15-02-2012, 03:41 AM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote: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.
First, I notice that you did not respond to the video itself. So let me go back to it to place in a its context.
Second, I am not presuming a crime. We say it happening on TV. Who did it? Who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity (MMO). Incredibly, we were told that 19 hijackers pulled this off and for three years I believed it. For me, the hardest part was just to allow the thoughts that someone internal to the US could have done this to invade my head. The hardest part was to state what I could reasonably call knowledge. I do accept the NT thesis as proven subject to falsification. The documented presence of NO would disprove the governments' case, but it would not prove the Who did it? But the prime suspects would be developed around MMO. Obviously, my prime suspects would have included a powerful cabal of para-military and intelligence assets with bureaucratic cover.
Third, now on to WTC7. Even though it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you say maybe its just a squirrel. With the video I posted I claim is proof that explosives were planted before 9/11. (This presumes that nobody could and would have wired up the buildings to implode in that short amount of time under those conditions. After all, WTC6 was taken down weeks later. What would the hurry be with WTC7?)
Finally, whether explosives were used is the starting point to solving the crime. If explosives were used, the 4 pilots and the 15 muscle guys are minor figures if not just props for the Grand Narrative. Is the video a "fingerprint?" Yes, but not the fingerprint of a foreign terrorist plot. It is a fingerprint of someone else; someone closer to home.
Jeffrey, I doubt this will satisfy you; but at least I hope you will specifically comment on the posted video.