Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, November 28, 2005

9-11: Consider the strange order -- Explosives planted, then . . .

There's been some talk about 9-11. It occurred to me that there's something perhaps very strange.

People don't normally place explosives, confirm they are ready, but then not use them.

Until . . .

This got me thinking about previous claims: WTC had explosives already in place, prior to their collapse.

Have you considered:

  • The explosions in the WTC basement

  • How the towers fell at the same rate

    It appears as though the WTC had explosives in them.

    * * *

    Let's consider something. Think very methodically, one step at a time.

    Go back to 9-11.

    Simply look at the buildings before they fell down, collapsed.

    What do you know?

    There are explosives in them.

    But the explosives haven't gone off.

    * * *

    That's the point.

    * * *

    All this time we've been led to believe "airplanes hit buildings, and then explosives went off" . . .

    But there's a problem.

    If "someone" wanted to do damage: Why didn't they simply explode the buildings when they had the chance, and not wait for the aircraft, missiles, or "whatever" collided?

    That's the key question.

    * * *

    Go back to 9-11 again, the day before.

    Think about the building.

    It has explosives in it.

    But the buildings are still standing.

    What is the purpose of "not exploding the buildings" when they had the chance?

    Why would a group of people go to the trouble of putting explosives in a building, but not detonate them right away?

    * * *

    The answer is that the explosives were placed with the knowledge that they would be detonated at a later date, but not immediately.

    Yet, we are asked to believe, "There was a goal to take down the towers."

    Why didn't they detonate the explosives when they had the chance?

    * * *

    The answer appears to be:

  • A. Someone wanted to explode the building at a precise time or after a specific event.

  • B. Despite having explosives in the WTC, they knew not to detonate the building right away;

  • C. They were waiting for the "later event" before exploding the building.

    * * *

    Did they put the explosives in the building to take down the building?

    Yes and no.

    The purpose of the explosives, if it was to take down the building, is not linked with "taking down the building" -- because if they "wanted to take down the building" ... why not simply take down the building when all the explosives were in place?

    The answer appears to be: They waited for a specific reason, a specific time, or a specific event. . .

    That was known in advance, at the time the explosives were placed would occur; otherwise, if they "didn't know about the event, time, or incident" that would occur, why didn't they independently detonate the explosives before the 9-11 attacks?

    The only way they'd know "not to detonate the explosives" when they were in place was if they knew about something else; or they were told after they finished placing the explosives "wait . . .do not detonate them . . . yet."

    * * *

  • Who would put explosives in a building, but not detonate them after they were placed?

  • Why would we believe "they wanted to take the building down," but they didn't use the explosives until something else happened?

  • How did they know, in advance, that despite the explosives being in place, they wouldn't detonate them until a later time?

  • If someone has placed explosives in a building, with the intent to take down the building, but hasn't used them, why did the place the explosives in the first place?

  • If someone had the ability to take down a building, and the explosives were in place, how did they know to wait; and how did they know that a later event would occur, triggering the explosives?

  • Why would someone or a group, that had the ability to take down the building, make a specific decision to "not pull the trigger" or "not put into use" the very explosives that were positioned?

  • What would someone do to explain why they "Put explosives in a building, but didn't use them, and were waiting for something else to happen?"

  • Did the people who placed the explosives have the knowledge of the imminent collisions by missiles, aircraft, or other objects; or were they told to wait "until something else happened"; if so, what were they told to "wait for"?

  • Why would someone take order so "plant explosives," but not ask, "When do you want this to happen?"

  • Why would someone, who had planted explosives in the towers, not think it odd that, despite the explosives being in place, they weren't being used?

  • Why would someone, who had planted explosives in the tower, not think it was odd that the capability, that existed to take down the buildings, wasn't put into effect when the explosives were ready?

    * * *

    It makes no sense to argue the objective of the explosives was "just to take down the building." Because if that were the case -- then they'd simply detonate them, and that would be the end of it.

    But it wasn't the end.

    Planting the explosives was only the beginning.

    Let's assume "someone who planed the explosives didn't know the whole story."

    That would then mean, despite planning the explosives that were ready and able to take down the buildings, someone had to say, "Even though everything is ready, don't use them . . . until . . .[Something else happens]":

  • A call

  • An event

    This means that there had to be cell phone traffic from the people who were involved prior to 9-11 to confirm:

  • We are ready

  • The explosives that are ready, are not going off

  • We are waiting

    And then there had to be other communications which said:

  • We understand you are ready

  • Wait for our confirmation to detonate

  • Standby

  • OK, you are clear to use the explosives that we've told you not to use, but you can now detonate them.

    * * *

  • Where are the tapes of these communications?

  • Who made them?

  • Who was discussing the placement of the explosives with the knowledge that there would be a subsequent number of other communications just prior and on 9-11?

    Something to think about: People don't place explosives that take down buildings unless they want to use them.

    But 9-11 was different: Someone placed the explosives; then had to confirm they were ready; then make a decision not to use them until a specific subsequent event occurred:

  • A command

  • A communication

  • A confirming event

  • A specific incident.

    * * *

    The purpose of 9-11 wasn’t to destroy the WTC.

    The purpose was to make a bowery inferno, and destroy a landmark.

    The goal was to blame someone.

    The objective was to demand a fast response.

    Nothing adds up.

    Why would someone, who was a “crazed terrorist” that had placed explosives in the building, not simply detonate the explosives when they had the chance?

    We’re asked to believe, despite the placement of explosives, that they would wait until a second round of other events occurred.

    * * *

    What would have happened if the “hijackings” [if that was what happened] didn’t occur; were they going to detonate the explosives then?

    If, despite a possible “non hijacking” they were going to “detonate the explosives anyway,” why not simply detonate them regardless, at the time that the explosives were ready?

    Perhaps this explains why WTC 7 detonations occurred: There was supposed to be another aircraft, mirages, or missile attack on that building. . . but it didn’t happen as planned?

    * * *

    I think there are other events that happened during 9-11 that “didn’t go according to the original plan”:

  • Why did WTC7 detonate, but there was no collision?

  • Who placed explosives in WTC7, but knew to “not use them” despite the explosives being ready?

  • How many people who worked in WTC7 knew the real purpose of the government offices in the US Postal Office?

    * * *

    People who commit crimes always make mistakes.

    These people, despite their planning, are not perfect.

    They show a poor understanding of physics and the rules of evidence.

    These people do not appear to be lawyers or sophisticated forensic scientists. Rather, they appear to be show people. Ones who are masters at deception and the appearance of something.

    Collisions. Holograms. Missiles going off. Fiery explosions. But the story doesn’t add up.

    * * *

    Who from Hollywood or the motion picture or video business would be in a position to orchestrate all the technical detains of the perfect “live action shot”?

    How much money did they get from overseas lobbyists?

    What relationship does these “movie experts” have with the people who supposedly Sibel Edmonds says were sending money through Azerbaijan?

    Makes you wonder if they’re a lobbyist. Maybe they have a lot of contacts.

    And to think they would have to be really familiar with all the sights of the North East.

    Kind of makes you wonder who that person might be, where they are now, where they’re living, which websites their reading, and whether they’re already under surveillance.

    * * *

    Let’s think about the FBI and the current investigation into the lobbying problems. You don’t think that Sibel Edmonds was onto something when she was talking about Azerbaijan?

    What could possibly be the connection between video, New York, Azerbaijan, and the movie business?

    Think, think, think! What could it possibly be?

    * * *

    Then they have to wonder:

  • Does someone have a link between the videos and Azerbaijan

  • Is someone alive today that knows what really happened

  • What kind of experience do they have in making pictures of big explosions

  • How did they know to be where they were to capture on film all those explosions

    * * *

    The problem people in the movie business have is when they are told to photograph something, but they don’t physically understand what it is they’re filming.

    Conversely, what if they’ve been told that “the image we’re trying to capture” is something; but what they’re actually witnessing is something else.

    Imagine you’re a videographer in New York on 9-11. You’ve got this cushy job. You’re on a contract. You’re getting a lot of money to cover a specific RNC event.

    They tell you to go capture some “scenic views” of the skyline. And in advance you’ve got some layout sheets of the final production.

    There you are: Everyone has agreed that the “perfect lighting” for the specific shots of the World Trade Center just happen to correspond to the angle of the sun when the length of the shadow is the same as the height of the building.

    Isn’t that convenient.

    And it just happens to occur at 9:00 in the morning.

    Wow! Who would bother to put all this together?

    * * *

    You don’t think the US Attorney’s office already knows this?

    Or, could it be that there’s another group of people that have been waiting to reveal who’s been involved?

    Then again, perhaps it’s all going to disappear, and nobody will bother asking questions. Not at all.

    Nobody will figure it out.

    Nobody will think to ask.

    Everyone will believe what they see. The camera never lies.

    Especially when the liars are lying.

    * * *

    It’s all so confusing and mysterious.

    Is it going to get more fun?

    FBI agents like to put things together.

    They also like to take people apart.

    GTMO. Abu Ghraib. Wet towels.

    Black ninja costumes. Eastern Europe.

    How many Americans are going to get “special attention” to tell us what really happened on 9-11?

    If you’re a stupid camera man, you’ll just call on your cell phone and make it all go away.

    Cell phones are for sissies.

    Next time, try something that actually works.

    You’ve been traced.

    Thank you for reading.

    * * *

    This is what a single, relatively benign explosive cache-detonation looks like:

    It is a single burst.

    This is not what happens when there is an aircraft impact; nor is it what happens when jet fuel explodes; nor what happens when aircraft explode.

  • Which contract/government crew was told to place a "training cache" in the middle of a civilian field in Pennsylvania?

    * * *

    This is what an object looks like when, after it has been recovered from salvage, has been placed in a bunch of leaves:

    Note there is a problem: Supposedly this came from a "big explosion" on the ground, but if that is true: The leaves around the object should have caught on fire.

    They're still "not burnt." That makes no sense.

  • Where did they get the spare parts

  • Which person, by name, placed the object

    * * *

    This is what happens when you have someone place paper in the middle of a field in Philadelphia:

    The paper, as was the paper at the towers, should have burnt along with the "big explosion" that was incorrectly fused with insufficient explosive power.

  • Who placed the paper on the ground

    Unlike the team that worked on the WTC photo shoot, this team appears to be more of an expert in "simulating' things, rather than in actually destroying real buildings.

    If this was an actual explosion, we should have come across something that resembles:

  • An accident

  • Someone on the ground who was near the explosion should have been hurt

    But we have no reports of training-personnel getting hurt.

  • Where did they practice this

  • Which specific US Army National special forces team was tasked to train those who would place this explosive

    Recall that the Ft Collins was the location where the modified jets were created.

    The issue becomes: Was this "create jets and find explosives"-problem conveniently co-located in Colorado:

  • Did the special forces units in Colorado get tasked to provide the training

  • is there a recurring link between the video, training, and other pre-positioning on explosives linking back to Colorado?

    I haven't heard much discussion on the most likely units, personnel, and training facilities that would possibly be involved to carry off this type of operation.

    It's time to presume that US military units, perhaps CIA contractors, were involved; and that they continue to remain in place in the United States.

  • Where are they

  • What are they talking about

  • What have they done after the incident

  • How have they put their "lessons learned from the 9-11 demolitions" into "future use"

    You'll be found. You've made plenty of mistakes.

    Your commander in chief may be a tyrant, and be surrounded by people who say he can "do whatever he wants."

    But you can't stop people from putting this together.

    You're going to lose.

    If you were all powerful, and your commander in chief could really 'do anything,' then he would stop this.

    It continues.

    And you know that we know.

    * * *

    Problem: You got lazy and arrogant after covering up the space aliens and JFK non-sense.

    It was easy to paint others as "crazy."

    Nothing adds up.

    You're crazy for believing otherwise.

    The more you cover up things in 2005, the more it does to show that the original fairy tale from 9-11 in 2001 wasn't planned well.

    What other mistakes are you going to make?

    You are not perfect.

    We will find you.

    No amount of stonewalling by the White House or Congress is going to stop us.

    You're going to lose.

    You've wished for this.

    Hoc voluerunt!