This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The NSA’s “Lone Wolf” Justification for Mass Spying Is B.S.
Bonus:
General Electric Knew Its Reactor Design Was Unsafe … So Why Isn’t GE Getting Any Heat for Fukushima?
The NSA’s main justification for Constitution-shredding mass surveillance on all Americans is 9/11.
In reality:
- Top security experts say that mass spying interferes with U.S. counter-terror efforts (more here and here)
- American presidents agree
- The chairs of the 9/11 Commission say that the spying has gone way too far (and that the Director of National Intelligence should be prosecuted for lying about the spying program)
- Top officials say that the claim that the government could only have stopped the attacks if it had been able to spy on Americans is wholly false
But we want to focus on another angle: the unspoken assumption by the NSA that we need mass surveillance because “lone wolf” terrorists don’t leave as many red flags as governments, so the NSA has to spy on everyone to find the needle in the haystack.
But this is nonsense. The 9/11 hijackers were not lone wolves.
The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, outside adviser to the CIA, and Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – says:
I have personally talked to the other cochair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, a man who was a very distinguished congressman and, later, director of the CIA [Porter Goss], I have talked to the two chairs of the … 9/11 Commission, asking them, what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support?
All three of them used almost the same word: “Implausible”. That it is implausible that that could have been the case.
Yet that has now become the conventional wisdom to the aggressive exclusion of other alternatives.
Indeed, it is pretty clear that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror … although people argue about which state or states were responsible (we personally believe that at least two allied governments were involved. Zero Hedge readers: Which governments do YOU think were involved?).
Indeed, Graham – unlike with 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey – said in sworn declarations that the Saudi is linked to the 9/11 attacks. They’re calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.
An FBI report implicates the Saudi government.
And many other top U.S. counter-terrorism officials say that the government’s explanation of the 9/11 hijackers being “lone wolves” connected only to Al Qaeda is ridiculous. See this and this.
If this sounds implausible, remember that Saudi Prince Bandar – head of Saudi intelligence – helped to arm the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and is now arming Al Qaeda in Syria. (Background). Respected financial writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that Prince Bandar admitted that Saudi Arabia carries out false flag terror.
Indeed, the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that the Saudi government supported the 9/11 attacks, but the Bush administration classified the 28 pages of the report which discussed the Saudis.
Bipartisan Bill to Publicly Release Report on Saudi Involvement In 9/11
A bipartisan bill – introduced by congressmen Walter B. Jones (Republican from North Carolina) and Stephen Lynch (Democrat from Massachusetts) would declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which implicate the Saudi government.
Some assume that passage of the bill is assured …
But both the Bush and Obama administrations have fought to keep Saudi involvement under wraps for more than 10 years.
Remember, the U.S. government allowed members of Bin Laden’s family – and other suspicious Saudis – hop on airplanes and leave the country right after 9/11 without even interviewing them, even though air traffic was grounded for everyone else.
Additionally, a Saudi FBI informant hosted and rented a room to Mihdhar and another 9/11 hijacker in 2000.
Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.
As the New York Times notes:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
In his book “Intelligence Matters,” Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said “the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.” On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter “a smoking gun” and said, “The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House.”
The government obstructed the 9/11 Commission in every way possible. During both the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission investigation, government “minders” intimidated witnesses and obstructed the investigation.
Obama has been no better. Obama’s Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the lawsuit brought by the families of victims killed in the 9/11 attacks against Saudi Arabia should be thrown out of court (it was).
And Graham said that he’s lobbied Obama for years to release the 28 pages and to reopen the investigation, but Obama has refused. The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 investigator has even resorted to filing Freedom of Information requests to obtain information, but the Obama administration is still stonewalling:
Graham said that like the 28 pages in the 9/11 inquiry, the Sarasota case is being “covered up” by U.S. intelligence. Graham has been fighting to get the FBI to release the details of this investigation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. But so far the bureau has stalled and stonewalled, he said.
Still Urgent Today
Ancient history, you say?
Graham notes:
Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.
For example, the U.S. might not want to support – let alone launch joint military adventure alongside – a regime which supported the 9/11 hijackers.
As Graham told told PBS last year:
[Question]: Senator Graham, are there elements in this report, which are classified that Americans should know about but can’t?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes … I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.
I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.
To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.
[Question]: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing — although that was part of it — by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.
[Question]: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you’re talking about?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.
And – most importantly – if the entire mass spying program is based on the “lone wolf” theory of 9/11, it is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Postscript: Ironically, the U.S. government has in the past alleged state sponsorship of 9/11 when it suited its purposes. Specifically, people may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Iraqi state sponsorship of 9/11 was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves. But 70% of the American public believed it at the time, and 85% of U.S. troops believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”
- advertisements -


If you are saying molten metal (steel has not been proved) is a sign of controlled demolition, then you will have to establish that molten metal is a normal byproduct of controlled demolition. Otherwise, what's the point? The dripping metal from the South Tower is most likely aluminum anyway, based on the fact it turns silver grey on the way down, and that's where much of the plane ended up, and had some of the hottest fires.
The same goes for long burning fires below the surface. Are you saying that is a sign of controlled demolition? If you are going to take your case to court, you have to establish that as fact.
You have the logic backwards. There is plenty of evidence of thermite
The Thermite Argument
by Kendra Blewitt
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2, pp. 7-31
It is not just probable opinion that three World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. It is a rock-solid empirical truth that this happened.
There are a number of strong arguments that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, not fire as claimed:
(a) Steel framed buildings have been in existence for a hundred years and not on one single occasion in all that time has fire caused such a building to collapse.
(b) The buildings fell much faster than they would have if the official "pancake" theory were true. They fell at close to freefall acceleration, which could only happen if there was no resistance from below as the mass above came down floor by floor; and this is what you would expect from controlled demolition, whereas the pancake theory cannot account for this.
(c) The buildings collapsed neatly into their own footprints, which would be unlikely by the "pancake" theory.
(d) Heavy beams of steel that weighed tons were sent flying perpendicular to the two tallest buildings at speeds of 50 mph, which the "pancake" theory cannot explain.
(e) Eyewitnesses heard explosions. Reliable eyewitnesses such as firemen heard these explosions.
(f) "Squibs" can be seen on film taken of the two tallest buildings as they fell. (Squibs are solid particles shooting out of the building like puffs of smoke.) Controlled demolitions often produce such squibs, however they are hard to explain by the pancake theory.
(g) Evidence was destroyed contrary to both law and common sense when the steel support beams found in the rubble were hastily sent to Asia to be melted down as scrap metal. If explosives had been used, an examination of these steel beams from the rubble would have been able to prove it, meanwhile it was important for firemen to know what had happened so that in the future they would know whether it was dangerous to enter tall steel buildings in order to put out fires. It is hard to see why these steel beams were hastily shipped to Asia to be melted down unless it was to destroy the evidence they contained.
Each of the above is a good argument, and the fact that there are so many good arguments makes each one of them stronger. However there is an argument that is stronger than the sum total of all of these, namely the thermite argument. The thermite argument is completely irrefutable.
The active thermitic material found in the dust of the World Trade Center releases more energy per gram than any other explosive used in demolition.
The thermite argument is like a three-in-one Trinity. The three that are one are: (a) the discovery of high-tech “nano thermite” in the dust of the rubble, (b) the discovery of tiny spheres of iron in the dust of the rubble, (c) molten metal and extremely high temperatures that existed in the rubble for weeks after the event.
Before I quote from Niels Harrit’s article that was published in a scientific journal in 2009, entitledActive Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, I will discuss the meaning of the tiny spheres of iron that were found in the dust samples, also the meaning of the high temperatures of the rubble that lasted for weeks.
The significance of the tiny spheres of iron is that when the most common type of thermite burns it creates pure iron as a by-product. This happens because common thermite is a "sand" of small particles of iron oxide mixed with small particles of pure aluminum, and what happens in the “fire” is the aluminum steals the oxygen atom from the iron oxide and the result is aluminum oxide, plus enormous energy in the form of heat, plus pure iron.
The iron oxide/aluminum thermite fire burns so hot that the pure iron that is produced is actually turned into a vapor! It is only a vapor momentarily because the much colder air it is immersed in cools it way down almost instantly—it is a vapor only for a brief moment, then it cools further to become a liquid for a brief moment, then it cools even more and assumes the solid state. During the brief moment when the hot iron is a liquid, the phenomenon of surface tension (an electrical force) gives it a spherical shape—like in the case of a raindrop, where water vapor assumes the liquid state due to cooling, and surface tension gives it a spherical shape, which subsequently becomes a raindrop shape as it falls with velocity though the resisting air.
The dust from the destroyed World Trade Center contains a large amount of iron spheres, like the one seen in a micrograph from the USGS survey of the dust.
These tiny spheres of iron were numerous in the dust of the 9/11 debris; and these iron “microspheres” are to be expected from a thermite reaction, and the official pancake theory cannot explain them—in fact nothing can explain these iron microspheres except a thermite fire.
The significance of the high temperatures of the rubble that went on for weeks, on the other hand, along with eyewitness accounts of molten metal at the bottom of the rubble heap, can be explained by the hypothesis that the rubble contained large amounts of unburned thermite, and this was still burning inside the rubble. There is no other good explanation for the source of heat—certainly the official pancake theory caused by jet fuel fire, along with common office fires, cannot explain these high temperatures that lasted for weeks.
Now I will present the third part of this Trinity argument. Below is the conclusion of a published scientific paper by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones and others. (Harrit is a chemistry professor at Copenhagen University and is a distinguished scientist who has more than 50 publications in high quality scientific journals.)
We have discovered red/gray chips in significant numbers in the dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicone and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles on the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mappings shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite.
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present with a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 degrees C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 degrees C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DCS run to 700 degrees C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC test and by the flame test have an XECS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many microspheres found in the WTC dust.
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classical thermite reaction.
Based on these observations we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
In case someone objects that the samples of WTC dust had been “doctored,” there are two answers: (a) Conventional thermite could have been purchased by almost anyone at that time but nano-thermite was only made in government laboratories in 2001, and it would have been virtually impossible for “conspiracy theorists” to obtain it, (b) There is extremely strong evidence for high temperatures and molten metal in the rubble heap that went on for weeks, and this implies a thermite fire.
Aside from these material considerations there is the question of the moral character of the four individuals who provided the dust samples. One of the four was an artist, Janette MacKinlay, who at the time lived in an apartment in Manhattan that was in very close vicinity to the World Trade Center. The samples she supplied came from dust that had poured in through a window that broke during the event and filled her apartment with a thick layer of dust. MacKinlay collected a quantity of this dust and subsequently used it in her art displays. She had been doing this for several years when she heard that Professor Jones of BYU wanted WTC dust samples for analysis. Was MacKinlay, a person well known in art circles, morally capable of involvement in a plot intended to slander people with the accusation of mass murder?
In conclusion, there is no doubt whatsoever that the WTC buildings were brought down by the science of controlled demolition. Nano-thermite (along with conventional explosives, very likely) had been installed in the buildings before the supposedly hijacked jetliners flew into them and exploded in a jet fuel fire. It was this thermite that had been planted inside the buildings along with other explosives that may have been employed that caused the three buildings to spectacularly crash down to the ground with huge clouds of powdered material filling the air while 3,000 people were trapped inside two of these buildings. It was this and not a weakening of the steel support beams due to heat from burning jet fuel along with regular office fires (or fire alone in the case of Building 7) which is the claim that is official.
That it was planted thermite along with possible other planted explosives that caused the three WTC buildings to collapse, and which caused the deaths of 3,000 people who were trapped inside the two tall towers, is not speculation. This is rock-solid empirical truth.
Sources:
If thermite were used, there necessarily will be cut up structural members in the debris. It is a fact which trumps all you posted. The structural debris shows no sign of having been artificially dismembered. There is no getting around that fact.
so a few pics trump chemical analysis, expert opinion in numerous fields, hundreds of witnesses, video footage, inexplicable heat piles, BBC fortune telling, criminal haul away, buidling owner admissions, etc etc etc.
try clicking your heels three times.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Thought so.
Fucking asshole.
"Fucking asshole."
If you repeat the truth often enough....
A "fucking asshole" that is getting paid for it -I might add.
Your tax dollars at work!
----troll
---moron
at freefall speed. Within their own footprint. That's how wide receivers fall when they're slammed into by safetys.
Hey, Doc. Don't even bother arguing any more. These people are either incapable of critical thought, or, insidiously, agenda-driven to obscure the truth.
If the buildings were cut apart with charges or thermate, there will be plenty of cut structural members in the debris, unless of course, laws of physics were indeed suspended that day. All I can find are tons and tons of remains which show they broke apart at their connections.
"If the buildings were cut apart with charges or thermate, there will be plenty of cut structural members in the debris, unless of course, laws of physics were indeed suspended that day. All I can find are tons and tons of remains which show they broke apart at their connections. "
Phots of numerous cut beams here. Took about 5 seconds to find them on Google.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.html
Have been proven to be made during cleanup. Very old news.
I know you won't listen, but look for the slide marks. There are none. And the Towers collapsed from the top down. Those cuts would cause just the opposite. Plus there is video showing them making those cuts during cleanup...easy to find if you look with an open mind; not so easy if you are predisposed.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
"If the buildings were cut apart with charges or thermate, there will be plenty of cut structural members in the debris, unless of course, laws of physics were indeed suspended that day. All I can find are tons and tons of remains which show they broke apart at their connections."
Exactly.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Fucking asshole.
Sorry, that won't hold up in court. Just produce the structural evidence, and you have a case.
Are you referring to the dust samples that Niels Harrit and Seven Jones worked with and demonstrated were reactive? Plenty of documented reports on that one.
In appreciation of your extremely limited and short attention span I gave you these -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP8DEawXAX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
Did Harrit/Jones consider rust as the source for iron micro spheres?
I didn't think so. So much for science.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Try to think clearly Captain.
Structural evidence trumps it all. If it doesn't show in the structural remains, it didn't happen.
Fucking asshole.
By structural evidence you mean all the "stuff" that immediately got hauled away "hot" no pun intended to the nearest landfill in New York to be reprocessed in India and China with less than gentle protests coming from FEMA and FBI personnel?
If only the remaining steel beam columns that look like "spaghetti could have been more throughly examined along with the samples of dust in the "9/11 Commission Report" that came more than 3 years later and never made it in???
Sir, if you will look, there are hours upon hours of video, and hundreds, if not thousands of photos of structural remains, both on site from day of and on, and the landfills, which all show the buildings broke apart at their connectors.
There are hundreds of first responders who will testify they saw no sign of any cut up members.
There are hundreds of first responders who will testify they smelled no explosives.
I'm going to present that to the grand jury. Now overcome it.
Can't make you read what you refuse to read nor watch what you choose not to watch.
I think we agree on one thing though, a grand jury is absolutley what this needs to put it to rest. Too many of us died that day with ghosts that still are demanding justice that haven't gotten it both in Lower Manhattan and around the globe in our accumulating military misadventures that are destroying our reputation and bleeding this economy dry.
I've watched and read more than most, I assure you, and it all boils down to structural evidence. No getting around that fact, and a grand jury will agree. so why not take the path of least resistance? It leads to the same place,no? That's the point of my original comment. This article lays out clearly where the obstructions occured, and their content. If you take CD to a grand jury, you make us a laughing stock, and way diminish our odds of getting a hearing. Here we have documented evidence of a cover up, and the truthers ignore it! This is the most likely path to finding the truth. That's my only point.
"circumstantial evidence" as jury instructions everywhere indicate, is just as powerful as "direct" evidence. Not only is the immediate haul away, which violated numerous laws in and of itself, some pretty fascinating evidence, so is one thousand other odd things that happended that day that confound, military, aviation, architectural, chemical, physical, NORAD and a ton of other disciplines, industries and professonals - not to mention the large amount of individuals who heard lots of strange noises that day including lots of firemen who we all know lie for a living whose statements were held back for years after FOIA request after FOIA request. This was the first three buildings in history to fall from the alleged dynamics. None of this includes the ridiculous evidence surrounding the Pentagon and the ridiculous refusal to release all but a few seconds of inconclusive video footage which we may remind you was immediately sezied from all around which if released could shut up one side or another very quickly. This is about common sense more than anything else.
And what do you know, we soon invaded a country that to this day is indisputably disonnected with this event AND the final source of sweet cheap crude.
and its not that we're an empire dependent on the stuff nor is it true that empires have ever created false flags for resource wars
You can try to convince the grand jury evidence was hauled away, but you will have to explain how it is I can show them hours and hours of video of it, all of which shows the buildings broke apart.
I'll repeat for those that don't get it. If the buildings were cut apart, there will be cut structural members in the debris. It is basic evidence which trumps all other. Tons and tons of evidence shows the buildings broke apart at their connectors. If you can't overcome that simple fact, there is no case for CD.
hours and hours
like the hours and hours it took NORAD to respond
like the hours and hours away all the five attack flight exercises which took part on that same day in the most amazing coincidence in history that confused the air traffic controllers and many others
like the hours and hours of video footage immediately seized and never released around the pentagon that could quickly shut up one side
like the hours and hours of testimony from firemen and other witnesses around the buildings seized and held for years against FOIA requests?
Ps.
you act as if "cuts" are the last word in evidence of controlled demolition where, in contrast, honest experts admit and declare that there are numerous "circumstantial ways to detect controlled demolition and indeed, numerous experts who have reviewed ALL the available evidence come to that conclusion
you're quick move to one, and only one narrow area tells us alot.
jurors and history look at more than one piece of evidence
Structural evidence IS the last word. If the buildings show they broke apart at their connectors, and no evidence can be found they were cut apart, that pretty much seals the deal. It's no more complicated than a police officer determining the cause of a wreck simply by analyzing tire marks, position of vehicles, and damage. The remains tell the story of what occurred.
"The remains tell the story of what occurred."
Thank you for arguing the "conspiracy". And this is why they halued it all away in violation of so many laws and against common sense and the scientific method for the first time in history following the worst "terrorsit" attack in history. Pictures are one thing. Analysis. chemical, professional and otherwise are another. Your logic is a joke
And you're still wrong for the "experts" will agree (along with common sense and legal method). There are numerous ways to "prove" things. There always are. Engineering, architectural, chemical, combustion, physics and hundreds of other HONEST applications prove what the hell went down that day. And hell is likely where those responsible are headed. And those responsible for covering it up.
You don't seem to understand. The visual evidence clearly shows the buildings broke apart at their connections. No further inspection is needed. Cut beams and connectors will readily show; there is no hiding it.
how many murder cases, trials and investigations have involved your participation? I've had a good number. And you keep telling us it stops at photograps.
"No further inspection is needed."
You talk about grand juries but clearly know little
9-11 Is the Litmus Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pPpYw_axQ
Could you not put charges at the connectors genius? And, how else than CD do you explain a building falling within it's own foot print. You take out one corner and it should fall to that corner. Along with massive circumstantial evidence as described above (interceptors from connecticut despite langley being ten miles from the pentagon).
Anyway, the consensus seems to be that you are a troll rather than a moron.
"You take out one corner and it should fall to that corner."
That is precisely what happened.
7 fell according to it's damage. The vertical fold and breaking of the north face is clear evidence of the top to bottom slice on the south face. The re-direction of the west section halfway down confirms the exact moment the north face snapped, and that southwest support was undercut.
Both tops of the Towers fell according to their damage.
And for the record, I do this on my own, work for no one, am no troll, don't get paid, and as I have stated, I have no dog in this fight. I simply want the truth wherever it leads. Structural evidence says the buildings broke apart at their connectors. I can't help that fact, but it is a fact.
9-11 Is the Litmus Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pPpYw_axQ
If the buildings were cut apart, there will be cut structural members in the debris. Without those, there is no case for CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
The structural evidence shows they broke apart at their connectors. The evidence shows stretching, tearing, breaking, shearing, but no sign of cutting. It would be impossible to cut at the connectors without leaving a trail, and impossible to insert anything which would cause them to break as they did.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
"Can't make you read what you refuse to read nor watch what you choose not to watch.
I think we agree on one thing though, a grand jury is absolutley what this needs to put it to rest."
I guess he can't make you look at the actual evidence, either, and see it for what it really is.
A Grand Jury isn't going to put anything to rest, when those who want to see a grand conspiracy to demo the WTC are not going to accept the findings.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
And of course no mention of any structural evidence in order to confirm suspicions of CD. Only the typical excuse that "it all went to china". Total cop out. There are tons of structural evidence to study. Find the structural evidence of CD and you have a case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pPpYw_axQ
Fucking asshole.
Let him try to explain these "streamers"...
You can't fly a jet into a building where thermite was painted on the supporting beams without knocking a couple of chips off in the process. Look at how they dodge and weave and accelerate to the ground several times faster than gravity...
46 seconds worth of hanky panky...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7rB43pJF1Y
Or perhaps they were just burning pigeons leaving the roost?
"Let him try to explain these "streamers"...
You can't fly a jet into a building where thermite was painted on the supporting beams without knocking a couple of chips off in the process. Look at how they dodge and weave and accelerate to the ground several times faster than gravity..."
There was no thermite.
That first streamer wasn't a chip falling. It was a piece of smouldering debris that had fallen out a window. It also didn't look to be falling faster than gravity.