Forums | MacLife

wellfleation · 2009-05-19 9:47 pm

I pulled this from another forum but wanted to share as it raised my brow.

. . .evidence? "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", called "Explosives Found In World Trade Center Dust"

I have said many times and keep thinking of all the smurfed up smurf evil bush/Cheney did. Could this be?

wellfleation · 2009-05-19 10:04 pm

Biden is video taped (YouTube somewhere) being cornered and asked the question about the report and if there was going to be any investigation. After not answering the question the reporter then asks how we can expect the government to be trusted to look after our best interests economically if it can't be trusted to find the truth. Biden then just says "yes" and walks away and refused to elaborate.

Same smurf, just close your eyes.

Tallgeese · 2009-05-19 10:48 pm

A couple chemists in Copenhagen conclude that advanced nanotech thermite was painted on the WTC before airplanes ran into it?

It's stretching a bit.

More than a bit.

Bush can't even open a door without running into trouble. I doubt his ability to do something like this.

radarman · 2009-05-19 10:52 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
A couple chemists in Copenhagen conclude that advanced nanotech thermite was painted on the WTC before airplanes ran into it?

It's stretching a bit.

More than a bit.

Bush can't even open a door without running into trouble. I doubt his ability to do something like this.

Do you honestly believe Bush was actually running the show? He isn't pretending to be a dumbass - he actually IS a dumbass. He was a sock puppet for the neo-cons, no more in charge of the country than the numbnuts we put in charge in the various client states we maintain around the world.

Cheney, on the other hand, is clever enough to have put together such a plan - and clever enough to keep his mouth shut, opening it only when strategically beneficial.

Tallgeese · 2009-05-19 10:53 pm

Also, the article is published in an open-access journal that a jaunt about the nets reveals to be accused of a pyramid scheme/vanity press

more here

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-05-19 10:54 pm)

wellfleation · 2009-05-19 11:07 pm

Hey, I qualified it.

So it is BS? This has been reported in foreign news reports as well.
Link

Last edited by wellfleation (2009-05-19 11:08 pm)

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-19 11:08 pm

wellfleation wrote:
I have said many times and keep thinking of all the smurfed up smurf evil bush/Cheney did. Could this be?

No.

Tallgeese · 2009-05-19 11:10 pm

wellfleation wrote:
Hey, I qualified it.

So it is BS? This has been reported in foreign news reports as well.
Link

We all know how well the media understand science.

radarman · 2009-05-19 11:14 pm

9/11 is our generation's version of the grassy knoll. Just as we will never know if there really was a second shooter, we will likely never know if the WTC was bombed.

That said, frankly the evidence in favor of the 'non-government conspiracy' story is far more compelling - being backed up with video evidence, and the testimony of several respected civil engineers. It's going to take a bit more than a few micrograms of thermite to convince me of a grand conspiracy.

That won't stop the nutters, though. They can pile this next to the 'video proof' of extra-terrestrial autopsies at area 51, and the secret documents about the second shooter in Daley Plaza.

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-19 11:17 pm

radarman wrote:
9/11 is our generation's version of the grassy knoll. Just as we will never know if there really was a second shooter, we will likely never know if the WTC was bombed.

Do you sort of recall airplanes crashing into it on live TV?

The only way that it will be "our generation's" JFK is the flak authors who will find ways to make coin off of maroons that want to believe that the Illuminati (etc.) are behind it all.

Now, off to write a book...

Tallgeese · 2009-05-19 11:20 pm

I must say, I did see airplanes crashing into it on live TV.

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-19 11:26 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
I must say, I did see airplanes crashing into it on live TV.

Seems some people missed that.

radarman · 2009-05-19 11:29 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
I must say, I did see airplanes crashing into it on live TV.
Seems some people missed that.

<sigh> I guess I suck at sarcasm. I must write a note to myself to use more emoticons... </sigh>

I actually didn't see the attacks live. I was in a stupid training class at the time of the first attacks, and walking back to my office when the Pentagon was hit. However, given that I've seen the footage, oh, about fifty million times since then, I feel as if I did.

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-20 12:02 am

radarman wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
I must say, I did see airplanes crashing into it on live TV.
Seems some people missed that.
<sigh> I guess I suck at sarcasm. I must write a note to myself to use more emoticons... </sigh>

Don't worry. It's my nuance problem.

dv · 2009-05-20 12:03 am

Big building like that, 40,000 occupants... I figure it's a pretty good chance somebody had some fireworks laying around. It's amazing what you can find in a dusty storeroom.

Metacell · 2009-05-20 12:40 am

Hank Rearden wrote:
Do you sort of recall airplanes crashing into it on live TV?

Wait a minute...it was broadcast LIVE?

That means....THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS HAPPENING IN ADVANCE! eek

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-20 12:41 am

Metacell wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
Do you sort of recall airplanes crashing into it on live TV?
Wait a minute...it was broadcast LIVE?

That means....THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS HAPPENING IN ADVANCE!

That's chapter two.

Bat · 2009-05-20 1:06 am

Hank Rearden wrote:
Metacell wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
Do you sort of recall airplanes crashing into it on live TV?
Wait a minute...it was broadcast LIVE?

That means....THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS HAPPENING IN ADVANCE!
That's chapter two.

You work too slowly. My book, "Plausibly Deniable," is already close to shipping/e-publication, and Hollywood is fighting over the movie rights.

I think Fox has its first round of condemnations already in the can, and Cheney's on deck.

$$$.

ShnickyShnack · 2009-05-20 9:37 am

Isn't it amazing how conspiracies are always carried out with such flawless precision? Never, ever a mistake, a leak, a slip-up.

Regardless of whoever was actually in charge of the Bush Administration, can we really associate them with the flawless carrying out of complex operations?

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-20 11:01 am

Bat wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
Metacell wrote:

Wait a minute...it was broadcast LIVE?

That means....THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS HAPPENING IN ADVANCE!
That's chapter two.
You work too slowly. My book, "Plausibly Deniable," is already close to shipping/e-publication, and Hollywood is fighting over the movie rights.

I think Fox has its first round of condemnations already in the can, and Cheney's on deck.

$$$.

Wow. Any my title is "Undeniably Plausible". Finished it last night. It's out on Kindle.

Bat · 2009-05-20 1:35 pm

Hey, you can draw the flak then! Fox will have to overdub all their stuff, and I can call you an opportunist with a rushed, ill-researched cash-in vs. my responsible piece of investigative journalism. tongue

...just in time for the end af May Sweeps. wink

Hank Rearden · 2009-05-20 1:41 pm

Bat wrote:
Hey, you can draw the flak then! Fox will have to overdub all their stuff, and I can call you an opportunist with a rushed, ill-researched cash-in vs. my responsible piece of investigative journalism.

...just in time for the end af May Sweeps.

Ill-researched? Heck, Elvis and I scoured through KGB archives and discovered that Jack Ruby actually bought and planted the explosives at the WTC just before heading to Dallas to off Oswald. I'll bet you don't cover that shocking aspect.

DevoDoc · 2009-05-20 1:49 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
I must say, I did see airplanes crashing into it on live TV.

Amazing what they can do with CGI these days. Much more believable than those faked moon landing movies. big_smile

daemon · 2009-05-20 1:54 pm

Well, the Pentagon is kinda funny, it seems. Plus WTC7.

I think it really is just as plausible as not that it was at least not stopped as likely the coincidences are just coincindences. The clear Aug. warning and Bush outta town; Cheney instead. The excercises scheduled that day. Just a funny vibe all around.

Jdude · 2009-05-20 7:43 pm

If I were an evil minded government, and I needed an attack to get the American people to go along with something, here is what I would do:

Set up terrorist cells overseas.
Train and fund them to crash a plane into a building.

This, seriously, is the cheapest way to do it.

Thermite in the buildings? Are you smurfing kidding me? The expense of setting this up, the mess, the lack of concealability? That is if the government even was in on it. roll

Forums | MacLife

#1 2009-05-19 9:47 pm

Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#2 2009-05-19 10:04 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#3 2009-05-19 10:48 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#4 2009-05-19 10:52 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Tallgeese wrote:

#5 2009-05-19 10:53 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#6 2009-05-19 11:07 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#7 2009-05-19 11:08 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

wellfleation wrote:

#8 2009-05-19 11:10 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

wellfleation wrote:

#9 2009-05-19 11:14 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#10 2009-05-19 11:17 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

radarman wrote:

#11 2009-05-19 11:20 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#12 2009-05-19 11:26 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Tallgeese wrote:

#13 2009-05-19 11:29 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#14 2009-05-20 12:02 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

radarman wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#15 2009-05-20 12:03 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#16 2009-05-20 12:40 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Hank Rearden wrote:

#17 2009-05-20 12:41 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Metacell wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

#18 2009-05-20 1:06 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Hank Rearden wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

#19 2009-05-20 9:37 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#20 2009-05-20 11:01 am

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Bat wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Metacell wrote:

#21 2009-05-20 1:35 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#22 2009-05-20 1:41 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Bat wrote:

#23 2009-05-20 1:49 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Tallgeese wrote:

#24 2009-05-20 1:54 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

#25 2009-05-20 7:43 pm

Re: Never been a conspiracy theorist, however, this is compelling. . .

Board footer