Wednesday, 25 February 2009

The World Trade Centre Explosions (9/11/2001)


(7:30)

From Loose Change: Final Cut.

Very obviously there were massive secondary explosions occurring throughout the World Trade Centre buildings- in the lower levels, in the basement, the lobby and subway areas- far way from the fire zones. These explosions were not insignificant, indicating they were the likely result of pre-planted devices. From eyewitness testimony alone one would have to conclude that the fires and aircraft impacts would have been able to cause these effects.

Even more damning are the reports of explosions in WTC 7, before the Twin Towers came down. There is no reasonable explanation to account for the testimony of WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings other than to conclude that bombs had been planted inside this structure.

The final proof that explosives were present is the forensic evidence of Molten Steel and Thermate found at the WTC disaster site- phenomena that simply cannot exist without the use of incendiary type explosives.

911 WAS an Inside Job. Tell everyone so that once this information becomes public knowledge. When EVERYONE KNOWS the perpetrators will be unable to hide from the inevitable public investigations.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 25th, 2009.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I agree with your observation that the evidence shows bombs were planted. But, that fact has not made any change in what people say or do about the 9-11 murders.

The debate at the moment, such as it is, is about whether anyone in the Bush administration should be prosecuted for the crime of torture. No one doubts that they committed this crime. The argument is about whether they should be taken to court, or even criticised for it.

No one is talking about revisiting the 9-11 event.

Why is that?

Dostoevsky is said to have written one of the most powerful arguments against Christianity and the argument that God exists in his Brothers Karamazov. Yet, when Ivan makes his case, rather than conclude that the argument for God must be bad and it should be rejected, he instead tells his brother that he wants to give his ticket back. This is to say that instead of condoning the system that such a God makes us suffer through, he would rather kill himself so he couldn't be held responsible. Responsible for the deaths of innocent children, for example.

I suspect there's some thought like that here. Rather than question the state and the people who run the place, because they seem so obviously responsible for murdering thousands of us in the 9-11 event, for one example, we as a people pretty much ignore it. This is to say we are prepared to let them kill more of us and that would be preferable to questioning them.

If it worked for Ivan, then it should work for us.

In the same way, The Nazis had a real problem. They were leading the German state down another dead end with the war on the eastern front going badly and the Americans beating them up around the edges in Africa and western Europe. So, they had to come up with a plan to make the German people shut up and go along.

I think there must be a principle here that's taught in elementary dictator school.

If you want the mob to follow you without question, get their attention and make them feel so afraid that you will go crazy and come after them, they will not make a peep.

So, the Nazis started killing Jews, and Gypsies, and anyone else they thought could be dispenced with and would make a public spectacle in the process.

Same way, the American elites shoot students, and smash up protest marches, and sick attack dogs on civil rights pinkos. Later on, they start killing off leftist leaders in sloppy ways so everyone gets the message, but no one can be prosecuted without a lot of fuss.

Then 9-11. It's all of a sort that's gone on awhile. No one has complained enough to do anything before. They have been trained to neither complain nor do anything about it.

So, the 'why' is important. The fact that there is evidence of bombs in the buildings is good. There's probably enough evidence to revisit it. But, that is not going to happen because no one really thinks that it wasn't an inside job in the first place.

They would just rather die than make a peep, as they have been trained.

As a prosecutor, your problem is not to come up with some evidence that can get your case into court. There is no question you have a good case. Your problem is in finding a jury that will sit for the case. Everyone knows that the guilty parties are willing to kill thousands. It wouldn't be much work for them to make anyone who tries to sit on a jury pay. It's jury tampering and intimidation.

You have to do something with what they have done to the jury pool.

SpookyPunkos said...

Steve,

You have an excellent point.

I am happy there is talk about prosecutions for torture. This will also open a small can of worms against the criminals running the show.

You are right that most juries, when confronted with such a situation, would find themselves in a very very difficult situation.

This is where we play politics on a grander scale.

It's not really about presenting evidence only for a jury. It's about presenting evidence to the public at large- evidence that would also impress any jury (whether intimidated or not).

The idea for me is to post concrete evidence (and encourage others to do so) such that it will become common knowledge that 911 was an inside job allowing people will talk about it freely. Already it's a growing "underground" process. It's about isolating the people responsible for the crime (including elites), pre-trial, in the public arena.

There's obviously a long way to go - we have not really seen the societal change happen yet. However, when we can talk about 911 in "polite society" and numerous high profile individuals get on the bandwagon, then we are likely to see progress and a public investigation where, because of the KNOWN THREAT of intimidation, nothing will be kept hidden.

There's a good chance to make a real difference to the status quo with the evidence we have at hand. We have an opportunity here to really wake up the people.