Large Part Of 9/11 Answered In New Article

Searcher08 · Post by **Searcher08** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:53 pm

Who specifically planted the thermite?

Hugh Manatee Wins · Post by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:53 pm

The photo tells all. Scorn and ad hominems are last resorts.

What you see here is IMPOSSIBLE with just a 'gravity collapse.'
Anybody over the age of 9 years old should be able to understand these are EXPLOSIONS-

nomo · Post by **nomo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:54 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:There are photos of unburned thermite flakes

No, there are not. You don't know what is in those photos, and without physical evidence, you will never know.

And because of that, your entire argument is, as I stated above, bullshit.

nomo · Post by **nomo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:56 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:The photo tells all.

In the digital age, a "photo" proves nothing.

Hugh Manatee Wins · Post by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:57 pm

Searcher08 wrote:Who specifically planted the thermite?

The wireless nano-thermite and high-explosives technology is state-of-the-art military science.
The WTC security was a military-intelligence priority.
The elevator system was undergoing practically non-stop work for many many months.

Who does this suggest to you?

Hugh Manatee Wins · Post by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:01 pm

nomo wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:The photo tells all.[/img]
In the digital age, a "photo" proves nothing.

Photos do need to be corroborated, I agree. The animatronic bin Laden videos are a case in point.

And, YES, many many independent photos and videos all show the exact same explosive behaviors at the Twin Towers, both towers, too. Just like over 100 firemen said.

PLUS there is much more corroboration of the explosives, not just one photo or many.
The debris was thrown six-hundred feet horizontally and ALL photos and onsite personnel confirm that.

That's yet another proof (of umpteen) that gravity didn't bring down the Twin Towers.

nomo · Post by **nomo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:03 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:The wireless nano-thermite and high-explosives technology is state-of-the-art military science.

And, let me guess, top-secret. So top-secret, in fact, that you don't even know for sure whether this shit even exists.

The WTC security was a military-intelligence priority.

It was no doubt an obvious high profile target, but that by itself, once again, proves nothing. At any rate, Port Authority was in charge of security, not the military.

The elevator system was undergoing practically non-stop work for many many months.

Ever been to New York? In any tall building, elevators are undergoing routine maintenance all the time. This proves nothing.

Who does this suggest to you?

Nothing but conjecture.

nathan28 · Post by **nathan28** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:09 pm

You know, I bet that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA and the NAR all really really wish that someone would CD a bunch of suburban subdevelopments to reduce supply

orz · Post by **orz** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Who does this suggest to you?

Well the first person that comes to mind is yourself followed by all the other like-minded 9/11 slash fiction writers spouting tired and nonsensical talking points.

vigilant · Post by **vigilant** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:49 pm

No, you really DON'T have to be an architect or engineer to know that gravity cannot hurl tons of debris hundreds of feet horizontally

I got to admit, that for me, nothing in the official story has explained this "feat" to my satisfaction. When I was younger I was fascinated by implosion documentaries and I watched a bunch of them on the science channels. I know what a building should look like that simply falls under its own weight too from watching burning buildings on television.

In my mind, I just can't make this building turn to powder in mid air, and hurl debris that far without some sort of explosive help. It just doesn't seem possible to me.

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:49 pm

This thread is now on heightened alert status.

nomo · Post by **nomo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:05 pm

vigilant wrote:I know what a building should look like that simply falls under its own weight too from watching burning buildings on television.

How many of those buildings were 110 stories tall?

8bitagent · Post by **8bitagent** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:33 pm

nomo wrote:
But seriously, thanks 8bitagent. Your post was a helluva lot more informative than Hugh's controlled demolition picture porn.

Hey Hugh, did you ever estimate how many people are in that picture you keep posting?

Maybe I've watched too much CSI and tv/film court cases.

But no case stands alone on "the head jerked back to the left" or "the building fell awfully strange" even WHEN such anomalous occasions do point to a conspiracy

nathan28 wrote:

How is that news? What "new evidence?" All the needed evidence is old, and if I'm not mistaken: Bayoumi was protected from the Saudi gov't by the Saudi gov't at least since the '90s, when he was getting in trouble for not fulfilling contracts... This ties neatly into Riggs "Not a Scandal" Bank, aka BCCI 2.0, and home of the large cash withdrawal and "diplomatic" removal of records. The money trail to Bayoumi is only if I'm not mistaken five degrees long, and it originates from Bandar bin Sultan's wife, if not earlier. And it went uninvestigated because, according to authorities, wire transfers of large amounts of money between unrelated Saudi nationals living in the US are "common." I bet they fucking are, just like Italian guys running waste management companies in New Jersey commonly make large donations to the local police offices.

Did you see both articles? There's a whole load of evidence I'm quite sure none of us knew before.

The 9/11 commission says the 19 hijackers had NO help in the US, but its clear there were dozens and dozens, if not more(some of em' informants)
helping them at every step...including AT the airport.

Also money from Prince Bandar Bush's wife was sent to two of the hijackers, that's like one degree of seperation.

You add in the Pakistani ISI stuff, Dubai banks, CIA Malaysian-Hamberg monitoring, etc and we can flesh out where it all leads too

thegovernmentflu wrote:SHOW ONE SHRED OF PROOF THAT HIJACKERS WERE ON THE PLANES ON 9/11!

Just kidding. I wanted to be the first one to say that in this thread.

Hehe...that's the thing though...it doesn't matter if they were on the planes.

The government says THEY were involved, well Im shoving it in THEIR(government's) face and saying "Oh yeah? These 19 guys? LOOK where these 19 connect to...you SURE you wanna go that route?"

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Go do some reading at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and don't come back to RI until you've read the website, ok? Thanks.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Yes master...sorry for missing my attendance at the church of controlled demolition

orz wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Thermite and CD is beyond proven.
Yeah, it's SO proven that it went beyond proven and right back round to unproven again.

Theremite, Thelemite, does it ever end?

orz · Post by **orz** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:06 pm

wireless nano-thermite

Nordic · Post by **Nordic** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:38 pm

It's dismaying how any of these threads turn into these mud-fests.

Thanks, 8bit, for a really interesting article and post.

Anyone with any sense of the real world knows that there are "good" FBI agents who were doing their damndest to investigate what happened. You can bet there are piles of evidence somewhere at the FBI, which if actually saw the light of day, could turn into a real investigation and draw some real conclusions.

This seems to be a case of someone actually finding this stuff.

Too many people here suffer from the "either/or" syndrome. Like the existence of one thing automatically rules out the other.

Back up a little bit and use some common sense -- What if the mission hadn't gone that well? What if these guys had been busted? Hm, let's see, there's a word I'm looking for to describe what would have been, at that point, found -- oh yeah, it's PATSIES.

They had PATSIES all set up in case the mission failed. Yes, Arabs. Yes, hijackers.

You know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.

Good grief ......

And the whole thing was set up for the buildings to completely disappear, to vanish with all those people inside them. That was the evil brillance of hte PSYOPS. I mean, we've all seen plane wrecks, even nasty ones, where everyone is killed. Had it just been a plane wreck into a building, that would have been a lot easier to deal with, psychologically, than the complete implosion, and the "now you see it, now it's GONE" affect that 9/11 had on everyone.

The whole thing was a PSYOPS operation, not just a plane wreck. And it was spectacularly successful, no matter who actually carried it out.

I mean, most people are extremely attached, emotionally and psychologically, to what they THINK happened that day.

That's why they get so emotional when you start pointing out the "smelliness" of the official story. People do NOT want their trauma to be rendered artificial, moot. They don't want to know they've been manipulated, that the whole emotional trauma they went through was nothing but the result of a horrible hoax.

I think there's a whole lot of "all of the above" going on here: hijacker patsies, controlled demolition (just look at WTC7 coming down for God's sake, it collapsed from THE BOTTOM), international "deep state" involvement and orchestration, with Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld basically greasing the skids and making the whole thing possible.

Just look at who attended the funeral of that Saudi king, and who didn't. The neocons all went. Nobody else from our government did, not even Clinton. Cheney was later "summoned" to Saudi Arabia. etc. etc. etc.