• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Nano Thermite found by multiple scientists in WTC dust, peer reviewed reports surface

Let me take you back to pre ww2 Germany where the Nazi reigned. The Nazi's would stage "attacks" on there own cities, alarming and frightening the population. Then they'd offer "protection", "national security" and "safety" in exchange for the sacrifice of there"rights". In fact, Hitler created an organization known as father land security, early similar to Home land security, is it not?

Now let us think about how many rights, freedoms, liberties the American People sacrificed after 9/11 in exchange for safety, protection & "home land security"(which as stated in previous articles has began targeting war veterans). The patriot act which is the size of a novel was made into law within hours due to an "alarmist" atmosphere and the one's who approved of it admitted to not having time to read the thing. It butchers constitutional/personal rights and infringes on the constitution in numerous ways and also ensures the public can not sue pharmaceutical companies for the negative impacts of vaccinations.

It insults one's intelligence when you ask him to believe two sides of the same coin are different objects entirely.
 
Last edited:
Well there's some good information out there on both but my life was effected more so by the later. Oil is a 66trillion dollar monopoly that is keeping the public dependent & enslaved(like WoW). There is much more efficient forms of energy all would make jaws drop compared to what mainstream is privy too. You probably understand the stasis quo has to be protected at all costs to keep the worker bee's working to pay for gas/energy to get to work to live in the first place when its more less a birthright.
 
Heuristic said:
Such as the powers that be who worked in WTC 1 and 2, and in the Pentagon? You'd think they would be clever enough to have other targets selected, or have the planes destroyed prior to impact.
Click to expand...

I DON'T think their were explosives planted or that the CIA pulled it off or anything. My point is they (the corporate government) had every reason to turn a blind eye or even covertly encourage the attacks. Even if they didn't, have you ever heard the saying, "don't ever let a crisis go to waste." The PNAC document written by Cheney and company calls for occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, which could only be accomplished with a Pearl Harbor type event. This is a public document for all to see.

Heuristic said:
There are cheaper ways to obtain access to a pipeline. And the absence or existence of any such pipeline doesn't have either the strategic or economic significance that could motivate a government conspiracy such as the one alleged.
Click to expand...

The US government attempted (and failed) to build and secure a pipeline for over 30 years. Their strategy was to bribe all of the independent war lords not to destroy sections of pipeline that were built through their territory. This was never successful and a pipeline was not completed.

It wasn't until the Taliban took control of the country that there was enough central leadership for a construction project of that scale to take place (the Taliban never took control of Kabul, so the pipeline remained uncompleted). This is why the US supported the Taliban and actually had some of its leaders come to Texas to discuss the project with Unocal, the company that eventually completed its construction post 911. As a side note, Unocal was bought out by Chevron with the help of congressional interference, which barred the national Chinese oil company from the purchase (even though they outbid Chevron).

Another side note. In the few years leading up to the attacks, US relations with the Taliban soured drastically. One of the main causes was the Taliban's abhorrent treatment of women which caused an international outcry. Another equally important cause was the Taliban's escalating fundamentalism, collaboration with terrorists, and refusal to work with western countries on economic/oil matters.

As for the economic and strategic significance of said pipeline, I think you are very misinformed. The central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, contain the second largest reserve of crude oil on the planet, after Saudi Arabia. These countries are completely surrounded by Iran, Russia, China and Afghanistan. If the USA wants to extract oil from central Asia, the ONLY reasonable way of bringing it out is through Afghanistan, then Pakistan.

In comparison to many billions of barrels of crude oil (which earth is rapidly running out of), two destroyed buildings and a plane into the pentagon is next to nothing.
 
Oil is being extracted from Central Asia. One pipeline currently runs from Baku, through Georgia, through Turkey, to the Med. So quite clearly Afghanistan-Pakistan is not the only reasonable route of transport; and it's unlikely to be such a route any time soon.

Which leads me to my next point. The US attack on Afghanistan, and the resulting chaos, has rendered any pipeline project impossible. We certainly NEVER committed sufficient troops to secure the nation sufficiently to construct a secure pipeline across, nor did we ever want to; if you'll recall, one of the fundamental points of Rumsfeld's military philosophy was the use of small numbers of troops on the ground. Through the use of precision weaponry, and mobile troops, an enemy could be quickly destroyed, and US forces withdrawn. One would think that, if a pipeline were the goal, troops would have been allocated to secure it. They weren't.

The US adopted a "wait and see" approach after the Taliban initially took power over much of Afghanistan. We never formally recognized their government, and quickly came to oppose them.
 
^^you'll notice that Baku is on the opposite side of the Caspian sea of the majority of central Asian oil. So yes, oil could be piped to the sea, put on a boat, and back into a pipeline. Point taken.

The Taliban was initially encouraged by the USA because they were the only thing to come close to solidifying the country. After they increased their fundamentalism and hostility towards the west, I agree that we quickly opposed them.

As for "we don't have enough troops to secure a pipeline"... The Obama war strategy is calling for exactly that (more troops). I guess time will tell.

if you'll recall, one of the fundamental points of Rumsfeld's military philosophy was the use of small numbers of troops on the ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah, post 911. Rumsfeld (one of the contributors to PNAC) calls for the occupation of Afghanistan and the construction of a pipeline. So he contradicts himself, which is to be expected.
 
Mehm said:
^^you'll notice that Baku is on the opposite side of the Caspian sea of the majority of central Asian oil. So yes, oil could be piped to the sea, put on a boat, and back into a pipeline. Point taken.
Click to expand...

Or piped directly across; and of course much of the oil is actually located under the Caspian Sea--though I believe much of the natural gas is located in the CA republics themselves.

Mehm said:
The Taliban was initially encouraged by the USA because they were the only thing to come close to solidifying the country. After they increased their fundamentalism and hostility towards the west, I agree that we quickly opposed them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We're in complete agreement here.

Mehm said:
As for "we don't have enough troops to secure a pipeline"... The Obama war strategy is calling for exactly that (more troops). I guess time will tell.
Click to expand...

True, but they're headed primarily for western and southern Afghanistan. I would welcome a pipeline project, in conjunction, as it would be great for the Afghani economy. But I don't think any company is going to be willing to invest in one in the near future. Way too risky.

Mehm said:
Yeah, post 911. Rumsfeld (one of the contributors to PNAC) calls for the occupation of Afghanistan and the construction of a pipeline. So he contradicts himself, which is to be expected.
Click to expand...

Well, no, we disagree on this. Rumsfeld had long been a proponent of "military transformation," developed by Andrew Marshall. He wanted a leaner military, which could project power rapidly and precisely. Indeed, to that end, one of the first things he undertook was the closure of various peacekeeping training initiatives in the US Army, which would obviously have been useful for a prolonged occupation of a country. Prior to 9/11 the US military was not preparing for anything like an occupation of Afghanistan. I think it's only now, after the bitter lessons learned in Iraq, and with Gen. Petraeus's leadership, that the US military is ready to take the reins in Afghanistan.

He's a smart guy, but was precisely the wrong man for something like Iraq.

Also, I wanted make this point:

If the government knew of an operation like 9/11, and wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, they certainly could have taken steps to minimize the damage rather than leaving continental US airspace so completely exposed. It wouldn't make any sense to literally do nothing in response to such knowledge, even assuming the government had an interest in allowing 9/11 to occur (which I do not think it did). I also strongly question whether, at this point, such a conspiracy or such knowledge could have remained a secret.
 
It's not a secret anymore! You're hearing about it right now! Have you listened to Barry Jennings yet? He died right around the time the NIST report on building 7 came out.

Here is the first half of the uncut Barry Jennings video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU

Here is a shorter segment, part of the aforementioned interview in which he talks about explosions going off inside building 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

What abut Willie Rodriguez? He talks about explosions from underneath as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0bDy-6m3o&feature=related

What do you have to say about the testimony of these men? Willie worked in the world trade center for twenty years. Unless these men are both lying, these are leaks. Do you see how your logic is faulty? Willie saved the lives of a handful of people, according to one of the men he saved. Do you think that kind of person would lie about this?
 
Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


If you want a ton of detail about the claims of conspiracy theorists, and why they are all mistaken, you can go here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
 
I'm asking you what you think about the testimony of two men: Barry Jennings, and the last man out of the towers alive, William Rodriguez. Are you going to address that question?
 
Regarding William Rodriguez:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez.

Completely discredits him, and is well sourced.

Regarding Barry Jennings:

An overwhelming amount of evidence contradicts him. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

First, he claims that while on the north side of WTC-7, he broke out the windows and "looked one way and the building was there; I looked the other, and the building was gone."

WTC-1 and WTC-2 were both south of WTC-7.

Second, AFTER claiming that "I looked the other, and the building was gone," he claims that firefighters had come up the stairs to rescue him (miraculously, since he claims that the sixth floor had given way completely), and then, inexplicably, left him "because the first building was collapsing." Sometime later, he claims, the second building collapsed.

So in the space of his own account we're told

1) he saw, from the north side of WTC-7, one building standing, and one collapsed;

2) that, later, both buildings then collapsed;

3) that as he initially tried to evacuate down a stairwell the "sixth floor landing" gave way, as he reached it, completely, due to an explosion, causing him to go to the 8th floor---never mind explaining why he didn't fall when the 6th floor disappeared, never mind explaining how the firefighters got up there;

4) there were stairwells on the east and west sides of the building--not on the north or south sides--and he claims to have known that he was on the north side of the building because he was in the north stairwell;

5) he claims that the lobby was filled with bodies, which is untrue;

6) no audio recordings captured any of the explosions he thinks he heard;

7) WTC-7 would have collapsed hours after the explosions he thinks he heard.

I don't know whether he's lying, or simply went through a very traumatic event and ended up with a series of jumbled memories. In either event, the story doesn't hold water.

For the real truth: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
 
Wikipedia censored any discussion of this new report in their article on Controlled demolition at the WTC. I got banned from editing Wikipedia because of this. Read about it here (U hafta "unhide" the discussion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:W..._World_Trade_Center_Catastrophe.22_article.3F

Here's an elephant in the room about 9/11: What happened to all the broken glass, curtains, desks, chunks of concrete?
Answer: Everything was pulverized into toxic dust.

WTC_Explosion_Evidence-1184x1660.jpg


Note tiny debris pile in pics taken the next day . . . what happend to two 100-story buildings? Pulverized . . . many ppl reported hearing explosions.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha, at least we are getting some comic relief in this forum. I will say, I did NOT know that a person could even get banned from a BS site like Wiki. How in the world does a site entrely generated by consumer driven content ban a person for editing? I di admit though, if someone Had to run afoul...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top