"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Timing.<br><br>Exactly at the time that<br>1)Prof Steven Jones re-releases his now improved on Thermate paper online <br><br>AND<br><br>2)Word of how sick people in NYC are is getting noticed<br><br>...we are getting steered towards 'nukes dunnit.'<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><br>Transparently confabulating diversion away from mundane and easily believable solving of this crime.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>And totally predictable. <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Transparently confabulating diversion away from mundane and easily believable solving of this crime."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Exactly. All aboard the nuke train now for another ride around fantasy island. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Well, in all probablity two or three different types of explosives were used--each to perform a unique function that needed to happen in less than 10 seconds. I think it is very creepy to start suspecting and accusing others of "disinfo" just for looking at puzzles and piecing clear evidence together. The danger point is when you start saying:This is what happened; nothing else could have happened and I KNOW I am right. None of us can know much at this point. Why do we have to creep around being afraid of being labeled "disinfo". I 'm sick of it. I personally feel that most folks not hired by the media are driven by one of two emotions a. They are still deep in denialville and are terrified of their own shadows. b. They just want to know the truth. I really think this "disinfo" stuff when not applied to media shills is silly. <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

"Madsen was a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.... He was a communications security analyst with the NSA in the 1980's, and an intelligence officer in the US Marine Corp" <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Wayne_Madsen">link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Like I said, I really would like to trust Madsen. But when someone with his history starts pushing stories that evade corroboration, appear to turn us aside from more profitable investigations and have the whiff of bullshit, I just can't. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 9/13/06 11:22 am<br></i>

[Sweejak]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Anglefire would not allow those pages. Any chance of linking them some other way? Thanks.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>I'll try to put them on my public folder.<br><br>They are in a zip file. I'll only leave them up for a few days or until I run short of space.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/Polly_Tiks/FileSharing98.html">homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/P...ing98.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I see your point about Madsen; he is a special case and not just another "truther". Sad we can't trust him. On another topic, When talking to the uninformed about 9-11, I personally avoid mentioning anything bizarre like "no planes" or nukes or holograms or even the Dancing Israelis. The entry level into 9-11 truth should stay user friendly and as completely noncontroversial as possible using simple factoids directly from MSM (of which there are plenty). Many in the media audiance are just at the entry level... <p></p><i></i>

[5E6A]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm">"Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins."</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Did not a few people, ostensibly presumed to be inside at time of collapse, get pulled from the ruble of one collapse, or even perhaps both? How did they avoid being boiled from within? I do not subscribe to the popular explanation of how Islamic Fundamentalists that hate us for our freedoms were the sum total of how 9/11 occurred. I do not, however, see how nuclear, regardless of isotope and yield, could have been a part of the real architects' itinerary. <p></p><i></i>

[Sweejak]

This is only misdirection if you let it misdirect you. I mean the counterclaim could be made that the real misdirection is not looking at it. The real tragedy is the infighting it engenders.<br><br>I don't know what brought down the towers. I am pretty sure some things didn't. I'm not a scientist or a crash investigator so I generally have to defer to those that are. I can use my intuition, not to minimize that, but that is all that is, and I have my lifelong experience with practical physics on Earth, which makes me think that wings are supposed to fall off is contrary to my experience with things physical. Aren't they essentially liquid fuel filled aluminum balloons? Personally I think at that speed they more splashed than crashed.<br><br>Then too there are some things that don't make sense at the outset, like using a missile to hit the Pentagon when only one random tourist photo or video could have totally destroyed that story. Why not use a plane, it's obvious that they were able too that. If for some reason they couldn't use a plane why not just use a truck bomb? <br><br>If I took this photo <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://home.chello.no/~trondh/911/wtc2_collapse_liten.jpg">home.chello.no/~trondh/91..._liten.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> and labeled it "this is not an explosion" It would strike me as funny as Magritte's "this is not a pipe" painting. That's what my intuition tells me.<br><br>Anyway, to compare, no one needs to know what kind of bomb set the Reichstag on fire, it's the political uses of the fire that are in plain sight.<br><br>Meanwhile, Vialls had a few write ups on his Bali "mini nuke" idea:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.vialls.com/">www.vialls.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

When I say I find the argument about nukes compelling I mean I find the argument compelling, not madsen or the latest proponent of the argument.<br><br>I really think it does a disservice both to the argument and to madsen to personalize it...to say it is not a good scenario because madsen is reporting on it....and to say that anything that madsen says is false because he's saying it. Ruppert and others including John O'Neill have security backgrounds...does not necessarily mean they're from the cabal.<br><br>Madsen is not the first and is not the one who got me intrigued with the nuke theory...and I remember when I was totally called a 'wing nut' just for not believing the official version...so taking a rarified viewpoint doesn't intimidate me in the least.<br><br>But in the case of Madsen...as I repeat...he gets his information from FEMA. Now...are these folks lying or disinfo? What reason would they have?<br><br>If you believe in HAARP then you know there's a lot we as common citizens do not know about high teck weaponry.<br><br>If they're developing bunker buster nuclear bombs and Star Wars nuclear bombs then I'm sure they've also refined the mini nuke and the suitcase bomb.<br><br>I would like to hear some of those who dismiss out of hand the idea of nukes give us some of their scenarios for explaining the huge explosions and the pulverization of concrete and the large pools of molten metal.<br><br>If they can't, then they should admit that and give credit to others who have confronted this physical evidence and tried to explain it.<br><br>gc <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"I would like to hear some of those who dismiss out of hand the idea of nukes give us some of their scenarios for explaining the huge explosions and the pulverization of concrete and the large pools of molten metal."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Since I'm not a structural engineer and don't even play one on the Internet, my scenario would be just more campfire chat around Ground Zero.<br><br>My gut's telling me this is bullshit that won't lead anywhere, and when we get into speculation I tend to listen to it. If I'm wrong, great, but my choice is to add this to the disinformation pile.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

i'm no engineer either, nor physicist,<br>but i challenge anyone to watch the steven jones presentations or read the updated paper and refute the basic evidence he presents,<br>perhaps jeff you could take a wild stab in the dark at how hot spots are present at the site weeks after the event,<br>and also thermite didnt create the huge spikes in the audio of the event, <br>and it didnt eject material 6/700ft up and out from the collapse <p></p><i></i>

[woochisilence]

abou time this possibilty o be discussed. the only other place i have heard about this is on the cloak. stew webb and tom of venice have brought it up shows <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

smithtalk, my comments referred to the new "mini-nuke" contention, not CD, of which I'm merely agnostic. <p></p><i></i>

[smithtalk]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the value of certain claims as truth are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent.<br><br>c'mon jeff, jump <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

I don't have the expertise to evaluate the claims.<br><br>I don't want to pretend to know what "thermite reactions" are supposed to look like.<br><br>I don't like evidence that depends on someone telling me what I'm supposed to be seeing in a picture or on a video.<br><br>I'm skeptical of the motivation of some of its intel-connected proponents.<br><br>I think "How" has effectively buried "Who." <br><br>I'm turned off by the "with us or against us" absolutes with which many of its adherents speak.<br><br>It's fine for some. But for me, this is a dead end. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 9/13/06 10:46 pm<br></i>