Even if explosives were not used, the perpetual cognitive dissonance and debate engendered by the deed as it was planned and executed -- not to mention the opportunity it all provides to demonize ALL conspiracy claims regardless of the deep political events from which they derive -- would justify superimposition of complexity and contradiction.
Note Governor Bush's near-immediate warning not to engage in "conspiracy theories." For me, this is a smoking gun.
Yes people do burn down their buildings and commit insurance fraud. But the 9/11 plot which also involved the pentagon and the Shanksville plan seems to make this motive hardly seem plausible. If Larry wanted to collect the insurance he could have planted bombs and blamed it on terrorists... why go to the extent of getting planes involved...hijacked or drones?
I find the destruction of evidence of the destroying the towers a bit of a tautology. Frankly I can see no reason that the total destruction of the towers served the perps and more than just slamming jets into the towers.
It is eminently clear that you, Mr. Orling, have a tremendous amount of homework to be done, or you are purposefully ignoring (or directing attention away from) what has been in the common cultural knowledge base for many years. One of the very first "9/11 Truthers" was Catherine Austin Fitts who offered up, almost immediately, that the crime was a financial crime.
One can spend a great deal of time pursuing the clues and the evidence which radiate from the points of impact at both the Towers (and especially WTC7) as well as the Pentagon. The difficult task is for the investigative mind to decide what precisely were the crimes, what where the intended diversions, what was the cover story or stories, what were the pre-planned consequences (the PNAC document is a good place to start reading), and much much more. At the core of 9/11 were overlapping cases of massive financial fraud, so massive they involved multiple buildings, multiple corporations, multiple computer systems, and massive "cover-up" by multiple agents of the fraud and its perps. It requires little mental energy to determine which entities are sufficiently equipped, learned, involved, why they are necessarily limited to governmental/banking/financial interface (a Venn diagram would prove useful here in eliminating suspects), and which of those also had access to military or intelligence apparatus or technologies.
If you want a fresh start, a cleansing of the 9/11 mental/investigatory palate, examine what happened at WTC6 and how.Forget 1 and 2 and even 7; look deeply at six and ask why is it has been almost universally ignored.
The crater in WTC 6 went into the sub-basement levels. The damage to WTC 6 occurred before the first tower collapsed and does not appear to have been caused by falling debris.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Yes people do burn down their buildings and commit insurance fraud. But the 9/11 plot which also involved the pentagon and the Shanksville plan seems to make this motive hardly seem plausible. If Larry wanted to collect the insurance he could have planted bombs and blamed it on terrorists... why go to the extent of getting planes involved...hijacked or drones?
I find the destruction of evidence of the destroying the towers a bit of a tautology. Frankly I can see no reason that the total destruction of the towers served the perps and more than just slamming jets into the towers.
It is eminently clear that you, Mr. Orling, have a tremendous amount of homework to be done, or you are purposefully ignoring (or directing attention away from) what has been in the common cultural knowledge base for many years. One of the very first "9/11 Truthers" was Catherine Austin Fitts who offered up, almost immediately, that the crime was a financial crime.
One can spend a great deal of time pursuing the clues and the evidence which radiate from the points of impact at both the Towers (and especially WTC7) as well as the Pentagon. The difficult task is for the investigative mind to decide what precisely were the crimes, what where the intended diversions, what was the cover story or stories, what were the pre-planned consequences (the PNAC document is a good place to start reading), and much much more. At the core of 9/11 were overlapping cases of massive financial fraud, so massive they involved multiple buildings, multiple corporations, multiple computer systems, and massive "cover-up" by multiple agents of the fraud and its perps. It requires little mental energy to determine which entities are sufficiently equipped, learned, involved, why they are necessarily limited to governmental/banking/financial interface (a Venn diagram would prove useful here in eliminating suspects), and which of those also had access to military or intelligence apparatus or technologies.
If you want a fresh start, a cleansing of the 9/11 mental/investigatory palate, examine what happened at WTC6 and how.Forget 1 and 2 and even 7; look deeply at six and ask why is it has been almost universally ignored.
The crater in WTC 6 went into the sub-basement levels. The damage to WTC 6 occurred before the first tower collapsed and does not appear to have been caused by falling debris.
Well said, Ed.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Can you provide the evidence that building 6 was blown out before tower 1 came down?
I have no doubt that the the usual disaster capitalist pigs made out big time. They always do... don't they?
The question or request was followed by a non sequitur comment of unknown intent.
But the answer is easily found with a moment or two of googling and an additional moment or two of thought, question, and follow-up thought.
Christopher Bollyn, a controversial fellow charged by some as being a disinformation agent, has pictures and commentary here: http://www.bollyn.com/the-mystery-of-wtc-6
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3623[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3622[/ATTACH]
***
The photo series in question inside post #5 of the thread entitled [TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Christopher Bollyn exposed as a 911 frump! http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=79903[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
comes from Jack White's 9/11 Studies (is that DPF's Jack White?).
There was no link to Catherine Austin Fitts but if readers need one, they can Google "Catherine Austin Fitts 9/11 financial crime" where they will find several; the first four articles of the 80,000 cited should suffice.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Bollyn makes some key mistakes in reading the images. The mystery plume is nothing but the same dust/smoke catching the sunlight streaming down Vesey street and appearing bright yellow. There was damage to bldg 6 from the falling debris of the plane impact. The massive hole in 6 was the result of 15,000 tons of steel facade falling onto and into it. There is no evidence of this hole happening before tower 1 collapsed.
As far as I can tell this is pure speculation with no evidence.
Perhaps there is error in photo evaluation. I did ask whether the Jack White noted was our Jack White.
Me, at that time, I was fluttering rapidly between the PC in my basement office and the TV in the living room at a location 200 miles to the northeast. We have seen how the effluent from television has become corrupted (and indeed it has been "charted" on that very morning's coverage), and we have seen how the Internet has been targeted for massive "cognitive" infiltration, and we know who has done the targeting. As a mere citizen, I can only count on the investigative research done by others, or do what little I can manage on my own. I did listen to a podcast and read the "riposte" by Alan Sabrosky last night, and see the debate this morning on precisely who it was who attacked Israeli embassies. What happened on Vesey Street that morning (as well as what happened elsewhere) will be debated for another half-century, just as some debate what color/pattern in shirts was seen in doorways.
I am reading, albeit slowly, Marvin Minsky's book "The Emotion Machine" and just last night uploaded the audiobook "Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind" (with the provocative back panel title "Your Brain Is Not in Charge") by Candace Pert.
Is there room in the debates and conversations on deep politics for an understanding of the singularity of mind and body, for clairsentience, for psychosomatic understandings and paranormal cognitive capacities?
Is it possible to look beyond the most precise understanding of what it is that we see or comprehend and form some kind of gnosis on the basis of disparate and seemingly unrelated information?
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
You don't know that they chose to use explosives. You think they did. This has not been proven. If explosives can be proven, it would make sense to scrub the scene of the crime and silence those who could talk.
And the first step of scrubbing the crime scene would be to make sure that all key buildings are reduced to rubble.
Second, the most definitive and for me convincing evidence for pre-positioned explosives is presented in this David Chandler video:
Granted, it is not WTC 1&2, but this is enough demolish the entire govt. story. Somebody wired the WTC 7 for demolition before 9/11.
Lauren this is not proper use of logic. You presume the conclusion (crime) and then cite the evidence that justifies it... destruction of evidence. (Lack of evidence). Joe did it but I can't prove it because he destroyed all the evidence. In fact the crime WAS the destruction of evidence in this case.
While we can all agree that criminals don't want to leave evidence around pointing to them and their crime... but if there is no evidence we can't simply assume that this is because it was removed by the criminals to avoid being nailed.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What we need to find is affirmative evidence... *finger prints* ... literal or figurative which connects the evidence back the the perps... perhaps through the mechanics and so forth.
Nanothermite... if it IS a high tech explosive and it CAN be proven to have been there and used would be very hard for the military to disassocaite themselves from this. They would have had to supply it, placed it, or had it stolen from them.. if they are the sole source for the stuff. That would be damning evidence.
Unfortunately NT is still not proven but more of an assertion made by one team of researchers. If this is in the dust... and there is more dust around (I'm sure) it needs to be tested by other labs. I believe Milette is doing that now. Let's see what he comes up with.
