• 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

Right-on YOESH! This 9/11 thing is soooo obvious . . . if only ppl had open minds. There's a new book comming out soon by someone who was on the 9/11 commission who was disgusted with the whole whitewash. The whole thing is really an elephant in the room with so many outstanding questions.
 
Never mind the extensively researched and documented expert report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Let's watch a 10 minute youtube video instead. Let's watch clips of controlled demolitions, in which the explosions are very obvious and very loud---and then watch a 10 second excerpt of the beginning of 7-WTC's collapse featuring... that's right... a lack of observed or heard explosions. Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other...

Simply awesome. Congrats. Henceforth I shall look to youtube for all my expert needs.
 
This is going to sound weird to everyone who ever subscribed to a conspiracy theory, but even if it was a "controlled demolition" brought about by this thermite, does it matter in any sense more than the presence of an additional piece of physical evidence? Newsflash: The attack on the World Trade Center was on purpose, and it took a long, long time to plan. If you were planning the attack, and you were spending all of this time and money putting it together, wouldn't it make sense to, in the interim period, provide yourself some fail-safes to ensure that the attack was successful? For a little extra money, if you could get one person who doesn't know anything about terrorists or bombs, to walk into the building and place a suitcase full of something unknown in a particular place every day during the planning phase, you might sleep a little bit better at night knowing that you weren't rolling the dice on the U.S. government shooting down your planes or your pilots accidentally missing the twin towers and crashing into the ocean.

I subscribe to a conspiracy theory that doesn't try to connect any dots because it doesn't have to; it is based on money. If you are planning an attack that is guaranteed to be highly successful in the middle of most important financial center in the world (and I'm not saying that to be a self-important American, it just happens to be that NYSE and every major corporation in the world has offices in NYC), then you have some highly valuable information. In effect, you already have investors if you are capable of planning and executing such an attack - after all, you have tomorrow's newspaper and it is already flipped to the most important page: the stock section. I think it's all pretty simple, and that the grand master plan would generate itself once enough people knew about it and that the people keeping their mouths shut and/or planning would be a molly-glot group of people.
 
Ppl like Heuristic have posted before in 9/11 articles, completely ignoring the obvious, like a 10-minute video, tiny debris pile (no desks, curtains, toilet seats, etc.), dust everywhere, witnesses to explosions. He would probably like the Warren Report too, lol. (Check out Heuristic's posting history . . . seems like he could be a ________.)

Not sure what Ur saying CptnB but my take is that the alledged "terrorists" were set-up or the planes were remote-controlled (no jetliner flew into the Pentagon . . . more likely a cruise missile or remote-controlled drone, jet) . . . President Bush's borther was head of WTC security so, "repairmen" could have easily sprayed thermite "insulation" on the affected floors. Thermobaric bombs would have pulverized everything . . . I haven't really read exactly HOW someone could have brought down the WTC Towers as they did, most say it was new technology. Certainly NOT some kind of radioactive bomb or electro-pulse as some disinformation going around says and certainly NOT the "pancake theory."
 
Who knows a victimof the planes that hit the WTC? only relatives of victims i've come across were from the plane that was taken down.
 
Originally Posted by GoddessLSD-XTC
Not sure what Ur saying CptnB but my take is that the alledged "terrorists" were set-up or the planes were remote-controlled (no jetliner flew into the Pentagon . . . more likely a cruise missile or remote-controlled drone, jet) . . . President Bush's borther was head of WTC security so, "repairmen" could have easily sprayed thermite "insulation" on the affected floors. Thermobaric bombs would have pulverized everything . . . I haven't really read exactly HOW someone could have brought down the WTC Towers as they did, most say it was new technology. Certainly NOT some kind of radioactive bomb or electro-pulse as some disinformation going around says and certainly NOT the "pancake theory."
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how it happened. You can go market the information that it will happen on Wall Street itself, or you can even keep it to yourself and still turn an insane profit by buying put options with your own money - either way you're basically choosing between two things since you already have that information and can't un-have it: 1.) Be extremely wealthy and rationalize the means away in order to sleep at night, something you'd have to do anyways if you're the kind of person who is both greedy and likely to come into information like this, or 2.) Turn yourself over to a military tribunal and confess your sins to people who are going to make you wish you had picked number 1. All that you need to be able to do is guarantee that it is going to happen for sure. I have a hard time believing complex, monolithic conspiracy theories where 8,000 people have to keep quiet for absolutely no incentive whatsoever. Nobody involved in things like this really gives a shit about principles. A conspiracy that essentially says the government planned it, or that religious people did it, or anything like that, relies on those bodies having principles strong enough to justify a whole lot people being quiet about mass murder for moral reasons or fear. Someone would have tattle-told by now. Money changes everything, and there is Microsoft money to be made by anyone who is capable of planning and executing a totally successful attack on the WTC.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the financial angle: that was investigated, and dismissed. There were no suspicious trades that would indicate foreknowledge of the attacks. Something like that would leave quite a paper trail. For the investigators it would be the equivalent of a giant neon sign.

Regarding these conspiracy theories generally: it is remarkable to me that the believers are unwilling to actually read the government report, but are quite willing to engage in speculation about what debris was at the site, the notion of "spraying thermite" on support beams, remote-controlled 767s, etc. There's this bizarre discrepancy between their apparent need to closely verify every fact, and their utter gullibility when it comes to anyone shopping a conspiracy theory.

There was an enormous amount of wreckage at Ground Zero. Absolutely enormous. Obviously the people posting above were not in NYC on 9/11, and never visited Ground Zero in the months after. That you haven't met a relative of one of the people on the planes doesn't indicate much in a nation of 320 million people.

Did ANYTHING about the government's response look like they were prepared for the attacks? Did the President look particularly prepared? Did the Vice-President sound particularly prepared? Did any agency act particularly prepared?

No.
 
^ No one sprayed thermight, dont be redonkous. The scientists stated it'd need 2 be brought in on pallets unless it was some kind of super heightened secret potency military grade.
 
Regarding the financial angle: that was investigated, and dismissed. There were no suspicious trades that would indicate foreknowledge of the attacks. Something like that would leave quite a paper trail. For the investigators it would be the equivalent of a giant neon sign.
Click to expand...

Did you know, that before the credit crunch last year, Moody's and other bond ratings agencies (the objective third parties deciding which bank had a better basket of cherries for the entire world and all of its governments and people) were giving out AAA ratings to financial instruments they didn't understand and didn't believe were worth squat, solely because they knew if they didn't give that AAA rating then a bank would take its business across the street and get a AAA rating from the other rating agency? Keep in mind that only the smartest people who have written the most papers at Harvard and done a lifetime of studies were subject to such base manipulation despite their hard-earned, authoritative, and important roles in the world economy.

And, for grins, how exactly do you spot suspicious trading activity? What is the watermark for what constitutes an inside trade, and how much money does it have to be at once? Can I take a look at your overseas account and look at your background for my research?


Let's pretend you have money and intend on making a lot more. You know the investigative methods used, and you know their limits. And the limits of the investigative methods have a habit of being a step or two behind the money, go figure. Good thing you're on the friendly end of that stick.
 
Last edited:
The big three bond rating agencies gave out investment-grade ratings to CDOs and similar instruments because they relied on the same financial models that the banks did. Those models were mistaken. It's not that they really knew that the instruments were bad.

As far as the technology and methods that the SEC and other regulatory authorities use to surveil and identify suspicious trading, that's obviously confidential. But stock and options trading is a highly regulated activity in the United States and elsewhere, with all the associated paper trails.

And while it's in the nature of criminal investigation to catch the criminal only after a crime has been committed, the authorities generally catch up.
 
The big three bond rating agencies gave out investment-grade ratings to CDOs and similar instruments because they relied on the same financial models that the banks did. Those models were mistaken. It's not that they really knew that the instruments were bad.
Click to expand...

Heuristic, the reaon/excuse divider on that one is a little blurry. I'm not buying it, not when executives at these agencies have spoken out that CDO's were a gigantic mystery to them at the time, but corporate expediency insisted that the banks' models and assumptions be used in the interim period before everything sorted itself into a nice neat package somehow and the ratings "came true." The ratings agencies trusted in the United States every time a city, person, or grandmother purchases a financial product are called ratings agencies for a reason, and "using a bank's thesis to argue for that bank's thesis because it heard you liked theses" is an Xxibit meme as well as a very poor excuse for a job done the wrong way.

As far as the technology and methods that the SEC and other regulatory authorities use to surveil and identify suspicious trading, that's obviously confidential. But stock and options trading is a highly regulated activity in the United States and elsewhere, with all the associated paper trails.
Click to expand...

Paper trails are the biggest asset of an international citizen who is a good money launderer. An entire reality can be created on paper - another planet - for an investigator to explore. Indeed, some prosecutors are required by the law of their office to follow certain trails, which can then lead to other trails which they must follow. Some people work at the SEC for 20 years and then "switch sides" much how some of the best lawyers are former prosecutors, to give you an idea of how much knowledge is out there for joe blow millionaire to take advantage of (whatever his intentions).
 
^ First, just want to say that I appreciate your civil tone.

Regarding ratings agencies: they've never said that CDOs were a gigantic mystery. CDOs are quite complex, obviously (and you can even have CDO-squareds, essentially a CDO of CDOs), and determining how to rate the risk of the various tranches in those instruments was complicated. Ultimately, the ratings agencies relied on the same real-estate and mortgage data that the banks did, in the case of CDOs that relied on securitized and pooled commercial and residential mortgages, and the same empirical assumptions, in running their computer models. And so they ended up with the same under-appreciation of risk.

Also, realize that since the banks themselves rely on these agencies in determining their own investments (such as in CDOs), in structuring their lending, etc., the banks do not have an interest in the agencies being incompetent, or making mistakes.

Regarding the SEC: the problem with realities on paper in the computer age is that it can take a very small amount of time for a program to pick up the thread and run it down. It's actually become much more difficult to get away with things like insider trading.

While many defense lawyers in securities practices have worked for the SEC at one time or another, they're forbidden from advising their clients on how to best commit a criminal act. Their advice would almost inevitably be the following: don't do it, the odds are against you, and you'll eventually get caught.

Whether you want to chalk that up to ethics (people generally don't work for the SEC, or as a prosecutor, for 20 years because they're in it just for the money), or to the fact that they're intimately aware of how good the government is at uncovering these schemes, is up to you.
 
YOESH! said:
The fact is, our government has a history of false flag and government sponsored terror operations. They lie and lie and lie to us, but you refuse to entertain the idea that they might have killed a few thousand of their own people for the gain of an explosion in the size of bureaucracy, even entire new agencies like the Dept of Homeland Security.

You guys keep talking shit about the messenger or the way the information is delivered, but ignoring the facts. Can you hear yourselves?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Click to expand...

What's funny is that people like you completely refuse to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the terrorists got us. Maybe terrorists wanted to kill many Americans, so they made a plan, practiced it, and got us. Maybe they were using terrorism as a tool to get what they want (destruction of America, family debt paid off, being a martyr, etc). Why is that so damn difficult for you to consider?

One more thing, Alex Jones is a douche-bag...nothing comes out of his mouth that is not propaganda. The "Loose Change" guys, they wanted to make a movie about 9/11 being an inside job, and when no one wanted to make it because they are talentless ass-clowns, they presented the stuff from the MOVIE as real evidence. It's all well-documented.
 
Does anyone here know that our congress was threatened with MARTIAL LAW and BLOOD IN THE STREETS if they didn't pass the bankster bailout? Henry Paulson made this threat. If you'll remember, the bailout was initially rejected by the house. Calls were coming into congressional offices, 100 and 1000 to 1 against the bailout, and yet they did it anyway.

Our government is illegitimate and the sooner we realize that.... the sooner we can understand what they are capable of, the sooner we fix the broken structure of our corrupt puppet politicians.
 
I was watching CSPAN live when Brad Sherman made that announcement (the only tv I watch anymore). I'll never forget it. It's amazing that people still trust our government so unquestioningly after such an announcement. Of course, soon before that came out, the army times announced that the bloodiest combat brigade from Iraq would be deployed to the "homeland" (a term which the Nazis often used) and was trained in the use of non lethal weapons for civil unrest and crowd control under NORTHCOM. This is the army times official publication saying this! Kind of adds a little legitimacy to that threat, don't you think?
 
Our government is illegitimate, but I'm pretty certain they're out for money and power, not the mass murder of their fellow citizens, which, um, you know, generally looks bad come election time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top