by Et in Arcadia ego » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:11 pm
<!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3518/nuke2bk5.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/7814/nuke3nm4.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>That's an extremely powerful image.<br><br>*disclaimer: I am not as strongly versed in 911 discussions as others here, so please keep that in mind as I'm just one person thinking aloud and I've had walking pneumonia for the last 4 days*<br><br>When you slice through all this shit in those pages, there's one thing that filters through for me, and that's the discussion about the prohibitive cost of repairing these buildings, and I've seen it mentioned elsewhere in the past. If the buildings had degnerated materials as has been claimed in the past, maybe CD wasn't neccessary at all to begin with, and maybe that's why CD _could be_ such a well-greased disinfo trail. Matter of fact, what we see in the pictures shows that aside from building 7, the Twins came down pretty badly, fanning out like shown.<br><br>So what if:<br><br>These towers were liabilities due to emminent infrastructure failures.(this doesn't surprise me at all with good old American corner-cutting, or *someone* inside exploiting materials purchased on paper against materials actually used in the construction of the buildings. I saw this reality myself after Hurricane Andrew when ENTIRE communities were razed to the ground, I mean destroyed UTTERLY(I used to drive past one all the time and had many friends that lived in the most notorius one; there was a giant lawsuit due to poor building components and bribed inspectors, but I forget the communities name) with older, superior homes mere blocks away that survived intact. I'm not saying it was a Conspiracy to begin with; it could have been the work of one man making a fortune on the Tower's construction through the use of inferior materials which were believed by everyone to be something else.<br><br>The cost of repair(whether prohibitive or not) exceeded what the owners were willing to invest in such an endeavor.<br><br>They knew CD would never work without significant collateral damage, both in terms of damage to surrounding buildings as much as the toxic dust that's alledgedly killed/will be killing so many people. I strongly believe that this would have been extensively investigated by the building's investors/owners.<br><br>I'm really sick right now and not formulating my thoughts and words well, but I think what I'm getting at is this:<br><br>Say the building's failures and a refusal to address them in a conventional/morally correct manner were the prime motive for 9/11; and everything else was an additional benefit/exploit. Instead of paying billions for repair or deconstruction that would have taken years and risk of collapse regardless and the endless string of litigations that would have entailed, billions were instead earned within hours and risks were cut to zero.<br><br>This person's story reads like a stupidly written detective novel, it's arrogant and seemingly deliberately self-defeating, but it seems that elements <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>within</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> it are very, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>very</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> valid, and maybe the purpose of this guy's sensationalist disinfo is to use as much of the truth as possible in the hopes of discrediting as much of it as possible. <br><br>When you walk away from reading this, you want to intuitively call bullshit on all of it, but what if that's exactly what someone was hoping you would do?<br><br>I don't know..9/11 is completely beyond me. Does anything I'm saying here resonate with anyone else at all?<br><br> <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>
