by governmental permission, the executive death squads running around three countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, the kangaroo justice at Gitmo etc. I can tell this is all beyond you and your superiority complex by now, so I'll stop off there.

Unionist wrote:

 

You are shockingly confused.

The only thing I was confused about was having some measure of respect for you, but my head is clear now. Thanks for that.

I've read Chomsky's comments on the truth movement. And I agreed with his comments for some time. And then I realized that Chomsky and a slew of anti-Republican US lefties endorsed Obama during the election campaign.

And the dirty truth is that Liberal Democrats have been complicit in the warmongering and imperialism abroad for a long time. And I believe they are just as guilty in creating "al Qe'eda" for the purpose of destabilizing parts of the world where the demockratizers and corporate jackals are interested. The US dollar hegemonists in the WB and IMF, WTO, EC, BIS etc and so-called "free trade" capitalists dont really believe in what they preach to developing countries' leaders or even us, including too many Liberal Democrats on the take from big business and Wall Street fascists.

What the 9/11 truth movement does do, I have discovered, is push people to search for the truth by internet and other means, and to discover the vicious empire's real political and business dealings, and spanning not just this recent time period in question, but the whole ball of wax. The truth is dangerous as far as imperialists are concerned. So is hope.

I've noticed wrt 9/11 Truth movement, you[Unionist] tend to argue selectively against the weaker conspiracy theories while avoiding themes most difficult to deny or counter, like the CIA's blowback story which goes something like, "Yes, we did support bin Laden and Islamic militants. But they went against us"  The left and not-so left have mocked that one left, right and centre for years.

"

Jacob. Interesting point of view, thank you for the reply."

You're welcome. In fact, let me elaborate a little.

Think of the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They knew they were fabricating a pretext for war out of nothing at all, and as was freely admitted, they settled on the WMD story not because it was any more credible than any other explanation, but simply because it was the pretext that everyone involved could get behind. So they built a huge, falsified body of evidence and used it to justify their invasion. Now surely, the question came up: What if we don't find anything?

Now, you or me would be really worried about this. Our credibility will be shot, the American people will want our heads, the Republican party will be disgraced. We'd decide that we'd better not risk this unless we knew we'd come up with something, and since there was no credible intelligence supporting the presence of WMD, then we'd figure this was a bad risk and pack the whole thing up. But these guys don't think that way. They knew that they could use any pretext they like and if nothing turned up, then they'd move on to a new pretext like nothing ever happened, which is exactly what they did. You see? To these guys, explanations aren't important. Power is important. People don't want to be convinced, they want to be bullied. Tell them what to think and they'll think that way, because authority is more important than rationality.

Now, if you had laid this down for me several years ago, I would have thought that was a horribly pessimistic view, but we've seen the evidence with our own eyes. The lies coming out of the White House could not have been any more obvious, but it really didn't matter. They knew that enough people would think the way they are told to think that it would make the existing dissent irrelevent and they were right. Especially the elites with the power to go after them, because they have the most stake in the staus quo.

They don't need explanations because most people don't want them. I think the last eight years have proven this quite conclusively.

" I defended her and her right to speculate on 9/11 all she wants. In case you care, Jacob. "

I do care, and I'm glad to see it.

And thanks for the Thobani link. It was good to read that again. I'm a little concerned that you're losing your grip though. I agree with every word in the speech as I did when she first gave it. What about this thread makes you think I wouldn't exactly? I don't get it.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

 I agree with every word in the speech as I did when she first gave it. What about this thread makes you think I wouldn't exactly? I don't get it.

I was talking to Fidel. He tends to promote the view that the U.S. runs everything. The "phoney war on terror"; "Al Qaeda" is still a U.S. front; so are the Taliban; so was 9/11. The trouble with this vision is that it ends up, bizarrely, justifying intervention in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That's why I keep reminding Fidel of what Sunera said. She said it all - before the U.S. and Canada even sent troops. Somehow, for some people, that's not enough - it's not [b]bad[/b] enough - they need to see the U.S. mass-murdering its own citizens on Sept. 11 in order to really get worked up into outrage. I don't.

Fidel, you can complain all you want. Until 2006 you did not support withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Then thankfully you came to see the light. That's the truth. If it bothers you, it shouldn't - it should just be a reminder. As for me "insinuating" that you're "pro-war, pro-imperialist occupation", I have never done so, so stop making things up. I am definitely insinuating that you and many others see the U.S. as a far more powerful, invincible, all-knowing, worldwide controlling conspirator than it really is (IMO). And that's one of the features of the overemphasis on finding out the "truth" about 9/11. I only hope that story ends earlier than the "who really killed JFK" nonsense did.

Nice to see the thread back on topic and people having a discussion. Thank you, Unionist, for explaining your position. You might want to consider that not everyone is going to automatically know that position each time a 9/11 thread comes up. I certainly don't.

I think many Babblers here respect Sunera Thobani, and remember the events around that speech she gave. I'm not too clear on why you feel the need to link to it here, as if posters in this thread would not be familiar with or already subscribe to that view - which I certainly do, and it seems to me most people here do. Are you thinking that we are interested in an investigation into the WTC collapses only because we were suddenly outraged that such violence should occur on North American soil? And that we've never given a thought to the daily violence that is perpetrated off American soil? Do you honestly think that? That we "need" 9/11 to get outraged? (and, I would add, Unionist "doesn't"). ETA: if this is actually what you think, then no wonder you don't understand what these threads are about. You've got some personal idea about the motives and intent of others that simply isn't the reality.

You complained that no one was meeting your demands in the previous 9/11 threads, so that's why you weren't going to take these ones seriously. Do you maybe wonder why ?

Well for what it's worth ..here is my theory. Kerosene burns at 300C ..steel melts at 815-1370C but natural gas (89% methane ) burns at 1949C. Hence the reason for gag orders etc. as everyone in north america has access to that product.

The natural gas leak in the towers would pool in the corners of rooms..the only corners of importance would be the corners where the beams that hold the tower in place are....and only one floor would have to be ignited sufficiently to burn the beams and cause a collapse. It's totally feasable that a floor was picked that when the beams melted the weight would be sufficient to cause a total collapse from the above floors . The super thermite would provide the ignition source and voila..instant demolition via natural gas.

My guess would be all info regarding natural gas and the world trade centers would be kept secret as even in the democratic world all things to do with natural gas are covered up much less in the covert world.

Are you saying that the natural gas came over the border from Canada?

Buddy Kat wrote:

My guess would be all info regarding natural gas and the world trade centers would be kept secret as even in the democratic world all things to do with natural gas are covered up much less in the covert world.

Are you saying they'd use their market control to try to corner gas?

Youre pepetuating your own myth about VietNam, Unionist. The Vietnamese certainly did make their case against the illegal occupation of their country. As Jerry West said about it in reference to the Taliban, is all they have to do is not give up. Jerry is a veteran of the VietNam war.

But to suggest that the Vietnamese won that war in totallity is not altogether true. The massive loss of life and damage to infrastructure was totally lop-sided after the ten thousand day war to kill an idea in VietNam. The imperialist invaders never paid one thin dime in reparations to the Vietnamese. They are still recovering, believe it or not, from the massive loss of life, the [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4490]poisoning of farmland in VietNam[/url] by the US military, Monsanto, Dow and more

warfiteering corporate jackals who profited by the US government's deliberate lies concerning that country and its civil war,

And Vietnam veterans have said they were lied to about why they were sent to Vietnam, just as US and Canadian soldiers are being lied to today wrt Iraq and Afghanistan, the phony WMD, "al Qa'eda", etc ad nauseum.

And like the official lies about Saddam having WMD, the phony sonar data concerning NVA torpedos launched at US warships laying in wait for a dust up in Tonkin, were deliberate lies, too.

So, I dont buy this baloney which says the US government, and Pentagon bureaucrats are incapable of lying to the world for the sake of selling an expensive and immoral war to the American people. How many times in a row can enough Liberal Democrats be fooled/lobby'd into voting for war, death and destruction for the sake of propping up an economy based largely on war?

It's mind boggling.

But the real reason the VietNam war ended was due, largely to the Vietnamese relentless resistance to the occupation. A thousands of years-old culture would not succumb to a ten thousand day war, as we know. But at the other end of the war, the American people themselves had had enough of the official lies, and the plastic bags sent home to US families containing their loved ones. The madman was on the brink of being impeached for war crimes and illegal political maneuvering. He and the doctor, and the wariteers, didnt really want to end the war It was that they had little choice in the matter with a compartmentalized fascist bureaucracy which needed insulating from cosmetic blame for the White House. Nixon had completely lost his mind at that point, and there was talk of civil war in America unless the immoral war was brought to an end

Unionist wrote:

1. Fidel, do you grasp that there are U.S. nutbars to this day that say the U.S. "could have won" in Vietnam if they "really wanted to"?

I think the nutbars have it half right. US hawks, MIC, and the really dangerous idiots certainly did have the will and the means to carry on warfiteering in VietNam. The American people did not. And that's one of the few times that a US government became afraid of the people and the movement to impeach Nixon, the protests, sit-ins becoming bolder with not just hippies, but Joe construction worker and ms nurse daring to carry signs closer to the Pentagon and other carefully targeted government symbols of power. 

Quote:

2. Do you agree that "19 Arab terrorists" could not outfox the U.S. military? That's what your opening article said. Do you subscribe to that? [In 10 paragraphs or less.]

I'm with Jesse Ventura and the US military officers for Truth,  US intel whistleblowers etc on this particular one, that the security apparatus were instructed to "stand down" on 9/11, "take a walk" or whatever. There were air traffic incidents in the US when errant small passenger aircraft were spotted within minutes of flying erratically by the billion dollar US air defence system and escorted to the ground by war planes scrambled in minutes. Ventura, a former navy seal and others with US military training say that people in high places have lost their jobs for far less than dereliction of duty the likes of 9/11. Not one security official or air defence person lost their job as a result of 9/11. Lot's of why's and how's but few answers. And I think they are legitimate questions that have been deliberately ignored by an non-transparent and unaccountable shadow government as well as cosmetic leaders then and now