gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
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....)
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....)