The 9/11 Debate

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Come on folks! Has anybody watched the video yet? Any comments on it?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=480 near the bottom.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Come on folks! Has anybody watched the video yet? Any comments on it?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=480 near the bottom.

Yes, I've seen that one a while back and I feel that this portrays the viewpoint that the government "dropped the ball" and could have prevented the attacks. This is the less-sinister point of view, but when you actually dig deeper, of course you will find that elements of the government were actually complicit and helped carry out the attacks. They address only about 5% of what the 9/11 truth community has put on the table.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Come on folks! Has anybody watched the video yet? Any comments on it?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=480 near the bottom.

Yes, I've seen that one a while back and I feel that this portrays the viewpoint that the government "dropped the ball" and could have prevented the attacks. This is the less-sinister point of view, but when you actually dig deeper, of course you will find that elements of the government were actually complicit and helped carry out the attacks. They address only about 5% of what the 9/11 truth community has put on the table.

But it does, however, lay a good foundation for further investigation. I think it backs up the whole WTC situation. Since it is found that our gov. basically let the towers be struck, it further proves that the towers could have feasibly been brought down by explosives, also allowed by our gov. Same thing happened around the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese were invited in. Why else were there so few battleships and fighter planes available? Our gov. is notorious for creating a crisis and then speaking out against it in order to throw off suspicion. The book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" explains this very well.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Look at how many secrets the mafia were able to keep for so long. They didn't have the benefit of media ownership and government control. They were able to operate a large conspiracy for many years, involving many crimes that were known to many.

If those "many crimes". . ."were known to many," the mafia didn't excel at keeping secrets, did it?

: "The only way the mafia was cracked was through relentless pressure from the federal government . . . .

Why did the federal government apply "relentless pressure" on the mafia? Well, obviously, the mafia's criminal activites were no secret.
You contradict yourself.

: We have also have seen secret cell terrorist organizations that are able to keep their actions secret over many decades, inspite of continued intense pursuit of the government.

Obviously, those "secret terrorist organizations" were not "able to keep their actions secret over many decades" because the government was in "intense pursuit" of them. Again, you contradict yourself.

: The IRA would serve as an example of this. They have managed to keep operating over many decades right under the nose of one of the most sophisticated police organizations in the world. Imagine what they could acomplish with press ownership and control of police, courts and government. With such power none of their secrets would ever be exposed.

I infer that you seriously believe the U.S. government owns the press; and controls the police, courts, and government. Astonishing.

Blue , your missing the point here. The Mafia and IRA operated as conspracies to commit crimes. Many people inside the organization knew of the crimes and were party to them. They were very good at keeping theses events secret. There are still bombings and other crimes the IRA has taken credit for but the details remain secret and the crimes remain unsolved. Many people involved in the crimes know information about them and have kept the secrets. In the case of 9/11 there is no authority to investigate. You are saying it's impossible for criminal participants to keep secrets. I'm pointing to evidence that says otherwise.

I don't think the goverment owns the the press and controls police etc. What I am saying is, the criminal orginization, that is behind 9/11, controls the government, press, police and courts. There is big difference. What we are faced with is an organization much like the mafia but smarter and more powerful. They have understood that the best position for a criminal to be in, is to be the police and courts and press and government. It is the fox being in charge of the hen house. We have been warned by God, that this would happen. It is a pattern of human behavior that is encouraged by Satan, who is the real leader of this group.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

I infer that you seriously believe the U.S. government owns the press; and controls the police, courts, and government. Astonishing.

: Not all. Just enough to get what they want accomplished without any pressure.

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings. "Breaking" such a story would make a reporter's career; he/she would be the new Bob Woodward.

: If the gadiantons were able to gain the sole management of government in the past, why can't they do it now?

Because we have a free press (despite your assertion to the contrary); we also have the internet, talk radio, and cable news (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN can no longer get away with putting a liberal spin on every story).

I know all about President Benson and the "None Dare" book. President Benson's principal concern was the spread of worldwide Communism.

: P.S. It seems you purposefully ignored my post to you about the security regarding the WTC.

Not at all. For a balanced account, go to Screw Loose Change: Exposing the Lies, Distortions, and Myths of the 9-11 "Truthers", "Marvin Bush Mystery?" May 15, 2006.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Because we have a free press (despite your assertion to the contrary); we also have the internet, talk radio, and cable news (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN can no longer get away with putting a liberal spin on every story).

Blue, do really think the workers tell the boses what to print in their papers or what stories to cover on tv. You are so behind the times. There is basically only one corporation anymore, among major media. The kind of investigating reporting you are talking about is found on programs like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense. What your talking about is being done. Your just not paying attention to it because it doesn't come from the criminals themselves.

I

know all about President Benson and the "None Dare" book. President Benson's principal concern was the spread of worldwide Communism.

Haven't you heard Benson say this would be done from the inside, by the criminals taking control of our government and press. This is the point of 9/11. Our freedeoms taken away. This is the motive. Worldwide communism's biggest obstacle is this country. Taking away our freedoms advances this agenda.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings. "Breaking" such a story would make a reporter's career; he/she would be the new Bob Woodward.

We have do have plenty of people coming out with stories and witnesses. (Our last thread on 9/11 truth spells that out.) But guess what? They're all ignored by the mainstream media. You remember all the witnesses, right? Ok, maybe you forgot. Here's a detailed compilation for you again: http://www.myspace.com/raynardthaxman/blog/538488673

: If the gadiantons were able to gain the sole management of government in the past, why can't they do it now?

Because we have a free press (despite your assertion to the contrary); we also have the internet, talk radio, and cable news (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN can no longer get away with putting a liberal spin on every story).

Talk radio? Like Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Give me a break. Cable news? Like Fox News? Give me a break.

I know all about President Benson and the "None Dare" book. President Benson's principal concern was the spread of worldwide Communism.

The New World Order is a type of satanist communism. The point of the book was to explain to you about how the gadiantons work to infiltrate government. You didn't read the book. Obviously. Please listen to your church leaders and read it.

: P.S. It seems you purposefully ignored my post to you about the security regarding the WTC.

Not at all. For a balanced account, go to Screw Loose Change: Exposing the Lies, Distortions, and Myths of the 9-11 "Truthers", "Marvin Bush Mystery?" May 15, 2006.

Read it. And I must say that it debunks nothing. Sorry.

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

BlueMoon5 :

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings.

Who says there were BOMBS installed in the WTC buildings? not me, and not any serious 9/11 researcher that I know of. In 1993, yes, but not in 2001. Thus we see that your assertion regarding "re. the installation of bombs in the buildings" is a straw-man argument.

I think you read my post above -- it could well have been a nanothermite organic that was SPRAY-PAINTED onto interior beams, far from the public view. This material would be safe (non-explosive) until thoroughly dry -- these properties quoted from the national lab that disclosed the characteristics of this remarkable material, which I quoted also.

Were there any spray-painters who came forward? of course not, why would they? what is suspicious about spray-painting inside a building?

But as we have repeatedly pointed out, others have come forward with testimony questioning the official 9/11 story, including
1) Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (re: no air defenses that day) and
2)Barry Jennings (re: explosions witnessed INSIDE WTC-7) and
3)William Rodriguez (explosions in the basement of one of the Towers), and
4 and 5) Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett (total power out in WTC Tower wkend before 9/11)
6) Prof. Poteshman regarding the "unusual" but highly profitable put options on UAL and American Airlines, the week before 9/11, and
7+) engineers and scientists who objected to the rapid destruction/melting of WTC steel; and/or objected to the refusal of NIST to look at steel from WTC7 and their refusal to release their computer modeling of WTC7 and the Towers.

Please don't ignore their testimony.

[LateOutOfBedcaptain of 100]

BlueMoon5 :

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings.

Who says there were BOMBS installed in the WTC buildings? not me, and not any serious 9/11 researcher that I know of. In 1993, yes, but not in 2001. Thus we see that your assertion regarding "re. the installation of bombs in the buildings" is a straw-man argument.

I think you read my post above -- it could well have been a nanothermite organic that was SPRAY-PAINTED onto interior beams, far from the public view. This material would be safe (non-explosive) until thoroughly dry -- these properties quoted from the national lab that disclosed the characteristics of this remarkable material, which I quoted also.

Were there any spray-painters who came forward? of course not, why would they? what is suspicious about spray-painting inside a building?

But as we have repeatedly pointed out, others have come forward with testimony questioning the official 9/11 story, including
1) Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (re: no air defenses that day) and
2)Barry Jennings (re: explosions witnessed INSIDE WTC-7) and
3)William Rodriguez (explosions in the basement of one of the Towers), and
4 and 5) Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett (total power out in WTC Tower wkend before 9/11)
6) Prof. Poteshman regarding the "unusual" but highly profitable put options on UAL and American Airlines, the week before 9/11, and
7+) engineers and scientists who objected to the rapid destruction/melting of WTC steel; and/or objected to the refusal of NIST to look at steel from WTC7 and their refusal to release their computer modeling of WTC7 and the Towers.

Please don't ignore their testimony.

I'm sure he will Dr. Jones. I'm sure he will... just like 90% of Americans will do when history repeats itself. However, thank you for posting than nice, clear, concise list of so many reasons why 9/11 is such a horror to our country. It was a demonstration of how powerful men have completely undermined and corrupted our government agencies.

-- Geoff

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

BlueMoon5 :

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings.

: Who says there were BOMBS installed in the WTC buildings? not me, and not any serious 9/11 researcher that I know of. In 1993, yes, but not in 2001. Thus we see that your assertion regarding "re. the installation of bombs in the buildings" is a straw-man argument.

Shouldn't it be obvious to any reasonable person that I used "bombs" in the generic sense; you seem to be on a semantic nit-picking mission. Let's see what sorts of destructive devices fall under the definition of "bomb": "A projectile or other device carrying an explosive charge fused to detonate under certain certain conditions (as upon impact or through a timing contrivance [emphasis added]) and that is hurled (as by a mortar), dropped from an aircraft, or merely set into position at a given point. . . ." [emphasis added]. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, p. 249) BTW, it's interesting that you now seem to favor "paint" as the composition of the destructive devices, the better (I assume) to address the vexing problem as to how the buildings were prepared for CD.

: I think you read my post above -- it could well have been a nanothermite organic that was SPRAY-PAINTED onto interior beams, far from the public view. This material would be safe (non-explosive) until thoroughly dry -- these properties quoted from the national lab that disclosed the characteristics of this remarkable material, which I quoted also.

Here, you continue to posit a newly evolved solution (no pun intended) to the "installation" problem. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except that it demonstrates you're still trying to find a credible explanation.

: Were there any spray-painters who came forward? of course not, why would they? what is suspicious about spray-painting inside a building?

Based on your latest theory about how the buildings were prepped for destruction using "paint," the "painters" who were hired to apply the sol-gel nanothermite (or some sprayable variant thereof) might well reflect on their role as actual facilitators of the horror of 9/11. Some are certain to realize--if they believe your CD story--that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive. Of course, no one has come forward, which should tell you something.

: But as we have repeatedly pointed out, others have come forward with testimony questioning the official 9/11 story, including
1) Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (re: no air defenses that day) and
2)Barry Jennings (re: explosions witnessed INSIDE WTC-7) and
3)William Rodriguez (explosions in the basement of one of the Towers), and
4 and 5) Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett (total power out in WTC Tower wkend before 9/11)
6) Prof. Poteshman regarding the "unusual" but highly profitable put options on UAL and American Airlines, the week before 9/11, and
7+) engineers and scientists who objected to the rapid destruction/melting of WTC steel; and/or objected to the refusal of NIST to look at steel from WTC7 and their refusal to release their computer modeling of WTC7 and the Towers.

Some items on your list have been thoroughly debunked, i.e.: 2) All kinds of things were blowing up inside of WTC-7, and were doing so randomly; you cannot prove that what Mr. Jennings heard was CD in action; 3) William Rodrguez has changed his story multiple times--he's hardly a credible witness; 6) I have already addressed the "put" options. Re. 1), you cannot prove that there were a) no air defenses, and b) that even if that were true, their absence was designed to accommodate the attacks. Re. 4 & 5: Of what significance is a power outage in "WTC tower" the "weekend before 9/11?" Power outages happen daily all over the world. Your point 7 has merit; I don't have any explanations, though I doubt--if the truth were known--they would prove as sinister as you suppose.

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

I find your responses less than persuasive, BlueMoon5 -- will allow others to make their own decisions.
For example, I have discussed the notion of spray-painted sol-gel nanothermite, which is safe against explosion until thoroughly dry, years ago. Just because YOU haven't heard it before does not mean that I "continue to posit a newly evolved solution (no pun intended) to the "installation" problem."

BlueMoon5 :

If there were even a modicum of truth to your conspiracy theory, independent reporters/publishers/broadcasters would have a field day with it. It would be numbered among the stories of the new century. But no one--not a soul--(after circa 11 years) has come forward to give eyewitness testimony re. the installation of bombs in the buildings.

: Who says there were BOMBS installed in the WTC buildings? not me, and not any serious 9/11 researcher that I know of. In 1993, yes, but not in 2001. Thus we see that your assertion regarding "re. the installation of bombs in the buildings" is a straw-man argument.

Shouldn't it be obvious to any reasonable person that I used "bombs" in the generic sense; you seem to be on a semantic nit-picking mission. Let's see what sorts of destructive devices fall under the definition of "bomb": "A projectile or other device carrying an explosive charge fused to detonate under certain certain conditions (as upon impact or through a timing contrivance [emphasis added]) and that is hurled (as by a mortar), dropped from an aircraft, or merely set into position at a given point. . . ." [emphasis added]. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, p. 249) BTW, it's interesting that you now seem to favor "paint" as the composition of the destructive devices, the better (I assume) to address the vexing problem as to how the buildings were prepared for CD.

: I think you read my post above -- it could well have been a nanothermite organic that was SPRAY-PAINTED onto interior beams, far from the public view. This material would be safe (non-explosive) until thoroughly dry -- these properties quoted from the national lab that disclosed the characteristics of this remarkable material, which I quoted also.

Here, you continue to posit a newly evolved solution (no pun intended) to the "installation" problem. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except that it demonstrates you're still trying to find a credible explanation.

: Were there any spray-painters who came forward? of course not, why would they? what is suspicious about spray-painting inside a building?

Based on your latest theory about how the buildings were prepped for destruction using "paint," the "painters" who were hired to apply the sol-gel nanothermite (or some sprayable variant thereof) might well reflect on their role as actual facilitators of the horror of 9/11. Some are certain to realize--if they believe your CD story--that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive. Of course, no one has come forward, which should tell you something.

: But as we have repeatedly pointed out, others have come forward with testimony questioning the official 9/11 story, including
1) Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (re: no air defenses that day) and
2)Barry Jennings (re: explosions witnessed INSIDE WTC-7) and
3)William Rodriguez (explosions in the basement of one of the Towers), and
4 and 5) Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett (total power out in WTC Tower wkend before 9/11)
6) Prof. Poteshman regarding the "unusual" but highly profitable put options on UAL and American Airlines, the week before 9/11, and
7+) engineers and scientists who objected to the rapid destruction/melting of WTC steel; and/or objected to the refusal of NIST to look at steel from WTC7 and their refusal to release their computer modeling of WTC7 and the Towers.

Some items on your list have been thoroughly debunked, i.e.: 2) All kinds of things were blowing up inside of WTC-7, and were doing so randomly; you cannot prove that what Mr. Jennings heard was CD in action; 3) William Rodrguez has changed his story multiple times--he's hardly a credible witness; 6) I have already addressed the "put" options. Re. 1), you cannot prove that there were a) no air defenses, and b) that even if that were true, their absence was designed to accommodate the attacks. Re. 4 & 5: Of what significance is a power outage in "WTC tower" the "weekend before 9/11?" Power outages happen daily all over the world. Your point 7 has merit; I don't have any explanations, though I doubt--if the truth were known--they would prove as sinister as you suppose.

Thank you for agreeing that my point 7 "has merit" and that you "don't have any explanations." Progress is slow, but acknowledged.

BlueMoon: Based on your latest theory about how the buildings were prepped for destruction using "paint," the "painters" who were hired to apply the sol-gel nanothermite (or some sprayable variant thereof) might well reflect on their role as actual facilitators of the horror of 9/11. Some are certain to realize--if they believe your CD story--that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive. Of course, no one has come forward, which should tell you something.

Yes, it does tell me something:

1. The painters were not informed that this "paint" would be an explosive material WHEN THOROUGHLY DRY. No surprise that they would not have been told this!
2. The painters could well have been non-English speakers and from outside the US, brought in for this spray-painting job and probably well-paid to say nothing about their work (required to sign a non-disclosure agreement).
3. They probably have not realized "that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive" -- especially since this is the case ONLY WHEN IT IS THOROUGHLY DRY.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

I find your responses less than persuasive, BlueMoon5 -- will allow others to make their own decisions.
For example, I have discussed the notion of spray-painted sol-gel nanothermite, which is safe against explosion until thoroughly dry, years ago. Just because YOU haven't heard it before does not mean that I "continue to posit a newly evolved solution (no pun intended) to the "installation" problem."

Indeed, you did discuss it years ago in terms of its versatility. The original theory, however (as I recall), was that NT (with conventional explosives) was placed in a concentrated "package" (for want of a better term) on the supporting columns on each floor. The claim was made that the NT could cut the columns horizontally. It seems to me that if you spray "paint" onto the columns it would have to be concentrated on a limited, critical band of each column; otherwise, how would you achieve simultaneous failure of all the applicable columns on each floor? Simultaneous failure, conspiracists have repeatedly said, is what enabled the buildings to collapse straight down into their own footprints.

Based on your latest theory about how the buildings were prepped for destruction using "paint," the "painters" who were hired to apply the sol-gel nanothermite (or some sprayable variant thereof) might well reflect on their role as actual facilitators of the horror of 9/11. Some are certain to realize--if they believe your CD story--that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive. Of course, no one has come forward, which should tell you something.

You responded thus:

: 1. The painters were not informed that this "paint" would be an explosive material WHEN THOROUGHLY DRY. No surprise that they would not have been told this!
2. The painters could well have been non-English speakers and from outside the US, brought in for this spray-painting job and probably well-paid to say nothing about their work (required to sign a non-disclosure agreement).
3. They probably have not realized "that they didn't apply paint at all, but a highly energetic explosive" -- especially since this is the case ONLY WHEN IT IS THOROUGHLY DRY.

Re. 1: Of course they were not told they were applying "paint" that would become a high explosive when it dried. Had they been told, at least some would have refused to do the work. Isn't that obvious?

Re. 2: As I have said before, after learning that they didn't apply paint but rather a chemical that killed thousands and demolished the WTC,
the requirement to sign the "non-disclosure agreement" would cause at least some to connect the dots--and to speak out. No one has.

Re. 3: So, they need not feel any regret inasmuch as they applied "paint" that subsequently became a high explosive when it dried. Does that make sense to you? Clearly, they thought they were applying paint; now, based on your scenario, some will learn they were duped into facilitating mass murder. If I were one of your "painters," and I accepted your scenario, I would step forward and reveal who hired me and the lies they told me. I would make it clear that I had no foreknowledge that I was, in effect, an active participant in a horrendous crime. I'll say it again: Why has no one stepped forward? (In fact, no one has stepped forward after circa 11 years to give credible testimony about seeing evidence that the buildings were being rigged for destruction, regardless of whatever CD "installation" theory you want to promote.)

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

Why do you keep avoiding this point, BM5?

Dr Jones: The painters could well have been non-English speakers and from outside the US, brought in for this spray-painting job

Say the spray-painters were brought in from Haiti or Ivory Coast, for example. How would they convince people that they now realized that they had participated in the bringing down of the WTC Towers? Indeed, how would they know this to begin with? A non-disclosure agreement would not even be needed for such a scenario.

One has to expect that the Gadiantons are clever in their methods and cover-up. We DO see evidence of cover-up; including the rapid melting/destruction of the WTC-skyscraper steel and the silencing of Norman Mineta, and the hiding or destruction of records regarding who purchased the put options on UAL and American Airlines.

However - WE can be watchful and observant and prepared as the next 9/11 approaches (one expects!). IOW, we can "awaken to our awful situation" and prepare for the next event.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Why do you keep avoiding this point, BM5? Dr Jones: The painters could well have been non-English speakers and from outside the US, brought in for this spray-painting job

In this age of instant, worldwide communication, where they were "brought in" from is irrelevant. News about 9/11 permeated the globe--for weeks. Moreover, the fact that they came from abroad to do a job any number of NYC paint contractors could do is, by its very nature, suspicious. Do you suppose the U.S. painters' union might have had something to say about that?

: How would they convince people that they now realized that they had participated in the bringing down of the WTC Towers?

By simply telling their story, with emphasis on the lies they were told. Note, however, the only people they would need to convince would be investigative journalists; international outrage would ensue. Don't forget that substantial numbers of those killed when the towers collapsed were foreigners; hence, the WORLD Trade Center.

: Indeed, how would they know this to begin with? A non-disclosure agreement would not even be needed for such a scenario.

They would know because you have publicly revealed that the "paint" they applied became a high explosive when it dried. As I said before, at least some of them would connect the dots. (I'm assuming, of course, that your "paint" theory is accurate.)

: One has to expect that the Gadiantons are clever in their methods and cover-up.

Particularly in an age when mass communication was non-existent.

: We DO see evidence of cover-up; including the rapid melting/destruction of the WTC-skyscraper steel and the silencing of Norman Mineta, and the hiding or destruction of records regarding who purchased the put options on UAL and American Airlines.

Conspiracists are convinced those actions constitute evidence of a cover-up; others, equally informed and privy to information and context not available to the conspiracists, do not.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

. . . There is basically only one corporation anymore, among major media.

And the name/location of that corporation is ___________________.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

. . . There is basically only one corporation anymore, among major media.

And the name/location of that corporation is ___________________.

The Name is the Illumianti. Aka: Gadiantions, Secret Combinations. The headquarters is most likely The Federal Reserve Bank Of Kanas City but like most secret, criminal organizations they do not broadcast these kind of details. They have many subsidiaries ,like the Bilderbergers, The CFR, The Trilateral Commision. They own a controling interest in nearly all fortune 500 companies. They have been able to acomplish this through the unlimited power of money creation. They can print us dollars and do what they please with them. Allthough they try to keep details secret, there are reporters and writers who have dedicated their lives to exposing this group. Just like there are reporters that have dedicated their lives to exposing 9/11 and bringing whistleblower testimony to the public. Of course, This is ignored by the main stream press because the Gadiantions own the main stream press.

Funny how some are so eager to believe in some shadowy, seceret organization, like Al-Queada, and not have one iota of information on them, like who are their members, location etc.

[farfromhomecaptain of 50]

I think Doc Jones and Thomas have raised excellent points. Not so BlueMoon -- just because a paper has been published in a technical journal about nanothermitic chips does not mean that painters (whether foreign or domestic) would NECESSARILY connect the dots (as you claim) that the paint they applied was explosive!

I mean, get serious, this paper came out about seven years after 9/11/2001, and you are SURE that a painter is going to read it first of all -- and then from this paper extrapolate to the idea that the paint he put in the Towers was explosive? And then this painter is going to go out and find an investigative reporter who will make a big deal about he painted ?

How can you be so sure that this would get out to the mainstream press is beyond me. I think you're dishing out pure chutzpah, BM5, in the bad sense.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

I think you're dishing out pure chutzpah, BM5, in the bad sense.

And ninety some-odd pages on the other thread proved that theory. Again, folks, ignore list. Let me show you what it looks like...

This post was made by BlueMoon5 who is currently on your ignore list.

It's so much better seeing that than the nonsense you're currently contending with.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

I think Doc Jones and Thomas have raised excellent points. Not so BlueMoon -- just because a paper has been published in a technical journal about nanothermitic chips does not mean that painters (whether foreign or domestic) would NECESSARILY connect the dots (as you claim) that the paint they applied was explosive!

The Jones-Haritt paper dealt with the discovery of explosive material (NT) in WTC dust samples (although that finding has not been sufficiently duplicated by independent laboratories). Dr. Jones' recently emphasized suggestion that the NT material was sprayed on the columns by a crew hired as "painters" (rather than fastened to the columns as originally proposed), does, indeed, raise the liklihood that some "painters" will connect the dots. Those "painters" now probably know (at least some do) that the "paint" they were spraying turned into a highly powerful explosive when dried and ignited. (I'm assuming, for purposes of debate, that the "paint" scenario is true.)

: I mean, get serious, this paper came out about seven years after 9/11/2001, and you are SURE that a painter is going to read it first of all -- and then from this paper extrapolate to the idea that the paint he put in the Towers was explosive? And then this painter is going to go out and find an investigative reporter who will make a big deal about he painted ?

"SURE"? No, but I think it's a distinct possibility. The "painters" will rely on Dr. Jones' proposed scenario about "paint" becoming explosive when dried and ignited--not on his paper. And that will call to mind their role in spraying the "paint" onto the columns. Remember, Dr. Jones has an international audience. Also, do you suppose the painter's union in NYC may wonder why foreigners were brought in to do work they were perfectly capable of doing?

: How can you be so sure that this would get out to the mainstream press is beyond me. I think you're dishing out pure chutzpah, BM5, in the bad sense.

If a credible "painter" came forward and revealed what happened, the mainstream press would eat it up; think Watergate.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Watergate was forty years ago, Blue. Get with the times. Destroying Nixon did nothing to destroy the organization that controls government. They have only grown stronger since then. Nixon was a pawn, not a king. Pawns are expendable, as are all presidents.

[Robthe Sunbeam]

Thomas, please bear in mind that BM thinks Oswald killed JFK.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Watergate was forty years ago, Blue. Get with the times. Destroying Nixon did nothing to destroy the organization that controls government. They have only grown stronger since then. Nixon was a pawn, not a king. Pawns are expendable, as are all presidents.

That isn't the point (you missed it by a country mile). The mainstream media "ran" with the Watergate story because it directly involved the White House and Nixon's attempt to cover up the crime. The fact that it happened 40 years ago is irrelevant.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Watergate was forty years ago, Blue. Get with the times. Destroying Nixon did nothing to destroy the organization that controls government. They have only grown stronger since then. Nixon was a pawn, not a king. Pawns are expendable, as are all presidents.

That isn't the point (you missed it by a country mile). The mainstream media "ran" with the Watergate story because it directly involved the White House and Nixon's attempt to cover up the crime. The fact that it happened 40 years ago is irrelevant.

Blue, it is very relevant because while you have been sleeping for the past forty years, the Gadiantions have bought all the major media. There are no independant papers like there were forty years ago. They have all been consolidated under Satan's control along with all the major television stations. The people at the very top decide what stories will run and which will not. This is a very small group. The reporters don't control the agenda. Money and ratings do not matter to people that already have all the money they want. Their goal is to take over this country, not increase ratings.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Watergate was forty years ago, Blue. Get with the times. Destroying Nixon did nothing to destroy the organization that controls government. They have only grown stronger since then. Nixon was a pawn, not a king. Pawns are expendable, as are all presidents.

That isn't the point (you missed it by a country mile). The mainstream media "ran" with the Watergate story because it directly involved the White House and Nixon's attempt to cover up the crime. The fact that it happened 40 years ago is irrelevant.

: Blue, it is very relevant because while you have been sleeping for the past forty years, the Gadiantions have bought all the major media. There are no independant papers like there were forty years ago. They have all been consolidated under Satan's control along with all the major television stations. The people at the very top decide what stories will run and which will not.

Please, Thomas, p l e a s e tell me you're just kidding.

[Thinkercaptain of 100]

What can we learn?
Our government is largely corrupt?
So, what do we do?

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Blue I wish I was just kidding. Case in point, the so called fast and furious scandal, involving Eric Holder and Obama shipping guns to Mexico, in an attempt to raise the level of gun violence along the border. Many have died as a result of this. The major media has brushed it under the rug. It has all the elements of a Watergate type story , with the ablity to bring down the presidency. Only alternative media is covering it. There are smoking gun type of documents and witnesses, that are being completey ignored by the main stream. The motive behind these actions by our government, is to cause enough gun violence to justify gun control. Some in the alternative media thought for sure, it would bring Obama down. The major media has played down this story because it threatens the agenda of the Gadiantons. Nixon's downfall or putting Clinton on the hot seat, does not threaten the agenda of the Gadiatons at all. In fact, it serves as a distraction and helps perseve the illusion of an independant press. Any story that threatens the Gadiatons will be buried.

You really need to broaden your sources of information. If you are content to sit in front of the TV and have Satan spoon feed you, his version of reality, you will never understand the true nature of our world.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

What can we learn?
Our government is largely corrupt?
So, what do we do?

If the saints were united in their thinking, just think what millions of prayers would do for this country. Even so if the remaining saints that want freedom and liberty; want the constitution and privileges it grants left intact, then the prayers from these folks can help a lot. Sad part is too many saints want different results, like Romney over Paul, as an example. Who knows, maybe some even like Obama.

What I have done is to sign my name on petitions that are hand carried to their destination. At http://www.grassfire.com/petitions.asp

I've sent emails to my Congressman only to be ignored. So I figure this is the next best thing. Come election time, I'm going to vote for the person I fell is honest, wise and good to the best of my ability. Someone that holds dear the Constitution of the United States, even if my vote stands alone.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Blue I wish I was just kidding. Case in point, the so called fast and furious scandal, involving Eric Holder and Obama shipping guns to Mexico, in an attempt to raise the level of gun violence along the border. Many have died as a result of this. The major media has brushed it under the rug. It has all the elements of a Watergate type story , with the ablity to bring down the presidency. Only alternative media is covering it. There are smoking gun type of documents and witnesses, that are being completey ignored by the main stream. The motive behind these actions by our government, is to cause enough gun violence to justify gun control. Some in the alternative media thought for sure, it would bring Obama down. The major media has played down this story because it threatens the agenda of the Gadiantons. Nixon's downfall or putting Clinton on the hot seat, does not threaten the agenda of the Gadiatons at all. In fact, it serves as a distraction and helps perseve the illusion of an independant press. Any story that threatens the Gadiatons will be buried.

You really need to broaden your sources of information. If you are content to sit in front of the TV and have Satan spoon feed you, his version of reality, you will never understand the true nature of our world.

"All -- is --well -- in -- Zion", shouts those who remain asleep in the church. Further, to them it includes the country as well.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

What can we learn?
Our government is largely corrupt?
So, what do we do?

If the saints were united in their thinking, just think what millions of prayers would do for this country. Even so if the remaining saints that want freedom and liberty; want the constitution and privileges it grants left intact, then the prayers from these folks can help a lot. Sad part is too many saints want different results, like Romney over Paul, as an example. Who knows, maybe some even like Obama.

What I have done is to sign my name on petitions that are hand carried to their destination. At http://www.grassfire.com/petitions.asp

I've sent emails to my Congressman only to be ignored. So I figure this is the next best thing. Come election time, I'm going to vote for the person I fell is honest, wise and good to the best of my ability. Someone that holds dear the Constitution of the United States, even if my vote stands alone.

The first step to change is understanding there is a problem. Too many are stuck in the Blue Moon zone and don't understand what's happening. If enough people knew what the true story was, the Gadiantons would not last one more day.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

: . . . There is basically only one corporation anymore, among major media.

BM: And the name/location of that corporation is ___________________.

: The Name is the Illumianti. Aka: Gadiantions, Secret Combinations. The headquarters is most likely The Federal Reserve Bank Of Kanas City but like most secret, criminal organizations they do not broadcast these kind of details. They have many subsidiaries ,like the Bilderbergers, The CFR, The Trilateral Commision. They own a controling interest in nearly all fortune 500 companies. They have been able to acomplish this through the unlimited power of money creation. They can print us dollars and do what they please with them. Allthough they try to keep details secret, there are reporters and writers who have dedicated their lives to exposing this group. Just like there are reporters that have dedicated their lives to exposing 9/11 and bringing whistleblower testimony to the public. Of course, This is ignored by the main stream press because the Gadiantions own the main stream press.

BM: Fascinating: "Writers such as Mark Dice, David Icke, Texe Marrs, Ryan Burke, Juri Lina, and Morgan Gricar have argued that the Bavarian Illuminati [founded in 1776 in Upper Bavaria] survived, possibly to this day. Many of these theories propose that world events are being controlled and manipulated by a secret society calling itself the Illuminati. Conspiracy theorists [emphasis added] have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati. Presidents of the U.S. are a common target for such claims. A key figure in the conspiracy theory movement [emphasis added], Myron Fagan, devoted his latter years to finding evidence that a variety of historical events from Waterloo, The French Revolution, Pres. John F. Kennedy's assassination, and an alleged communist plot to hasten the New World Order by infiltrating the Hollywood film industry, were all orchestrated by the Illuminati." (Wikipedia, "Illuminati").

BM: Here's a friendly suggestion, Thomas: For a balanced, rational account of secret societies read J.M. Roberts' The Mythology of Secret Societies and/or Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America.