DISINFORMATION: DEW-NUKE

DISINFORMATION: DEW-NUKE

NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP >> DEW-Nuke – NPT – Digital Fakery – Holograms

 

As all of these New Wave 9/11 theories, the hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

 

PROLOGUE

 

In the over one hundred year history of steel frame high-rises and skyscrapers there has never been a single one that collapsed due to fire. On September 11, 2001 there were three that fell, World Trade Center Buildings Numbers One, Two and Seven. The government has put forward a pseudoscientific explanation claiming that they “collapsed due to fire”. I will note however that the government did not claim they were brought down by explosive demolition, as some have tried to twist the tale.

 The events of 9/11 as portrayed by the Public Relations Regime of the Military-Industrial Complex is a self-serving myth. It is a myth that is upheld, not with evidence for none has been forthcoming, it is supported by mere diktat. The authorities simply tell a story made of whole-cloth and expect repetition to cement it into the minds of a TV audience that is already in a trance, spellbound by the black magic of the high-tech Public Relations Regime. This propaganda works through the emotions, not logic and facts, for the myth has no logic nor facts to maintain it.

 As there has been no valid official investigation into the events of 9/11, there has instead developed an investigation by concerned individuals who were not fooled by the interpretation given on the “news” to things they could see with their own eyes. Within a few years others read the information gathered by these pioneers and they began to open their eyes and search for the actual facts of the events. An eventual groundswell arose that became known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

 One of the high-points of discovery came with David Ray Griffin’s, A NEW PEARL HARBOR, which revealed the general absurdity of the official myth, proving that the official story is simply impossible. This was an articulation of what many of us had already put together, but presented as it was as a coherent whole, it moved many more people into the camp of those who realized that 9/11 was a PSYOP, and a False Flag operation.

 

 There were of course many books coming out by researchers, some good ones proceeded Griffin’s work, but that seems the one that sparked the largest attraction in the US. And when the 9/11 COMMISSION Report was released Griffith tore it asunder with his logic and wit. And the Internet became the driving force of research and exposition.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 – Article summarizing his critique of report.

. . . . . .

The towers were constructed with redundant load bearing strength. Their so-called “collapse” due to jet fuel fires and the physical damage caused by the planes is simply absurd. NIST clearly did not address the global failure of the towers. They ended their analysis when the buildings were “poised for collapse” as they say, clearly defying their mandate to explain why the buildings failed globally. NIST was a scientific hoax and a political whitewash.

 In regards to the Towers’ immense solid steel construction, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:

 The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

 The NIST mandate was, first and foremost:

 Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”

 Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.”

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

Every single thing that was effected by the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was evidence. Not just the remains of the towers, not just the steel, but the dust, the fragments, the cars and other vehicles that were effected__EVERYTHING. All of this was ‘crime scene evidence’ in a legal sense.

What little of this evidence remained after the WTC was wiped clean is only that which slipped through the fingers of the perpetrators controlling their own crime scene. Whatever cursory ‘investigation’ was made, was more in fact to make assurances that suspicious evidence never saw the light of day.

This is part and parcel with the fact that no chains of possession of such evidences in the entire case have ever been revealed.

 In a case so bereft of any solid physical evidence, the importance of what little there is and what it proves is of paramount import, the visual, and testimonial evidence becomes critical.

. . . . . .

There was NO response by the military until the whole thing was over, and that the military lied about their part in the affair. The military told three conflicting stories and none add up.

 On 9/11 all three positions of command authority were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).

 The original story was delivered by Gen. Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting chairman on the morning of Sept. 11, Myers told the Senate that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck.

 At 8:14, Flight 11 failed to respond to an instruction to ascend issued from Boston Center.

At 09:38 the Pentagon was hit, crash in Pennsylvania at 10:03.

 http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Schreyer-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf

http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Debunking

. . . . . .

Finally NIST had released it’s report on the destruction of the World Trade Towers. All hell broke loose as independent scientists, primarily physicist saw immediately that NIST was committing a scientific fraud, another political cover-up masquerading as science. In the forefront of these was Professor Steven Jones, a nuclear physicist from Utah, he was surrounded by many other scientists who began to deconstruct the NIST Report, and their findings were devastating to the official account.

 Like a bloodhound, Jones had begun to get to the bottom of the mechanisms of ‘collapse’, as clearly the gravity driven collapses due to office fires weakening the structures was clearly preposterous. Jones had noticed something very peculiar just prior to the global collapse of the second tower to be hit, and the first to explode. It was just before the top of that tower began to twist and move that bright amber liquid metal began to spill from a corner of the building that had been damaged at the level of the plane strike. Jones suspected he was seeing a thermite reaction.

 Professor Jones was able to secure samples of the dust from the aftermath of the WTC destruction with a documented chain of evidence. This dust became a key to unraveling what had brought down the towers. It was physical evidence that could be tested. That physical evidence was at a premium as another crime had been committed by the perpetrators of the event.

The crime scene had been corrupted, most of the physical evidence removed and shipped out of the country.

‘FEMA investigations as a half-baked farce’, Fire Engineering editor WiIliam A. Manning wrote in the January 2002 issue: “…the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

 Why were military-grade explosive chips found in the towers’ dust throughout Lower Manhattan?

 This is the the question that is become the ‘Smoking Gun’, physical ‘hard evidence’ that fits as the keystone to the arch of all the other evidence that this event was a systemic military-industrial state operation.

 Now the question arises, why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact ‘Best Evidence’ such as this?

 As with all of these New Wave 9/11 theories, the hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

 Of particular interest is the way in which this theory of both nuclear and DEW began initially as an attack on Jones as he was entering the discovery phase of his experiments with the samples of the Dust from the Aftermath of 9/11. It was asserted without foundation that somehow Jones had some hand in the censor of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. These are spurious allegations as far as the actual history of that debacle. This issue will be addressed in some detail in this essay.

 Building on these false allegations against Jones made it possible to build upon this, a series of other spurious charges as to his integrity as an honest scientist. He was then framed as having a personal agenda, and one apt to ‘cover-up’ the use of exotic weapons in the destruction of WTC. It is even posited that he is covertly working for the perpetrators by this foul rumor-mongering begun by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Dustification”~Judy Wood

 9/11 Footage WTC Steel turns to DUST!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73wK2eoCQVs&feature=player_embedded

WTC1 Spires Dropped–not vaporized NIST FOIA: WTC1 Collapse (WNBC Dub10 54)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&feature=player_embedded 

Commentary: This is not simply a matter of subjective difference of opinion here. It is clear from this 2nd video that the tip of the spire was intact all the way until it falls out of frame. At no point does it “dustify”. This cannot be a matter of your lack of visual acuity, it is impossible – the view and angle are simply too clear to be denied, in other than delusional denial.

 Andrew Johnson, spokesman for Judy Wood, claims these points prove something:

 1) “lack of significant seismic signature.”

 > There would only be a significant seismic signature if the material hit the ground as one single event – it is obvious that the event took place over a matter of many moments – thus momentum is dispersed and no seismic signature would be expected.

 2) “lack of appropriate sound”

 

> One cannot judge what the “sound” would have been at varying distances, and varying recording devices. Many sensitive sound recorders have a built-in attenuation to prevent overload. As both a videographer and field sound recordist, I have a lot of experience with such ‘drop outs’- especially while recording thunder storms.

There is also the issue of distance from the event. Many videos are taken from quite a distance with telephoto lens. Expecting overwhelming volume in such an instance is ridiculous.

There are in fact recordings that capture the awesome nature of the rumble and roar described by many on the scene that day. There is also an abundance of eye (ear) witness testimony to the sound of explosives in the record.

Denying that there was ‘appropriate sound’ is another disingenuous argument made against all existing evidence.

 

3) Lack of building.

 

This is simply a myth based on the misinterpretation of the photo evidence. There was a huge amount of heavy debris left in the aftermath. Only about ten percent was left in the surface footprints of the towers, the rest covered the entire multi-acre complex {FEMA Debris Field Map}. It was later discovered that a huge amount of steel had collapsed into the sub-levels, and basements of all the buildings in the complex. 

 

Moments of photography and video are captured throughout time.

Especially in an event such as 9/11 scenes change their character quickly from moment to moment.

 A scene of burnt and burning cars may at one moment appear to be a scene where everything is in fire effect.

 Moments later paper held aloft prior to said shot, may begin drifting into the scene. At that point if, photographed with no clear sequence being noted – the scene will appear ‘anomalous’: “What could cause the cars to ignite that wouldn’t ignite paper???”

 >toasted/080 jpg: It is September in this shot – the trees would be full bloom – take a closer look, the leaves ARE charred.

 >081 jpg: again a September scene, same thing, the trees are mostly stripped of leaves. And the area has obviously been attended to this is not a raw aftermath shot.

 . . . . .

[reference] http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/SJ/jones1.html – Another attempt to defame Jones.

 [reference] Dr. Greg Jenkins, “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 8 (February, 2007)

 [reference] Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

 

“I here assert that any further commentary from me would be inappropriate at this time

and should, instead, be reserved until such time as NIST provides its officially mandated

reply to my RFC, together with other procedures applicable to the official RFC process.”

~Judy Wood April, 2007 in a reply to a notification of another critique forthcoming from Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They wanted to give her a opportunity to read, and answer the critique.

It is now 2012 and further commentary from Wood seems to continue to be “inappropriate”, regardless of the fact that the NIST issue as well as a court case have been decisively finished.

Her refusal to answer her critics at that time were disingenuous, as plainly as the excuses given at the time. Where is her rebuttal to specific challenges to her science and assumptions?

All that has been forthcoming is her reassertion in ink and paper, of the same essential assumptions and ‘science’.

. . . . . .

No matter what method is used to hypothetically dissociate the steel in the WTC towers,there should have been massive amounts of iron in the dust since the structural steel in the towers was composed of over 98% iron.7 USGS,8 EPA,9 and McGee et al independently sampled dust at many locations around the WTC site and lower Manhattan and quantitatively analyzed the iron content. All the quantitative dust samples are consistent with the amount of iron measured in bulk concrete (direct measurements performed by Dr. Steven Jones, as well as explicit validation by the McGee study) which is insignificant compared to the expected amount if a large fraction of above-grade structural steel was somehow dissociated.~pg.4 Fe-Dust Studies 44, Jenkins
The obvious conclusion based on the hard evidence is that steel beams fell to the ground as large pieces and were subsequently removed during clean-up. At no time during or after collapse did any significant quantity of steel dissociate into dust or aerosols. Multiple measurements and estimates of the quantity of debris removed from GZ, the amount of debris located in the sublevels, and multiple reports of the amount of steel recycled all support the claim that steel fell in large pieces.~pg.5 – Ibid If the structural steel was dissociated, the dust would contain at least 39% iron. USGS
The data clearly shows that only 1.6 +/- 0.7 %-weight of iron is found in the dust.%-weight Fe expected from concrete 1.2% %-weight Fe expected from dissociated steel 38% McGee average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4% %-weight Fe expected from concrete 1.2% %-weight Fe expected from dissociated steel 38% EPA average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4% In short, there was no significant amount of steel dissociated at any time at Ground Zero. . . . . . . .

At no time was there a single one time event of the mass of the building hitting the ground as a large unit capable of generating significant seismic signature.

 Note: The Richter reading is an indication of the energy magnitude for an earthquake, but not an indication of the total *GPE of a building for a building implosion.

 It should be reminded that; in order for the total *gravitational potential energy to be exhibited in this matter, would be for the entire mass of a tower to be dropped from a height of which it was capable of achieving terminal velocity before striking the ground as that total mass. Terminal velocity is required for the total energy to be exhibited in its full kinetic potential.

~‘Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper, ‘Star Wars Beam Weapons’, by Gourley. He presents a good overview of the seismic aspect.

. . . . . .

There are signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific effects to determine the cause and effects of events. The known physical signatures of various types of explosions are well known, and that which distinguishes their differences and similarities.

For example the signature of an explosion of a stick of dynamite is easily distinguished from the explosion of an electrical sub-station, and that to the explosion of a gas tank…etc.

 Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.~ww

. .. . . . . . .

While it is true that Richter scale readings are used by seismologists to estimate the amount of energy released by an earthquake, the same methodology cannot be used after a building collapse or implosion to determine the total GPE that was originally in the building. By the same token, the total amount of GPE in a building cannot be used to calculate an expected seismic signal for a building collapse or implosion because, in the case of an earthquake, all of the energy originates within the earth itself and is transferred through the earth in the form of seismic waves. The seismic waves travel through different rock strata and earth topography and are detected at receiving stations.

 The properties of the earth that the seismic waves travel through are generally well known and allow seismologists to accurately determine the location and, more important to this discussion, the magnitude of seismic signal of the event based on readings from the different receiving stations that detect the signals, after adjustments are made based on the known properties of the earth.

 Thus, the amount of energy released by the earthquake can be determined based on the magnitude or amplitude of the seismic signal….only a percentage of the total GPE forms seismic waves because during a building collapse or implosion, the available GPE can be dissipated in several different ways which do not involve transferring energy through the earth in the form of seismic waves. In other words, during a building collapse or implosion, not all of the total available GPE is transferred through the earth as seismic waves; only a percentage of the total GPE becomes energetic seismic waves. The rest of the GPE is dissipated, most notably, during deformation of the building and its structural components, during the formation of rubble and dust, and due to air resistance as the rubble falls through the air.”~Gourley paper

. . . . . . .

s an outline, this is the reasoning I put forward in a positive argument for the controlled demolition of the WTC complex. It is because I have this positive thesis that I feel is reasonably conceived, that I counter an antithesis that I see as ill conceived.

 

As has been pointed out, Wood makes her argument against a typical bottom-up controlled demolition. This argument has been made by anyone paying attention to the forensic evidence. It is proposed by the explosive demolition side of this argument that this event was in no way a ‘typical controlled demolition’ – but one engineered to appear as though the plane crashes were responsible for the destruction leading to a global gravity driven collapse. As such the “collapse” was made to appear as if it began at the floors where the planes were struck, ie; a top down sequence beginning at those floors.

 

It is also posited that they were purposely totally obliterated both for shock value and to destroy as much evidence as possible. And then that evidence was stolen in blatant violation of crime scene, fire scene protocol and law. Those who claim that this evidence: the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, “simply wasn’t there” in the aftermath, are so blatantly and ludicrously wrong that it is astounding to even have to make an argument against it. Denying the months of work it took to gather and haul these tons of metal is anti-historical and preposterous.

In part 2 we will be addressing “Toasted Cars” and other metal anomalies. 

Eutectic nature of the corrosion and distortions in the metal of the aftermath.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf 

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite ~ Jerry Lobdill 2007

End, Part 1

 

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “DISINFORMATION: DEW-NUKE

  1. Where Did The Towers Go?

    Pg. 96 ; Wood’s argument against conventional explosives is asinine. It is all based on the assertion that the building would “slam to the ground” as one event. The video evidence – and she is so hep on facing that evidence – shows that the materials hit the ground throughout a period of time, not all at once.

    Her assertion that the material would ‘slam to the ground’ all at once as one event in an explosive demolition is obviously false. The material was blown laterally for hundreds of feet, raining down as an event taking somewhere near 12 to 13 seconds for each tower. The largest peak of the seismic event was at the very beginning of each tower’s destruction, indicating an explosive event at sub-level, which is typical of explosive demolition.

    It matters not where she goes with the rest of her argument, for the whole thing is based on this proximate and false proposition.

    \\][//

    • “In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, in distinction from the amplitude and, particularly, the frequency.”~Dr. Rousseau [pg. 5]

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

      \\][//

  2. Forensic Metallurgy

    Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

    Eutectic corrosion is typically a chemical attack, the rate being affected by many factors such as temperature, pressure, chemistry, presence of wear, etc.
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
    A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.
    FEMA’s investigators inferred that a “liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” formed during a “hot corrosion attack on the steel.” The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it “susceptible to erosion.” Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

    Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

    The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

    The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

    liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

    The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

    The “deep mystery” of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

    \\][//

  3. “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin

    Signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.

    Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

    Can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots?

    Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steal, and supply their own oxygen source, I think nano-thermites can explain the hot spots.

    As the obvious goal was to totally destroy the towers, I think the destruction was designed in such a way as the evidence would “eat itself” with this extended burn within the rubble. I don’t think it is ‘happenstance’ that there is unreacted thermites in the dust – I think the contingencies were well thought out and the results witnessed and documented were purposely planned for.

    How this was accomplished is a matter of refining postulates that take a good deal of explanation, previously addressed:

    Rubble Hot Spots:

    Anyone who has watched I fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes.
    We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation in the rubble pile.

    In a sense one could say that with these new chemically nano milled metals, and the addition of various gels and even biological material, a sort of ‘time-release capsule’ can be created, useful in propellent design – but can reach out to other tasks as well, such as simply growing ‘warm’ in a sort of slow motion reaction…or reacting so quickly that it can create an open field implosion, such as the so-called fuel-air bombs, known to have been used in Iraq that creates a vacuum within the blast zone as if the area itself is a chamber.

    It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “As for the effects of heat, the products of the pyrolysis of 1,3-DPP at 375°C are styrene and toluene, in equal amounts (Poutsma and Dyer 1982). This can occur directly in the dry composite (Kidder et al. 2005). Additionally, high temperature oxidation of toluene is known to produce benzene (Brezinsky et al. 1984).
    The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, shortlived, and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those
    dates.”~Ryan et al
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Understand that a ‘burn-rate’ of a material is not the same as a ‘burn case scenario’:

    A “scenario’ implies a variety of circumstances, and in the case of the rubble pile a exponentially chaotic and complex theater – A ‘rating’ defines one single controlled circumstance.

    \\][//

  4. THERMATE AS EXPLOSIVE

    A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite” is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 1 micrometre. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

    Patent from 1996: US1996068478119960722 (July 22, 1996) Legal status (INPADOC) of US5885321 – US F 68478196 A (Patent of invention) PRS Date: 1997/07/22 -PRS Code: AS02 – EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15
    Abstract of US5885321
    “Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing alane-adducts in organic solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highly uniform particles selectably sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic materials including composites, super thermite, and other explosives.
    Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition. Once the nano thermite had been developed one would expect that over time various modifications using additives would be developed for different purposes. For example there is strong evidence that sulphur was incorporated (see appendix C of the FEMA report). Sulphur has the effect of lowering the melting point of steel. The term thermate is applied to such material. Other chemicals can be added to generate gas and thus produce an effect more like a conventional explosive.”

    “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005;http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)
    “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives intothe bulk metal oxide materials.
    These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)
    “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]” B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,”~Clapsaddle 2005.

    \\][//

  5. THERMOBARIC WEAPONS

    Perhaps thermobaric aerosols were the grand disintegration final explosions. But we must also take into account the prepping cutter charges, likely nano-RDX, and incendiaries of likely Thermite Plasma Arc devices, plus the real likelihood that the so-called fireproofing was sprayed on thermite. By 9/11 the towers were probably loaded to the gills with sundry sol-gel products of varying natures for a variety of jobs. One of which was for a good amount to survive the blasts and end up in the aftermath pile to continue melting the metal and burning as much evidence as possible.
    . . . . . .

    A Further Note on the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust Due To Its Nano-Particulate Nature:

    RJ Lee report:

    “Additionally, WTC Dust can be differentiated from other building dust on the basis of its unique composition and morphology. WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone high stress and high temperature. *Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”

    Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

    \\][//

  6. Any pretense of dealing with an unknown quality by writing mathematical equations is simply symbolic mumbo jumbo: The unknown quality cannot be assigned a factor to equate. It is known from some public releases by scientists at these labs that these materials are “Designer” specific, they can be molded to react at precise specification. They are said to be capable of creating enormous pressures, and phased ignitions within the dispersion or burn slowly if design calls for it.

    Putting a factor, or a number to anything that you can only imagine or postulate about, will inevitably end up an imagined and postulated factor. This is more basic than grade school mathematics, this is simple logic.

    This is where the “enormity of amounts” argument fails. The quantity will necessarily balance as per quality. The more powerful the quality, the less quantity demanded. Since the quality of power is unknown, the quantity is equally unknown as their factors are diametrically intertwined.
    . . . . . .

    “So the 895 m/s detonation velocity was obtained for that particular product. It would not be correct to say that this would be the detonation velocity for “ ALL KNOWN MIXTURES of iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite with organic compounds, mixed at a nano-scale.”~Hightower

    You can not “detonate” a “low explosive”; they are “ignited”, as they “deflagrate”, they do not “detonate”. If Hightower is talking in correct chemical-physics lexicon; then the nanothermite is a ‘high explosive’. Regardless: The material detonates at 895 m/s, well above the speed of sound.

    Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be “high explosives” and materials that deflagrate are said to be “low explosives”.

    T Mark Hightower JULY 6, 2012 – 6:13 PM
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/
    “The highest detonation velocity I was able to find in the technical literature when I searched one year ago for an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite was 895 m/s for an aerogel produced by the sol gel method. This certainly qualifies as an explosive. If you want to read the paper where this is cited, here it is…”
    . . . . .
    >”Pentaerythritol is a simple alcohol. The pure explosive materials RDX and PETN have extremely low vapor pressures, and the vapor pressures of plastic explosives are even lower, due to the presence of oils and plasticizing agents that give the plastic explosive its form and consistency. When these explosives are manufactured, they are often spiked with a high vapor pressure, nitrogen-containing compound called a taggant to make them more easily detectable. These taggants have high vapor pressures (similar to NG or EGDN), and their presence in the plastic explosives makes vapor detection possible. However, relying on the presence of the taggant for vapor detection of plastic explosives is risky, because old, homemade, and some foreign-made plastic explosives do not contain a taggant.”

    I would note the importance of the last sentence here. If the explosives used to demolish the towers were hoped to remain undetected, certainly the perps would be sure to use a product sans taggant.

    \\][//

  7. “The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.”~Jones

    Aluminothermics 101:

    In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.

    material energy density
    by mass: MJ/KG
    by volume: MJ/L

    aluminothermic incendiaries:

    Thermite
    (Al + Fe2O3) M>4.13 – V>18.40

    Copper Thermite
    (Al + CuO) M>4.00 – V>20.90

    nitro-aromatic explosives
    TNT
    (Trinitrotoluene) M>4.61 – V>6.92

    \\][//

  8. A continuing misperception is clearly seen in the counter commentary to what I have been saying here; and that is that is that ALL of the metallic spherules in the dust are the nanothermite. The vast majority are not, they are the RESULT of the explosion: vaporized steel. So the assumption that the mass of these are equivalent to the mass of superthermite planted in the towers is false.

    Also to be kept in mind is that these ‘large quantities of steel’ are not the quantities that would result in the “dustification’ of ALL of the steel, but only some small percentage of that. Let us keep our conceptualization clear and parsed between these propositions.

    This should be made clear by these remarks by Professor Jones:

    “As usual, we search for possible prosaic explanations for these metallic spherules in the WTC dust. The most obvious possible source is the melting of large quantities of steel in the buildings followed somehow by formation of tiny droplets of molten steel. As discussed above, however, steel melts at about 1538ºC (2800ºF) – and the temperatures in the buildings were no where near [sic] hot enough to melt steel, and certainly not in large quantities required for the amounts seen in the dust (and pouring out of the South Tower before collapse). Furthermore, we have looked at the chemical compositions of a number of iron-rich spherules as well as that of steel, and the compositions are not the same at all. It should not be surprising, however, as we analyze more spherules to find some that are steel-like in composition, assuming that thermite cutter-charges were in fact used to cut through steel. We should then find both steel- and thermite-residue spherules.”~Jones 2007

    \\][//

  9. WTC CONCRETE DUST TO CHUNK RATIO:

    “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to
    understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance
    are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and
    that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
    rubble.

    A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The
    environmental science community has been slow to understand that
    the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of
    gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance
    (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam)
    particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam)
    particles that are typically measured.”
    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat
    ure_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table at that URL.

    As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large
    chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
    approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
    of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the
    pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false
    premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
    (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
    destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the
    MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete
    and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form."~Jones – Jan 2007.

    [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South
    Tower.]

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf

    \\][//

  10. The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

    \\][//

  11. Tritium PR Fantasy

    Quoting Professor Jones:

    Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
    Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf

    “Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…”

    http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf

    Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is:

    deuterium + tritium Helium + neutron.

    Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Pretty simple, in the billionth of a curie range – verses – millions of curies of tritium, in fact equals a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction.

    So even at 55 times the normal count as claimed by Ed Ward, there is still a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction. The amount of Tritium is simply trivial and utterly inconsequential.
    Pointing to the Tritium level as a smoky gun for a nuclear powered event at the WTC is in fact preposterous.

    The point is not that the Tritium level was elevated by this small measure above background – the point is that the levels were too minuet to indicate their presence as due to a nuclear event.
    Therefore there has to be an alternative postulate to replace the dismissed nuclear event. These alternatives are in fact quite reasonable assumptions as they are certainly possible and likely probable when considered.
    …..
    Radioactive isotopes

    A published study by Paul Lioy et al. presents data regarding radioactive isotopes (radionuclides), such as would be produced in abundance if atomic bombs were in fact deployed.

    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioyfull.html

    Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).

    Results: We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.
    These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts the empirical facts. . . . . . . .
    The question is asked, “Why would the government look for radiation without the suspicion that it might be there?” This question is of course meant to indicate government knowledge that there would be radiation, “because they used nukes.”

    But the fact is these tests were not done in order to look for radiation, but instead were tests to find out what all the substances were in the smoke and dust.

    As much of the dust was rained out, tests were done on the water to detect whatever was in the samples. The published study by Paul Lioy is definitive in that they found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

    Radioactivity in the environment is in fact ubiquitous.

    These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the nuclear aspect

    [Again See: Jones paper]

    \\][//

  12. SUMMARY

    The summary of the Nuclear-DEW theory is quite simple:

    It is a series of presumptions set upon a base of disfigured interpretation of the data. From this series of non sequiturs to the lack of a clear description of what the actual mechanics of the device presumed to have achieved the destruction, there is simply nothing of substance there.

    There is obviously a great deal of rhetorical acrobatics employed in the PR, it can ramble on like the merriest of minstrels. But this is the tale of the pied piper who has sold a lie.

    \\][//

  13. Señor Zero

    “Dr. Jones based his “no nukes” paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.

    Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines “trace” or “background” levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates “trace” as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error best summarized as follows:

    “Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device.“~Señor El Once
    . . . . . .
    My comments in bold:

    >“Dr. Jones based his “no nukes” paper on a deeply flawed government report..”

    He based a small portion of his paper on the that report. If one reads the WHOLE paper, one finds a full and robust argument based on quite a few factors, including his own investigation of the dust.

    >“Radiation signature D was measured”?

    Where is your definition of this “signature D”?

    > ”..it re-defines “trace” or “background” levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11”

    No it doesn’t, Ed Ward redefined the levels to be “55 times greater.” Paul Lioy reports: 0.14 pCi. Where does Ward get his ballooned figures? How does he come up with the 55 times greater amount?

    The ‘red flag’ here should be that there is no appreciable radiation reported in the WTC Dust, and therefore Señor Zero’s theory is a tall stack of bullshit chips {Tetris tight}.

    \\][//

  14. THE PRAGER PSYOP

    >“The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance “~Prager

    Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The “fission pathway” is nothing but it’s natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.~ww

    >“Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm.”~Prager

    “Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.
    Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]

    The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium

    The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.*
    Ferrite magnets and refining zinc.[2]
    Strontium titanate has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond, making it useful in a variety of optics applications. This quality has also led to its being cut into gemstones, in particular as a diamond simulant. However, it is very soft and easily scratches so it is rarely used.[2]
    Strontium carbonate, strontium nitrate, and strontium sulfate are commonly used in fireworks for red color, and sometimes for other colors too.
    Strontium aluminate is used as a bright phosphor with long persistence of phosphorescence.
    Strontium chloride is sometimes used in toothpastes for sensitive teeth. One popular brand includes 10% total strontium chloride hexahydrate by weight.
    Strontium oxide is sometimes used to improve the quality of some pottery glazes.
    Strontium ranelate is used in the treatment of osteoporosis. It is a prescription drug in the EU, but not in the USA.
    Strontium barium niobate can be used in outdoors holographic 3D displays as a “screen”.[40]
    Strontium phosphide is an inorganic compound with the formula Sr3P2 and is used as a laboratory reagent and in the manufacture of chemically reactive devices.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

    *In 2001 most personal computers were still using CRT displays {same as TVs}. It wasn’t until 2003 that the price of flat screens became compatible with the CRT. I was still using a CTR at work all the way until 2008.

    All of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.

    \\][//

    • Besides his 5 marijuana arrests and federal mail fraud conviction, if you have any information regarding Jeff Prager please contact (602) 876-1053 (602) 876-1053 FREE . Child Support Arrest Warrant issued on 04-25-07.

      Jeffrey J Prager July 22, 1955
      Case Number: S-0700-CR-2000004657 (use CR-2000004657 for case number)
      NARCOTIC DRUG-POSSESS/USE
      DRUG PARAPHERNALIA-POSSESS/USE

      http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/

      [][]=][][

    • HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI BOMBING
      Effects of Radiation

      Immediate Effects
      Sickness and death due to initial radiation
      The main components of initial radiation emitted in the air within 1 minute of the explosion were gamma rays and neutrons. Man is exposed to approximately 0.1 rad of natural radiation per person per year. It is said that 50% of persons who receive a whole body dose of 400 rad, which is known as a semi-lethal dose die, and that those exposed to whole body radiation of 700 rad or more have little chance of escaping death. For the purpose of radio­logical protection, the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) stipulates the permissible dose for man in general as 0.5 rad per year to the whole body, gonads, or bone marrow. The location that was exposed to the lethal dose of 700 rad was a point approximately 925 meters away from the hypocentre (in Hiroshima); and in the case of the semilethal dose of 400 rad, ap­proximately 1,025 meters. Anyone exposed without shielding within this distance is said to have been seriously affected by the initial radiation, and approximately 20% of deaths are said to be attributable to these effects. The location that was exposed to the permissible dose for human beings (0.5) rad was determined to be a point approximately 2.3 kilometers away from the hypocentre.

      Acute sickness
      Acute sickness is a symptom that developed in the period from the time of the explosion to the end of December the same year, and most of the people are said to have recovered from the symp­toms 5 months after the explosion. They are: digestive symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea); nerve symptoms (headache, de­lirium and insomnia); a dynamic symptoms (epilation, weakness, and malaise); bleeding symptoms (hematemesis, bloody discharge from the bowels, hematuria, nosebleed, gingival bleeding, genital bleeding, and subcutaneous bleeding); inflammation symptoms (fever, pharyngalgia, stomatitis, and dermatitis); blood symptoms (leukocytopenia and erythrocytopenia); genital organ symptoms (aspermia and menstrual abnormalities).

      Of the total of 140,000 deaths in the period of acute sickness, approximately 20% were from injuries due to the blast, approxi­mately 60% from burns due to thermal rays and fire, and the re­maining 20% due to radiation disturbance.

      Long-term illness
      Most of the people who did not die of acute sickness super­ficially appeared to be in good health at the end of December of the year of the bombing. However, medical effects due to the atomic bomb did not end.

      Burns due to the atomic bomb, healing once, formed keloids in 1-4 months with the protuberance of their scars. Keloid inci­dence shows a peak in the period of 1946-47. Ophthalmological disorders such as traumatic cataracts, and blood dyscrasias such as leukemia appeared around 1947. Leukemia incidence, especially, shows a peak in the period of 1950-60. Incidence of malignant tumors such as thyroid cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, and sali­vary gland tumor generally increased from around 1960 after the peak of leukemia incidence, and is still observed.

      Adding to these, nerve problems such as easy fatigability, dizzi­ness, and insomnia, aging and sickness due to in utero exposure have been observed. As to genetic effects of radiation, no definite evi­dence has been obtained. This is a problem that requires further study and research.

      http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org/Facts_NagasakiAndHiroshimaBombing.htm

      Radiation Sickness
      The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. | 2015 |

      Radiation sickness, harmful effect produced on body tissues by exposure to radioactive substances. The biological action of radiation is not fully understood, but it is believed that a disturbance in cellular activity results from the chemical changes caused by ionization (see ion). Some body tissues are more sensitive to radiation than others and are more easily affected; the cells in the blood-forming tissues (bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes) are extremely sensitive. Radiation sickness may occur from exposure to a single massive emanation such as a nuclear explosion (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki), or it may occur after repeated large exposure or to even very small doses in a plant or laboratory, since radiation effects are cumulative. Moreover, exposure to the ultraviolet radiation of the sun can cause tissue destruction and trigger mutations that can lead to skin cancer. Radiation sickness may be fairly mild and transitory, consisting of weakness, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea. Since even in a mild dose of radiation the blood-forming tissue is destroyed to some extent, there is a reduction in the supply of blood cells and platelets. This increases the tendency to bleed and reduces the body’s defense against infection. After a massive dose of radiation the reaction may be so severe that death quickly ensues. This is usually due to severe anemia or hemorrhage, to infection, or to dehydration. Extremely high doses damage the tissues of the brain, and death usually follows within 48 hr, as was demonstrated at Chernobyl. There is no treatment for radiation sickness, although it is sometimes possible for persons to survive otherwise lethal doses of radiation if bone marrow transplants are performed. Potassium iodide is to protect against thyroid cancer from radiation exposure, but the drug should ideally be taken four hours prior to the exposure. Exposure to radiation can cause genetic mutation; the progeny of those subjected to excessive radiation tend to show deleterious genetic changes. The genetic damage from the atomic bombs dropped on Japan is still evident and such damage will continue to surface in people directly affected by the nuclear diasaster at Chernobyl. Persons working with radioactive materials or X rays protect themselves from excessive exposure to radiation by shields and special clothing usually containing lead. Processes involving radioactive substances are observed through thick plates of specially prepared glass that exclude the harmful rays. A dosimeter, a device measuring the amount of radiation to which an individual has been exposed, is always worn by persons working in radioactive areas.
      http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/radiation_sickness.aspx
      \\][//

  15. Journal of 9/11 Studies — Volume 34, November 2012

    Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
    By Dr. André Rousseau

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

    Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves. He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

    “Data from the Palisades, NY recording station, located 34 km north-north-east of Manhattan, published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), provide the most detailed seismic waveforms for analysis, particularly for the determination of the locations (surface or underground) and timing of the events that created the seismic waves.

    Some authors have been puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded for the events at the World Trade Center, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic “peaks” before the collapses. (See MacQueen, 2009). This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.”

    \\][//

  16. No no Sinyor Peento,

    In your anal-ogy, your penny find being: 55 – contains the the tell of your spin. If that were a nuke event providing the pennies, it would be in the order of 55 trillion pennies. Recall, the “Penny” is an allegory of a “Becquerel” = A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie.

    http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/conversion.html?vm=r

    1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel … (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq) 1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq) 1 picocurie (pCi) … 0.000 000 001 = 10^-9 = 1 billionth

    If you say we are talking teeny weeny nuclear reactions that are attenuated. Well you can attenuate 99.9 percent, and you still have hundreds of thousands of curies, at least hundreds of millions of becquerels.

    And your weapon has to provide enough energy you attribute to the damage. They must be at least that large. Even if this nuclear device only drives another mechanism, the energy demand would be the same issue.

    There is simply no reasonable argument to give significance to meager numbers of tritium you have.

    You like analogies. Here’s one that fits:

    Your “Show Horse” turns out to be a little plastic head stick horse. So now you want to slip Uranium into your shtick. But we both know that Uranium is a braid of the nylon yarn mane on your plastic pony head.

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/
    – 3/1/2013

    \\][//

  17. 1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel … (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq) 1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq) 1 picocurie (pCi) … 0.000 000 001 = 10^-9 = 1 billionth

    . . . . . . . . . .
    The curie (Ci) is replaced by the becquerel (Bq)*
    1 kilocurie (kCi) = 37 terabecquerel (TBq)
    1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel (GBq)
    1 millicurie (mCi) = 37 megabecquerel (MBq)
    1 microcurie (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq)
    1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq)
    1 picocurie (pCi) = 37 millibecquerel (mBq)
    . . . . . .
    Becquerel (Bq)* replaces the curie (Ci)
    1 terabecquerel (TBq) ~ 27 curie (Ci)
    1 gigabecquerel (GBq) ~ 27 millicurie (mCi)
    1 megabecquerel (MBq) ~ 27 microcurie (µCi)
    1 kilobecquerel (kBq) ~ 27 nanocurie (nCi)
    1 becquerel (Bq) ~ 27 picocurie (pCi)
    * 1 Bq = 1s-1
    . . . . . . . . . .
    SI Prefixes For Multiples And Submultiples Of SI Units:

    yotta (Y) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^24 = 1 septillion
    zetta (Z) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^21 = 1 sextillion
    exa (E) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^18 = 1 quintillion
    peta (P) 1,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^15 = 1 quadrillion
    tera (T) 1,000,000,000,000 = 10^12 = 1 trillion
    giga (G) 1,000,000,000 = 10^9 = 1 billion
    mega (M) 1,000,000 = 10^6 = 1 million
    kilo (k) 1,000 = 10^3 = 1 thousand
    hecto (h) 100 = 10^2 = 1 hundred
    deka (da)10 = 10 = ten
    1
    deci (d) 0.1 =10^-1 = 1 tenth
    centi (c) 0.01 = 10^-2 = 1 hundredth
    milli (m) 0.001 = 10^-3 = 1 thousandth
    micro (µ) 0.000 001 = 10^-6 = 1 millionth
    nano (n) 0.000 000 001 = 10^-9 = 1 billionth
    pico (p) 0.000 000 000 001 = 10^-12 = 1 trillionth
    femto (f) 0.000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-15 = 1 quadrillionth
    atto (a) 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-18 = 1 quintillionth
    zepto (z) 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-21 = 1 sextillionth
    yocto (y) 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-24 = 1 septillionth
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Source:

    http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/conversion.html?vm=r

    \\][//

    • Strontium and Barium
      At the peak of production of television cathode ray tubes, up to 75 percent of U.S. …. CRT computer monitor front panel made from strontium and barium.
      The CRT used in a color television or color computer monitor has a few additional … Barium oxide, strontium oxide, and lead oxide are used to provide radiation.
      Solvay is a producer of a wide range of Barium and Strontium … with in a range of applications such as in TV displays, glass, ferrites, bricks,
      The screen glass contains strontium, barium and lead, providing a shielding against the X-Rays inherent in CRT-based TV’s and monitors
      \\][//

  18. > “I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent”~Señor El Once – on MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM
    . . . . .
    Yes you have Señor, and that is why you will get no quarter from me.

    You will eat those words Señor with that twat on your face you call your mouth.

    I repudiate these charges. And I feel no need to comment as they are utterly without foundation regardless of any tales told by this anonymous shank-wielding stutterfuk.

    Yes, your time is gonna come monkeyboy…

    \\][//

    • And yes indeed the monkeyboy’s time came, just as I predicted above. Several months ago Señor Maxitwat fell headfirst into that famous science fiction story by Harlan Ellison: I HAVE NO MOUTH AND I MUST SCREAM.
      \\][//

  19. So let us revisit where this latest round on Señor’s dipshit carousel began on this thread…
    On FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 1:36 PM, I said the following:
    ‘Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones.’

    And Señor claimed [FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM]:
    >”I did not defame Dr. Jones, but I did legitimately criticize Dr. Jones’ work.”
    . . . . .
    But this is a lie, Señor does not “legitimately criticize Dr. Jones’ work.” – but in fact mischaracterizes, misframes and ignores portions of Jones’ work by disingenuous cherry-picking. That is willful defamation and dishonest argumentation.
    . . . . .
    Recently:
    “The song-and-dance by Professor Jones to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
    . . . . .
    Accusing Jones of steering the movement is a slur and defamation regardless of Señor’s rhetorical ‘song-and-dance’.

    Again on -FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM
    >”proven instances of Dr. Jones being less-than-genuine in his stilted work, but also a rousing defense that ignores the issues and tries to frame the criticism of Dr. Jones’ work as a personal or defamation attack on the man.”

    >”Honest evaluation of Dr. Jones’ 9/11 work does more to smear the man than anything I could or would write. Dr. Jones’ never having corrected the record while allowing misconceptions and misapplications of his work to propagate is what allows the defamation to raise its hydra-head.”
    . . . . .
    If one reads these stanzas by Señor Beanstein, we see clearly that he is defaming Jones all the while, and denying defaming Jones as he denies it. Quite the twisted twatspeak from this…what? Liar? Cheat?
    Agent? Simpleton idiot? Take your pick, whatever it is, his lack of intelligence, his burning ego, or his pay ration; he is singing putrid songs of bullshit and defaming Dr Jones.

    \\][//

  20. The following URL leads to a page positing a hypothesis that PETN and DET CORD with Thermite matches, are the main products used in the demolition of the WTC towers and No.7. [Essay by Scott Creighton]

    It is a very good hypothesis, it is as yet speculation, given the unfortunate fact that no analysis has been performed on the dust samples providing technical proof of the residual products of PETN; leaving us with only the verified solgel product of the Jones Harrit paper. However as speculation it does have many powerful points:

    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/sneak-peak-revised-demolition-theory-hypothesis/

    \\][//

  21. The fact is that I have taken the ‘Nukes at WTC’ story apart point by point, and in the end, Mr Ruff’s assertion that “No radiation = No nukes” does indeed turn out to be the bottom line.

    \\][//

  22. As per Señor’s remarks to do with Argumentum Verbosium; which is an accusation that I cannot deal with a complex argument. This is another specious dodge. I am not concerned with my aptitude, as I have already dealt with the arguments point by point as Señor made them. I grasp the whole thing already. Why I argue with his style of massive wordage, is that others who haven’t had the experience with this “theory” will likely be overwhelmed and persuaded by intimidation. Once one accepts an argument of “this, therefore that” and is habituated into ‘following’ it, certain assumptions may be overlooked for what they really are; mere assumptions.

    And this is the basis for the Señor’s construction. A speculative assertion compounded by conjecture and presumptions leading to erroneous conclusions. The key is the original foundation laid is the fraudulent ‘Tritium’ argument. Once this is accepted one enters Wonderland and follows the white rabbit down through a maze of absurdity. The final result is well known, “Off with your head” – your brain is no longer your own – you are owned by a false paradigm, seated in the plush seat of delusion.

    I think Balslamo has issues with anger that lead him to irrational and self destructive behavior.
    However, I see Max as cold and calculating, consciously insincere, and infused with bad intent.

    \\][//

  23. Hmmm, Maxitwat is busy bouncing around this room at coto like a meth filled party balloon…never noticing that NOBODY gives a shit about his nookeedoodoo, or has anything but snores where he talks about it.
    I just checked into his coto post on nookeedoodoo again, and he’s updated to include his still unanswered comment on Everyman. Scott apparently considers it so stupid as unworthy of a response, let alone wasting effort in rebuttal.

    Yea, of course I follow his rantings, because they are always about me.

    Watching this frantic reaching for someone to take him serious has become a sort of lowbrow form of entertainment.

    Señora Twatness has slipped into total irrelevance.

    \\][//

  24. Maxitwat waddles into obscurity dragging his overstuffed knapsack of nookiedoo behind him…

    Just a diminutive silhouette on the horizon now.

    \\][//

  25. “Turnabout is fairplay. Mr. Ruff, you’ve made many off-hand, flippant, negative, hypnotic statements of the nature that DEW and nukes are supposedly thoroughly debunked.”~Señor El Once

    This is only partially true. Pointing out these off-hand remarks and characterizing them as, “flippant, negative, hypnotic statements” is in itself a flippant, negative, and hypnotic statement — due to the fact that these arguments have been made in much fuller extent in the close-to two year history of these things being hashed out on this very blog, and extended to yet other venues. So if the “off-hand” remarks are now defined as “flippant”, this can only be said by ignoring {hiding} the well known fact of the excruciatingly long and convoluted debate that has already taken place.

    Which brings us to the present moment – wherein it is shown once again, that your real agenda here is to persistently hijack practically each and every thread to promote your Dew-Nuke theories, relying on the agitprop technique of claiming that the issue has been ignored by your detractors – it has not. And whether you like it or not, you may not and shall not take it upon yourself to claim a victorious position in this argument. Your proclamations that you have decisively won the debate is without merit or proper standing. Outside parties must judge for themselves. And they have been given plenty of sources to go to in order to make such judgments.

    I have addressed the crux of Señor’s theory, which is to point out the ubiquitous nature of each and every substance he points to as evidence of “excess” nuclear activities and residual sequencing. Besides that I have addressed the other physical evidence that he points to over and again.

    And Mr Ruff has done very much the same during the previous debates on the matter – both DEW and the added nuclear aspect championed by Señor. This assertion of “flippancy” is simply spurious bullshit.

    Furthermore; Neither Mr Ruff nor I confront Señor when he makes commentary on the topic of the thread, such as the example on this thread wherein he address’ Mr Deets. Invariably it is in answer to Señor’s redundant sales pitches that Mr Ruff or myself will state our opinion flat out as a proclamation, that:

    “No radiation =No nukes” – our response is never to simply state that without a compound noting of why we have come to exasperation with Señor’s agitprop techniques.

    I for one have grown most weary with this sales pitch Señor, and that is in truth the essence of your post to Mr Ruff on NOVEMBER 8, 2013 – 11:33 AM at the Truth and Shadows, Honegger Show thread.

    \\][//

    • Maxibore once more reiterates the substances listed by Prager as ‘residuals of a nuclear event’…never yet addressing the counter argument to this assertion. He says so-and-so substance “should never have been in those buildings” – ignoring the term ubiquitous, meaning ‘in the general environment’ not only in the buildings, not only in NY but essentially in the whole world at that time.
      [See: December 3, 2012 at 3:13 THE PRAGER PSYOP – above in this thread]

      He spends flush time discounting the USG reports, while having no other source for ANY types of product analysis of the dust and water samples. Which in fact leaves him rudderless at the get go. Again a cauldron of speculation.

      His glancing blow at the first responders’ illnesses being somehow proven by Wood’s presentation is also spurious.
      [See: A Further Note on the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust Due To Its Nano-Particulate Nature: November 28, 2012 at 7:00 pm above in this thread.]

      \\][//

      • El Señorita’s total lack of participation in the Honegger Show thread at Truth and Shadows after being rebuffed about going off topic by Mr McKee, is another clear indication that the Twatbore has no agenda there than to pitch his bullshit nookiedoodoo agitprop.

        \\][//

      • –“Were any games played in the form of re-defining “background levels” as was done in the Tritium Report?”~Señor El Once on November 8, 2013 at 6:23 pm
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        Too be perfectly clear there was no “re-defining “background levels” in the Tritium Report”: What you are referring to is the EPA standards for tritium levels, which have not been ‘redefined’ – what the Tritium Report says is that the levels of Tritium were not sufficient to cause human health problems. These are two different issues. The EPA standards for Tritium are set to levels of maximum assurance of protection, the over levels cited in the T-Report is minimally over the EPA standards, once you understand how minuscule the overage is*.
        [*SEE: December 1, 2012 at 2:30 am -Tritium PR Fantasy, above]

        There is ONE THING and one thing only that is NOT speculation; that is the nanothermetic product found in the dust by Jones-Harrit.

        \\][//

      • Exposure to Chemicals
        Continued exposure to radiation may increase your risk of multiple myeloma; this can occur in hospital workers who administer tests and treatments using radiation. According to the American Cancer Society, some studies have suggested that workers in certain petroleum-related industries may be at higher risk as well. However, the American Cancer Society also states that exposure to radiation accounts for a very small number of cases of multiple myeloma.

        In reading the literature on multiple myeloma, one finds that the DNA–Environmental nexus seems to be the determining factor. That is, family propensity and environmental toxins that compromise the immune system of those carrying certain genes. African men are the most effected by the disease.

        http://www.ehow.com/about_5050329_causes-multiple-myeloma.html#ixzz2kIZfRfOk

        \\][//

    • Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.

      \\][//

  26. As a supplement to my assertion of the ubiquity of radiation contamination in the water table around the US, I came across this recent study:

    The legacy of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy development has left ground water and sediment at dozens of sites across the United States and many more around the world contaminated with uranium.

    The uranium is transported through ground water as uranyl (U6+). In one bioremediation strategy, uranium immobilization in contaminated ground water and sediment may be achieved by the addition of organic molecules known as electron donors to stimulate microbial activity. The microbial community utilizes the electron donors as ‘food’, consuming all of the available oxygen during aerobic respiration. Once the ground water becomes anaerobic, U6+ may be converted to U4+ as UO2, a solid mineral, sequestering the uranium within the sediment. Researchers have been investigating the effectiveness of various electron donors, but have been frustrated by residual U6+ which is not converted to insoluble U4+.

    A team of scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory has investigated effectiveness of several electron donors for uranium bioremediation in a study funded by the Department of Energy’s Environmental Remediation Sciences Program. Madden et al. report that the particular electron donor chosen affects not only the rate of uranium removal from solution, but also the extent of U6+ conversion to U4+. Results of the study were published in the January-February issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-energy-ground-water-and-uranium-bioremediation/5360746

    \\][//

  27. Hello. I appreciate your analysis. I do have one fundamental issue (or question) about this whole JW thing. Why is she even given a space to spew her obvious disinfo? Where did she pop up from? Who gave her a tribune to begin with? I feel she is there just to create confusion and in-fighting, an agent-provocateur if you will. Her theories are so absolutely retarded, they shouldn`t even be countered, its a waste of energy and time IMO. People like JW are like internet trolls on youtube, they are completely manipulative, thrive off the (mostly negative) attention they get, they are not looking for discussion, but to create conflict. In case of JW she seems like a paid agent since no one with even minimal scientific training would spew such utter stupidity. I feel she should be completely ignored, or at least her theories should be adressed without mentioning her name (since that is exactly what she wants, to play victim) if the purpose is to clear the disinfo. Please don`t feed the trolls 😉

    • Hello Al Chulapi,

      Thank you for your supportive comment.

      Why is Judy Wood given a platform? Or even the time of day? Well she has been promoted by other charlatans: Morgan Reynolds, and Jim Fetzer being two of the early one’s to praise her bullshit.

      Of course 9/11 is a continuing psyop, with agitprop agents swarming in to infiltrate the public investigation. Add a heavy dose of gullible dupes and toast to a crispy black, and you have the current confused situation.

      I give my humble apologies for not getting your comment posted sooner. I’ve been busy with composing music for the last few weeks.

      Hope to see you here again.

      \\][//

  28. This is how the argument ends on the Judy Wood article on Truth and Shadows at the URL below:

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/

    Hybridrogue1 April 30, 2013 – 11:36 PM — I wrote:
    The locus is hocus pocus in the locomotion of the necro-train to ouch witch.

    It is claimed by Wood and her followers that there was not sufficient metal in the aftermath, but this is clearly a physical impossibility.

    If it is proposed that the metal was turned to dust then it should be identifiable in the dust of the aftermath. But the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to the amount that would account for the millions of tons of steel that made up the structure of the towers. As this is the case, the only position available for the “dustification” proposition is that that steel simply disappeared.

    Thus, “dustification” is a meaningless term to describe a mysterious process that has no basis in physics. It implies vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter. It is a foundational law of physics, that energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created, but merely changes in form. It can transform from solid to liquid, from liquid to gas, and recombine into another solid depending on the energies applied to it – but it cannot be made to disappear.–\\][//
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Señor El Once Answers my comment on May 1, 2013 – 11:51 AM:

    He begins by quoting my last paragraph, and then writes:

    > “You pulled that definition of “dustification” out of your ass, didn’t you?”

    He then adds:
    >”Nowhere have I heard that dustification means or implies “vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter.” You muddle high school chemistry and probably even introduce an error based on your own misunderstanding of science.”
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Of course Señor should be very aware that the word “dustification”, is a bullshit word to begin with – it is not a word, it is a term made up by Judy Wood. And unfortunately for both Wood, her wacky followers and poor Mr. Señor, she just pulled the word out of her ass. Furthermore, whatever ‘definition’ given it by her, to make any sense in the real world of science, must contend with the facts of physical matter.

    I do not doubt that Señor has never “heard that dustification means or implies “vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter.” ….. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the “implications” – As I had just explained them to him. There was no Fe level in that dust that would indicate that the steel had turned to dust – ie; “dustified”: THEREFORE, if the steel was not in the dust as would be predicted by the Wood theory of “dustification,” then the steel, according to her theory DISAPPEARED; because that is what the results of the testing of the Fe level in the dust shows.

    It is not my “misunderstanding of science,” that is the issue here, it is Señor’s misunderstanding of simple logic, and lack of reading comprehension.

    Needless to say, for anyone familiar with Señor el Once, his comment was not just the few words I quote here, but another blast of argumentum verbosium; an attempt to baffle with great heaps of bullshit piled atop his initial proximate errors.

    \\][//

  29. ref: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t

    The military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a “new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times … resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including … explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”

    \\][//

  30. “No structure of any kind collapses from top down! It is always from bottom up.”
    ~Anders Bjorkman M.Sc

    I would note however that a structure can indeed be blown up from the top down in a sequenced demolition.~ww

    Anders Bjorkman, with more than 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis

    WTC 1 – Introduction – Learning from Ship Collisions by Anders Björkman (M.Sc), updated 2 February 2009 — http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

    Bjorkman is quite obviously a good scientist and able structural engineer. He has one critical fault however; he hasn’t a clue as far as photography or cinematography are concerned and he makes the foolish mistake of buying into the September Clues, Simon Shack tripe of “video fakery”

    Bjorkman’s article is very well written as far as his explanations of the crash physics, and his refutation of Bazant, et al. It is a real shame that he wasted the beginning of this article on the “fake picture” angle. If this wasn’t part of the paper I would give him an A+,
    As it stands he gets a C+. Quite a shame.

    \\][//

    • I would note here that around the same time as the comment above about Anders Bjorkman, I found his email address and got a’hold of him. I questioned him as to his assertions. After a few emails he had no rational answers as to his reliance on the Video Fakery’ bullshit. He finally swore off the conversation saying he was no longer interested in 9/11, that he had gotten beyond it and had other interests. Grin.

      Fleeing a dispute like that is pretty telling.
      \\][//

  31. I think it is worth some commentary to assess and review our present situation on a constant basis. We are living in extraordinary times, each day the world seems to spin out of control as the full spectrum dominance of a new and virulent global totalitarian regime.
    We experience aspects of this in our daily lives, and are aware of those encroachments.
    One of the most obvious is recounted on this very page, and another on the page just previous to this.

    We were treated to a lesson in spin and arrogance that is in harmony with this totalitarian structure. The pathology displayed in this encounter are stark and painfully obvious.

    We can learn much from the experience by analyzing the language in the dialog of these counter parties to our positions. Dismissing the arrogance for a moment, we can serenely consider the assumptions displayed in the subtext of such commentary. Any statement carries an assumption, whether acknowledged openly or acting as a subliminal cue for the speaker making the statement.

    We, most of us, have become attuned intuitively to bullshit. It is good to call it what it is directly, and that is Bullshit. But it’s techniques vary into all sorts of subtle colors when sussing an MO. To make any references to the current examples here isn’t necessary, as any reading and understanding what I am talking about here are capable of their own assessments.

    It can be a surreal experience to encounter such apologies to psychopathy, but it can also give us the insight as to how to deal with it, both within ourselves and our strategies for countering insane arguments.

    \\][//

  32. There is a prime profile category of the population, a majority – perhaps a vast majority, that I call TVZombies, or TVZ for short. They are simple to identify, as their attitudes all have a common denominator, they are captives of the Public Relations Regime. They have bought into the bullshit paradigm fed to them from birth to death. But there are sub categories dependent on intelligence, personality traits, and emotional states. The plight of these people, and their weight of numbers placing us within that same consequence they rush toward must be comprehended.

    “This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no foolin’ around”.

    Communication and discussion is essential. Both for the sake of our remaining human and sane, and to conceive of solutions. When one is down with thoughts that they are not doing enough, it should be remembered that first and foremost dialog must continue.
    “Action” can often be the first mistake, for it is often reactionary. Misguided action is worse than simply pondering the state of our being. Dialog has it’s pitfalls as well, but they are nothing to throwing a Molotov Cocktail, or putting oneself in the firing line.

    It is my firm conviction that nothing will change for the better until a larger portion of the population finally ‘get’s it’: The System is a Lie.

    \\][//

  33. “It is furthermore not the total kinetic energy of the upper part C that is applied to the underlying storey – only the forces applied by upper part C columns are locally damaging, fracturing the underlying floor. At the same time the columns below apply forces on and start to destroy the upper part C bottom floor in the same manner. To fracture, punch through or slice a floor requires energy. Locally damaged floors would then get entangled into one another, huge friction forces would develop and arrest further destruction. No impact! To suggest that the load can increase without bounds due to a layer of rubble is nonsense. Bazant ignores local damages to the floors, all fractures that develop and the huge friction between these locally failed floors as the main factors arresting structural destruction. The loads and forces are actually reduced, mostly by friction! And collapse arrest should soon follow!”~Anders Bjorkman M.Sc
    . . . . . . . .
    This is part of the Bjorkman document that shines…where he is in his element.

  34. Thank you Mr Syed.

    Well the host’s bias is certainly driving this program.

    Having read Bazant, Mackey, Greening and others, I can tell you that they are simply wrong in their analysis. The critiques given on Journal of 9/11 Studies are thorough and refute the entire fallacious story these three and others.

    But the host mentions a name, and they briefly discuss something this professor said, utterly out of context . That scientist is Anders Bjorkman, and the following is from the paper that they were discussing. And this is the reason the two authoritarians wanted to bring him up – to dismiss him in a spurious manner:

    “It is furthermore not the total kinetic energy of the upper part C that is applied to the underlying storey – only the forces applied by upper part C columns are locally damaging, fracturing the underlying floor. At the same time the columns below apply forces on and start to destroy the upper part C bottom floor in the same manner. To fracture, punch through or slice a floor requires energy. Locally damaged floors would then get entangled into one another, huge friction forces would develop and arrest further destruction. No impact! To suggest that the load can increase without bounds due to a layer of rubble is nonsense. Bazant ignores local damages to the floors, all fractures that develop and the huge friction between these locally failed floors as the main factors arresting structural destruction. The loads and forces are actually reduced, mostly by friction! And collapse arrest should soon follow!”~Anders Bjorkman M.Sc
    . . . . . . . .
    This is part of the Bjorkman document that shines…where he is in his element. He can explain things in straight foreward English as well as give you the technical details and formulas. By the end of the paper he has destroyed the official narrative in toto, and of course Mackey, who is complicit in this little slight of hand to dismiss Bjorkman as a quack.

    Another thing Mackey described is misleading to the point of fraudulence, and that is the crane dumping a load of sand that has an impact equal to if it were contained as one mass.
    This is misleading as it is not an analogy of what is seen in the imagery of the buildings being destroyed, the materials are in fragments even beams are dismembered and blown beyond the perimeter of the footprint, we see clearly the exploding upper stories as they reach the stories below. They have turned into clouds of fragmented debris . There is NO solid block that falls through the building.

    I have studied these videos and images for a decade, and it is obvious that the buildings are exploding and not “collapsing”. All one has to do is believe ones own eyes rather than the hypnotic mantra chanted by the mainstream.

    And finally Mackey’s term, “irreducible delusion”, which ironically fits him and his confederates to a tee. It is more than ironic, it is projection of ones own shortcomings on others. It is like the host calling us a cult, when he is part of the largest crisis cult on the planet, the National Security State and it’s hysterical quest for ‘security’ above any other concern, spawning the strategy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ – just another way of saying “Totalitarian”.

    It is the state and the statists who are insane, not us.

    \\][//

  35. Hybridrogue1 — MARCH 1, 2014 – 2:28 PM
    Again Wieck/Pomeroo,
    Q: As you have only addressed the upper portion of the Trade Towers that had damage from the plane impacts, and experienced some fires, but certainly no raging inferno:
    By what mechanism was the remaining portion of the building weakened?
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Pomeroo — MARCH 1, 2014 – 10:01 PM
    “The portion of the building underneath the impact floors collapsed when the top portion of the building fell on it.
    Duh!”
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . . . . . ”..

    Hahahahahahaha!!! Yes, that is actually how he answered!

    \\][//

  36. RADIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS FOR
    PENNSYLVANIA LANDFILL LEACHATE:
    2009 TRITIUM UPDATE

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    “In 2004 and 2005, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
    identified the presence of tritium (3H ) in over 90% of the landfill leachate samples from 54 permitted landfills in Pennsylvania. While 3H is produced naturally in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen (14N) in air, it is also produced artificially during nuclear weapon production/use, as a byproduct in nuclear power production, and for other uses. It is these other uses that are most likely to be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills, and most notable among these are gaseous tritium light source (GTLS) devices used as emergency ‘EXIT’ signs. Despite regulatory requirements, accidental disposal of GTLS devices in municipal solid waste landfills is not uncommon (PADEP 2005, 2006a). These exit signs typically contain 10-15 curies of tritium but some contain as much as 30 Curies, and they typically have usable life spans of 10-20 years due to the relatively short 12.32 year half life of tritium1
    .
    Tritium is not a treatable constituent in landfill leachate.”

    \\][//

  37. No Evidence of Explosions at WTC?

    https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/911/911_evidence_for_bombs_thermite_at_WTC.html

    “Explosion…. huge explosion… loud blast… secondary explosions… secondary device… flashes… bombs… shockwave… detonators… controlled demolition… the thickest steel, bent like a pretzel…
    molten steel … lava … [underground] fires of hell… more than 2,800 degrees F [1540°C]…”
    – As you will see, typical terms used by witnesses to describe their experiences during the attack and the clean up of the World Trade Center site.

    \\][//

  38. “We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn’t see a thing. Right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom, boom, boom, sounded like three explosions. I don’t know what it was at the time. I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom, boom, boom and then the lights all go out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you. All of a sudden I could feel the floor started to shake and sway. We were being thrown like literally off our feet, side to side, getting banged around and then a tremendous wind started to happen. It probably lasted maybe 15 seconds – 10 to 15 seconds. It seemed like hurricane force wind. It would blow you off your feet.”
    –December 5, 2001, New York Times, file no. 9110238 (pdf on the site), interview with firefighter Keith Murphy

    The sucking sounds from other testimony, plus this last part here from Mr Murphy about the wind, certainly would indicate an implosion, which is a mechanism of a controlled demolition.

    \\][//

  39. The accumulated ten points of evidence leading to Ultimate Fact as to the destruction of WTC, with the additional physical evidence of Thermate found in the dust samples, stands together as ‘Best Evidence’ in the case of what happened in Manhattan on 9/11.

    \\][//

  40. A Rhetorical Sleight of Hand

    “Scientific sleight of hand. When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren’t looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.”~Maxifuckanus
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    “However, because the authors weren’t looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source..”???

    And just why should the authors have been looking at nuclear weapons as the tritium source?

    When one considers the FACT that a SINGLE tritium exit sign contains 25 Ci, and the levels discovered in the samples were BILLIONS of times less than this, why would it occur to any sane mind to consider the possibility of nuclear weapons as a source for the tritium?

    It takes a very bent scope indeed to fly off into Wonderland at the discovery of 3 nCi/L of tritium.

    \\][//

    • “Spent the last year Rocky Mountain way – couldn’t get much higher
      Out to pasture think it’s safe to say – time to open fire…”
      ~Joe Walsh

      \\][//

      • “And we don’t need the ladies cryin’ cuz the story’s sad – because the rocky mountain way is better than the way we had. Yea yea yea yea…”

  41. WTC Dust Signature Report by RJ Lee Group, Inc. – Report Date: December 2003
    WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology 130 Liberty Street Property
    [Prepared for: Deutsche Bank]

    “The distinctive composition, solid phases, and unique morphological features have allowed for the development of a “WTC Dust Signature”: dust containing particles that, when occurring together, can be considered to act as identifying source tracers. The WTC Dust Signature can be compared with dusts of unknown provenance using conventional source apportionment methodologies, forensic tags derived from microscopic observations, or statistical analysis.” — pg. 5.

    \\][//

  42. Cahill and UC Davis Group – South Tower dust cloud sampling:

    The UC Davis group acquired dust samples from a cloth carry-bag as well as a shirt that
    was directly hit by the expanding south tower dust cloud during collapse –
    9/11/2001:
    Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 85% of sample – Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 0.02% of sample

    10/3/2001:
    Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 11% of sample Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 20% of sample

    \\][//

  43. Most of the debris from the towers likely occupied the sublevel collapses as has been
    quantitatively explained.[35] Damage assessment schematics issued by the Mueser
    Rutledge Consulting Engineers [36] clearly show approximately 1/3rd of the total volume of
    the sublevels was collapsed or heavily damaged while another 1/3rd of the total volume
    was not assessed. If only 1/3rd of the volume was filled with debris, then this would
    assuredly account for all the ‘missing’ debris. Furthermore, at least 350,000 tons of steel
    were reported to be removed from GZ to landfills and recycle centers.37 The number of
    truck loads (over 100,000)38 which transported material from GZ is consistent with the
    expected amount of debris generated. Martin J. Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste
    Disposal at the New York City Department of Sanitation, reports over 1900 barges were
    used to transport the material from 59th Street and Hamilton Avenue Marine Transfer
    Stations, Pier 6, and Pier 25 totaling 1.6 millions tons of debris removed from GZ:39

    At the peak of the operation, approximately 10,000 tons of material were
    delivered daily to the [Fresh Kills] site… approximately 200,000 tons of steel
    were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various metal recyclers. The Fresh
    Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million tons of WTC debris of which
    200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer).
    The remaining material, approximately 1.2 million tons of WTC debris, was
    landfilled on the western side of Section 1/9 at the Fresh Kills Landfill in a 40-
    acre site.
    The project had come up to speed quickly, processing from 1,750 tons per day of
    debris in mid-September to 17,500 tons per day by mid-October. Average
    throughput over the duration of the project was 4,900 tons of debris processed
    per day.
    The last WTC debris was received at the Fresh Kills Landfill on July 29, 2002. On
    September 3, 2002 the project was completed.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf

    \\][//

  44. “Dear Mr. Hybridrogue,
    Judging a book by its cover, I see. I love how your book review comes from the lofty position of not owning it, not borrowing it, not stealing it, and otherwise not having it to read. Bravo!…Your status of not having Dr. Wood’s textbook certainly sifts the BS from the honest effort. Thank you.”~Bridges

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/

    That is the first of a long series of bullshit statements meant to push me into taking a copy of The BOOK. As I replied in this thread, I never claimed to be offering a “book review”.
    And now as all this history has passed under the bridge, and it turns out there wasn’t a thing in that book substantially new or different than the Wood website; this tactic of Bridges’ of framing any comment made as to Wood’s woowoo ideas as being a “book review, without the book” is the tactic of a disingenuous and spurious hack.

    This thread shows the true nature of Bridges from the get-go, all of it farting tap dances, that continue to this very day. Really, what a fucking idiot.

    \\][//

    • Also what is good about the thread above, is this is where that jizz wad Simon Shack introduces himself and his bullshit ‘Video Fakery’ whack-off. And what a pair of oinking shysters are Bridges and Shack’s interaction commentary there.

      It is this crap that put the ‘Truth Movement’ in the toilet – “Truth Leaders” like Shack, and Bridges, and Fetzer. All from the same mole hill.

      \\][//

  45. Are you a boy or are you a girl? With your whiny nagging shit you act like a girl.
    Well you may be a boy, but you act like a girl…

    These are new lyrics for an old song from the 60’s. I was in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and back and forth from San Francisco when this song was out. Of course I am reminded of it due to the entity who says he’s a boy but acts like Mary Poppins, the nagging nanny of T&S.

    Oh who oh who could this nagging nannyboy be? I’ll let you guess Once, Twice, Three.
    The real question is, does he sit down to pee?

    \\][//

  46. As far as Judy Wood is concerned:

    There are aspects to her presentation that Max calls, “nuggets of truth”. But what these are cannot be said to be exclusive to Wood. The idea that the towers did not “collapse”, but in fact “blew up” is one of the most agreed upon aspects according to all of us investigating this phenomena. And this is why my position has always been that one needn’t have Wood’s input to know about the so-called “nuggets of truth”, they are available from a great variety of sources in analyses, and by direct visual and eye witness accounts in thousands of articles and expositions on the Internet.

    Wood claims to present no theories, but to simply offer the evidence. This is not so, and anyone who understands PR knows that it is the ‘spin’ and the ‘slant’ of a presentation that projects the bias of the presenter. The ways the issues are framed, reveals the assumptions held by the author/presenter. There would be no controversy about Judy Wood if she didn’t have an obvious interpretation and opinion of what the evidence she shows means.

    More to this is the fact that she makes the assertion that she makes no assertions, as if she truly believes this to be the case, and this can be said to be ‘confirmation bias’.

    My interpretation of the evidence, not just what is within the Wood presentation, but in all that I have been able to review in the past almost 13 years, is opposed to Wood’s interpretation. I make that clear in what I have written here. And I assert that whether intentional or not, Wood presents disinformation with her interpretation. She dismissed the evidence that conclusively proves explosive demolition. She fails to address her critiques in anyway whatsoever. When confronted by a qualified and knowledgeable critic, she begins to sputter and spew unintelligible nonsense. She refuses to see illustrations that are placed right before her eyes.

    She even presents videos and images [on website and book] that taken together in a proper deductive manner belie her entire interpretation. There are many pictures and videos that she has addressed that show solid steel beams being blown out, that show squibs, and demolition waves rippling down the building ahead of the dust cloud. These are clear evidences of explosive charges going off.

    It is this evidence that conclusively proves a controlled explosive demolition, that disproves the various alternative theories of the use of exotic weapons to destroy the WTC.

  47. http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/4HaasEaton/Decibel.html

    225 decibels — Deafening — 12″ Cannon @ 12′ in front and below

    Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
    A. Dead people. They are always deaf.

    140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire

    –”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
    –The conclusion from NIST

    This is bullshit; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’

    –“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges

    This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12″ Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.*

    The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.

    –“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.

    The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.

    It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording.

    \\][//

    • http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/courses/spsci/acoustics/lect1-2.pdf

      Intensity and Distance
      • Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
      • Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
      the distance
      • Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.

      Summary
      • Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
      • Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
      – logarithmic ratio scale
      – with a reference at the threshold of hearing
      – which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.

      \\][//

  48. Señor El Once has shown that he does not comprehend the enormity of his task of making a proof for his ‘Nuclear DEW’ argument. For in order to even begin such an argument, he must in the first place successfully disprove the case for chemical-explosive demolition. This is an impossible task because the case for chemical-explosive demolition is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    \\][//

  49. As per my article CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AND THE DEMISE OF WTC ON 9/11:

    One may take umbrage that I am certain enough of my case that my conclusion is brief and seeming satire. But it is not satire, it is simply so.

    Rather than taking issue with my concluding statement;

    ‘Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.’

    One must successfully rebuke the ten points that prove chemical-explosive demolition.

    And this I hold to be impossible because the evidence is prima facea.

    The analysis put forth simply presents the data that makes up this evidence. Points 6 through 9 are crucial, and damning to any alternative hypothesis. These particular points may not be handwaved nor dismissed with spurious rhetoric. Any argument put to them must be one of substance, and not supposition and presumptions floating in thin air.

    ‘Nukes at WTC on 9/11’ is no less fiction than ‘The War Of The Worlds’.

    ~Willy Whitten – May 18, 2014

  50. Orwell’s “Newspeak” is Psycholinguistic Code

    Now, in a recent discussion on TS blog I was confronted by a person who is an academic, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and a self defined ‘Conspiracy Analyst’.
    This person became hostile over my assertion that the so-called “government” is constitutionally ultra vires, and therefor utterly illegitimate. His entire argument against me as we went back and forth, was one from ignorance. He simply didn’t know what he was talking about. As most of my commentary ended up being backed up by data and fact, he began “prophesying” that I was soon to lurch into ad homenim, because he said I was the one just speaking from empty opinion. The more frustrated he became, the more juvenile his remarks.
    Finally in the last few exchanges it dawned on me that he takes Newspeak at face value. If someone is characterized by a government white paper as a “Hard Right Wing Extremist”, that is what they really mean, according to my opponent. He doesn’t recognize the fact the it is Psycholinguistic Code — Newspeak.

    This reveals a baseline, deep underlying ignorance on the part of my opponent. If one cannot untwine the twisted threads of doublespeak, one cannot give proper analysis on anything sociopolitical.

    So it ended up being my opponent who kept taking shots at me and my character rather than arguing any facts… And he didn’t even recognize his own hypocrisy in this.

    The entire conversation is documented here:
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/educators-holocaust-group-join-sept-11-museum-in-teaching-children-official-911-lies/

    \\][//

    • “Did you know that the cost of a full advertising page in The New York Times ranges approximately from $100,000 to $200,000? Needless to say that such a contribution must buy some silence.”~Global Research
      \\][//

  51. A note on Wikipedia:

    I will cite certain issues as found on Wikipedia, as to do with general knowledge, such as science, some simple definitions, dates that events took place, biographical info, etc. What I stay away from is anything to do with political issues. It is there that we find mostly mainstream PR. Wikipedia is no less Orwellian Newspeak than any other outlet in that regard.
    \\][//

    • The Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

      \\][//

  52. “The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower [380 ft tall, 30 stories] weighed only 364 pounds [165 kilograms], consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative).” http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6325450.html

    Scaling to the 110-story WTC Towers, roughly 1300 pounds [590 kg] of explosives per Tower would suffice. Scaling to the size of WTC 7, 570 pounds [260 kg] would be indicated. The videos referenced above show WTC 7 falling top-down, in conventional controlled demolition fashion. On the other hand, the Towers were evidently demolished from the top downward, which although unusual is certainly possible using explosives. Indeed, for very tall towers such as these, top-down demolition seems be the best approach, to avoid toppling over of the tower onto surrounding buildings.”~Jones
    \\][//

  53. Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:

    As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help,including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

    That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
    NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… ” ~Jones

    \\][//

  54. “The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.
    Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” ~NIST, 2005, p. 141

    \\][//

    • — “In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.” ~NIST – as quoted above

      As to the “scaling issues” – this means the smaller amount of steel in the structures built for the test. Which would be nowhere near the ‘heat sink’ that the connected structure of the whole tower would be. Plus that fact that the conditions in the towers never came close to the sustained temperatures of the furnaces.

      It is clear from the monkey business of this criminal fraud by NIST, that there would have been no global collapse from the fires that were burning so cool and sporadically in the towers. There wouldn’t have even been the conditions they term “poised for initiation”.

      Had there only been the jet crashes and the local fires at those points,the fires would have died out and the towers would have remained standing. Instead they were blown up by explosives.
      \\][//

  55. “Mr. Rogue fails to understand the concept of water flowing under the force of gravity down, as if he didn’t know that shit rolls downhill.”~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/cnn-launches-cartoonish-assault-on-ae911truth-over-alternative-911-museum-pamphlets/#comment-23665

    This is the entity’s response to my proofs of tritium escaping municipal landfills and getting into the water table.

    How does this wash?
    Yes water flows downhill, it seeks “level” – “sea level”. Where do we find sea level? At the coasts. Where is Manhattan? Manhattan is on the east coast. The WTC was at and below sea level [sublevels] this is why “the bathtub” and all of the construction of the retaining walls and revetments.

    Mr Seenyor does not comprehend the term ubiquitous when it comes to environmental contaminants; biological, radiological, and chemical. He plays to a pristine environment at WTC prior to the events of 9/11; which is a clearly absurd proposition.

    \\][//

    • –“The discussion in the source paper was not about just any run-of-the-mill EXIT signs. No. They were “airplane EXIT signs.” This is an important distinction for two reasons.”
      ~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM [same post as above]

      I wasn’t discussing “the source paper,” which the entity should know full well. I was discussing the ubiquitous nature of radiation in the environment, in particular the tritium that is not containable by landfill leachates.
      But worse than this is his argument that continues thus:

      –“(1) Pilotless, droned aircraft may not even need EXIT signs. And even if the aircraft had them, their total numbers were small, the pathway to the few drainage sampling points speculative, and passage of time before measurement permitted much dilution of tritium.”~SEO

      Notice; “..may not even need EXIT signs..” Another of the entity’s suppositions having no factual basis but his assumption.
      And he goes on to speak to the “source paper”, which only has relevance that travels as far as it does – which isn’t to my point about tritium leaking into the environment as a constant and ongoing problem. If “dilution of tritium” was such a simple matter as flushing it with water, it wouldn’t be such a constant problem to the landfill situation. Excess, over EPA standards tritium pollution is a constant, and especially so in the industrial city-scapes such as Manhattan. [See: Prager Psyop, as well as tritium studies, above]

      \\][//

  56. –“Mr. Rogue has set up a filter for me such that all comments from me go directly into moderation. By Mr. Rogue’s own words, my comments will never be published on Mr. Rogue’s blog. It isn’t a question of “Mr Once will not address these issues honestly”, it is an that cheating “Mr. Rogue will not allow honest debate from me.”~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM [same post as above]

    Actually all comments are on moderation on this blog until I approve a comment by individual posters. It is automatic and does not single out the entity – however it is so that I will never allow this vicious son-of-a-bitch publication of his bullshit here.

    But it is also true that the entity lurks this site constantly, and should know my arguments intimately. This is not a space for debate, and I have made those intentions clear for as long as this blog has been in existence. If the entity wants to honestly debate the issues he should do it on the forum where we are both commenting. But it is there that we get nothing but agitprop scurrilous bullshit and character assassination attempts from this vicious screwball.
    \\][//

    • –“Moreover, nothing in the “10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition” excludes nuclear mechanisms.”~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM [same post as above]

      Oh but they most certainly do. The signature characteristics of such controlled demolition are “signature” to chemical explosive demolitions, as is made very clear in the body of mine and other’s arguments. The obvious squibs, the rings of detonations running up and around the buildings, the “demolition waves” clearly shown in the videos, the sequential “bam bam bam” the solid booms of central core charges going off, as caught on video and spoken to by hundreds of witnesses. These are the “signature” characteristics of known chemical explosive demolitions. Asserting that a DEW weapon or nuclear weapon would mimic all of these features is total nonsense. It is as spurious as asserting that someone killed by a package bomb were shot by a high powered rifle through a window from hundreds of yards away. Forensics and ballistics science are exacting, and foreclose on the entity’s wild eye’d nonsense conclusively.
      \\][//

    • The comment made by: Señor El Once — JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM, is a perfect example of Argumentum Verbosium. A long tirade leaping from point to point without any continuum that leads to anything but a rhetorical carousel.

      I have taken a couple examples from this commentary by the anonymous entity, above.
      Taking the whole thing apart and showing each example of why his answers are nonsense is alas too tedious a prospect, on top of being futile, as I have already made so many arguments against this entity’s bullshit that it should convince any lucid reader who pays attention.
      \\][//

  57. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
    Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11
    by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Now it is claimed by Wood’s supporters that she has “no theory”, but simply addresses evidence. However the subtitle of the book, right on the cover is the assertion that this is evidence of “Directed Free-Energy Technology”. This assertion is what is called a “theory” in the realm of science.
    But it is not only this blatant splash right up-front, it is in the spin and perspective of the tale she weaves that reveals an argument for “DEW”. It is therefore obvious and undeniable that Wood is promoting a theory behind her presentation. And it is clearly dishonest to claim that she is not promoting a theory.

    And more than this, when the theory is broken down and analyzed it remains empty theory, as it is all based on absurd assertions and fraudulent application of “science”.
    Having written about this for the last 2 years I am not going to detail this fraud again here. It is in the record of my blog and other commentary on the web.

    \\][//

  58. The fickle mob. The lowest common denominator. Propaganda and the Public Relations Regime. Voodoo posing as ‘hi-tech’. These are the core issues confronting Truth.

    \\][//

  59. https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/new-consensus-points-show-nist-ignored-critical-wtc-7-evidence-ae911truth-may-launch-suit/#comment-23783

    An interesting exchange on this thread at T&S with a newcomer named “Peter”. He is another one to fall for the internal “Truther” propaganda supported by the mole Frank Legge and his click, that an aircraft actually struck the Pentagon on 9/11. Arguing from a position of total ignorance he became inflamed and stormed out of the blog, after proving himself incapable of reasoned argument.

    He then has the audacity to give Mr McKee advice on how to manage his own blog, having made a fool of himself and blaming others for his inadequacies.

    I don’t know who “Peter” is, or if he has standing in the so-called “Consensus Project”, but if he does, they are in big trouble. To me he seems more like the boy who cried wolf, that the shill A Wright brought up inexplicably on the same thread earlier; someone who needs to learn some lessons from the real world and grow up.
    \\][//

  60. “Had the samples been collected before it rained twice and the fireman sprayed all of the water they could have potentially been above 6.12 billion TUs. That level would be equivalent to a leaking nuclear power plant (hot fusion).”~Donald Fox
    http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dr-judy-wood-911-gatekeeper-extraordinaire/

    Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.

    Fox says, “they could have potentially been above 6.12 billion TUs..” Again supposition and presumption on top of making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to the completely insignificant minuscule amount of tritium discussed.
    Even more however is that the signature features of controlled demolition by chemical explosives has not and will never be addressed by these pro-nuke charlatans – because they cannot defeat the proofs of such controlled demolition. Therefore it is hand-waved without comment.

    This URL was snuck into a comment by Seenyor Maxitwat on the current T&S thread on the Pentagon, that Craig specifically charged this skunk entity not to post about – another example of what a cheat and liar this motherfucking Once entity is; and a hypocrite for calling me such.
    \\][//

    • It is actually quite funny; one disinfo team battling it out with another disinfo team on that Donald Fox pro-nuke anti-DEW article. Quite like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in Wonderland! Lol

      Blither v Blather!!!

      One wonders what might have been said in the comments to prompt Fox to close the comments section … about as many there as on Adam Taylor’s blog before he turned tail and ran.

      You’re an idiot Señorita!
      \\][//

  61. Both the nuke and DEW ideas are simply jokes; stupefying bullshit.
    If the Señor entity really believes this nonsense he is a goofball.
    \\][//

  62. Boomer posted this on C1 July 23, 2014:

    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/new-info-from-vt-points-to-nuclear-911/?wref=tp

    –”Don Fox and I went to Gordon Duff who introduced us to a senior US Army/NATO officer who had commanded nuclear forces in Europe. He concurred that 9/11 was nuclear, answered what he could and helped direct us onward.”~Ian Greenhallgh

    . . . . . . . . . .
    “a senior US Army/NATO officer who had commanded nuclear forces in Europe”?
    Really?? Unnamed sources aren’t anything but empty assertion. Gordon Duff is a known liar, and so is Don Fox.

    Again we have a story built on anal hurlant and nothing more. Agitprop bullshit!

    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1406129916

    \\][//

  63. Emmanuel Goldstein – OCTOBER 2, 2014 AT 12:03 PM
    “Armchair critics come a dime a dozen. Why is criticizing Dr. Judy Wood more important than the evidence she presents? Remember, Directed Energy is a category. Those promoting disinformation claim it is a specific device. That’s like claiming the category of Kinetic Energy means a pea shooter or a slingshot. Dr. Wood does not name a weapon. What she does present is a comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened. Dr. Wood does not make any statement as to a device or where it was located. Only those promoting disinformation have made such claims. Why do you think that is? Here’s a hint The EVIDENCE Dr. Wood has gathered is indisputable EVIDENCE and cannot be refuted. If this EVIDENCE became widely known, it would incriminate a lot of people and undermine the power structure. Now, who has a dog in this fight? Remember that the empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the buildings turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don’t need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When “white man” first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn’t need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brothers. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city.

    It has been over 13 years since a classified technology was used to create domestic terror and mass murder for the sake of imperialism and hegemony based on a fiat money system in its death throes. What are we as a people left with? A published scientific forensic investigation that concludes a type of Directed Energy that was used as a weapon “dustified” the World Trade Center complex and a group of shadowy people determined to suppress that evidence by any means. This is the sad reality that we live in Mr. McKee. :(”
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27136

    _________________________________________

    Goldstein’s entire post is circular reasoning, ie; bullshit.

    Some have posited that Goldstein is a cover entity for Wood herself. I have no idea whether true or not, but the type of “reasoning” on display here is of the same cloth.

    The issues have been covered sufficiently here and need no repetition. however, one point as to this assertion:

    ” The EVIDENCE Dr. Wood has gathered is indisputable EVIDENCE and cannot be refuted. If this EVIDENCE became widely known, it would incriminate a lot of people and undermine the power structure.”

    This is true in a general sense, but not in the specific sense that Goldstein asserts. There is nothing in Wood’s work that is original but for the ludicrous use of unscientific terminology and bizarre rhetoric that defines her INTERPRETATION of said evidence. Wood deals in pseudoscience, and it is OBVIOUS to anyone who can grasp physics and rational critical argumentation.
    \\][//

    • “Remember that the empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the buildings turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened.”~Goldstein

      . . . . . .
      This is not true, nor is there any proof whatsoever presented by Wood as to such an assertion.
      The majority of the buildings were pulverized in varying degrees; from rubble sized chunks to sand-like material, to dust sized material [as specifically gone into in the body of this commentary]. Classic explosive demolition results in the same material effects.

      There simply is no proof at all that any of the steel was “dustified”, or that the buildings went “poof”. These terms are fairy-tail language, having no place in a discussion of physics.
      \\][//

      • I didn’t point out that Goldstein’s assertion above is a classic circular argument:

        “That is the proof that it exists. It happened.”~Goldstein

        No what we have here is proof that Goldstein has no aptitude for critical reasoning or argumentation.
        \\][//

    • As far as “beam weapons” being a misinterpretation of “disinformation agents” out to slur Wood, this can be dismissed by simply reading Wood’s own words:

      “The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
      (A focus of the Star Wars Program) by Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds”
      (originally posted: October 17, 2006)

      http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

      \\][//

  64. Limited hangouts: Kevin Ryan, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies
    by Jim Fetzer (with Dennis Cimino)

    –“Ryan’s book … confirm(s) my impression that Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage are the core of a limited hang-out designed to contain the breadth and depth of 9/11 research”–Jim Fetzer

    . . . . . . . .
    Imagine that, the piss calling lemonade yellow. Fetzer and the clowns at Veterans Today are the worst moles of the 9/11 movement. I have issues with Ryan’s views on the Pentagon, but as far as this bullshit from Uncle Fetzer … Lol Fuck the pretender and his “no planes” “holograms” “nukes” and “DEW”; the worst disinformation on 9/11 there is!
    \\][//

  65. The WTC nuclear hypothesis is pure conjecture. Compounded by the fact that it does not reflect the evidence, is an illustration that these ideas are based on false assumptions.
    \\][//

  66. truth4wtc7 Jan 5, 4:00 am
    “wrong. where is your supporting evidence to back up that claim?!?”

    I gave you the link to that supporting evidence already. There is little sense in making such technical arguments on a venue such as YouTube. The supporting evidence is in the section above “Prager Psyop”, read it before asserting such evidence is not given here.
    \\][//

  67. http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/
    The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:

    Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
    Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
    Government scientists declaring that the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
    Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence, for example by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
    Deceptive efforts to introduce the government contractors who created the official accounts as independent scientists.
    The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.

    Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.

    As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.
    […]
    Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate. Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.
    […]
    In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.
    http://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/
    \\][//

  68. Cancer Incidence in World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers, 2001–2008

    Background: World Trade Center (WTC) rescue and recovery workers were exposed to a complex mix of pollutants and carcinogens.

    Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate cancer incidence in responders during the first 7 years after 11 September 2001.

    Methods: Cancers among 20,984 consented participants in the WTC Health Program were identified through linkage to state tumor registries in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare cancers diagnosed in responders to predicted numbers for the general population. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate associations with degree of exposure.

    Results: A total of 575 cancers were diagnosed in 552 individuals. Increases above registry-based expectations were noted for all cancer sites combined (SIR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.27), prostate cancer (SIR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.44), combined hematopoietic and lymphoid cancers (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.71), and soft tissue cancers (SIR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 4.05). When restricted to 302 cancers diagnosed ≥ 6 months after enrollment, the SIR for all cancers decreased to 1.06 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.18), but thyroid and prostate cancer diagnoses remained greater than expected. All cancers combined were increased in very highly exposed responders and among those exposed to significant amounts of dust, compared with responders who reported lower levels of exposure.

    Conclusion: Estimates should be interpreted with caution given the short follow-up and long latency period for most cancers, the intensive medical surveillance of this cohort, and the small numbers of cancers at specific sites. However, our findings highlight the need for continued follow-up and surveillance of WTC responders.
    . . . . .
    Recent studies have documented the persistence of physical and mental health problems among rescue and recovery workers exposed to the World Trade Center (WTC) sites (Mauer et al. 2010; Skloot et al. 2009; Wisnivesky et al. 2011). A study of 27,449 WTC responders found persistence through 2010 of multiple physical and mental health problems including asthma, sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Wisnivesky et al. 2011).

    Concern has arisen about the potential for increased risk of cancer among WTC responders. These men and women sustained exposures to a complex mix of toxic chemicals that included multiple known and suspected human carcinogens (Lioy et al. 2002). The combustion of jet fuel at high temperatures released soot, metals, benzene and other volatile organic compounds, and strong inorganic acids. The burning and subsequent collapse of the towers resulted in the release of particulate matter comprising asbestos; silica; cement dust; glass fibers; heavy metals including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium VI, and nickel; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; polychlorinated biphenyls; and polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dibenzodioxins (Edelman et al. 2003; Lioy et al. 2002; Litten et al. 2003; McGee et al. 2003; Offenberg et al. 2003).

    Four studies to date have investigated cancer in WTC responders. In 2009, the WTC Health Program published a case series of multiple myeloma cases in WTC responders, including the unusual occurrence of four cases diagnosed before the age of 45 years (Moline et al. 2009). The second study, by the Fire Department of New York City (FDNY), investigated cancer among 9,853 firefighters enrolled in the FDNY WTC Health Program (Zeig-Owens et al. 2011). This study reported an increase in the incidence of cancer in WTC-exposed firefighters compared with nonexposed firefighters, but did not present associations according to levels of WTC-related exposure. A mortality study of the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) WTC Health Registry did not find an increase in standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for any cancers or for all-cause mortality, compared with the general population (Jordan et al. 2011). Most recently, the NYC DOHMH investigated cancer incidence during 2003–2008 in a cohort of approximately 56,000 individuals registered with the WTC Health Registry and reported statistically significant increases in thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma among rescue and recovery workers in 2007–2008 (Li et al. 2012).
    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205894/
    \\][//

    • 9-11: THE CASE FOR MINI-NUKES — YouTube
      . . . . .
      Your major problem Liddy, is in lack of radiation. There simply is no proof of radiation. You cannot claim ‘radiation poisoning’ without first proving radiation. You cannot claim that these cancer incidents prove radiation when the carcinogens known to cause these cancers is a known part of the WTC Dust.
      To make that claim is a circular argument.
      Didn’t you ever study critical thinking?
      \\][//

    • Stew Webb Reveals Gordon Duff’s Real Identity on PressTV (5-10-15) [See: YouTube]
      Published on May 10, 2015
      Stew Webb discusses the NSA spying using the PROMIS software and also outs Gordon Duff’s real name – Bob Foote to a world audience. Stew also exposes VeteransToday as an FBI Cointel operation to the world. The FBI troll site (VeteransToday) is now bashing Stew Webb, and other patriots who woke up and left after seeing the blatant disinformation being put out by Gordon Duff and VT.
      \\][//

  69. More On the Ubiquity of Radiological Polution:

    2MN PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA, MIDWEST DRINK URANIUM-CONTAMINATED WATER – STUDY
    “Some 275,000 groundwater samples were taken for evaluation, and it turns out that many Americans live about a kilometer from wells that are uranium-polluted, scientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln discovered.

    Seventy-eight percent of the pollution comes from nitrate, the contaminator deriving from chemical fertilizers and animal waste. Nitrates oxidize uranium, making it soluble in groundwater.

    — RT (@RT_com) May 10, 2015

    The aquifers are under the rich soil layer, which is fertilized by nitrates. That’s when they get to the aquifers.

    “It needs to be recognized that uranium is a widespread contaminant. And we are creating this problem by producing a primary contaminant that leads to a secondary one,” co-author Karrie Weber, assistant professor of biological, earth and atmospheric sciences at the UNL, said, as quoted in the official press release.”
    http://www.blacklistednews.com/2mn_People_in_California%2C_Midwest_Drink_Uranium-contaminated_Water_%E2%80%93_Study/45772/0/38/38/Y/M.html
    . . . . .
    A Background Briefing on Radioactive Pollution

    The scientific, technological, political, and moral challenges presented by radioactive pollution are huge. In the press of war, we learned how to create and use a nuclear chain reaction. Tragically, we have not learned how to control its horrific results. We do not know the extent of radioactive contamination nor the extremity of its damage. We do not know how to recall it once radioactivity is let loose. We do not know how to contain forever that which we still possess. We do not know how finally to say “enough is enough” and stop making it, selling it, and poisoning the planet. These challenges are explored in this article.

    RADIATION AND CONTAMINATION

    An element is radioactive when it has an unstable nucleus that spontaneously releases energy (or decays). The particles emitted in the process, in the form of alpha or beta particles, neutrons, and gamma rays, affect other atoms, causing them to become unstable emitters of radioactivity themselves, with the potential to contaminate whatever they are near.
    The nuclear chain consists of human activities that begin with disturbing natural radioactive uranium deep in the earth, and includes every stage of mining, milling, transporting, enriching, fabricating, processing, and so-called disposal. Every link in this chain results in contamination of the biosphere. As wind and water, microbes, insects, seeds, birds, and other life forms move through all ecosystems (including those identified as too contaminated to be inhabitable by humans), unconfined radioactivity eventually disperses through the biosphere worldwide.

    Radioactive particles move through the air in the form of dust from both the mining of uranium and the wind moving over the tailings-mountains of uranium-laced earth left on the ground after three to 4% of uranium is removed for processing. Extracting the usable uranium contaminates the equipment used, the liquid that washes it, the vehicles that transport it, the clothing of the workers, the water they wash with, and the air with the radioactive gases that are routinely vented. Contamination continues at every step along the way without end; in the reactors, the submarines, the weapons manufacturing, stockpiling, storage, testing, use, and dismantling.

    “Background radiation” is a measurement of the accumulated radioactivity in the atmosphere from all sources combined: the sun, the earth, and all man-made explosions, leaks, accidents, purposeful ventings, and dumpings. The term, however, implies naturally occurring radiation is of no real concern. But before the Atomic Age there were no comprehensive measurements of naturally occurring radiation, so the use of this term obscures the reality that we already live in a contaminated world, and that radiation’s effects are cumulative and irreversible.

    With respect to nuclear pollution (and every other type of persistent pollutant which lacks a safe dose), it cannot be overemphasized: What counts biologically is the sum of all the injuries over time from all the combined sources and events which release persistent poisons (radioactive or other) into the biosphere. If the sum matters biologically, then each contribution to the sum matters (Gofman and O’Connor 1994).
    http://ratical.org/radiation/BBradPollution.html

    \\][//

    • 13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
      NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007
      request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation
      of the total collapse” [25].
      This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000
      pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor,
      yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties including
      Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.

      We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation
      for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain
      that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the
      investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised
      for collapse” [4]. We offer to help find that elusive “full explanation
      of the total collapse” of the WTC Towers which
      killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not
      happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up
      with experimental data [13, 22]. Our interest is in physical
      evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the
      destruction of the WTC.
      http://www.indytruth.org/docs/911-14points.pdf
      \\][//

  70. The following link is to a Truth & Shadows page that was the first of a series of “debates” on the DEW issue with Maxwell Bridges aka Señor El Once:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/

    This is also the thread that I first encountered the infamous Simon Shack of ‘Video Fakery’ fame. Another of a long cast of charlatans that have infiltrated the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’. The discussion on this thread is very interesting in retrospect as well.
    \\][//

  71. Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001
    André Rousseau, November 2012

    “The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001,
    recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
    of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study
    concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the
    waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations
    which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of
    the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
    First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the
    seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that
    identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of
    identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic
    sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the
    cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.
    According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose
    a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the
    presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a subaerial explosion.
    The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.”
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
    \\][//

  72. DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
    By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

    Directed energy weapon (DEW) demolition proponents claim that a large majority
    of above-grade structural steel from the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was
    dissociated into dust and aerosols during and/or after collapse. However, multiple
    quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of
    structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols. A review of the photographic
    record (flickr)
    20 shows no gas, dust, aerosols, or debris moved upwards during the
    collapse, and physical principles reveal that that no significant fraction of structural
    steel from the towers could reasonably be supported by air during or immediately
    after collapse. Visibility (optical path length) measurements, dust collected directly
    from the south tower debris cloud, and an analysis of the physical transport
    mechanisms for dust and aerosols prove that the debris which hung in the air after
    the collapse was miniscule compared to the amount of steel in the towers. A large
    fraction of steel in the towers could not be transformed into a gas due to the reactive
    nature of iron and oxygen which would have caused suffocation of anyone in the
    vicinity of ground zero.

    The photographic record of debris removal from ground zero (GZ) reveals that the
    majority of the debris generated from the collapse of the WTC towers fell upon
    their footprints and filled sublevels. Other corroborating evidence from multiple
    independent sources quantitatively and explicitly indicates that sufficient amounts
    of debris and steel were removed from GZ. In short, no significant amount of steel
    from the towers was turned to dust or aerosols at anytime during and after the
    collapse. All of the steel may be accounted for if the sublevel collapses are included
    in the analysis which is corroborated by the photographic record and other
    quantitative evidence.

    before their own subsequent demise are often interpreted by observers in one of two
    ways: 1) the spires fell while dust and debris were generated by crumbling concrete and
    wallboard which were built into the core as well as the liberated remnant dust which had
    settled upon the spires, or 2) the steel spires themselves turned to dust. I believe that all
    people who interpret the videos report what they observe. However, I do not conflate
    interpretations with facts. My personal observation, as well as many other witnesses, is
    that the spires fell. Other people observe spires spontaneously turning to dust. All
    observers are credible and report what they observe. The data is inherently ambiguous
    since it may be interpreted in more than one way. This is the definition of ambiguous
    data. Usually the demise of the spires is cited as the strongest evidence by DEW demolition
    proponents, but the interpretation is hopelessly ambiguous as can be gauged
    by the people who report what they observe.
    A second example of ambiguous data used to support the claims of DEW-demolition
    proponents are aerial and surface photographs of ground zero (GZ) after the collapse of
    the towers.
    Some people interpret the photographs as evidence that only a tiny fraction
    of the debris is present at GZ since, they argue, little debris is observed on the surface
    compared to the total amount of material comprising the building. However, surface
    photographs taken before debris removal are ineffective in gauging the amount of debris
    which may reside in the sublevels. The interpretation of these photographs as proof that
    little debris was present after the collapse is inherently ambiguous. The methodology is
    explicitly flawed since the amount of debris which may reside in sublevels can not be
    gauged.”

  73. Amount of steel above grade in the towers
    The total weight of above grade concrete and steel as well as estimates of live and dead
    loads has been compiled by Gregory Urich for a single WTC tower:

    Steel by weight above grade in the towers was 90,000 tons / 240,000 tons ~ 38% (and
    this ignores all the iron present in the live loads). Since all the structural carbon steel used
    in the towers was over 98% iron by weight7
    , the amount of steel and the amount of iron
    can be thought of as synonymous.
    Concrete in the tower represents 87,000/240,000 ~ 36% of the total above-grade mass.
    The percentage of iron by weight found in WTC bulk concrete based upon a
    measurement performed by Dr. Steve Jones11 of the MacKinlay sample was found to be ~
    3.2%. So, the concrete in the towers can contribute up to 36% x .032 =1.2% to the total
    percentage of iron in the dust.
    Take special note that literally all iron in the office material (live loads) and all duct
    work, plumbing, and wiring (superimposed dead load) have been ignored. Thus, a lower
    bound of iron expected in the dust from above-grade structural steel and concrete is
    found to be at least 38% + 1.2% ~ 39%.
    If the structural steel was dissociated, the dust would contain at least 39% iron.
    Since DEW-demolition proponents believe that the majority of the structural steel in the
    towers was turned into dust,
    I will use this number as a reference for comparison to the
    actual amount of iron found in the dust and aerosol samples. This will allow the reader to
    quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude. However, the percentage of iron
    physically measured in the dust and aerosol studies is so tremendously insignificant that a
    direct comparison is not even required.
    Quantifying iron found in dust samples
    The amount of iron measured in the WTC dust is consistent with the expected amount
    generated from concrete as reported by three independent bulk dust studies. The amount
    of iron measured in all three studies confirms that an insignificant fraction of above-grade
    structural steel was dissociated into dust, if at all. The following four sections investigate
    the results reported by the USGS, the EPA, and McGee et al.

    Part I: USGS dust study results
    A 2-person USGS crew collected samples of dust and air-fall debris from more than 35
    localities within a 1-km radius of the World Trade Center site on September 17 and 18,
    2001. Twenty samples were chemically analyzed and the pertinent data (elements that are
    greater than .1% of the dust sample by weight) are summarized in the table below. The
    data clearly shows that only 1.6 +/- 0.7 %-weight of iron is found in the dust.

    A summary of the pertinent results are as follows:
    %-weight Fe expected from concrete 1.2%
    %-weight Fe expected from dissociated steel 38%
    USGS average %-weight Fe content 1.6 +/- 0.7%
    As we can see, 1.6 +/- 0.7% is consistent with the 1.2% iron content expected from the
    bulk concrete aggregate contribution.
    We can calculate how much structural steel may have been turned into dust based upon
    the USGS findings:
    (1.6 +/- 0.7% – 1.2%)/38% = 1 +/- 2%
    Proponents of DEW-demolition claim that the initial above-grade steel ‘missing’ from
    the WTC rubble is obvious to the point of being self-evident based upon photographs of
    ground zero (GZ).
    This claim is in direct contradiction with the quantitative data: no
    significantly elevated levels of iron are found in the dust, and the level is consistent with
    what is found in the concrete aggregate.
    Even if you consider the maximum error in favor of DEW-demolition (3% dissociation of
    structural steel), this amount of hypothetically ‘missing steel’ from ground zero is
    obviously not going to be qualitatively assessed based solely upon photographs.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
    \\][//

  74. Craig McKee asked Roger Gloux:
    “By the way, what’s your answer to Adam Ruff’s question?”

    Adam Ruff’s question is:
    “How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.”

    This is Roger Gloux on September 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm with his rambling non-answer:

    “Craig you said…. “And I would like answers before anyone else goes back to pushing The Book. Or challenging it. (The exception I will make is if Roger wants to directly answer the questions put to him by Adam Ruff – how he and Judy Wood know what was “missing” from the rubble, etc.)”

    I thought that was very precise but look at the response of Willy with his deductive capacity…..”No Craig, in fact you said you weren’t asking if the debate should be stopped.”

    Craig, regarding your question I might add the debris of Building #7 is higher then that which is at the Towers. Considering the Towers were over twice as high as Building #7 why is the pile of the Towers only 1/3 of of the height of Building #7? Now consider something else, there is 500.000 tons of varying materials in the Towers and consider also a Truck is loaded with 30 to 50 tons because that is all your allowed to haul on city streets depending on the number of tires under the rig..

    Now look at the pile of debris consisting of a mix of gravel, concrete, steel of various sizes, aluminum, drywall desks and toilets etc etc…. gotta picture? Now eliminate all the desks and steel cabinets and toilets because none were found. Also a very small amount of steel girders is found as well, and comparing to the volume that was there, it is a small fraction in comparison. Go to a big scrap yard and look at the pile of steel and iron and see what you have. Now compare that to the pile at the destruction zone which is mostly none steel items and debris.There is a lot of T-bar grid that hold the ceiling tiles in place and water pipes but what is astonishing is the lack of volume of the big steel girders.

    Now you have Dr. Woods, book look at the section regarding this subject.

    I used to own a scrap yard back in the sixties and was the last man allowed to burn out cars for sale of clean steel in the Vancouver area. A cup of gas on the seat with closed windows and in fifteen minutes the car is gutted, ready for market. These burnt out cars were then torn apart by a grapple and but in a crusher and baled into solid blocks to be able to ship over seas.

    The piles of debris at the Towers have a mix of everything in it looking like black dirt with a certain mount of steel in it. There isn’t enough steel there with all the dirt mixed in. They couldn’t have pulled it out because they were searching for bodies and body parts. They took it apart slowly and people were taking photos, including ‘fema”. Dr Judy Wood went and collected those photos and put them in category and anyone who looks at it like a text book can see what she is saying. For the most part she is right.

    I certainly don’t want to be duped by a crack pot or a spook who is working for the Government because there is a lot of it when you start investigating. That’s why the investigators come to the conclusion it is an inside job.

    I don’t know how else to put this to you except read the book.”
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33826
    . . . . . .
    This obviously is not an answer to Adam Ruff’s question, it is rhetorical commentary skirting a direct answer to a very simple question. Roger does not know how to answer a direct question. He has no sensible answers to anything. All he can do is blab on from his subjective opinions about shit that is only peripherally related to the question. And advise that we read the fucking BOOK. Judy Wood cannot answer the question herself, how can we expect dupes like Roger the dodger to give a straight answer?

    Well Dr Jenkins gives us a straightforward and clear answer above; There simply was no missing steel in the aftermath of the WTC demolitions. Period. Case closed.

    Judy Woowoo is an idiot, and so is anyone who buys into her pseudoscience bullshit.
    \\][//

  75. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
    Abstract:
    We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
    The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

    http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
    \\][//

  76. ”The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/

    His first lies were in his trying to convince me to take a copy of the Judy Wood book, saying I could not fairly judge her work from the information on her web site. This is a bald faced lie, and it is false advertising, and it is even admitted in so many words by Bridges himself, in that he cannot name one substantial difference between the information and the book and what is on the website.
    His contention that the legend identifying the buildings that were damaged in the area is “worth the price” on it’s own is utter tripe and nonsense. And that is the only benefit having the physical book holds, even according to the anonymous entity.
    \\][//

  77. “Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels.
    I used the same counter to measure the radioactivity of sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed (2.94 +- 0.15) counts/sec. (The fused-sand was in fact from a New Mexico test site where an atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.) This demonstrates unequivocally the presence and long life of radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs, and the ability of the sensitive Geiger counter to measure that radioactivity. The sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast, yet the WTC dust and slag and steel yield nothing. In addition, a steel member from the WTC (again from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) was recently tested for neutron activation by the author. The WTC steel showed 100 counts in 4m 26s, or (0.38 +- 0.04) counts/second. The background counting rate showed 100 counts in 4m 18s, or (0.39+- 0.04) counts/second. These data overlap within the statistical error, meaning that zero counts over background were seen from the WTC steel.”~Steven Jones
    See: article below>>
    \\][//

    • Neutron activation not observed at WTC site after collapses.
      All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs.” ~Steven Jones
      [see article above]
      \\][//

  78. The Unalienable Right to Individual Liberty is a peremptory norm [also called jus cogens]; a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
    \\][//

  79. The Jones-Harrit Bentham Dispute
    The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.
    Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I’ll quote you an excerpt of her resume:
    OTHER ACTIVITIES
    1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
    1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
    1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry
    EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
    2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
    Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
    2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.
    CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
    1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)
    LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
    2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
    1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)
    Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign?

    An article on explosives in the World Trace Center was published in a scientific journal without the editor in chief knowing about it. Now she is resigning, she tells Videnskab.dk ([science.denmark])
    By Thomas Hoffman (th@videnskab.dk).
    It created a great attention, surprise and suspicion when the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April published a scientific article on remains of nanothermite which were found in great amounts in the dust from the WTC.
    One those most surprised is apparently the editor in chief of the journal. Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about he article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content. The e-mail got her to immediately close the door to the journal.
    “I resign as the editor in chief”, was the abrupt answer in an email to videnskab.dk
    PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
    A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.
    “They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.
    She feels not only stabbed in the back, but is puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.
    “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.
    FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURANL
    The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.
    Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades.
    “I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:
    “There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”, is the harsh verdict.
    The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, “Yes” thank you.
    “It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,” concludes Marie-Paule Pileni.
    DOES NOT CHANGE THE INVESTIGATION
    The editor-in-chief’s decision is viewed as regrettable by the Danish chemist Niels Harrit, who is one of the authors to the controversial article on nanothermite in the dust from the WTC.
    “It surprises me, of course, and it is regrettable, if it discredits our work. But her departure doesn’t change our conclusions, for it is a purely personnel related thing she his angry about. I still believe that we have carried out chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our study, she is welcome to criticize us for it,” says Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the Institute of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.
    It is Niels Harrit’s coauthor Steven Jones who was in charge of contact to Bentham, and therefore the Danish researcher is presently not aware which responsible assistant editor the group has been communicating with.
    http://911blogger.com/node/19963
    \\][//

  80. Matthew Nereim says, “What do Perception Manager’s, aka disinfo shills do? ” They do exactly what Nereim himself proceeds to do, degenerate any civil discussion about the facts of 911, by interjecting an unscientific proposition on an imaginary device called “DEW”. This “DEW Machine” is not supported with anything but conjecture and supposition. All of the effects sighted as the results of the use of this “weapon” are easily and more rationally explained by other mechanisms well known to modern physics.

    The DEW-heads are a cult of true believers who rely entirely on faith in the authority of their guru of woowoo, Judy Wood, a crackpot who has been promoted by known charlatans. These frauds are James Fetzer [now distancing himself from her], Morgan Renolds, and Andrew Johnson; who remain Judy’s handlers.

    This whole pale of garbage began shortly after Dr Steven Jones gained traction in his discoveries concerning thermitic materials in evidence in the demolition of the towers. Shortly after the first few papers published by Jones were released, Reynolds and Wood wrote an attack piece against Jones that was nothing but lies and ad hominem. The DEW faction have sense that time used the timeworn tactic of “playing the victim”, when in fact they are the aggressors and proximate cause of the vicious nature of this dispute between DEW-fantasy and real science.
    \\][//

  81. Matthew Nereim asks; “Then how was there no “P & S” waves in the seismograph? How di the ground shake for only 8 & 10 seconds…when the Kingdome shook the ground for 52 seconds? How did the paper not burn?”

    Because the towers are in no way analogous to the squat structure of the Kingdome. The Towers exploded raining down beams and debris for a matter of some seconds, that material did not slam to the ground as one event.
    The Paper was floating around for hours along with other light materials, the scenes you point to with burnt out cars are time contingent, the paper floated down after the cars had flamed out.
    See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

    Gravitational Potential Energy Comparison
    In addition to being based on admittedly corrupt seismic data, the WR paper’s
    comparison of the WTC collapses to the Kingdome demolition also contains a red herring. In
    Section V of the WR paper, the total gravitational potential energy (“GPE”) of the WTC
    towers is compared to the total GPE of the Kingdome. This comparison is made in order to
    attempt to extrapolate an expected seismic signal, or Richter scale reading, for the collapse of
    the Twin Towers. As a preliminary matter, the expected seismic signal calculated in the WR
    paper is demonstrably false. More importantly, though, it is unsurprising that the actual
    seismic signal for the collapses of the Twin Towers differ significantly from the “expected”
    seismic signal offered by the WR paper, as will be demonstrated below. The Richter reading
    is an indication of the energy magnitude for an earthquake, but not an indication of the total
    GPE of a building for a building implosion.

    The WR paper calculates the total GPE of one WTC Tower to be 30 times the total
    GPE of the Kingdome (although these calculations are not provided in the text of the paper,
    which means it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to verify their
    accuracy). It then uses this difference in total GPE to try and prove that the Richter scale
    reading for the collapse of one WTC Tower should have been larger than the Richter scale
    reading observed during the Kingdome demolition. Specifically, the WR paper offers an
    expected Richter scale reading for the collapses of the Twin Towers of 3.8, which is based on
    a Richter scale reading for the Kingdome demolition of 2.3. However, in the case of an
    earthquake, if the total amount of energy released during the earthquake is increased by a
    factor of approximately 32, the Richter scale reading will only increase by 1 whole number.
    (See HowStuffWorks.com earthquake article here; See also United States Geological Survey
    analysis here) For example, an earthquake with a Richter scale reading of 5 will have release
    32 times the amount of energy as an earthquake with a Richter scale reading of 4. The WR
    paper inexplicably associates an energy level increase of 30 (which is less than 32) with a
    Richter scale increase of 1.5 (which is more than 1). The details of these “expected” seismic
    signal calculations need to be clearly shown and this discrepancy needs to be explained.
    Based on data available for seismic waves generated by earthquakes, one would expect an
    energy increase of 30 times would increase the Richter scale reading by less than 1 whole
    number.

    Even assuming the “expected” seismic signal was correctly calculated in the WR
    paper, it is thoroughly unsurprising that the actual seismic signal produced by the Twin
    Towers collapse differed from it because the destruction of the Twin Towers exhibited vastly
    different characteristics than the destruction of the Kingdome. At the outset it is important to
    note that no one disputes the fact that the demolition of the Kingdome was different than the
    destruction observed during the collapses of the Twin Towers. The WR paper even admits as
    much on page 2 by stating “the Kingdome demolition contrasts sharply with the destruction of
    the Twin Towers.” The comparison of the GPEs in the WR paper is offered to disprove the
    idea that a conventional explosive driven controlled demolition was used to bring down the
    Twin Towers. However, even if we assume that both collapses were the result of a controlled
    demolition using explosives, it does not automatically follow that the seismic signals of the
    collapses are able to be compared in any meaningful way.

    While it is true that Richter scale readings are used by seismologists to estimate the
    amount of energy released by an earthquake, the same methodology cannot be used after a
    building collapse or implosion to determine the total GPE that was originally in the building.
    By the same token, the total amount of GPE in a building cannot be used to calculate an
    expected seismic signal for a building collapse or implosion because, in the case of an
    earthquake, all of the energy originates within the earth itself and is transferred through the
    earth in the form of seismic waves. The seismic waves travel through different rock strata and
    earth topography and are detected at receiving stations. The properties of the earth that the
    seismic waves travel through are generally well known and allow seismologists to accurately
    determine the location and, more important to this discussion, the magnitude of seismic signal
    of the event based on readings from the different receiving stations that detect the signals,
    after adjustments are made based on the known properties of the earth. Thus, the amount of
    energy released by the earthquake can be determined based on the magnitude or amplitude of
    the seismic signal.

    The WR paper appears to be analogizing the energy released by an earthquake with
    the total GPE available to a building before it collapses. This is an incorrect analogy because,
    as demonstrated below, only a percentage of the total GPE forms seismic waves because
    during a building collapse or implosion, the available GPE can be dissipated in several
    different ways which do not involve transferring energy through the earth in the form of
    seismic waves. In other words, during a building collapse or implosion, not all of the total
    available GPE is transferred through the earth as seismic waves; only a percentage of the total
    GPE becomes energetic seismic waves. The rest of the GPE is dissipated, most notably,
    during deformation of the building and its structural components, during the formation of
    rubble and dust, and due to air resistance as the rubble falls through the air. Furthermore, the
    percentage of the GPE dissipated through these other mechanisms would be expected to differ
    between two collapses that exhibit different characteristics and, as stated previously, no one
    disputes that the collapse of the Kingdome differed significantly from the collapses of the
    Twin Towers. Thus it should be expected that the percentage of the total GPE available to the
    Twin Towers that was converted into seismic energy differed from the percentage of the total
    GPE available to the Kingdome that was converted into seismic energy.

    Therefore, a meaningful comparison of the magnitude of the seismic signals
    generated by two different building demolitions necessarily takes into account only the
    amount of the total GPE that was converted into seismic waves. If it is not taken into account,
    a reason should be given as to why the assumption that the same percentage of the total GPE
    was dissipated in both cases during deformation of the building and the formation of rubble
    and dust. Although it has not explicitly stated its assumptions, it would appear that, in
    performing the calculations in question for the comparison of the Kingdome and WTC Tower
    collapses, the WR paper has assumed that the same percentage of the total GPE available in
    each case was transferred into the earth in the form of seismic waves. However, no reason is
    given as to why this assumption is an accurate representation of reality. In fact, there is no
    reason that can possibly be given to have the reader of the WR paper to accept the assumption
    that the same percentage of the total GPE formed seismic waves in both cases. The Twin
    Towers were demolished from the top down, blowing vast amounts of dust and debris out and
    away from the building during the collapse and pulverizing much of the concrete and other
    materials into very fine dust. Some large sections of debris lodged themselves in nearby
    structures and never even reached the ground. The Kingdome collapsed into its own
    footprint, with relatively less pulverized concrete generated during the demolition. It is clear,
    therefore, that the characteristics of the WTC demolitions were vastly different from the
    demolition of the Kingdome.

    So, the reader of the WR paper has learned what the reader already knew, namely that
    the characteristics of the WTC demolitions were different from the characteristics of the
    demolition of the Kingdome.

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s