9-11 | Page 88 | Government and Political Conspiracies | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
9-11
January 4, 2014
1:00 pm
Avatar
Cole_Trickle
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2730
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
871sp_Permalink sp_Print

As a follow up to the post above: HERE is an ever better article written by one of the very most gifted individuals I've ever had the pleasure of reading. This one is not for the faint of heart, or those who lack the critical thinking gene.

Jonas is beyond good, he's almost in a league of his own. His research stands alone, I've never read any better, especially when it comes to tying up lose ends, or connecting those dots most difficult to see. The pic he used on Michelle Obama should tell you something....hopefully you'll catch it and ask yourself a few simple questions...( if you read this Greeney that his pic, not mine lol )

The Prosecution of Bush, Obama, and the Neoconservatives for Murder, Torture, and Sodomy
The Obama administration has repeatedly declared that drone strikes have caused next to zero civilian casualties, but a rigorous and extensive study done by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law showed the opposite. The report meticulously declared that

“from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children…these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals.”[1]

The report continued, “Before this [the people] were all very happy. But after these drones attacks a lot of people are victims and have lost members of their family. A lot of them, they have mental illnesses.”[2]

Therefore, “real threats to U.S. security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones.”[3] In 2009, drone strikes in al-Majala in Southern Yemen took the lives of 14 women and 21 children.[4]

The above, being his lead, goes toward Obama being " BUSINESS AS USUAL " This should give everyone a bit of pause, those that care enough anyway.
This is a long article, most of his work is packed with tons of very interesting info. I hope you'll read it thru and give it some thought with an open mind.

I myself am most interested in the never seen before photos: Surely some of you will have the same question as I do.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/31 ... nd-sodomy/

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Does that woman LOOK like the one on TV? Since I've no TV I'll have to rely on your feedback...LOL

Cole

January 4, 2014
5:17 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10278
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
872sp_Permalink sp_Print

“from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children…these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals.”[1]

This report reminds me of the vehement argument we had here over the "study" done claiming 650,000 were dead as a result of the USA based on a survey of a few hundred people, and multiplied by the population, which was full of inaccuracies . In that study it grouped hundreds of thousands in a undefined "other" category. The count was totally speculation, and it led to tooth and nail arguing over its accuracy here.

Like that study, this one IMHO leaves an awful lot to the imagination? For example if you did not know the exact number, 2562-3325, a range, you would not carry out the last digits to 62 & 25. If you could not get closer than a range of 800 you certainly would not be able to guess exactly the 62 number, it would all be rounded to the nearest 100. That is a red flag IMHO. Additionally, the same number logic to 474-881 civilians, nearly a 50% inaccurate guess. Then to go on and claim a exact number of 176 children, not the same estimated range, is totally unbelievable. You would not be able to estimate children dead to any better than the range of total civilians dead. Not to mention totally impossible to accurately claim the number of children to the exact number, when the group of civilians is so wide you do not know the exact number is ridiculous.

Sorry Cole, although I do agree collateral damage from drones exists, you have to question these numbers, just like the 650,000 survey. Are you telling me Cole, a person who looks so close at details you see what nobody else sees in pictures, that you do not question these numbers, that are estimated ranges, and in the same breathe have an exact number of dead children??? The numbers, ranges, and than exact number of children from those numbers is impossible. It makes no sense.

"a rigorous and extensive study done by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law "

A study is far from any exact count--they do not know the numbers, they are estimates, which makes the dead children number even more unbelievable.

June 17, 2015
2:25 am
Avatar
Cole_Trickle
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2730
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
873sp_Permalink sp_Print

Many new things have surfaced since this thread was started. One being a group of people who work in the nuclear field. They claim 9-11 was a nuclear event and back it up with very very credible evidence. The sad thing is the lack of coverage, as well as those who have been silenced while trying to speak out.

 Here's a clue. Stop and think of all who have come and gone since, who remains? Therein lie the key as to who was responsible, but further, who had something to gain, the most to gain?

 

 This took monies beyond what was told, people should be forever ashamed to have even given any of what was told on TV, a seconds thought. Some of these people are still spewing....look at them....ask yourself a few tough questions.

 

 Cole

June 25, 2015
8:22 pm
Avatar
JayHoward
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
February 13, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
874sp_Permalink sp_Print

Cole_Trickle said
Many new things have surfaced since this thread was started. One being a group of people who work in the nuclear field. They claim 9-11 was a nuclear event and back it up with very very credible evidence. The sad thing is the lack of coverage, as well as those who have been silenced while trying to speak out.

 Here's a clue. Stop and think of all who have come and gone since, who remains? Therein lie the key as to who was responsible, but further, who had something to gain, the most to gain?

 

 This took monies beyond what was told, people should be forever ashamed to have even given any of what was told on TV, a seconds thought. Some of these people are still spewing....look at them....ask yourself a few tough questions.

 

 Cole

Cole, I appreciate your open mind. It is critical if we are to sidestep the deluge of bs flowing from official sources. But let me temper that sentiment by saying we shouldn't be comfortable thinking that everything the govt ever says is a lie. The best lies are partly true. I've read some (certainly not all) of this thread, and you're no fool, but take into account the full scope of a nuclear weapon at ground zero:

Fission creates very predictable by-products. The "Nuclear Device" theory of 9/11 predicts that these by-products will be found in the rubble, but these by-products were tested for, and not found.

The water did indeed come back with a higher-than-background reading, but the amount of radiation in the water was attributable to the small amounts of radioactive matierial that existed in the building: exit signs, watch faces (tritium), smoke detectors (americium), and various other check sources. No strontium was found above background, (which rules out a fissile reaction by itself), but in addition to the other unremarkable levels of radiation found, there just isn't a good reason to suspect a nuclear device.

There are other diversionary theories that I believe are designed by people who are paid to deter, divert, derail, deceive, disrupt, or destroy a clear investigation of the facts of what happened on 911. These include the notorious "Directed Energy Weapon" theory, the CIT "Aircraft Reconstruction Theory", and of course, the waterhead "No Planes" theory. There are others, but of all of these diversions, DEW has the highest production value. 

Take a look at that BS theory and see how highly produced the videos are compared to all the others--keeping in mind that there's not a lick of sense to the theory, it's not testable, nor is there enough energy in the solar system that could be shot from space with that kind of destructive force. If there was, we'd be using it--or threatening some country with it.

June 30, 2015
2:22 am
Avatar
Cole_Trickle
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2730
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
875sp_Permalink sp_Print

It's important to understand that people have been killed over this stuff, it's why none with a platform will ever go there, there is simply far too much at stake to ever reveal the actual truth. It has recently been reported that towers 1 and 2 were brought down by nuclear devices, none in the main stream will touch it, but none will deny as well. The photographic evidence is overwhelming. There are a few who worked on the project coming forward...a sign of hope if you ask me.

 Some of the most recent world events are directly tied to 9-11, just stop and consider what has transpired these past 2 years or so.

 

 Cole

July 6, 2015
4:37 pm
Avatar
JayHoward
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
February 13, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
876sp_Permalink sp_Print

Cole_Trickle said
It's important to understand that people have been killed over this stuff, it's why none with a platform will ever go there, there is simply far too much at stake to ever reveal the actual truth. It has recently been reported that towers 1 and 2 were brought down by nuclear devices, none in the main stream will touch it, but none will deny as well. The photographic evidence is overwhelming. There are a few who worked on the project coming forward...a sign of hope if you ask me.

 Some of the most recent world events are directly tied to 9-11, just stop and consider what has transpired these past 2 years or so.

 

 Cole

That's just not good enough for me. If there are not fissile by-products, there is absolutely no reason to suspect a nuclear device. Stay focused on the forensic facts that require a coherent explanation. 

Molten metal, an abundance of iron microspheres without a known source, red-gray chips which ignite at 430C and produce iron microspheres, many steel members with hot corrosion attacks at the grain boundary of the steel, micrographs of these steel members showing no spheroidzation of pearlite--meaning the heat did not penetrate into the member like we would expect from a hydrocarbon flame, etc. etc. 

If you're not focusing on measurable data that have reasonable explanations, you are being bamboozled. 

No fissile by-products = NO NUCLEAR DEVICE

This goes for those special turds-of-theories: DEW and No Planes as well. Those aren't even testable propositions, so they are meaningless to begin with, but they draw attention away from the facts in the dust.

Neither the "No Planes" theory, (clearly designed for mouth-breathing idiots to latch onto), nor the "DEW" theory can even be tested. If you can't test for it, it's not science. Let that be your guide. It's like saying, "ghosts probably killed Kennedy." Not only is it not helpful, it can't even be tested. In scientific terms, the "Ghost Assassin" theory is worse than incorrect, it's meaningless. Just like the DEW or NP theories. 

At least the "Nuclear" theory can be (and was) tested. The tests demonstrate clearly and without ambiguity that no nuclear device was used.

There's been quite enough work done to make the claim that the red-gray chips require an explanation. They are a highly engineered metamaterial designed to ignite from a relatively low temp (less than a bic lighter), and exceed the melting point of steel. It contains elemental Aluminium and nano-particulate Fe2O3, among other constituents. It's like finding a unique shell casing or a rare poison precurser at a murder site and deciding it's probably not related, even though there isn't a good explanation of the murder.

If the core structure was coated in this material, it would go a long way towards explaining what happened to the cores of both WTC towers, as well as the molten metal, the iron microspheres, the rate of descent, the eutetctic found on the WPI steel, the white smoke coming off the steel upon collapse, the carbon nanotubes found in the lungs of many GZ workers, not to mention WTC 7.

The point is, we have done theory triage and found one explanation for the collapses is far and away the best contender explanation. The "nanothermite" theory is so much better at explaning the totality of the collapses, that the only real problem with it is getting over the psychological barrier of believing there are people willing to murder our own countrymen in the name of making a fuckload of cash. 

That shouldn't surprise anyone, but it needs to be spelled out sometimes.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: Dr. Richard Daystrom
49 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10278

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24710

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 9010

Posts: 124190

Newest Members:

Alan, Lozen, James, fredalonsojones, Peds, Skip Marks, ivafifed, eaglegene, Scott, [email protected]

Administrators: John Greenewald: 635, blackvault: 1776