New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity - Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. [The Atlantic]

submitted by neolib from archive.is

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The "secret evidence" was already known at the start.
And it was planted there to divert the attention.

The real problem with the 9/11 attacks:

1) The sudden free-fall collapse of 3 WTC towers into their own footprint. Which is evidence for a controlled demolition. So fine-controlled demolition, that there was no damage to other buildings. See 911ae.org for several studies on the subject. The WTC-dust also contained oxidizers that indicate demolition. (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth)

2) The identified remains of the planes were from military origin, not from the civil planes that were "hijacked". The transponders of both civil and military planes were off in an area where the radar could not follow them. And after that they switched on again. The civil planes then were turned and flying too fast for stable flight, but the military version does fly that speed. (Pilots for 9/11 truth)

3) The Pentagon's administration was damaged. And that destroyed the possibility to track down 21 trillion dollars. Rumsberg mentioned 2.3 trillion dollars the day before 9/11, but later this was corrected to 21 T by prof. Skidmore.

4) Various other suspicious shenanigans. Like dancing Israeli spies were able to predict the attacks and were filming them. This led to the conspiracy that Israel did this. But there are also several Pentagon insiders involved, so these spied may have followed the whole plan instead (for later blackmail?). Here is a good overview of the people involved

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Keep in mind that both theories don't have to cancel each other out. Both the Jewish leaders, and the Catholic CIA could have worked together in order to set up 9/11 to push for war in the Middle East for their own ends, but in classic Jesuit fashion, usually the Jews are left as the solitary conspirators.

Another interesting fact is how the buildings were turned into dust for the most part. There's no way fire alone could have done that, it would require a powerful explosion.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

An explosive expert explained in an interview that the demolition used at least 2x the normal amount of explosives & thermite.
That is why there were still fires for weeks, under the water and foam, at the destroyed towers.
The dust was also so corrosive that it affects many cars, and several buildings.

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I heard that they found remains of the same kind of material used for nukes. I lean towards the idea that they were brought down with mini-nukes.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know that theory. What they found was a little bit of Tritium (Hydrogen with 2 neutrons). And a whole theory was developed around it.

Tritium glows. It is legally used in self-illuminated exit-signs. Buy here. And it is safer than radium, which was used to illuminate old clocks.

The mini-nuke theory is that this tritium was part of an atomic bomb. But it is missing all other elements. And the hydrogen-bomb needs to be started with a normal Uranium (or Plutonium) based atomic bomb. A nuclear reaction also causes gamma-rays and x-rays to most of the environment. Which leaves clear traces that can be spotted with (or in) our technology.

So it is either technology that we don't know about, like science fiction.
Or it is exit-signs and well known thermite of which we can see lots of evidence in the dust and remains.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The sudden free-fall collapse of 3 WTC towers into their own footprint. Which is evidence for a controlled demolition.

Or of the collapse of the top floors onto each of the floors below, causing them to collapse.

So fine-controlled demolition, that there was no damage to other buildings.

Except the destroyed St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC), and the damaged World Financial Center buildings and 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street.

The WTC-dust also contained oxidizers that indicate demolition.

Although there's no evidence that that dust came from the WTC site.

The Pentagon's administration was damaged. And that destroyed the possibility to track down 21 trillion dollars.

Did it though?

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The pancake theory is just bunk. It reduces the fall speed. Does not work with steel buildings, and does not match the excessive energy.
Excessive energy (expelled structure) = demolition. Free fall = demolition. Explosives heard by firefighters = demolition.

The damage was not by the building falling onto it. The damage was from the excessive energy that expelled the structures outward. They used 2x the amount of demolition explosives than was necessary.

The dust is clearly from the site. And it was corrosive to cars and buildings. The dust contained iron spheres, that are remains of vaporized steel.

The Pentagon will never release any information about the lost trillions. That is like asking criminals to expose themselves.
But the budget shows 100% a $21 trillion loss. This gets more if we look deeper into loans and other stuff, then it grows to $65T

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The pancake theory is just bunk. It reduces the fall speed. Does not work with steel buildings, and does not match the excessive energy.

Link please.

The damage was not by the building falling onto it.

You noticed the plane? Aviation fuel burns pretty hot.

The damage was from the excessive energy that expelled the structures outward.

You just said that they building collapsed on their own footprint, not damaging the buildings around.

Pick a lane.

They used 2x the amount of demolition explosives than was necessary.

Okaaay ... How much demolition explosives were necessary?

The dust is clearly from the site.

Nope. There's no chain of custody.

And it was corrosive to cars and buildings.

The buildings that weren't damaged?

The dust contained iron spheres, that are remains of vaporized steel.

Why not steel spheres then?

The Pentagon will never release any information about the lost trillions.

How do you know about it then?

But the budget shows 100% a $21 trillion loss. This gets more if we look deeper into loans and other stuff, then it grows to $65T

What were the loans, and how do they contribute to the loss? If borrowed money has gone missions, who is financing the $44T loan. Wouldn't that be a couple of trillion in interest per year at least?

Who's servicing that debt?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"pretty hot."

"""(((SCIENCE!!!)))"""

'̐̈͊

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"How much demolition explosives were necessary?"

Tʰᶦˢ ᵐᵃⁿᶦᵉˢ...