Former FBI Agent Says 9-11 Hijackers had U.S.-based support

NY Post ^ | 09/04/2021 | Dana Kennedy

[basalt]

anything that has jessie ventura involved is pure lunacy...

[null and void]

Amusing thing I saw on one of my rare TV watching spasms:

A show on Nikola Tesla.

Segment on his ‘earthquake machine’ a thumper that periodically excited a structure at its resonant frequency.
The claim was that when Tesla tried it, the entire building he mounted in on started to shake and he wisely stopped, the declared he could bring down NYC with a similar unit.

Cut to a commercial showing one of the WTC towers disintegrating...

[GregNH]

He is not involved. Only his comment because it happens to be relevant. But you are welcome to shot the messenger anyway.

[Fred Nerks]

Agreed, I watched the towers turn into dust, was astonished at the 'melted cars'

Anyone who takes the time to study the work of Judy Wood will never be able to accept the official version.

[Rockingham]

My problem with these kinds of presentations is that they do not offer a clear thesis with an organized body of evidence and argument in support of it. Instead, the authors profess credentials and expertise and deliver a mass of material and insist that it proves something or other amounting to nothing more than seemingly ominous questions and suspicions.

You may be a retired engineer, but I am a retired lawyer with a late in life career shift to professional political research. I know BS and BS artists all too well. For many years, my living depended on detecting lies and ferreting out and proving the truth.

Lack of clarity is a sign that someone is running a con or is a fool. On provocative and troubling subjects, both abound.

When reinforced concrete fails under overwhelming stress, it breaks up into dust, concrete fragments, and twisted rebar. Aside from the size of the WTC and the horror of the 9/11 attack, no one has shown me anything in the failure of the WTC that contradicts physics, engineering, and common sense.

[GregNH]

One would think that a lawyer would look at the "evidence" before coming to a conclusion.

[Rockingham]

I did look at the supposed evidence. But what is it supposed to prove? And who do I sue for wasting my time?

[GregNH]

So you didn't see steel beams turn to dust before your eyes? You didn't see twisted steel beams with no stress related breaks, cracks, heat trails, or other signs? You didn't see almost perfect round hole in glass? You didn't see burnt portions of cars where there is no signs heat damage right next to what appears to be burnt metal? What happened to the engines of these cars that simply disappeared? I could on and on.

I think you are being disingenuous. Go to another thread and stop wasting your time here.

[Rockingham]

What proposition is being contended for? IF there is none, then all the supposed evidence is immaterial as it does not engage on an issue.

[GregNH]

Simply what happened to the buildings. It is clear that a direct energy technology was used. Judy clearly demonstrates that with the evidence.

[Rockingham]

What exactly is meant by “directed energy technology”? That Ming the Merciless zapped the buildings with a secret power beam? Or something more real world? If so, how was such a weapon put in place and used so precisely in a city thick with tall buildings? And is there any evidence that such a weapon exists?

[Fred Nerks]

YouTube posted a link to the official 9/11 story that you can use to contrast with the evidence highlighted in this video, then decide for yourself if their story addressed the issue using the scientific method. Why couldn’t the National Geographic (or BBC) experts melt steel with thermite?
NOTE: THERMATE = Thermite + SULFUR
(The FEMA report could not explain the source of the SULFUR ) Learn more: www.911speakout.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g