Re: Collapse-A Documentary- Mike Ruppert
Not sure, but Paul’s quote:
[quote]’… all I ask is that you scroll down to page 690. There you’ll find something quite astounding. Absolutely no referrence to thermite within the index!”[/quote]
Needs to be expanded upon.
Paul, Thermite was one of the core contentions of the 9/11 “inside Job movement”, as the chemical composition was found as residue in the debris.
This is something we examined in a previous thread, and mentioning it here was only to expand on one of centrifugal points of the argument. It doesn’t really need to be rehashed, but it is important, as if the claim is made that saboteurs used thermite to destroy the Twin Towers, this contention can be used to set a known limit on just how “inside” the job was; ergo, if we found SEMTEX with a signature from New Mexico in the rubble, it would be very hard to explain.
Aluminium oxide in a crash involving metal, aluminium and high temperatures is a little bit more ambigious.
I don’t doubt that there was negligence on behalf of our LE and INTEL communities, but I *seriously* doubt some of the more extreme assertions – and thus far, not much evidence has been provided to indicate it was.
What we need to set are the facts – bonafide, tried and true facts.
Were they hijacked? By who?
What kind of airplanes? How heavy? What speed of travel?
What was angle of strike? How much fuel?
How fast do buildings collapse? What is the standard rate of fall?
All these things are going to contribute to the research.
The point I’ve been trying to make this whole damned time is research doesn’t make a bit of difference if you’ve already made your conclusion. This is the natural flaw in the Scientific Method. Believing is seeing.
Edited to remove the word “truther”. It just sounds derrogatory.