Methodical Deception - 911 Very Interesting Inside The Airline Persective

[Ken Garretson]

Agreed, those towers are exploding. Hard to see it any other way once you 'see' it that way.

[Ken Garretson]

If you want to see what thermite looks like when burning there are videos out there. I've seen videos of thermite painted on a steel beam. It burns for a while. Which begs the question of explosions. Does thermite behave differently in different forms ? I dunno

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter: This guy (Chandler's) premise is that the debris flying outward are steel beams with partly undetonated nanothermite, which according to Chandler, its continuing combustion causes the trails of white smoke and the apparent direction and speed changes of the flying girders.

Are you saying that the nanothermite burns too quickly to still be affecting the beams after they leave the vicinity of the building, i.e. that Chandler is wrong (at least in this premise)?

No. Not necessarily. We do not know how the nanothermite was placed and how the electronic timers or detonators were programmed. It is possible that they are going off on a beam that is already being blown away by an earlier detonation. All I'm saying is any individual reaction is quick [not instantaneous]...a few seconds to several seconds usually [can be set to be longer]. However, the reaction products of aluminum oxide powder is going to be there at the site of the reaction and is fairly inert, but will react to wind/air currents and form streamers as a beam with it on it sails through the air. Either way, a white powdery trail is possible. I think the second scenario is more likely, but we don't know and I don't think pictures can tell that, per se....only knowing how and where the charges were placed would tell that....and from the way the buildings came down we can and have developed a GENERAL idea of how and where the charges were placed - but not in any way an exact one.

There are videos of thermite reactions going off - and they burn out in a few seconds. Nanothermite and thermite/thermate can have additives in them to made the burn slower/faster/hotter/cooler/give off more explosive gas or less explosive gas - but the range is not wide - it reacts quickly, but it won't ignite at all without a source of high heat [a detonator]. You can hit it with a hammer and throw a match on it and it will do nothing. Without a high, high temperature detonator it is not going to do anything.

[Drew Phipps]

If the objective was to cut the beams in time to effect a covert controlled demolition (i.e. a free fall collapse), I would suppose that slower burning nanothermite would be counter-productive, in that the beams would resist the collapse for longer, and risk some outsider perceiving that type of combustion.

[Ken Garretson]

I don't assume that the perpetrators intended to conceal the demolition.

[Drew Phipps]

I don't assume that the perpetrators intended to conceal the demolition.

Why then would they bother with the 19 hijacker story?

[Ken Garretson]

Forgive me, I don't understand your question. Are you saying the hijackings are a story (that they didn't happen)? Are you assuming the perpetrators are the same as the story tellers?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious in your question.

[David Guyatt]

I cannot "debunk" the video's premise, but I have one observation to make. It appears to me that the initial object trailing smoke and moving more or less horizontally, actually strikes another piece of debris (which seems to be rotating) and which is moving more or less vertically. The rotating falling debris is visible above the "smoking girder" and appears to intersect it. Since this apparent intersection occurs not merely from one perspective, but at least 2 (that are in that clip), I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the two objects actually collided, which would change the trajectory of both pieces, depending on their relative masses.

I have no knowledge about whether girders painted with unexploded nanothermite would emit white or black smoke, or even that nanothermite (which I assumed burned very quickly) would burn slow enough to continue burning for a period of time long enough for that girder to leave the building.

The reaction time of nanothermite is very rapid. The reaction product is Aluminum oxide [in nanothermite it would be nano-sized Aluminum oxide, which is a light white powder - which behaves exactly as seen in these and other images. It was also found in large amounts [along with un-reacted nanothermite] in the rubble piles and in the dust that engulfed lower Manhattan.

None of the towers collapsed - they were exploded. All of them...but the most spectacular explosive events were the two big towers - the physics of which do not allow gravity to be the only energy source - and that is clearly visible to the eye as well - great portions are blown upward and outward and a pyroclastic cloud is formed. The official fiction is not consistent with the laws of the Universe and Physics - they only comport with the propaganda wishes of the conspirators.

If this was all pre-planned, then there is no hope for us. If the Kennedy assassination was pre-planned, then there is no hope for us. If thinking about thinking about all of this was pre-planned, then……….. it's your Guessing Game. Our move.

I disagree with your conclusion, Mark. There is hope. The hope has to be that more and more people un-hook themselves from the daily propaganda feed and begin to see the world through the lens of their critical thinking ability. They'll stop thinking that it's impossible that something as big as 9/11 couldn't and wouldn't be carried out.

It was Goebbels who proclaimed that:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Take this with PNAC's 2000 paper on Rebuilding America's Defences --- and scrub the word "defences" and replace it with "pre-emption" and the observation that for this to happen:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."

Therefore, it is equally likely that for the process of transformation of revolutionary change to happen to turn us back to a state of critical thinking is likely to be a long one. But it needs to happen. And I believe it will happen.

It's just that at the present time most of us are happily sleep walking.

[Drew Phipps]

I don't assume that the perpetrators intended to conceal the demolition.

Why then would they bother with the 19 hijacker story?

Forgive me, I don't understand your question. Are you saying the hijackings are a story (that they didn't happen)? Are you assuming the perpetrators are the same as the story tellers?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious in your question.

I'm asking, if the perpetrators of these "explosions" didn't intend to conceal their involvement, why would they bother with planes and hijackers, etc. Why not just openly use a military issue bomb of some sort?

[Matthew Hewitt]

I don't assume that the perpetrators intended to conceal the demolition.

Why then would they bother with the 19 hijacker story?

Forgive me, I don't understand your question. Are you saying the hijackings are a story (that they didn't happen)? Are you assuming the perpetrators are the same as the story tellers?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious in your question.

I'm asking, if the perpetrators of these "explosions" didn't intend to conceal their involvement, why would they bother with planes and hijackers, etc. Why not just openly use a military issue bomb of some sort?

The hijackers/planes were necessary to present a definable enemy to the general public and pretexts for both war in the middle east and increased security/loss of civil liberties at home. Footage of the planes crashing into the towers and them burning pre-collapse also had a far greater propaganda value than if the buildings simply exploded; it meant that the government were immediately able to point the finger while the general population were still in a state of shock. Whereas if it had just been a bombing, there'd have to have been a full forensic investigation at the site which not only would have stymied the various financial irregularity cover-ups going on that day but would have allowed OKC type rumors time to spread. The planes were also needed to explain the 'attack' on the pentagon - as nobody would believe that it could have been bombed from the inside.

As for the bombers not bothering the conceal their involvement - they didn't need to, as the MSM and Government did it for them. Fourteen years on and despite the fact that a significant % of the general public supposedly don't buy the official story, how often are these discrepancies discussed in public unless it's to disparage 'Conspiracy Theorists'?