Zook
5th September 2010, 00:20
Next week is the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a collection of same-day events that has catalyzed the death-by-a-thousand-cuts destruction of the American way of life. While worse atrocities have been committed elsewhere in the world by the psychopathic ruling elites (let's not mince words here; dharmam requires us to call out those responsible for the psychopathy in the strongest possible terms); none has given the world a bigger opportunity to expose and ultimately bring down the current morally-indefensible, essentially global, structurally pyramidal system of human organization ... I'm talking, of course, the 9/11 attacks.
Exposition of those responsible for the attacks needs to be factual, not conjectural. Evidence needs to be corroborative, not contradictory, and where contradictory, the stronger evidence shall prevail. Arguments should be rational; they should build from the observable evidence and erect conclusions, not topple from erected conclusions onto faulty premises. With that in mind, let's begin from a point of agreement. I think we can all agree there were four primary nodes in the Nine Eleven Attacks (NEA); and we can also agree that a singular hypothesis was disseminated from the get-go and drummed incessantly by the popular media, namely, that Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks.
Now, we can quickly (or slowly, if that's your cup of tea) establish - using introductory physics, eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC7 prior to either of the twin towers collapsing, comparative analysis using videos of skyscrapers brought down with controlled demolition techniques, self-incriminating statements by the building's owner, MSM's incredible premature reporting of its collapse, etc.) ... that WTC7 was brought down via controlled demolition. To wit, steel-framed skyscrapers simply don't collapse unto themselves at near free fall speeds unless the resisting mass below them is removed first.
With the finding of controlled demolition, then, we can remove Osama bin Laden from the perpetrator's box. If you believe that he had access to the WTC7, then I'll believe that the Arctic tundra is overrun with pink hippos chasing purple giraffes. In any event, that leaves us with two options. One, we must either find a credible enemy with sufficient security clearance to access WTC7's potential demolition points ... or two, we must find a credible friend with sufficient security clearance. WTC7 was a building that housed intelligence operations (among other things); to think that any enemy would have *any* security clearances in that building let alone sufficient clearance to access potential demolition points, is patently absurd. If we bolster this with the fact that the government continues to blame bin Laden (even though he can be logically removed from the perpetrator's box), we can safely conclude that a friend with intimate connections to the government masterminded the controlled demolition of WTC7. Period. The Inside Job nature of the WTC7 node of the NEA is thus established. But if one node establishes Inside Job, then all nodes must point to the same Inside Job mastermind(s). To have independent masterminds planning and executing independent attacks in the same time window, well, that would be running pink hippos and purple giraffes on a white range all over again.
Having established the general Inside Job (at all nodes), we can turn the compass on the specifics, namely, who, why, how, for whose benefit, etc. The specifics must corroborate with the establishment of Inside Job; if not, they must be discarded. Turning to the Pentagon attack node, then, I give you two documentaries which provide corroborating evidence for the Inside Job (established at the WTC7 node, and by extension, at all nodes). Taken together, the documentaries provide incontrovertible proof of the Citgo gas station Northside approach of the putative Boeing jetliner and the subsequent flyover (over the roof of the Pentagon):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#docid=996642030910430700
Cheers
Uncle Zook
Exposition of those responsible for the attacks needs to be factual, not conjectural. Evidence needs to be corroborative, not contradictory, and where contradictory, the stronger evidence shall prevail. Arguments should be rational; they should build from the observable evidence and erect conclusions, not topple from erected conclusions onto faulty premises. With that in mind, let's begin from a point of agreement. I think we can all agree there were four primary nodes in the Nine Eleven Attacks (NEA); and we can also agree that a singular hypothesis was disseminated from the get-go and drummed incessantly by the popular media, namely, that Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks.
Now, we can quickly (or slowly, if that's your cup of tea) establish - using introductory physics, eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC7 prior to either of the twin towers collapsing, comparative analysis using videos of skyscrapers brought down with controlled demolition techniques, self-incriminating statements by the building's owner, MSM's incredible premature reporting of its collapse, etc.) ... that WTC7 was brought down via controlled demolition. To wit, steel-framed skyscrapers simply don't collapse unto themselves at near free fall speeds unless the resisting mass below them is removed first.
With the finding of controlled demolition, then, we can remove Osama bin Laden from the perpetrator's box. If you believe that he had access to the WTC7, then I'll believe that the Arctic tundra is overrun with pink hippos chasing purple giraffes. In any event, that leaves us with two options. One, we must either find a credible enemy with sufficient security clearance to access WTC7's potential demolition points ... or two, we must find a credible friend with sufficient security clearance. WTC7 was a building that housed intelligence operations (among other things); to think that any enemy would have *any* security clearances in that building let alone sufficient clearance to access potential demolition points, is patently absurd. If we bolster this with the fact that the government continues to blame bin Laden (even though he can be logically removed from the perpetrator's box), we can safely conclude that a friend with intimate connections to the government masterminded the controlled demolition of WTC7. Period. The Inside Job nature of the WTC7 node of the NEA is thus established. But if one node establishes Inside Job, then all nodes must point to the same Inside Job mastermind(s). To have independent masterminds planning and executing independent attacks in the same time window, well, that would be running pink hippos and purple giraffes on a white range all over again.
Having established the general Inside Job (at all nodes), we can turn the compass on the specifics, namely, who, why, how, for whose benefit, etc. The specifics must corroborate with the establishment of Inside Job; if not, they must be discarded. Turning to the Pentagon attack node, then, I give you two documentaries which provide corroborating evidence for the Inside Job (established at the WTC7 node, and by extension, at all nodes). Taken together, the documentaries provide incontrovertible proof of the Citgo gas station Northside approach of the putative Boeing jetliner and the subsequent flyover (over the roof of the Pentagon):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#docid=996642030910430700
Cheers
Uncle Zook