Killers, Thieves & Lawyers
The key to making a big carrot more enticing is to hold the big stick out for comparison. In 2008, the Mexican head of SIEDO (Mexico’s Federal Organized Crime Division), Noe Ramirez Mandujano was charged with accepting around $450K in bribes from the Beltran Leyva gang in the western state of Sinaloa. What they don’t tell the public is that Ramirez was almost definitely threatened with the rape, torture and murder of his wife and children if he declined the opportunity to work for the cartel. Big carrot. Big stick.
This is an easy choice–for anyone. Even the most principled among us would find a choice like that easy to make. Take money (enough to retire comfortably) and inform for the cartel, or keep your career in tact and lose your life, love and family. In other words, “take the money or we’ll ruin your life, painfully and permanently.”
Yet, despite this easy equation, most people still cannot accept that this formula plays itself out in a number of high-stakes situations. This is simply a psychological barrier–not a logical one.
So, it should come as no surprise that forces within our own unelected government should conspire (yes, I said it), to end the lives of civilian citizens in pursuit of gold and aversion to pain. What exactly do I mean? Were these groups threatened explicitly with murder of their families? Probably not. Were they implicitly threatened? Most likely. Did they understand the scope of what was at stake? Hard to say.
Take a gander at the purely physical evidence:
- Iron-based microspheres found in WTC dust
- Steel beams found in WTC complex showing signs of a “high temperature sulfidation-corrosion attack at the grain boundary of the steel”
- Tiny red-gray chips that are composed of relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and alumino-silicate particles that, when ignited, combust and form iron-based microspheres
The existence of this evidence is undeniable. The only point of contention is what the evidence does or does not mean. These constituent parts are, without any doubt, high technology. For example, 5 grams of uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 costs about $49. Purchasing this substance in any quantity will necessarily leave a paper trail. There are only a few labs that both produce this substance and are greatly influential in nano-energetic materials research. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is the leader in nano-energetic materials. Not surprisingly, they have a long and close relationship with the Pentagon as a research arm of the US military.
Why should this substance, which has been shown to be found in relatively high concentrations in the WTC dust, be there in the first place? It’s definitely not paint chips, or the paint itself would cost several hundred dollars a gallon, at least. It’s flammable and been demonstrated to have a very high energy release signature–much like an explosive–a weaponized version of thermite, it appears.
This stuff is there. It’s there in abundance. It’s by-products are there in abundance. It has an energy signature very much like an explosive. It burns around 4000F. If any real official investigation had taken place, these pieces of evidence would at least have question marks next to them. Instead they are simply cast as irrelevant and summarily dismissed.
At any rate, the hard facts point to a plot devised by at least two people whose aim it was to use the acts of violence planned for 9/11/01 to expedite their own agendas. This would require a few things. For starters:
- Access to real-time military intelligence
- Ability to make or influence “black budget” items
- Secure communications systems
- Close relations to military contractors
So far, the list of requirements to effect the kind of operation necessary would only be possible by a high-ranking government official–civilian or military. Shocker.
What tends to get lost in this analysis is that a plan like this wears no political allegiance. It is neither Republican nor Democrat nor Independent. It is simply a business venture. A high-risk business venture.
It is also very unlikely the President Bush had any kind of knowledge whatsoever about plans regarding riding waves of extremist violence to further an agenda. When people start implicating the president, it serves only to make the claims appear rooted in politics. This is neither likely nor even useful in determining what actually happened that day and who is actually responsible.
Can we at least agree that there is some significant evidence that needs to be explained one way or another?