19-09-2012, 04:01 PM
I don't necessarily disagree. There's no doubt the interests and purpose of the sponsors would be best served by having the Towers fall in a London Blitz-type disaster full of dust clouds. I mean it's great deep poetry but I guess my point is it still has to be connected to reality. I watched close-ups of the Tower collapses on You-Tube and as far as I could see the collapses both occurred right at the impact/fire points. For those collapses to have been triggered by pre-placed thermite devices they would have needed to be placed in the exact spot of the collapse. It isn't a coincidence that the obvious breaking point of the collapse occurred exactly at the fire spots. The way the Tower was designed with an inner and outer frame, if the thermite had been burned at a lower floor you would have seen a buckling there when it gave, or even a break and collapse of the floor sections at that level. You didn't. Also, there were firefighter personnel at those lower floors who would have announced a serious thermite fire at their level if it had occurred. Another thing is the fact the south Tower went first even though it was hit last. If we had Fetzerian spooks controlling the demolition it doesn't make sense that they would destroy the south Tower first if they were trying to mimic a natural cause. So even though there's no doubt a total collapse would best serve all deep interests, it still has to be connected to a feasible cause in reality. These deep political arguments about the total collapse and its psychological effect kind of suggest and assume a deliberately-caused act. Well deliberate in this case requires the thermite pre-arrangement. While I wouldn't put it past them to plan such thermite devices, I remain agnostic as to their actual existence.