Explosives Found In World Trade Center Dust

I don't think the second is plausible, but the first one and third one are. A lot of airline company WTF would have happened over the absence of whatever pilots were supposed to be there. The first scenario is not impossible, though. If Usama Bin Laden and Khallid Sheik Muhammed were working for the CIA (for example), they could have orchestrated the whole thing on behalf of the Bush Administration. Considering the fact that Bin Laden was our ally against the Soviets, Bin Laden could have joined up with Reagan's vice president's son to pull the stunt. It could have happened, but I don't think there is enough backing for it. For now, it is just fun conversation.

It is interesting to think about who all is tied together in regard to Bin Laden and his buddy Ronald Reagan. Bush 41 was Reagan's vice president, Dick Cheney was Reagan's secretary of defense, and Donald Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagan's special envoy. Bush 43 is Bush 41's son. If I were tripping hard and paranoid enough right now, I might be thinking they are all just a big crime family. It is not impossible. It is just that I have to have pretty good evidence of such a thing before I believe it.

I agree. The only thing that worries me is that the evidence for such things tends to only be forthcoming after it becomes too late to really stand up against it.

So I should probably get back to this before it fades into the abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I highly doubt it. What would have been seen as right about it?

---

Get creative. Why would people see killing unarmed civilians and also starving/working to death their own people as right? There's any number of twisted mindsets these folks may have. It's happened far too many times in history to assume it wouldn't happen today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The arguments for the conspiracy don't take that long to make. I think they are dismissed because they do not add up in expert minds.

---

I'll answer that in a below response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The towers did fall down fully, so what do you mean? Whoever did it obviously did not give a damn about collateral damage, aside from seeking lots of it.

Terrorists tried to blow up the buildings in 1993. The idea that terrorists were behind explosions would have been completely plausible.

Who was flying those airplanes?

---

But they didn't fall down during the first WTC attack. It's questionable how the buildings would have collapsed if bombs were placed at the base. They may have tipped over causing more damage than what occurred during the events of 9/11.

IMO An entire nation watching a huge plane fly into a burning skyscraper with a huge explosion and subsequent collapse makes a bigger impact than explosions at the base and subsequent collapse.

I didn't answer your question before because I did not and still don't see how it is relevant. I don't know who was flying the airplanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So that says, while another much more obscure article says thermite was found. If I automatically believed all of that, I would be as gullible as somebody who sends half his income to a television evangelist.

---

True. But you'd have to be gullible to believe everything you hear on the news. In fact, you have to be at least somewhat gullible to believe anything you hear. Deception can strike anywhere. Believing anything at all requires at least some faith. The only way this can be staved off is by finding sources that add legitimacy to claims.

Which I did because, as I said, a source linking to the official NIST website where the claim was derived was included. So really, it doesn't require being all THAT gullible because it comes from the very mouths of the ones in question. I'm not asking you to automatically believe anything, Universal Mind, but I am asking you to read my words more carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The prankster bit was an illustration of how I think you are jumping to getting reeled in way too easily. There is a lot to think about, and my what ifs are just the surface. I doubt a prankster did that within ten minutes, but it is one of many considerations in what I think is a major leap to conclusions.

It is really the links in the original post that have my skepticism sky high. Think of all of the off the wall claims you have come across in internet articles. I don't even trust that the guys are who they say they are. I came across some dude on Youtube who claims he is Kiss drummer Peter Criss. When I found it, I posted three questions on his page to test him. They just sat there for more than a year without any response, and only like three people posted after I did. What if that guy's page said Gene Simmons orchestrated 9/11 afer a Kiss concert in 1977? Would you believe it?

---

I'm not jumping jack squat. I'm trying my best to evaluate the claims made in the original article. I've been reading the actual .pdf included in Oneironaut's first link and I see no reason not to believe they found thermite in uncontaminated WTC dust aside from the question on how legit the people themselves are. I'll have to get back to you concerning the reputations of the writers of this scientific journal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All of that has been explained by experts, the few who see this stuff as something with any more credibility than claims that the Loch Ness Monster pokes his head out for Scotland tourists. They say that WTC 7 collapsed like a perfectly demolished building but that it also collapsed like a building in the situation it was in with the other buildings. A duck has a bill, but that does not make it a sparrow. The steel is said to not have been molten. It was just softened enough for the buildings to collapse. The thermite story might have ended up in a wrestling magazine if the internet had not been invented.

Please take a stab at who might possibly have been flying those airplanes.

---

Well you see, I don't completely buy that explanation either. There isn't any video or images (correct me if I'm wrong) that show this so we can make our own critical analysis. It was seen only by a select few people. They say it collapsed like the other WTC buildings in that it didn't fall "right in it's own footprint", but the fact is that no demolished building collapses right in its own footprint. Many times controlled demolitions cause limited damage to surrounding buildings.

Concerning the molten steel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2I3vRbxMWo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.historycooperative.org/jo...images/wwn.jpg

http://www.ultrafeel.tv/wp-content/u...ed-in-iraq.jpg

---

Your Mockery is unnecessary. I am in no way saying that anything I have stated above is proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy by a group other than a bunch of Muslim terrorists, but I am saying that it is cause for skepticism toward the official explanations and theories.

You know, I've gone over this post a thousand times but I still can't shake the feeling I missed something. Long posts make me shiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Get creative. Why would people see killing unarmed civilians and also starving/working to death their own people as right? There's any number of twisted mindsets these folks may have. It's happened far too many times in history to assume it wouldn't happen today.

---

It takes a lot of creativity to come up with a scenario for that in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

But they didn't fall down during the first WTC attack. It's questionable how the buildings would have collapsed if bombs were placed at the base. They may have tipped over causing more damage than what occurred during the events of 9/11.

IMO An entire nation watching a huge plane fly into a burning skyscraper with a huge explosion and subsequent collapse makes a bigger impact than explosions at the base and subsequent collapse.

---

I don't think a major airplane inconvenience would have made things any crazier than two huge skyscrapers spontaneously blowing up. Imagine having an office at the Empire State Building and watching one of the towers go BOOM and fall down when you were expecting nothing. It would be much more shocking than watching an airplane hit it and then seeing the building fall later. Plus, if it was all staged, wouldn't missiles have been even more shocking? What about an invading army coming over the Brooklyn Bridge and shooting the buildings down with high tech weapons? Etc.... The idea that the airplane part was staged is extremely far fetched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I didn't answer your question before because I did not and still don't see how it is relevant. I don't know who was flying the airplanes.

---

It is completely relevant. People were flying those airplanes. That fact puts a big question mark on conspiracy claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

True. But you'd have to be gullible to believe everything you hear on the news. In fact, you have to be at least somewhat gullible to believe anything you hear. Deception can strike anywhere. Believing anything at all requires at least some faith. The only way this can be staved off is by finding sources that add legitimacy to claims.

---

You're preaching to the Pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I'm not jumping jack squat. I'm trying my best to evaluate the claims made in the original article. I've been reading the actual .pdf included in Oneironaut's first link and I see no reason not to believe they found thermite in uncontaminated WTC dust aside from the question on how legit the people themselves are. I'll have to get back to you concerning the reputations of the writers of this scientific journal.

---

It is that view that had me posting the Weekly World News page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Well you see, I don't completely buy that explanation either. There isn't any video or images (correct me if I'm wrong) that show this so we can make our own critical analysis. It was seen only by a select few people. They say it collapsed like the other WTC buildings in that it didn't fall "right in it's own footprint", but the fact is that no demolished building collapses right in its own footprint. Many times controlled demolitions cause limited damage to surrounding buildings.

---

We are talking about what were the two tallest skyscrapers in the entire world when I was a kid. They would of course do crazy stuff to the surrounding buildings, stuff that most other buildings would not come close to doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Your Mockery is unnecessary. I am in no way saying that anything I have stated above is proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy by a group other than a bunch of Muslim terrorists, but I am saying that it is cause for skepticism toward the official explanations and theories.

---

I was saying there is cause for skepticism concerning Abraham Lincoln's gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It takes a lot of creativity to come up with a scenario for that in this case.

---

In all actually, no it doesn't. In terms of motive? We have the galvanization of the war in Iraq, and the expansion of the American Empire, vicariously, through subsequent presence and influence in the middle east - a concept that had already been expressed as a possibility in the Project for the New American Century text, and a method (though on smaller scale) that was already drafted as an option in Operation Northwoods.

In terms of execution, how creative does one have to be to surmise something along the lines of Osama Bin Laden - whose organization was trained and funded in the past by the U.S. Government - being used to influence the *hijackers into hijacking the planes* (* assumes the hijacked planes scenario was factual) and flying them into the towers? He takes the blame, and is promised immunity and whatever else his heart desires, including being seen as a cultural hero, so that "America" actually gets what she wants.

I don't find it very far-fetched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think a major airplane inconvenience would have made things any crazier than two huge skyscrapers spontaneously blowing up. Imagine having an office at the Empire State Building and watching one of the towers go BOOM and fall down when you were expecting nothing. It would be much more shocking than watching an airplane hit it and then seeing the building fall later. Plus, if it was all staged, wouldn't missiles have been even more shocking? What about an invading army coming over the Brooklyn Bridge and shooting the buildings down with high tech weapons? Etc.... The idea that the airplane part was staged is extremely far fetched.

---

I don't think the bomb scenario would have been more shocking. Why? Because the airplane scenario shows how such a primitive attack could be so successful. It simultaneously shows that not only can the terrorist infiltrate our schools and learn to fly (which I've seen video of alleged classmates of the pilots saying that they were completely incompetent, and that the idea that either of them could pull off the manuever that third plane is said to have made to hit the pentagon is completely absurd; but who knows the credibility on that?), but they could use something as simple as box-cutters to hijack two planes and fly them into the towers.

On the other side, how believable would it be that this band of unsophisticated terrorists could wire two buildings of that size to explode to the point of collapse? I believe that, over an extended period of time, the U.S. Government could commit such a scam, putting on the guise of routine service-men, but that is mere speculation on my part. It does so far more believable than a group of hoods from Afghanistan not being noticed doing the same thing.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It takes a lot of creativity to come up with a scenario for that in this case.

---

What? I don't think so. Like black said this kind of stuff happened in history..history repeats it self.

Hitler did this same thing...he wanted an anti-terrorist legislation, but the people didn't want it. So he burned down the Reichstag fire, and blamed it on terrorists. Creating fear...its the easiest way to manipulate people.

Present day....why not destroy the WTCs and blame it on terrorists. It's the oldest trick in the book.

There was some audio tape...anyway i forgot what the name of it, but the guy's name is Aaron i believe. They were talking about the attacks on 9/11 before it even happen, then they went on to talk about those verichips. Actually i'll post a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo

I personally think 9/11 was staged. The average person isn't supposed to know what is going outside of their perfect little life with tv's, technology, and shit.

It's also strange how John F. Kennedy was killed after giving a speech about the "secret societies"...so was Tupac...who apparently knew of them ( i heard somewhere the Illuminati runs the drug trade lol ) and he also was killed...but I'll stop here and let you believe whatever you want to believe.

Like glenn beck said " if you trust your government fine...but there's something going on that-uhh-...ain't right."

Apparently glenn beck said that he couldn't "debunk" the FEMA camps but they actually do exist in the country...a couple hours later he said "i don't believe in FEMA camps" as if he was told to keep his damn mouth closed about the subject.

President's don't run jack shit..its the people with money...everyone knows money= power. Obama is just being used right now..so was Bush.

----------------------------

I'm not saying believe all this stuff...but consider it a possibility...nothing is impossible.

I mean look at this fucking clown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FTrdFWHxk

He doesn't even understand the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In all actually, no it doesn't. In terms of motive? We have the galvanization of the war in Iraq, and the expansion of the American Empire, vicariously, through subsequent presence and influence in the middle east - a concept that had already been expressed as a possibility in the Project for the New American Century text, and a method (though on smaller scale) that was already drafted as an option in Operation Northwoods.

---

I was not talking about government motive, which would be pretty easy to imagine. I was talking about motive on the parts of the pilots who deliberately died. Who in the world would die just for George Bush and Dick Cheney and not the country? Imagine it. "I am going to end my life to attack the United States because I love Bush!" That is what is a big stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In terms of execution, how creative does one have to be to surmise something along the lines of Osama Bin Laden - whose organization was trained and funded in the past by the U.S. Government - being used to influence the *hijackers into hijacking the planes* (* assumes the hijacked planes scenario was factual) and flying them into the towers? He takes the blame, and is promised immunity and whatever else his heart desires, including being seen as a cultural hero, so that "America" actually gets what she wants.

I don't find it very far-fetched.

---

That is not impossible, but I do think it is far fetched. The U.S. government never funded Al Qaeda. What they funded was the Mujahideen, which was a group that fought against the attempted Soviet take over of Afghanistan. The scenario you are talking about would involve taking one of their high ranking members, Usama Bin Laden, and deciding ahead of time that he would be extremely good at influencing and training radical Muslims to die in the name of Allah, virgins, and terrorism against the United States, the country that helped the Mujahideen drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Seeing that somebody is good at motivating people to fight unjustified invaders is one thing. Taking that information and concluding that he would be good at influencing suicide attacks in the name of Allah, virgins, and anti-Americanism is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't think the bomb scenario would have been more shocking. Why? Because the airplane scenario shows how such a primitive attack could be so successful. It simultaneously shows that not only can the terrorist infiltrate our schools and learn to fly (which I've seen video of alleged classmates of the pilots saying that they were completely incompetent, and that the idea that either of them could pull off the manuever that third plane is said to have made to hit the pentagon is completely absurd; but who knows the credibility on that?), but they could use something as simple as box-cutters to hijack two planes and fly them into the towers.

---

Timothy McVeigh was some hick from Hillbillyville who blew up the Fedeal Building in Oklahoma City almost single handedly. If the government wanted to scare people with the idea that idiots can come out of nowhere and really screw things up, they would have done a much better job if they had gotten some plumber from Iraq to bomb the buildings and make them fall. How freaky would that be? Also, if the whole idea was to make the country support war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have gotten a lot more support if they had gotten people from the Iraqi military to drive military machinery over the Brooklyn Bridge and fire missiles at Manhattan, knocking down the WTC towers, the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and the U.N. Headquarters. How many more Americans would have supported the war in Iraq if that had happened? We would still have a Republican president to this day. The idea that they pulled an airplane stunt yet secretly bombed the towers instead just doesn't seem to add up. There are so many much more effective things they could have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

On the other side, how believable would it be that this band of unsophisticated terrorists could wire two buildings of that size to explode to the point of collapse? I believe that, over an extended period of time, the U.S. Government could commit such a scam, putting on the guise of routine service-men, but that is mere speculation on my part. It does so far more believable than a group of hoods from Afghanistan not being noticed doing the same thing.

Just my two cents.

---

The government could have done it, but if they did, they had a really bizarre way of doing things. It starts to sound like a Robert Anton Wilson novel mixed with theater of the absurd elements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

I mean look at this fucking clown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FTrdFWHxk

He doesn't even understand the question.

---

Why would the Illuminati make a clown the president? Wouldn't they want somebody extra competent to play such a major role in their mastermind conspiracy games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would the Illuminati make a clown the president? Wouldn't they want somebody extra competent to play such a major role in their mastermind conspiracy games?

---

Because he is someone that will just listen and do what he's told. Obama is the same way...people ask Obama a question and he just completely contradicts himself...and lies.

The president's are basically doing what they are told to do..and say.



In that video, his teleprompter must have fucked up. Because he looked like he didn't even understand the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o

And speaking of the Illuminati, they own banks, mass media, and big corporations, and I personally believe that they are deliberately collapsing the economy as part of an "Agenda", which may seem "out there. I'm not going to derail the original post so i'll just stop here.