That doesn't address the point I was making since I was talking about the "they let it happen" narrative....but eitherway I gotta say as a gut reaction that looks like a dicey source and I find any controlled demolition claims pretty laughable
This bugged me for a long time too. Why not make some of the hijackers Iraqi? I tried to synthesize this with the evidence above and thought of a few possible reasons. I think 9/11 wasn’t primarily about Iraq, but about increasing fears of terrorism and Muslims broadly, as part of Gladio B, in order to justify a broad array of actions for decades to come. There is also evidence that it was a Mossad op with possibly minimal CIA involvement. Or maybe they used Saudi hijackers because it was convenient since the US has a close relationship with Saudi Arabia and they had plenty of operatives available.
See: this is what I'm talking about. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that the nationalities didn't matter since they were just trying to engender a more general fear of muslims and terrorism abroad....that notion is completely undermined by the fact that the majority of the hijackers were from saudi arabia and the united states and the entire media did damn near everything they could to avoid addressing that inconvenient truth.
Occam's razor still tells me that its far more likely they cherry picked and maximized convenient facts and downplayed inconvenient parts in order to maximize their ability to take advantage of the situation rather then inventing it out of whole cloth.
That doesn’t address the point I was making since I was talking about the “they let it happen” narrative
I realize you were talking about a smoking gun for a different theory, but I couldn't help but introduce what I think is the most important piece of evidence in this whole saga.
I gotta say as a gut reaction that looks like a dicey source and I find any controlled demolition claims pretty laughable
Gut reactions can be helpful discriminators in some situations, but they are no replacement for in-depth critical examination, and they can sometimes be psychological defense mechanisms.
The source is a pretty detailed and comprehensive scientific paper. It's an open journal which means no peer review, so you have to study it and judge the quality of the evidence for yourself (homework, bleh!). I have some expertise in the field and I read the whole thing looking for obvious oversights and I was honestly shocked at how strong the evidence was.
Here's why it was compelling to me: nanothermite consists of nanometer scale particles of iron oxide and elemental (reduced) aluminum that have been intimately mixed together to allow a tiny gap between each and every particle. The only way to create this is to mix them together in a liquid suspension and then add a gelling agent to solidify the mixture and lock the particles in position, ready for ignition. It's extremely difficult to create because of the scales involved, so it requires a military-grade lab. It's not something that could be accidentally created in an explosion.
The authors found tiny magnetic chips (about 0.1 to 1mm across) in the debris, which looked like paint chips. They cracked them open to examine a clean part on their inside. They took photographs of it with an electron microscope, and used X-ray spectroscopy to analyze the chemical composition and they found that the red layer of the chips were made of spheres of iron oxide about 50 nm across and rectangular plates of reduced aluminum 100 nm long that had been mixed together and suspended in a solid organic matrix.
They also took the chips and put them in a calorimeter to measure their exortherms, and confirmed that they had the same explosive properties as laboratory nanothermite, so there's no doubt about its destructive ability. It was literally undetonated chips of nanothermite, and they found them in each of the four locations that were sampled, and in a relative quantity that would correspond to several tons in all of the debris.
that notion is completely undermined by the fact that the majority of the hijackers were from saudi arabia and the united states and the entire media did damn near everything they could to avoid addressing that inconvenient truth.
I said that 9/11 was to engender a fear of Muslims. The media did not avoid addressing the fact that they were Muslim. If anything, it was played up. Their nationalities were played down.
It’s an open journal which means no peer review, so you have to study it and judge the quality of the evidence for yourself (homework, bleh!). I have some expertise in the field and I read the whole thing looking for obvious oversights and I was honestly shocked at how strong the evidence was.
Well I have no expertise whatsoever and am not qualified to do my own research on this...so I'm gonna have to just disregard on the grounds that its not peer reviewed. Sorry not sorry.
I said that 9/11 was to engender a fear of Muslims. The media did not avoid addressing the fact that they were Muslim. If anything, it was played up. Their nationalities were played down.
Yes, and that's exactly my point. Their nationalities were an inconvenience to the narrative they wanted to tell so the media had to ignore it.
If it was a CIA operation in the first place why would that be an issue? If you genuinely believe that 9/11 was executed to that extent under the control of the intelligence communities I find it pretty dubious that they wouldn't find or fabricate some Iraqi plants given everything else they had to do.
Again...however many holes 9/11 conspiracy theories may fill they inevitably necessitate the creation of a ton more.
Well I have no expertise whatsoever and am not qualified to do my own research on this…so I’m gonna have to just disregard on the grounds that its not peer reviewed. Sorry not sorry.
I understand, comrade. Your skepticism is warranted; I'd do the same thing in your shoes. Just keep in mind that the evidence exists, and maybe show it to someone whose opinion you trust someday. That's all I ask.
Yes, and that’s exactly my point. Their nationalities were an inconvenience to the narrative they wanted to tell so the media had to ignore it. If it was a CIA operation in the first place why would that be an issue?
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, I agree that is a stumbling block to the CIA theory, or at least a part that doesn't yet make sense.
However It's less relevant if it turns out that the Mossad was the primary actor. I wonder how relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are.
That doesn't address the point I was making since I was talking about the "they let it happen" narrative....but eitherway I gotta say as a gut reaction that looks like a dicey source and I find any controlled demolition claims pretty laughable
See: this is what I'm talking about. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that the nationalities didn't matter since they were just trying to engender a more general fear of muslims and terrorism abroad....that notion is completely undermined by the fact that the majority of the hijackers were from saudi arabia and the united states and the entire media did damn near everything they could to avoid addressing that inconvenient truth.
Occam's razor still tells me that its far more likely they cherry picked and maximized convenient facts and downplayed inconvenient parts in order to maximize their ability to take advantage of the situation rather then inventing it out of whole cloth.
I realize you were talking about a smoking gun for a different theory, but I couldn't help but introduce what I think is the most important piece of evidence in this whole saga.
Gut reactions can be helpful discriminators in some situations, but they are no replacement for in-depth critical examination, and they can sometimes be psychological defense mechanisms.
The source is a pretty detailed and comprehensive scientific paper.
It's an open journal which means no peer review, so you have to study it and judge the quality of the evidence for yourself (homework, bleh!).I have some expertise in the field and I read the whole thing looking for obvious oversights and I was honestly shocked at how strong the evidence was.Here's why it was compelling to me: nanothermite consists of nanometer scale particles of iron oxide and elemental (reduced) aluminum that have been intimately mixed together to allow a tiny gap between each and every particle. The only way to create this is to mix them together in a liquid suspension and then add a gelling agent to solidify the mixture and lock the particles in position, ready for ignition. It's extremely difficult to create because of the scales involved, so it requires a military-grade lab. It's not something that could be accidentally created in an explosion.
The authors found tiny magnetic chips (about 0.1 to 1mm across) in the debris, which looked like paint chips. They cracked them open to examine a clean part on their inside. They took photographs of it with an electron microscope, and used X-ray spectroscopy to analyze the chemical composition and they found that the red layer of the chips were made of spheres of iron oxide about 50 nm across and rectangular plates of reduced aluminum 100 nm long that had been mixed together and suspended in a solid organic matrix.
They also took the chips and put them in a calorimeter to measure their exortherms, and confirmed that they had the same explosive properties as laboratory nanothermite, so there's no doubt about its destructive ability. It was literally undetonated chips of nanothermite, and they found them in each of the four locations that were sampled, and in a relative quantity that would correspond to several tons in all of the debris.
I said that 9/11 was to engender a fear of Muslims. The media did not avoid addressing the fact that they were Muslim. If anything, it was played up. Their nationalities were played down.
Well I have no expertise whatsoever and am not qualified to do my own research on this...so I'm gonna have to just disregard on the grounds that its not peer reviewed. Sorry not sorry.
Yes, and that's exactly my point. Their nationalities were an inconvenience to the narrative they wanted to tell so the media had to ignore it. If it was a CIA operation in the first place why would that be an issue? If you genuinely believe that 9/11 was executed to that extent under the control of the intelligence communities I find it pretty dubious that they wouldn't find or fabricate some Iraqi plants given everything else they had to do. Again...however many holes 9/11 conspiracy theories may fill they inevitably necessitate the creation of a ton more.
I understand, comrade. Your skepticism is warranted; I'd do the same thing in your shoes. Just keep in mind that the evidence exists, and maybe show it to someone whose opinion you trust someday. That's all I ask.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, I agree that is a stumbling block to the CIA theory, or at least a part that doesn't yet make sense.
However It's less relevant if it turns out that the Mossad was the primary actor. I wonder how relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are.
Wait---my assumption was wrong. The journal is peer-reviewed; it's just a lower-tier journal. Marginalization is expected for third rail topics.