Jon Gold Caught With His LIHOP Pants Down

I'm done investigating it. I believe Richard Gage, Dr. David Ray Griffin, and the others have done a sufficient job of that. I want to see the case be put to court and people subpoenaed and put under oath. I have moved on to the publicity phase of the movement. I am confident we have a case that deserves to be heard and I'm working on convincing enough others of the same. But I appreciate anyone else doing whatever they want to do to help get this cause heard and get more attention and quality information to the people of this country.

If we are going to compare CDs for the presence of molten metal, then we should also compare them for what kind of explosives were used in the demolition.

and that you are well aware that the destruction of the Twin Towers was unprecedented, that commercial controlled demolitions are done very differently and no attempt is made to disguise them, as was the case with the destruction of WTC 1,2 and 7. Even in the case of WTC 7, which came down exactly like a classic, textbook controlled demolition, there was an effort made to reduce the amount of noise normally created by substituting incendiaries (thermite, thermate, nanothermite) for some of the high explosives usually employed.

That said, the answer to your question is no, large amounts of molten iron are not normally found in the debris of most commercial controlled demolitions because they don't employ cutting edge military incendiaries/explosives. Perhaps in ten years they will, but considering the environmental impact of creating large amounts of molten metals cooking with other toxic debris, I have my doubts (however, they may be used as planned commercial controlled demolitions occur after almost all the non-structural toxic elements have been removed).

The fact that large amounts of molten iron are atypical of commercial controlled demolitions does not change the fact that the buildings were brought down with a combination of incendiaries and explosives, or the basic physics involved. Without additional large inputs of energy (i.e. explosives, incendiaries), those buildings do not come down the way they did and probably not at all.

While the exact method of the demolitions remains to be determined, any knowledgeable person who takes an objective look at the destruction of the buildings will conclude that they were brought down with very carefully placed incendiaries and explosives (thus, that case is closed).

Unfortunately, knowing the basics of how the demolitions were done does not tell us who did it (although it does shorten the list quite a bit), and that is what we are really after . This is why I am far more interested in the social networks and financial connections relevant to the 9/11 operation (crime).

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

"Unfortunately, knowing the basics of how the demolitions were done does not tell us who did it (although it does shorten the list quite a bit), and that is what we are really after ."

Makes me wonder why my post above was voted down so much .. meh.

________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

That my LEGITIMATE question is getting voted down. My question is NO DIFFERENT than asking for a comparison for how Controlled Demolitioned buildings fall (like no one has made an effort to show this building collapse, or that building collapse before)...

It would be a legitimate question if it were asked fairly. If we only know that no other controlled demolitions have large amounts of molten metal found in the debris, then one might naively believe this is evidence the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled demolition. I didn't vote you down, but others who are keeping an eye on your anti-CD efforts must have.

In fact, the answer to this question, combined with other evidence of controlled demolition, is additional evidence for the use of thermite in the demolition. So you are right, it is legitimate to ask this question. But coming from you, it sounds devious.

Too funny. I didn't know I was putting much effort into it. Having opinions about CD, or asking questions about CD is not allowed without being accused of participating in "anti-CD efforts?" Too funny indeed. Gee, I would think that if someone could show evidence of molten metal from another Controlled Demolition, that may help the credibility along for a Controlled Demolition on 9/11, but what the fuck do I know?

That's ok. Let the anti-accountability, anti-justice, anti-truth, pro-childlike behavior individuals vote me down until their heart's content.

I was willing to let you slide until you said this: "Gee, I would think that if someone could show evidence of molten metal from another Controlled Demolition, that may help the credibility along for a Controlled Demolition on 9/11".

You should expect, as we all do, that most other controlled demolitions will NOT have large amounts molten metal in the debris because there is no reason there should be without the use of something like thermite. So are you suggesting that the lack of molten metal in other controlled demolitions implies lack of support and therefore less credibility of CD in the WTC towers? If so, that shows your subtle attack on CD.

Bringing it back to the subject of the blog, your argument is analogous to suggesting that man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming because we see many cases where warming occurred naturally without our help or without the involvement of CO2. It is true that, because there are multiple possible causes of global warming, we need to look further into the evidence to determine what is going on in this case. But that is exactly what the climate scientists have been doing for many years.