|
Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 09:12 PM by theSaiGirl
I lovvvvvve this thread. I love it. (rubbing my hands together gleefully..)
Now we get to study the art of the "limited hangout". How fallback positions are crafted to accommodate possible leaks or cognitive breakdowns in the overall psy-op.
As you all know, Morgan Reynolds (prof.Emerit of Texas A&M, former chief economist in Bush Jr. Labour Dept., expert in standards of legal evidence) has argued that Marvin Bush's security firm, had obtained the protective contracts on the WTC only a few months earlier, and probably had more than enough opportunities to rig the Towers and the rest of the complex. We also have the confirmed reports of the power outages and lots of weekend "maintenance and repair" that occurred there just prior to 9/11.
But lets just put all that aside, for a moment, and pretend we donÕt know it. Instead lets wipe that slate clean, and consider a posting that I think presents a brilliant opportunity for us to educate ourselves about the nature of "black" technology. And precisely how ignorant the average American might be about the varieties and characters of various explosives used in military, mining, industrial and urban development.
(Just as I feel many Americans have been dumbed-down about the basics of firearms technology, knowledge of which, in earlier pre-industrial times, was considered de rigeur for life on the farm and frontier.)
So just how much do we really have to learn here about modern explosives, construction and demolition, to infer some probabilities and perhaps conclusions ? And how much of that knowledge is scarce, hard to obtain or outright verboten ?
Kevin Fenton has really turned on the hottest and brightest spotlights, so we can see the entire stage of the play with stark clarity. Other posters over the WEB have echoed similar views, and in a few other scattered media venues. The general argument is that "modern" buildings are built with a specially coated rebar, or perhaps inert explosive components, distributed throughout the concrete of elsewhere in the structure. Certainly makes sense, intuitively Certainly would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to prepare a building for take-down, say.. give it a projected life, but prep it structurally for implosion at some later date, when detonators can be installed and programmed.
So I'm going to try and read up on this and report back on whether there is any evidence of such preparatory destructive design materials and methods; although I suspect that the WTC, having been built in the early 1970s, probably preceded widespread commercial use of such preparations for obvious PR inhibitions. But certainly, the military has this kind of pre-fab construction that can be built with the elements of its own implosion; so that critical installations, embassy security zones, makeshift bases that can be quickly destroyed so as not fall into the hands of an adversary, etc. Sounds reasonable. Wonder how formally classified all this might be ?
Rich Hunt (Holy Icon of Saint Bobby) probably would agree that the public is entitled to know for sure if buildings are going up in cities with "built-in" explosives. Bobby would certainly have wanted us to know, don't you think ? Bullet-riddled Bobby would never have granted that big government and corporate leviathan had the right to conceal from their obedient denizens and workers, that the latter might be working every day in urban behemoths that are already rigged for some distant future detonation. I do not think that Bobby would have accepted the argument that it is best for us NOT TO KNOW such things, so that we might be ignorant for our own good. Would it require a FOIA lawsuit to obtain government/military documentation of such capabilities ? Or is it already available in the public domain ? Any military demo experts out there who can give us a clue ? What about private-sector use of such technology ?
I think that if this thread means anything at all, we should now "put up or shut up", when it comes to shutting down argument by using the excuse that so much "black" technology (whether military or private-sector) is classified or privileged, making real confirmation well nigh impossible No matter how much reporting we get, the official government and corporate sources will either deny or "no comment". Would they ever openly admit to such a thing ? It would be "unthinkable" ...
(Although, apparently less unthinkable than the likelihood that they simply spent a few weekends rigging the builidngs
But perhaps we can here and now enlighten ourselves. And enlighten those true democrats, liberals and progressives who instinctively feel that ordinary people have a "right to know", if such an unthinkable reality were everywhere around us.
We need to examine all possibilities: thermite, C-4, thermo baric ..etc. ..much as Prof.Jones briefly and modestly speculated or posed reasonable conjectures in his paper. Are there inert forms that maintain their potency over decades, and can be pre-positioned, or painted on rebar, for future use ?
While we are at it, we should also look at the reports (and analysis by scientists with backgrounds in physics or engineering like Prof.Jones) which suggest the possibility that "baby-nukes" of some kind might also have been employed at the WTC. According to the "9/11-Eyewitness" DVD recently released, the collapse sites continued to emit fantastic amounts of heat, bright light and possibly radiation. Has anyone heard of any Geiger counter readings of the site in the immediate aftermath ? No one could near them for quite a while. Would it still be contaminated now, if baby-nukes had been used ? Certainly worth exploring, over and above the officially admitted hot pools of melted steel.
Now someone has posed the question of whether "Al Qaeda" could have planted the explosives that brought down the Towers ? Does this also mean they rigged WTC 7 ? Not likely, since WTC7 housed civil-defense and emergency preparedness functionalities for both Giuliani and the Feds. Would they have allowed "Al Qaeda" to penetrate and plant explosives to that extent ? Wow... what a fantastic movie plot !!!!!
Like we could script it so that Larry Silverstein and Marvin Bush hire some Arab patsies to to rig the WTC, and then cash in on the insurance, while hiding other business losses.. Right out of John Grisham, huh ? Any budding script-writers want to tackle that one ? Or do you think the plotline lacks believability ?
I think it's important to recall that "Al Qaeda" was originally a CIA off-the-shelf project dating back to the Afghan jihad of the 80s. It was just a rudimentary database invention; a list of names, cellphone numbers, addresses and other potentially mine-able data; a terrorist database for use against the Soviets and their proxies in Afghanistan, and perhaps elsewhere to de-stabilize Islamic areas of the old Soviet Union, the Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kyrgiztan .. Chechnya even .. These were Ronald ReaganÕs Afghan freedom-fighters, the mujahaddin "...the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers", as Reagan called them. Later, these same jihadist mercenaries were reactivated in the Balkans and elsewhere. The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) is basically the Balkan branch of "Al Qaeda". Except that now they have an air force and some tank divisions - itÕs called NATO.
So, by all means, lets never rule out the possibility that "Al Qaeda" planted explosives in the Towers (and/or WTC7) ... or maybe they somehow penetrated the innards of our national security and discovered that the buildings were already pre-rigged for easier deconstruction. Now that would be a plotline with plenty of potential for hot action scenes.... LetÕs script it and run it by the studios.... Maybe we could get it produced on CNN or FX ...
|