See other 9/11 Articles
Title: High Quality Full Version of "9-11 Mysteries: Demolitions" Now Posted to Google Video
Source:
Google Video
URL Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d ... 90071483512003&q=911+Mysteries
Published: Sep 18, 2006
Author: Brilliant patriots
Post Date: 2006-09-18 23:29:20 by Arator
Ping List: *Restore the Republic* Subscribe to *Restore the Republic*
Keywords: 9-11, Mysteries, Quality
Views: 358
Comments: 28
Just click the link above. Send it to your friends. It's much easier to access than the lower quality divided-into-three-parts version. Subscribe to *Restore the Republic*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#10. To: Arator (#0)
Then I got this one: Controlled demolitions? The most interesting aspect I found on the site you referenced was how willing these folks were willing to suspend disbelief of their own pet hypotheses (backed by "reputable scientists" of course), but cannot belief established facts, like there being A BURNING PLANE IN THE SIDE OF A BUILDING! If this is the cutting edge, it seems rather dull to me. Here are a few questions I have that were never really explained in the posts. 1) If this was a case of a controlled demotion, surely there would be residue of some sort. To date, I haven't seen or heard evidence of any being found. Where did it go? 2) If there were bombs placed in the basement of the WTC buildings that came down, why would they need the planes flying into buildings in the first place? Sure, it made for a compelling visual, but the hustle and bustle of the day would have hidden terrorists who wanted put the bombs in place, especially if the security was as lax as the posters on that website claim. 3) What would Bill Clinton and George W. Bush gain by blowing up the WTC? Clinton was no longer in power and was notoriously lax on fighting terrorism, and George W. Bush wouldn't have been able to plot and execute a plan of this magnitude with the few months he was in office. Not to mention, this whole situation could have backfired on Bush from a PR standpoint. 4) To accomplish the goal of a controlled demolition, it would require someone with intimate knowledge of the building's engineering, someone with the explosives know-how to know how much would be needed to accomplish the goal, and the ability to accomplish both without raising questions. Is there someone or two people within the Bush and Clinton Administrations who could meet the criteria? If so, who? And, yes, I'm going to be asking for proof before I believe just the name or names. 5) And with #4, there is another possibility. Let's not forget Al Qaeda hit the WTC in 1993 using a similar approach: explosives near a structural base of one of the Twin Towers. Since it's not possible that the building engineering would not have been changed that much since 1993, isn't it just as plausible that Al Qaeda could have blown up the Twin Towers using information culled from the failed 1993 bombing? 6) To coordinate this kind of operation takes manpower and more than a little paperwork. That means there would be a large number of points of contact that could either go public or would get leaked to the press. Yet, neither one has materialized, in spite of the fact that the Bush Administration has done a poor job of keeping secrets. Given these facts, how could the Bush Administration have kept something this big a secret? That's what I've found with the 9/11 conspiracy folks. They run with a half-thought-out notion without looking at all possibilities or asking critical questions that would make or break their arguments in favor of a conspiracy. They may think the government's explanation is the "Official Fairy Tale," but until they come up with the answers to difficult questions, they have zero room to talk about the lack of credibility in the government's explanation of events. CommConsEditor@aol.com Anyone care to respond to this truth seeker? Maybe we could do it here and send him the thread in a few days.
When your dealing with folks, always remember this. By God they want proof!!. They want videos! They want documents!! They want photos!! No they don't. They just want to go round and round on a merry-go-round and protect their donkey or elephant ass. You know how I know this? I went through a remarkable process with the assassination of Ron Brown. "Things" happen for a reason. Think I'm a fan of Ron Brown? I couldn't stand the guy. Everything he stood for, and the people he rubbed shoulders with made me vomit. But all of us should put those feelings aside, and stick with the Constitution and the rule of law. At one time I took the best prints possible of Ron Brown's head wound to several prominent forensic pathologists. The "subject" was not identified, so no political aspirations or fear would enter into the opinions. No, they didn't get to examine the body, but they had several quality photos to examine for an educated opinion. Without exception "all" of them told me that the perfect circular hole in Brown's head was a bullet hole. They didn't even hesitate. They didn't flinch. They didn't go hmmmmmm. Bullet Hole. I already knew it, but I just wanted to hear from so-called experts. Ok, so now we have a Commerce Secretary with a bullet hole in his head. That's a big deal, isn't it? Apparently not. I'm suppose to be gung-ho and patriotic about our military? Ever heard of Kathleen Janoski? Here's our great military: THE BOTCHED RON BROWN INVESTIGATION - Kathleen Janoski Ok, so these folks like to see things, yes?
#16. To: Uncle Bill (#11)
what an interesting post regarding Ron Brown ! you're terrific, Uncle Bill.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#11. To: wakeup (#10)
"About 6 months after the crash I had a conversation with Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigative agent. She told me the first set of head x-rays on Ron Brown were deliberately destroyed because they showed a lead snowstorm. I said, "What are you talking about?" She explained to me what a lead snowstorm is: metal fragments breaking up from a bullet. And she proceeded to tell me that the first set of x-rays was deliberately destroyed and a second set was taken. The exposure was changed in an attempt to eradicate or diminish the metal fragments."
The column directly above the fireman in the middle of the photo shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite. Or is there a better explanation? 
This eight ton steel I-beam is six inches thick. It was selected to be preserved for future generations for the near perfect horseshoe bend ... it bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this.
Replies to Comment # 11.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.