Real Conspiracy..

[gslack]

I see a great deal of 9/11 theory posts here. All of them to a varying degree may have bits of truth mixed in with speculation, but those bits of truth are buried in the mass of hypothesis and speculation. This makes the bits of truth hard to discern and even harder to connect to form an accurate and concise legitimate theory.

They contain, along with a bit of truth, a great deal of A=C ignoring the B, or B + C = A. Now A + B may equal C, and its reverse equation but thats it. All other hypothesis involving the equation are not statements of fact, but mere speculation.

All of this theory making and speculation would be fine if they did not take away the real glaring questions and answers staring us in the face. All of this is pointing to the "how" and ignoring the "why" or "who". In fact whenever the "who" is even brought up the "how" takes over right away. The reality is the "how" in any investigation, is only important if it points to "who" or "why".

If a person is found dead on the highway, and the body is full of knife wounds do they go looking for a psycho walking around with a bloody knife in his hand? Would a killer actually advertise like that? No they take the data from the knife wound and try to extrapolate evidence regarding what killed them and how or the manner they were attacked. Once they do that they realize they have a better chance of catching "who", and then the "why" will get answered.

This same concept and principles should be applied in 9/11 quests for truth as well. How did they fall? Well we know some planes hit them carrying a lot of fuel causing fires. But we also know the heat from those flames alone given the fuel could not have melted the steel structure. So we cannot really prove or disprove anything on that. And the list of conflicting circumstantial evidence is astounding these days. Making it even harder to discern anything any more. Here is a brief list of the major ones.

1. The jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt the steel framework.

2. The asbestos in the building since construction, foam flame/fire resistant and retardant materials which encased the cores and subsequent steel mainframes and supports made fire reaching and or effecting those steel beams highly improbable if not virtually impossible.

3. The design of the structures were built with the idea a plane could possibly hit them. And they were constructed to withstand such a catastrophe.

4. Pictures, video and various other bits of circumstantial evidence point to explosives or more directly to thermite charges.

5. The manner the investigation was handled and/or the collecting of evidence or lack thereof gives the impression of a cover-up.

That list was very brief and in no way representative of the astounding mountain of evidence on this, but it is an example of the greater whole. We could take the list and go on indefinitely but for brevities sake I kept it at 5.

Each of these alone are enough to cause serious doubt, but together they are shocking. However shocking they may be, what do they tell us in reality? Well first they don't address anything but the "how", and second no matter how much similar evidence we show, they have an alibi or explanation for it. No matter how nonsensical the explanations or reasons may be they use them and more repeatedly to make the case clouded and confound the quest for truth.

Do you think the investigators in our little made-up crime mentioned earlier has to deal with this kind of resistance? Why I seriously doubt it. They come and state the killer used a knife and the person died of knife wounds, and thats the facts. There is no series of alternative explanations, or theories about the knife hypothesis and there definitely isn't a challenge to the reality of A + B = C like we have in 9/11 investigations.

From this we have to realize we cannot build a case based solely on the "how". No matter how much evidence, circumstantial or otherwise we find or gather, it will simply not be enough. The reason is the crime itself and scope is so shocking, the people at large cannot and will not accept a person or group capable of such a horrendous act. No one questions the investigators of our made-up crime like this because it was small in scale, regarding one life and one killer. 9/11 if the theories are shown to be accurate is on a scale which would have involved many people across the world. People in positions of power and wealth. People whom we trust... And proving that, will not be an easy task by any measure.

From this we can plainly see that although important, the "how" must be considered irrelevant now. The fact is with every bit of evidence we can find, there will be an opposition and counter theory or reason for it.

Disregarding the "how" leaves us with two other avenues. The "who" and the "why". Well then lets start with the "who"...

And again we find a mountain of circumstantial evidence similar to before, but with one striking difference. The "who" has a much shorter list of possible suspects. Why? Because the "who" is much more damaging to the people we trust and are in power over our lives. We and people in general much less likely to blame a person off-hand for this terrible a crime. Another very brief list...

1. George W. Bush and Co. Family ties to Al Qaeda, Oil money, war profits, etc, etc, etc. The list is compelling and even if its not hard evidence for 9/11 it is damming for the character.

2. Zionist extremists. Well this group may not have the public eye as much as old GW, but they have some pretty compelling evidence against them as well.

3. Israeli intelligence/military or sympathizers. Well again not as public as GW but some solid circumstantial evidence as well.

4. AL Qaeda but at the behest of our government and/or others. Well not as far a stretch as some like to believe. After all they were working for the CIA before.

5. Rogue individuals/groups/corporations/agencies or whatnot. Well this one is a bit all-inclusive and bunched together making it a bit vague, to keep this from becoming a book I grouped them.

Again the list is a brief example only and is not representative of the whole body of suspects.

Well its not as bad as the "how", but its still quite a tangled mess of fact, fantasy and innuendo all mixed together in an uninterpretable mass. GW is a prime suspect, but again its all circumstantial, just like any other suspect on our list. Hell we could say all of the above in some aspect or another and probably be as close to correct as we are ever going to get.

The problem here is the same in essence. The scope and scale of the crime makes us all reluctant to point the finger and say "they did it". Sure GW is a crafty and sly little weasel, and all the above are vile and corrupt in many instances, but does that make them capable of such a terrible crime? Maybe, but then again maybe not, and who would be prepared to pass that judgement and live with the consequences if they were wrong? An accusation whether leading to a conviction or not is still damaging. Anyone you blame for this crime will carry that with them and their off spring for generations. I wouldn't want to be the guy who blamed the wrong person...

So again we reach an impasse. unless there is a confession backed by a mountain of hard physical evidence, we will not be able to establish a "who" with any certainty. So what are we to do? We go on to the "why"...

(to be continued....)

 

[candycorn]

I see a great deal of 9/11 theory posts here. All of them to a varying degree may have bits of truth mixed in with speculation, but those bits of truth are buried in the mass of hypothesis and speculation. This makes the bits of truth hard to discern and even harder to connect to form an accurate and concise legitimate theory.

They contain, along with a bit of truth, a great deal of A=C ignoring the B, or B + C = A. Now A + B may equal C, and its reverse equation but thats it. All other hypothesis involving the equation are not statements of fact, but mere speculation.

All of this theory making and speculation would be fine if they did not take away the real glaring questions and answers staring us in the face. All of this is pointing to the "how" and ignoring the "why" or "who". In fact whenever the "who" is even brought up the "how" takes over right away. The reality is the "how" in any investigation, is only important if it points to "who" or "why".

If a person is found dead on the highway, and the body is full of knife wounds do they go looking for a psycho walking around with a bloody knife in his hand? Would a killer actually advertise like that? No they take the data from the knife wound and try to extrapolate evidence regarding what killed them and how or the manner they were attacked. Once they do that they realize they have a better chance of catching "who", and then the "why" will get answered.

This same concept and principles should be applied in 9/11 quests for truth as well. How did they fall? Well we know some planes hit them carrying a lot of fuel causing fires. But we also know the heat from those flames alone given the fuel could not have melted the steel structure. So we cannot really prove or disprove anything on that. And the list of conflicting circumstantial evidence is astounding these days. Making it even harder to discern anything any more. Here is a brief list of the major ones.

1. The jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt the steel framework.

2. The asbestos in the building since construction, foam flame/fire resistant and retardant materials which encased the cores and subsequent steel mainframes and supports made fire reaching and or effecting those steel beams highly improbable if not virtually impossible.

3. The design of the structures were built with the idea a plane could possibly hit them. And they were constructed to withstand such a catastrophe.

4. Pictures, video and various other bits of circumstantial evidence point to explosives or more directly to thermite charges.

5. The manner the investigation was handled and/or the collecting of evidence or lack thereof gives the impression of a cover-up.

That list was very brief and in no way representative of the astounding mountain of evidence on this, but it is an example of the greater whole. We could take the list and go on indefinitely but for brevities sake I kept it at 5.

Each of these alone are enough to cause serious doubt, but together they are shocking. However shocking they may be, what do they tell us in reality? Well first they don't address anything but the "how", and second no matter how much similar evidence we show, they have an alibi or explanation for it. No matter how nonsensical the explanations or reasons may be they use them and more repeatedly to make the case clouded and confound the quest for truth.

Do you think the investigators in our little made-up crime mentioned earlier has to deal with this kind of resistance? Why I seriously doubt it. They come and state the killer used a knife and the person died of knife wounds, and thats the facts. There is no series of alternative explanations, or theories about the knife hypothesis and there definitely isn't a challenge to the reality of A + B = C like we have in 9/11 investigations.

From this we have to realize we cannot build a case based solely on the "how". No matter how much evidence, circumstantial or otherwise we find or gather, it will simply not be enough. The reason is the crime itself and scope is so shocking, the people at large cannot and will not accept a person or group capable of such a horrendous act. No one questions the investigators of our made-up crime like this because it was small in scale, regarding one life and one killer. 9/11 if the theories are shown to be accurate is on a scale which would have involved many people across the world. People in positions of power and wealth. People whom we trust... And proving that, will not be an easy task by any measure.

From this we can plainly see that although important, the "how" must be considered irrelevant now. The fact is with every bit of evidence we can find, there will be an opposition and counter theory or reason for it.

Disregarding the "how" leaves us with two other avenues. The "who" and the "why". Well then lets start with the "who"...

And again we find a mountain of circumstantial evidence similar to before, but with one striking difference. The "who" has a much shorter list of possible suspects. Why? Because the "who" is much more damaging to the people we trust and are in power over our lives. We and people in general much less likely to blame a person off-hand for this terrible a crime. Another very brief list...

1. George W. Bush and Co. Family ties to Al Qaeda, Oil money, war profits, etc, etc, etc. The list is compelling and even if its not hard evidence for 9/11 it is damming for the character.

2. Zionist extremists. Well this group may not have the public eye as much as old GW, but they have some pretty compelling evidence against them as well.

3. Israeli intelligence/military or sympathizers. Well again not as public as GW but some solid circumstantial evidence as well.

4. AL Qaeda but at the behest of our government and/or others. Well not as far a stretch as some like to believe. After all they were working for the CIA before.

5. Rogue individuals/groups/corporations/agencies or whatnot. Well this one is a bit all-inclusive and bunched together making it a bit vague, to keep this from becoming a book I grouped them.

Again the list is a brief example only and is not representative of the whole body of suspects.

Well its not as bad as the "how", but its still quite a tangled mess of fact, fantasy and innuendo all mixed together in an uninterpretable mass. GW is a prime suspect, but again its all circumstantial, just like any other suspect on our list. Hell we could say all of the above in some aspect or another and probably be as close to correct as we are ever going to get.

The problem here is the same in essence. The scope and scale of the crime makes us all reluctant to point the finger and say "they did it". Sure GW is a crafty and sly little weasel, and all the above are vile and corrupt in many instances, but does that make them capable of such a terrible crime? Maybe, but then again maybe not, and who would be prepared to pass that judgement and live with the consequences if they were wrong? An accusation whether leading to a conviction or not is still damaging. Anyone you blame for this crime will carry that with them and their off spring for generations. I wouldn't want to be the guy who blamed the wrong person...

So again we reach an impasse. unless there is a confession backed by a mountain of hard physical evidence, we will not be able to establish a "who" with any certainty. So what are we to do? We go on to the "why"...

(to be continued....)

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

 

[gslack]

The "why" is really the thing here. It will give us the "how" and "why" if we can establish a legitimate and compelling reason why, the rest will fall into place and force a realization, and isn't that what this is all about? We are after truth and a punishment of the guilty.. Right?? Of course we are...

Again we have our brief list of possible reasons why...

1. Money. Insurance money, stock market money, investment money, war money, you name it its all effected.

2. Control through fear. Oldest trick in the book of modern government. Used in every way imaginable to do nearly anything you can think of.

3. Support for a war. Another classic and old stand by since the first governments and leaders.

4. The Twin towers were a real estate failure of epic proportions and they wanted to get out of it. To do so and not raise suspicion they had to do something so shocking no one would ask questions. The cost to rent or lease there was astronomical and only a select few could afford it. Which brought their costs up even greater.

5. Asbestos removal costs were more than the real world value of the towers, and adding the costs to update them to current safety standards put the thing beyond any possible gain. So they again had to do something shocking to get out of it and recover some of their losses.

once more the list is very brief and meant to give an example only.

Well looking at the list above we are again confronted by the scope and all-encompassing nature of such a situation. And once more we can say "all the above" be about as right as if we picked one from the list. This entire investigation has become an exercise in futility now...

Sure GW could have done it, or they could have planted explosives, or they could have wanted to be rid of the failed real estate and recoup some losses, and hell maybe it was a insurance scam of epic proportions. or maybe, just maybe it was all of the above "whos", "hows", and "whys"... maybe all of it compounded together and they got an outsider to do the deed to insure plausible deniability. And so what does all of this mean?

It means everything and it means nothing. Everything in the sense all of it in some aspect or another could be true and factual and some very evil beings are in power. And nothing in the sense of what we can do about it, who we can hold accountable, and who or how we can punish them accordingly.

if we could find the person responsible and narrow it down to them beyond all doubt; what would the punishment be to fit this horrendous act? Death? Life in prison? Public service? A monetary compensation??? Well I don't think any of these would quite cut it. All of them still leave me with a feeling there needs to be more, or that it must be more fitting the nature and scope of the crime they committed. But we are then faced with the reality there is no punishment to fit this crime we can be satisfied with, that will not lower us to the level of those who did it.

To fit a punishment to such a crime would require something of us all. A bit of our soul, a piece of our humanity; a piece we desperately cannot give up in such times as these. Our humanity must remain intact if this is the kind of thing we are to combat in the future. Without it we will soon find ourselves as the monsters we fight. Sure those involved in this lack that humanity, but is it worth losing our own to route them out if that is even possible? I don't think so...

The reality is, the conspirators, perpetrators and those responsible are protecting one another as if it were their own necks on the chopping block. They know if one falls then so go them all. There will never be a single conviction, official charges or accusations made on any party, group or individual which could have actually been involved no matter how severe or slight their role. The only ones ever blamed, accused or convicted will be deliberate sacrificial lambs, and or outside parties. That is the very core of any coup, secret government conspiracy or cover-up or anything similar in any fashion to this.

Look at all similar scenarios of conspiracy or cover-up in the past and you can notice a pattern. First there is a lot of speculation and random finger pointing, a stark contrast to a real crime investigation. The police do not do such things when investigating a murder. They keep the statements they make regarding the subject limited to facts. Second, they soon after have a suspect that is so completely compelling very few will doubt it. And third, they set up a committee to investigate their hypothesis and suspects. Notice the committee is already working under the assumptions of how and who prior to the proceedings.... Yeah, thats why the Warren Commission, and 9/11 Commission reports are so screwed up. They aren't there to investigate who or how, but to tell everyone the official story and what they are going to claim.

That's why there is no concise and clear answer that is both logical and reasonable without some serious dancing from so many of the faithful. it's not supposed to do that, its supposed to protect those involved and place a buffer that will make any real investigation impossible from the outside. The committees aren't "in" on it, they don't have to be because they are doing their job. And their job is limited prior to accepting the task.

These are but two examples of this form of fallacy. We have so many others throughout history as testament to this. We have the investigations over Nazi war crimes which for some unknown reason left out a great many scientists and researchers who conducted the atrocities. We have the investigations of trading with the enemy during WWII where a Bank was closed but the guilty parties in charge of the bank were left free and clear. We have the sinking of the Lusitania which is now widely regarded as a contrived event to get us into WWI, which is ignored to this day.

So what are we to do? Where are we to turn?

(to be continued....)

 

[gslack]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

So a guy selling loans for someone with his avatar who didn't actually read what I posted, has decided in his all-knowing way that despite not reading it and not understanding it he should comment and pass judgement nonetheless.....

okay thank you... Now if you aren't going to read it why bother to reply to it? Seems ignorant and a waste of time to me.... or are just trolling to get your ad shown in enough threads?

 

[Defiant1]

I hear they found George Bush's thumbprint on the detonator.

 

[gslack]

I hear they found George Bush's thumbprint on the detonator.

LOL, well then I am sure they have some reason for it otherwise we'd never of heard about it...

 

[Shorebreak]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

Incorrect.

According to FEMA and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the WTC rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by NYFD hero's (36 seconds):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM]YouTube - 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero[/ame]

 

[gslack]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

Incorrect.

According to FEMA and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the WTC rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by NYFD hero's (36 seconds):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM]YouTube - 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero[/ame]

it doesn't matter he already stated he didn't read it and in so doing showed he couldn't have understood the point I was making. I believe he is just trolling to show us his loan company ad...

And your point is a very valid one.

 

[candycorn]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

So a guy selling loans for someone with his avatar who didn't actually read what I posted, has decided in his all-knowing way that despite not reading it and not understanding it he should comment and pass judgement nonetheless.....

okay thank you... Now if you aren't going to read it why bother to reply to it? Seems ignorant and a waste of time to me.... or are just trolling to get your ad shown in enough threads?

"Ignorant waste of time"....

I'm guessing you are reading your High School Annual where someone wrote next to your name?

Go Kiva!

 

[candycorn]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

Incorrect.

According to FEMA and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the WTC rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by NYFD hero's (36 seconds):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM]YouTube - 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero[/ame]

Metal and steel could be two different things. Aluminum is a metal. Scientists tell us that tin is a metal.

Cars were melted in the basement and lord only knows what type of chemicals were stored down there. In the basement of one building where I worked, they had acetylene (sp)?

Anyway, show me where it was molten steel from the beams and we'll talk.

What is never explained by any of you people is how...WHEN THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS WERE FLEEING TO SAFETY IN THE STAIRS THAT WERE IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING...not one reported a showering of thermite cutting through steel in that same core. No firefighter saw it going up...nobody was hit with it coming down.

 

[candycorn]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

So a guy selling loans for someone with his avatar who didn't actually read what I posted, has decided in his all-knowing way that despite not reading it and not understanding it he should comment and pass judgement nonetheless.....

okay thank you... Now if you aren't going to read it why bother to reply to it? Seems ignorant and a waste of time to me.... or are just trolling to get your ad shown in enough threads?

I read all the way through this one...to where you used your "ignorant waste of time" description and found a lot of truth there in reference to your post.

 

[gslack]

Wow...you may be doing the impossible..making the world think that Curvelight has a long lost twin.

To address a couple of your points...

Steel bems didn't melt; just weakened.
Fireproofing was compromised by the impact of the planes.

Thats as far as I read before I decided you were not worth the effort.

Incorrect.

According to FEMA and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the WTC rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by NYFD hero's (36 seconds):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM]YouTube - 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero[/ame]

Metal and steel could be two different things. Aluminum is a metal. Scientists tell us that tin is a metal.

Cars were melted in the basement and lord only knows what type of chemicals were stored down there. In the basement of one building where I worked, they had acetylene (sp)?

Anyway, show me where it was molten steel from the beams and we'll talk.

What is never explained by any of you people is how...WHEN THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS WERE FLEEING TO SAFETY IN THE STAIRS THAT WERE IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING...not one reported a showering of thermite cutting through steel in that same core. No firefighter saw it going up...nobody was hit with it coming down.

First do any of you ever actually read the OP? Seriously, I have one douchebag who states he didn't read it, and another who comes and responds to someone else's post completely ignoring the point of the OP. its plain as day neither of you read it and plain as day both of you would rather make mass assumptions and so you can simplify it and say things like "you people"...

How in the hell can any of you make any claims or judgement on something you haven't read? Its no wonder people are so ignorant of reality these days none of you want to take the time to understand or comprehend you just want it all simplified and laid out so you can take it in like an instant meal. Well life bites people like that in the ass...

please, read the OP and then respond logically on it, not what you perceive based a few sentences or based on what another poster says about a side issue.

 

[slackjawed]

Sad, twoofers are just not what they used to be when Bush was in office. They must have lowered membership standards.

 

[candycorn]

Incorrect.

According to FEMA and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the WTC rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by NYFD hero's (36 seconds):

YouTube - 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero

Metal and steel could be two different things. Aluminum is a metal. Scientists tell us that tin is a metal.

Cars were melted in the basement and lord only knows what type of chemicals were stored down there. In the basement of one building where I worked, they had acetylene (sp)?

Anyway, show me where it was molten steel from the beams and we'll talk.

What is never explained by any of you people is how...WHEN THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS WERE FLEEING TO SAFETY IN THE STAIRS THAT WERE IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING...not one reported a showering of thermite cutting through steel in that same core. No firefighter saw it going up...nobody was hit with it coming down.

First do any of you ever actually read the OP? Seriously, I have one douchebag who states he didn't read it, and another who comes and responds to someone else's post completely ignoring the point of the OP. its plain as day neither of you read it and plain as day both of you would rather make mass assumptions and so you can simplify it and say things like "you people"...

How in the hell can any of you make any claims or judgement on something you haven't read? Its no wonder people are so ignorant of reality these days none of you want to take the time to understand or comprehend you just want it all simplified and laid out so you can take it in like an instant meal. Well life bites people like that in the ass...

please, read the OP and then respond logically on it, not what you perceive based a few sentences or based on what another poster says about a side issue.

Dear Gasleak;

No.

Your post is full of shit.

The beams did not melt so your whole foundation is improper. I don't know who you're arguing with but its not the official report.

Please identify any official report that said the beams melted and caused the tower to fall then we'll talk.

Until then, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Thanks,

Candy R. Corn
Member, The Ruling Elite since '77

 

[candycorn]

incorrect.

According to fema and according to numerous recorded testimonies and reports, there were vast pools of molten metal in the wtc rubble.

Since the beams were only weakened, what was the catalyst to turn the steel into pools of molten material?

Here's one of them by nyfd hero's (36 seconds):

youtube - 9/11: Molten metal at ground zero

metal and steel could be two different things. Aluminum is a metal. Scientists tell us that tin is a metal.

Cars were melted in the basement and lord only knows what type of chemicals were stored down there. In the basement of one building where i worked, they had acetylene (sp)?

Anyway, show me where it was molten steel from the beams and we'll talk.

What is never explained by any of you people is how...when thousands of survivors were fleeing to safety in the stairs that were in the core of the building...not one reported a showering of thermite cutting through steel in that same core. No firefighter saw it going up...nobody was hit with it coming down.

first do any of you ever actually read the op? Seriously, i have one douchebag who states he didn't read it, and another who comes and responds to someone else's post completely ignoring the point of the op. Its plain as day neither of you read it and plain as day both of you would rather make mass assumptions and so you can simplify it and say things like "you people"...

How in the hell can any of you make any claims or judgement on something you haven't read? Its no wonder people are so ignorant of reality these days none of you want to take the time to understand or comprehend you just want it all simplified and laid out so you can take it in like an instant meal. Well life bites people like that in the ass...

Please, read the op and then respond logically on it, not what you perceive based a few sentences or based on what another poster says about a side issue.

ps:

Go kiva!

 

[Shorebreak]

Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

Brzezinski - The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)

Pay attention to the maps and where we were back in 2008. You'll quickly realize what Obama and Biden meant when they promised during campaign speeches that they'll finish what Bush started in Central Asia.

Here's a couple of my favorite quotes:

From the Introduction:
"Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy—the strategic management of geopolitical interests. It is noteworthy that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret negotiations of November of that year) that America should be excluded from Eurasia. Each realized that the injection of American power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding global domination. Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the world. A half century later, the issue has been redefined: will America's primacy in Eurasia endure, and to what ends might it be applied?

The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the
purpose of this book."

This is from the conclusion, Page 107:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement."


Wow. It looks like Brzezinski (Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor) got really lucky in 2001. His widely perceived external threat showed up on our doorstep and everything he recommended has coincidentally begun falling into place. it must be nice to be lucky like that.

 

[gslack]

In this part we are asking what are we to do...

Indeed, what ARE we to do given the situation and circumstances. We have a bunch of circumstantial evidence, a mix-matched bunch of suspects, and possible reasons why, and a system that cares little if anything at all for seeking of truth and accountability.

Well we cannot very well make sweeping judgments and make all-inclusive accusations across the board, that would be a mess and impossible to substantiate. The guilty are dug in with plausible deniability and each other watching the others back in turn. So its highly unlikely we can get them that way. The reasons are too many and too convoluted to even attempt a clear outcome. And the manner it could have been carried is inconclusive and full of conflicting data.

What do we do? We do what we can, and that is nothing at all about this. All we can do is take what we have made for ourselves on the chin and keep moving.

And yes this is what we have made for ourselves... Every time we excuse an official, agency, corporation, individual in power or any other similar body for their violation of public trust we have sewn the seams of our own beds. We let them do as they please and don't bother to take minutes out of our busy lives to ask questions or look around.

Many of us can't even read what we respond to in a web forum we chose to join... I mean we decided to come here and participate, so why bother responding to what we didn't read anyway? just like our government, we got out of it what we put into it.

Some of the people we entrusted with our government have been bad apples, and we accept that. But have we ever really addressed the things which allowed them to happen, or did we take the official story at face value and run along?

How many of us actually noticed the fact in all the commissions mentioned before, the factors of guilty party and how was already established and never examined? Or more importantly how many of us cared enough about our government to actually question them or their methods? The sad truth not enough of us, and even worse fewer every day.

We are consumers now. The largest portion of us don't create anything substantial anymore. We create consumables, throw away or disposable goods and lifestyles built around them and we even have the nerve to be surprised when we are told of pollution and our government treats like idiots.

Everything is designed and built with a shelf life in mind to keep the system consuming. A house is no longer built to last 100 years. its now built to last for the original buyer only. Cars are designed to be throw away items, roads are built with the concept of job security and future work, and in all of it almost none of us see a problem..

Even our institutions are infected with this mentality. Marriage is no longer a lifetime, for better or worse, it is now only for as long as we want it. Priests, and the church are no longer the rocks of our communities but now the laughing stock and a shining example of holier-than-thou mentality. And the reasons are simple; just like the rest of society they want their cake and eat it too. They want to be the rock of morality but also want their fun. Maybe its a failure of the church or maybe its one of the people in it, either way its a failure. And one more example of the bigger problem.

We want simplicity, we want cookie cutter homes, cars, and disposable lifestyles so we can spend our spare time doing what exactly? Why purchasing more consumables of course. We strive everyday to buy "stuff'; we negate responsibilities to people and society, we delegate our well being to those we are told are our betters, and we do so willingly so our life can be dedicated to our "stuff"...

So whats the single problem or issue we can blame or address in all of this? The only thing we can do is stop letting our lives be dominated by the acquisition of "stuff" and accept the responsibility of our own existence for a change. As long as we let our comfort level and desire for "stuff" outweigh the important things such as community, society, and humanity; we will always get the same results. Whether the government be socialist, capitalist or any "ist" or "ism" we can come up with, we will get what we put into it.

So maybe the next time we have tragedy like 9/11, we can actually do something about the root cause, and not speculate and hypothesis over the inconsequential to the bigger problem. until then we get what we deserve....

 

[gslack]

Metal and steel could be two different things. Aluminum is a metal. Scientists tell us that tin is a metal.

Cars were melted in the basement and lord only knows what type of chemicals were stored down there. In the basement of one building where I worked, they had acetylene (sp)?

Anyway, show me where it was molten steel from the beams and we'll talk.

What is never explained by any of you people is how...WHEN THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS WERE FLEEING TO SAFETY IN THE STAIRS THAT WERE IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING...not one reported a showering of thermite cutting through steel in that same core. No firefighter saw it going up...nobody was hit with it coming down.

First do any of you ever actually read the OP? Seriously, I have one douchebag who states he didn't read it, and another who comes and responds to someone else's post completely ignoring the point of the OP. its plain as day neither of you read it and plain as day both of you would rather make mass assumptions and so you can simplify it and say things like "you people"...

How in the hell can any of you make any claims or judgement on something you haven't read? Its no wonder people are so ignorant of reality these days none of you want to take the time to understand or comprehend you just want it all simplified and laid out so you can take it in like an instant meal. Well life bites people like that in the ass...

please, read the OP and then respond logically on it, not what you perceive based a few sentences or based on what another poster says about a side issue.

Dear Gasleak;

No.

Your post is full of shit.

The beams did not melt so your whole foundation is improper. I don't know who you're arguing with but its not the official report.

Please identify any official report that said the beams melted and caused the tower to fall then we'll talk.

Until then, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Thanks,

Candy R. Corn
Member, The Ruling Elite since '77

Dear idiotic douchebag forum troll posting ads.....

Point to where in my OP or subsequent follow up posts I said any such thing?

Can't and if you had read the OP or follow-up posts you would know my point was to address the problems with theory based assumptions on this subject.

yeah douchebag, I wasn't advocating conspiracy theories at all, I was showing the problems with actually proving the theories...

Once again reading is a good thing... Now go away and troll your ad elsewhere....

 

[candycorn]

Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

Brzezinski - The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)

Pay attention to the maps and where we were back in 2008. You'll quickly realize what Obama and Biden meant when they promised during campaign speeches that they'll finish what Bush started in Central Asia.

Here's a couple of my favorite quotes:

From the Introduction:
"Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy—the strategic management of geopolitical interests. It is noteworthy that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret negotiations of November of that year) that America should be excluded from Eurasia. Each realized that the injection of American power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding global domination. Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the world. A half century later, the issue has been redefined: will America's primacy in Eurasia endure, and to what ends might it be applied?

The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the
purpose of this book."

This is from the conclusion, Page 107:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement."


Wow. It looks like Brzezinski (Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor) got really lucky in 2001. His widely perceived external threat showed up on our doorstep and everything he recommended has coincidentally begun falling into place. it must be nice to be lucky like that.

Hmmmmmm....wow; that was bullshit.

 

[gslack]

Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

Brzezinski - The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)

Pay attention to the maps and where we were back in 2008. You'll quickly realize what Obama and Biden meant when they promised during campaign speeches that they'll finish what Bush started in Central Asia.

Here's a couple of my favorite quotes:

From the Introduction:
"Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy—the strategic management of geopolitical interests. It is noteworthy that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret negotiations of November of that year) that America should be excluded from Eurasia. Each realized that the injection of American power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding global domination. Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the world. A half century later, the issue has been redefined: will America's primacy in Eurasia endure, and to what ends might it be applied?

The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the
purpose of this book."

This is from the conclusion, Page 107:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement."


Wow. It looks like Brzezinski (Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor) got really lucky in 2001. His widely perceived external threat showed up on our doorstep and everything he recommended has coincidentally begun falling into place. it must be nice to be lucky like that.

Hmmmmmm....wow; that was bullshit.

Dude you have just shown your level of maturity and sense of ethics... Rather than do the right and correct adult thing, and either apologize or show some decency and just go away after your pathetic and immature display, you pretend the whole thing never happened and go after someone else... And why? To take the embarrassment off you and try to divert attention...

Twice now you have shown yourself an idiot, I think that's enough don't you? please do yourself a favor and leave me and my threads alone. I do not wish to spank an unruly child in front of everyone...