Humint Events Online: How to Explain the Incredible Symmetrical Destruction of WTC7?

Sunday, July 01, 2007

How to Explain the Incredible Symmetrical Destruction of WTC7?

The Anonymous Physicist has a highly original hypothesis on what happened to WTC7. Please take time to read this fascinating piece.

WTC7 Demolition: Conventional, or Nuclear After All-- and the Nuclear Borer Hypothesis

By the Anonymous Physicist

In my recent articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC I wrote that the controlled demolition (henceforth abbreviated as CD) of WTC7 appeared to be conventional. I reasoned that videos do not show the massive outward explosions seen during the nuclear destruction of WTC1 and WTC2. There is also the fact that much of WTC1 and 2 was vaporized and is not there in its own rubble (footprint), whereas WTC7 demolition shows numerous "pancaked" floors remaining. But further examining of the evidence requires continued thinking on this question.

As always, I caution people to overcome naiveté and inertia; and to realize the possibility that many photos and videos released on all 9/11 skyscrapers' "collapses" may have been altered. We know that most, if not all of the videos of the two "plane hits" of the twin towers have been altered, or are simply computer generated. Having said that, here is a fairly complete set of several videos from different locations and angles showing WTC7 destruction. Can we contrast this with video of a conventional demolition of a similarly shaped wide skyscraper? See this demolition of the 32-storey, "wide-body" Stardust Casino in Las Vegas. Ignore the added Vegas fireworks. Notice how the entire (all the way up to the top) central structure all falls down, from the very onset of demolition, with the sides collapsing on top of this at the end. Notice also that the moving plumes of smoke start after the entire edifice has hit the ground. Contrast the latter with WTC7, which had much larger plumes of smoke flowing certainly at the start of demolition, and perhaps apparently even before (from basement explosions?)

But perhaps the most striking difference is in the near perfect, intact, ensemble "sliding down" of the upper floors of WTC7. With the exception of the initial collapse of the central penthouse, and an apparent initial kinking of the top left area of WTC7, we see an almost miraculous, perfectly uniform, even collapse. I assert that this is a demolition unlike any other, for many reasons. But the usual destruction of mere supports does not appear to be involved here. Rather whole levels of structure below the visible top floors appear to have been vaporized-more on this later. Now we appear to see at least the top 20 floors or more just coming down as an intact ensemble. What can account for such near-perfect uniformity? We don't see this in other CDs of similarly shaped buildings. Indeed, in other CDs, we saw that the initial central collapse followed by the outer portions falling inwards is created by the CD planners for the final footprint result, and occurs at the onset of CD. Assuming the videos are (somewhat) genuine, was the initial, central, rooftop penthouse "collapse" a clever way to get people to think the whole thing was occurring like other controlled demolitions? When the rest of it is not. (Or was the Penthouse coupled to something in the basement, or the lowest floors?)

Part of the problem of analyzing the WTC7 CD, is the fact that smoke, and other buildings, obscure what happens to the bottom half. A chemist, Frank Legge, PhD stated that the upper floors of WTC7 came down just slightly slower than freefall speed in a vacuum (6.2 vs. 6.0 sec.). His article is in Steven Jones' "Journal." It concerns itself in proving that fires and gravity could not have caused the WTC7 "collapse," and that conventional CD did. Legge even wrote, in defense of his conventional CD hypothesis, that the bulk of the WTC7 "came straight down with extraordinary precision." To me, all this begs the real question: Was this a conventional CD, or was WTC7 a nuclear CD, like WTC1 and 2? For completeness, I note that others state that the CD of WTC7 was faster than free-fall time, and that a vacuum was created by the explosions that "sucked" the building downwards. Thermobaric, or Fuel-Air Explosives (FAE), are sometimes cited with this hypothesis. A partial vacuum is said to be created with this type of explosive. Of course, even this type of explosive does not vaporize the contents of a building that they might be used in. But these possibilities should be considered.

In more detail, we must ask, does nearly the entire visible part of the building, WTC7, just come down AS IS (without any central falling inward) because some of the lower floors are no longer there? Were they vaporized by a nuke, or nukes? Again because of either video doctoring, or smoke and building obscuration, we do not see the bottom floors. We do know that WTC7, and much of the WTC, had hotspots as seen by AVIRIS/NASA plane overflights. For the moment, let us discuss the undergound hotpsots and molten steel in general, regardless of which WTC building these are under; because I will end with an unimpeachable witness to vaporized steel beneath WTC7. Now these AVIRIS overflights took place on 9/16/01 and 9/23/01. Temperatures as high as 1000 degrees Kelvin or 1341 degrees Fahrenheit were found. This article makes clear that these were surface temperatures. Thus, if the heat source was significantly further undergound (as I will demonstrate), the source(s) would likely have been at much higher temperatures. Now, as with the destruction of WTC1 and 2, gravitational pancaking does not allow for 1300 F. degree surface temperature days and weeks later-nor for the much higher temperatures further underground. It is also improbable or impossible that conventional controlled demolition could account for this either. But the "extreme temperatures" of a nuke might, or as I hypothesized, the remnants of unexploded nukes undergoing partial criticality could account for these temperatures. This remarkable photo shows flaming and apparently molten steel (if you look closely) being dug out of the bottom of WTC1 in late October. It is more easily seen here. Indeed the previous link has firefighter Joe O'Toole state that in February of the next year, there still was molten steel at the WTC! Here we have firefighters describing FLOWING molten steel weeks later. It is impossible to explain such high temperatures so long after 9/11 except for the use of nukes, and/or possible heat GENERATION via nuclear criticalities, as previously cited.

Now I wish to make a crucial assertion. I may be the first to assert that the second AVIRIS data set is bogus! It claims that nearly all the hot spots were gone by 9/23. The govt's "data" claims that the "over three dozen hot spots [on 9/16]" were reduced to "4 or possibly 5" with greatly reduced temperatures by 9/23. Curiously, the 9/16 data were released two days later on 9/18; but the 9/23 data were not released until 10/12-19 days later! I believe that honest scientists got the first set out ASAP, but the regime had time to block and alter the second AVIRIS set. And don't forget no further testing--or more likely release--of similar plane or satellite overflights was allowed. What do I base these assertions on? When honest, intrepid firefighters, and other responders state they witnessed molten steel weeks and months later, and when photos show the removal of such molten steel weeks later, I know whom to believe. This is analogous to the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's murder. That film purports to show the limo moving at a steady 10 mph throughout. This despite the fact that numerous eyewitnesses stated that the limo came to a complete halt (so that the driver could do what others had failed to do.) Some of these eyewitnesses soon paid the ultimate price. Zapruder himself at the Garrison trial of Clay Shaw refused to state, under oath, that the version of his film shown in court was the one he had shot! So if I have to choose between intrepid firemen with nothing to gain, versus a President-murdering, Apollo Hoaxing, its own citizen nuking, world destroying regime, the choice is clear to me. All the eyewitnesses and photos demonstrate that the long-delayed release of the 9/23 AVIRIS data is false! The release of an honest set of such data would have shown very high temperatures weeks and months later. This not only would have shot down the official ludicrous "collapse" story, but also the regime's planned release of the shill physicist's termite, er I mean thermite story. The release of honest temperature grids at the WTC, weeks and months later, would have proven the case for nuclear demolition, and/or heat generation by nuclear reacting criticality sites! This had to be avoided at all costs.

Now let us return to the demolition of WTC7. Unlike WTC1, 2, which I hypothesized were nuclear CD's, we do not see any great outward explosions with WTC7 because they would be going off in the unseen lower floors, including perhaps most likely the basement floors. WTC7 officially had five basement levels according to one (shill) website. Now any nuke; or nukes, used in WTC7 were either limited to the basement and lowest floors only. But was the "collapse" observed so nearly perfectly even because numerous basement and lower floors had just been vaporized? I think there is a good chance this is what happended. Especially when we also consider what would be revealed underneath WTC7 weeks later.

While we must always consider the possibility of fakery with WTC7, let us assume for now that the videos of its unique demolition are genuine. But let us further examine another of my hypotheses, from my previous nuclear demolition article. I made the novel assertion that Larry Silverstein's statement that WTC7 was "pulled", was no slip-up. I believe the PTB have been--from the moment of WTC7's "collapse"--telling the world that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. As it was happening, we had CBS' Dan Rather say "it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." Note the admission/allusion to conventional controlled demolition. We saw that in the assassination of President Kennedy, Dan Rather upon being the only reporter shown the Zapruder film, stated/lied that JFK went forward in the limo, after the fatal head shot, when in fact, he was flung backwards from the frontal shot (driver). Likewise, anything he said at critical 9/11 events was also scripted for him. Then we had, years later, John Kerry "admit" too that WTC7 was imploded by conventional CD. We know that everything Kerry does is also according to his taskmasters. When he was informed that the Ohio 2004 Presidential election was rigged, and that he was really the next president, and could prove it if he wanted to, he then immediately conceded. He acted out his script.

So why are the Rathers, the Silversteins, the Kerrys of this country so happy to publicly proclaim a conventional CD for WTC7? One possibility must be that it was a nuclear CD. Recall how I noted that whenever the regime admits to something very bad, the real truth is usually vastly worse. In this light, we must ponder why they needed about six or seven hours to demolish WTC7, after the others were destroyed? Admittedly WTC7 harbored the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the IRS, the SEC, the Mayor's Command and Control Center, and according to Guiliani, another federal govt agency that he couldn't name. The latter is often code for the NSA, which officially "does not exist (No Such Agency)". And its charter is itself classified as top secret. Of course, there could always have been federal agencies even more secret than the NSA in WTC7. Some have speculated that WTC7 likely was the "command and control center" for the 9/11 op. Therefore there would have been things in WTC7 that were needed for the destruction of the other buildings of the WTC on 9/11! So it couldn't be demolished until after the others were. And perhaps it took some time to 1) get out things they wanted to save, and 2) set things up so as to absolutely guarantee destruction (vaporization?) of certain other things. This apparently took more time than they expected. How do we surmise this? Because we now know that they told the media to announce that WTC7 came down before it actually did! So we can guess that either 1) There was something important to get out that took longer than they planned for, and/or 2) Making certain something would be completely destroyed took longer than they planned for, and/or 3) outside events occurred that precluded the scheduled destruction of WTC7. The last could be something like isolated military commanders tried to counter the events of 9/11 and the regime needed to counter that with the use of something in WTC7. Of course, only the nuking of the contents of WTC7 would guarantee that said contents were totally unrecoverable (vaporized). Now there is a 4th explanation: the remarkable possibility that the federal perps drilled out sub-basement levels on 9/11 itself. See below.

So in the analysis of the demolition of WTC7 on 9/11, we must consider 1) The possibility that videos are doctored, and need extensive analysis, as the now-proven bogus "plane hit" videos have been; and 2) The probability-especially if the videos are genuine-that WTC7 was demolished through the use of mini-nuke(s) in the lower floors and/or basement levels. Evidence of the unique, ensemble whole (upper) building "collapse" and the very high temperatures and molten steel beneath the rubble of WTC7 for days and weeks afterwards support this nuclear hypothesis. In any case, future inquiry should be directed not to the question of if this was a controlled demolition, but rather whether it was a nuclear demolition, which appears likely.

The following section is to be regarded, at this time, as purely speculation, and is not essential to this article on the demolition of WTC7. This speculative hypothesis (apparently published here for the first time) relates to the nuclear demolition of WTC7, and possibly the other WTC buildings. The following speculation could provide for the necessary nuclear reactors which provided either the explosive nuclear material (Tahil hypothesis), or more likely, IMO, the source for heat GENERATION weeks and months later to explain all the hotpsots, and molten steel observed at such later dates-as late as February 2002. Note that this section is not necessary for the whole of my WTC Nuclear CD Theory, as I have already stated that blasted, unexploded mini-nukes could have provided for the nuclear reacting criticality sites, and resultant hotpsots. I write now of the remarkable Nuclear Borer. A photo of which is here- note it states that 42 levels were bored out by the Nuclear Borer. Here is the public patent granted in 1972. A discussion of the Nuclear Borer is here. I am only concerned with what is spoken of at 2:35 seconds in. I will not comment on the rest of this video. I am only concerned with the depiction and knowledge of the Nuclear Borer. Note that the 1972 public patent states, "The heat source can be electrical or nuclear but for deep drilling is preferably a nuclear reactor." We must note that if this remarkable military device had a PUBLIC patent granted in 1972, it must have been used much earlier. And it is highly likely that 30 years later, in 2001, there would have been much faster, more powerful, smaller versions in existence. Other eyewitnesses have stated that this is precisely the case, and they have been used to quickly construct massive, very deep (thousands of feet), underground, connected bases-but this is beyond the present discussion.

This Nuclear Borer speculative aspect of my WTC nuclear demolition theory perhaps resolves the last piece of the puzzle, as follows. Apparently few people seem to be concerned with the fact that the molten steel at the WTC weeks and months later should require a source for the GENERATION of such heat, weeks and months later. I had hypothesized that these great hotspots (deep) underground were nuclear criticality sites from blasted, but unexploded mini-nukes. But the fact that there are so many of these hotpsots indicates that these may not have been "accidents"/mishaps; rather the resultant hotpsots may have occurred because their source was built into the demolition scheme itself. The nuclear reactors in the Nuclear Borers appear to fill this last piece of the puzzle quite well. But the earlier hypothesis of nukes blasting unexploded other mini-nukes, resulting in nuclear-reacting criticality hotpsots may still hold. In more detail, regarding this Nuclear Borer hypothesis, the requisite 20 or more floors were drilled out in the sub-basement, with stability left in, until that was exploded by the mini-nuke(s) at 5:30. The drilling-out was possibly done that day, after evacuation after the "plane hits". Perhaps this "perfect ensemble collapse" was perpetrated to reinforce the claim that the two towers came down via gravitational pancaking. Maybe the powers that be thought it would be easier for the masses to swallow this, if they "collapsed" at least one of the buildings--which by then had many video cameras trained on it--to look like a gravitational pancaking--which the END result does, as does a superficial understanding/viewing of the WTC7 "collapse" itself. But recall all the chaos in the nuking of WTC 1 and 2. Recall the whole chunks breaking off, and that massive, separated top part of WTC2? Did the WTC1, 2 "collapses" look anything like the perfect ensemble "collapse" of WTC7? Or did WTC7 demolition, look anything like any other demolition? So perhaps the WTC7 demolition fell as such a "perfect ensemble" because it fell into its own perfectly drilled-out footprint! Nukes provide for lots of "uneven" chaos. Perhaps only a perfectly drilled-out hole could have accounted for the perfect ensemble collapse--drilled out by the Nuclear Borer (or successor device).

Let us look at the history of the WTC, and the nuclear Borer. The WTC was built in the late 60's and early 70's, when the Nuclear Borer had already been used for some time in drilling out underground nuclear bomb cavities. One possibility in my Nuclear Borer Speculation is thus that Nuclear Borer(s) could have been used at the WTC during its construction, and left in place for use during its destruction! Another possibility (as per the above) is that one of them--or a more potent, yet smaller, successor device--was very busy underneath WTC7 for some 6-7 hours, drilling out sufficient sub-basement floors to allow the unique ensemble collapse of WTC7 at around 5:30 P.M. This may answer numerous questions: Could this be why they took so long, after the other buildings were destroyed? Could some unexpected problem in the use of the Nuclear Borer be the reason that the PTB gave the media too early a time for the destruction of WTC7? Could the exploded nuclear reactors in several Nuclear Borers, and their still critical components be the underground source for the many hotspots and molten steel weeks and months later? Could the Nuclear Borer's reactors be the fission reactors that William Tahil hypothesized? I always thought his hypothesis had some merit, but didn't quite fit. Unlike Tahil, I believe that mini-nukes (fusion devices) brought down the towers, and possibly all the other WTC buildings and now WTC7 too. And these nukes could have also exploded the reactors in the Nuclear Borers which may have been used to drill out necessary parts of each of the WTC buildings for the other nukes to do their thing. In particular, extensive Nuclear Borer drilling may have occurred some time before WTC7 destruction, perhaps that late morning and afternoon. This allowed for that most unique "falling in its own footprint" "collapse" ever to be seen. WTC7 did fall through its own footprint once demolition began; as many underground floors had been bored out and a mini-nuke set-off underground or at a lower floor above ground initiated its unique destruction. It then indeed proceeded to fall through its already drilled out footprint-deep underground! This ends the Nuclear Borer Speculative Hypothesis, which is not necessary for this WTC7 nuclear demolition article, as a whole.

Finally we have this remarkable WTC7 destruction article, originally in the (formerly lauded) NY Times, no less. For the most part, the article has lie after lie, such as this statement: "[WTC7] burned like a giant torch." Of course, everybody has seen that only a few windows on a couple of floors had relatively minor fires that could easily have been put out. These fires were even on lower floors, allowing for an easier task by fire crews. But the fire department was apparently called off by federal agents. But in the midst of all these now typical NY Times/Regime lies, we have this remarkable slip-up and printing of some truth. Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, said, in speaking of the WTC7 rubble, that the "fire and structural damage would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures." Here, in effect, the NY Times has allowed to be printed a statement from a fire engineering professor, and witness, that some of the steel of WTC7 was vaporized! And he even admits that any alleged fire and structural damage could not have caused this vaporization of steel. In effect, he is telling the world, that only the "extraordinarily high temperatures" of nuclear demolition allowed for that! For when he cited the vaporization of steel, not merely the melting of steel, he has proven the case for nukes, and at WTC7, no less! For completeness I note that the termites, er I mean thermite, of the disinfo physicist is in no way capable of vaporizing steel. It might barely be capable of melting steel, but probably not, as it barely reaches the temperature needed to do this, but since it is an explosive, it doesn't provide the time to even appreciably melt steel, let alone vaporize it. An explosive that attains vastly higher temperatures, as do nukes (up to 100 million degrees), can and does cause vaporization virtually instantly at or near its hypocenter.

The particular WTC 9/11 nuclear demolition hypothesis of the Anonymous Physicist states that what vaporized steel-nuclear fusion bombs, and what caused molten steel up to five months later, according to firefighter/responder Joe O'Toole, were two different mechanisms. The first (vaporized steel) was from nuclear fusion bombs (mini-nukes); and the second (molten steel weeks and months later) was from nuclear criticality sites strewn over the WTC from either damaged, unexploded mini-nukes, or the speculative hypothesis above.

So in the final analysis, regarding the hypothesis of nuclear destruction of WTC 1, 2, 5, 6, and now 7, the evidence herein, and in my earlier articles, including the great surface hotspots (implying far greater temperatures below the surface), and the molten steel witnessed and photographed weeks and months later, and the fire professor's admission of vaporized steel in the WTC7 rubble and his admission that the vaporized steel present proved that "extraordinarily high temperatures" could only have caused that; along with the logistics, and other facts previously cited (such as much EMP evidence), prove that only nuclear explosives and/or nuclear reactor criticalities can account for all the above.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow with a goat?
hey if you can refute what anon phys actually says then you should go for it.
just calling it bullshit without elaborating is the real bullshit.

11:04 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

Thanks for posting the article.

It's extremely thought-provoking and

I'm sure if the 10:40 SHILL could

refute any of it, she would have, by

now. Except that isn't what SHILLS

do, is it? Their specialty is,

well, SHILLING for "the man". Or,

in this case, that bush boy.

1:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:59, i wouldn't be surprised if Bush/Cheney had their OWN network of deep operatives, spooks, and shills...the kinds of spies that NO ONE knows about except THEM...
and perhaps their job is to disrupt S-11 truth researchers and movements in any way possible...

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Early, and the other anonymous posters here. I am glad you have found my articles and hypotheses thought-provoking. That the regime's shills do not, or cannot, refute my arguments may be very telling.

But we need your help. Both Spooked and I are very busy, and this kind of thing may be better coming from "others."

I ask that if you appreciate my articles here and those posted at Spooked's other blogs wtcdemolition.blogpsot.com and anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com, that you please try to get them posted at larger websites.

These can include Rense.com, Alex Jones' sites--though sadly he seems wedded to S. Jones' termites, perhaps Indymedia, or any that you can think of that will post the Anonymous Physicist's findings and hypotheses. Perhaps my WTC7/Nuclear Borer hypothesis is a good one to first try to get posted. We may not have much time left to try to fight this thing. If not now, maybe never.

The life you save may be your own...

Thank you.

Be well.

Anonymous Physicist

3:46 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Greg Jenkins, physics PhD, responds to the Barnett evaporation quote here:

http://911blogger.com/node/9658?page=1

The comment is entitled "The long answer."

4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jenkins responds!
will wonders never cease?
but on evaporation...?
i guess he is still too busy to refute my simple beer can analogy or to even bother explaining his own foolish crash physics calcs that for some reason left out the crash part...
h is for ha.

5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I skimmed that croc ("long answer"). Couldn't force myself to read all the stupid inanities and lies.

People have to know that a fire protection engineering professor knows quite well when he sees proof of vaporized steel from higher temperatures than termites er thermite allows for. And should expect the shills for thermite to do exactly as that one does. (But rather poorly and desperately.)

All I needed to see was that shill's laughable argument about "earths [sic] worth of power" in his 4/12/07 "article" at their own created "peer-reviewed" journal.

It is so easy to demonstrate the deliberately specious nature of his arguments; as when he states that the power (wattage) he says is an "earths [sic] worth of power", and therefore (to him) an insurmountable amount of power to be generated in any way whatsoever by mankind. Namely, and I quote him: "5.7x10 to the 13th power Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth." Now you can readily look up e.g., the energy released in the Hiroshima blast, and separately find that the 80 generations of neutron chain reactions take place in less than
10 nanoseconds. And that 99% of the energy released is in the last 10 generations--thus in less than 1 microsecond, and see that the Hiroshima nuke released about 10 to the 13th power Joules. and that this was (99%)in about a microsecond. So when an Hiroshima sized nuke goes off it has about the power of a million "earth's worth of power", and therefore according to that shill is impossible. But I venture the survivors of Hiroshima's nuke would vigorously disagree with him, as would any other honest person who sees the speciousness of his "arguments." Likewise when he claims that vaporizing the steel in the towers is "equivalent to having a perpetual motion machine." (And also falsely claims that anyone said all the steel must be vaporized for alternative "collapse" mechanisms.)

Well I can see why they had to create their own Journal. There are many specious arguments in his paper and in his risible attempt to counter the truth of Dr. Barnett's claim. When some very damaging irrefutable proof (of nukes at WTC on 9/11) leaks out, the vultures must surround it quickly.

But the sad truth is that some of his arguments against "Directed Energy Weapons" being used at the WTC appear sound. (And DEW is mostly another element in the Babel created by the regime to hide the nuking of the WTC.)

But all their desperate attempts to deny nukes--which you should realize his desperate counter to Barnett is all about--are very specious arguments.

They cannot counter the eyewitnessed (Ondrovic and other) clear statements of EMP, the impossibility of vaporization of steel via thermite (even more so if thermite is claimed to be used as the explosive), nor the GENERATION of molten steel temperatures weeks and months later--requiring nuclear criticality sites as I hypothesized. The thermite (or super thermite or double top-secret thermite) would have cooled off within hours most likely--not five months later per Joe O'Toole.

Now please do not quote me any shills trying to deny the validity of Bronx firefighter Joe O'Toole's statement on witnessing molten steel, five months later; or the other intrepid responders who witnessed molten or flowing steel weeks and months later, as well as other evidence already cited.

Just expect the shills to continue to desperately emit their lies and gibberish. It won't stop (rather the opposite now that some truth has gotten out), but one should be able to see it for what it is and move on.

Anonymous Physicist

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm. it would seem that despite any presentations of certificates of qualification, anonymous physicist does indeed know what he is talking about...
suck my toe shills!

7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was at least one story about closed floors in the WTC and somebody who said - maybe it was Rodriguez - that he heard something 'rolling' on one of the closed floors.

Setting aside for the moment the specific method of nuking the buildings, the delay in dropping WTC 7 makes sense from the standpoint of the cover story. The had to have some pictures of fire in WTC 7 to have any credibility (lame though it is) for WTC 7 to have collapsed. It wasn't hit by an airplane so a rather long delay was needed to provide 'credibility' for the fire theory of the collapse - which we know that even NIST won't support now.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as where they got the nuclear materials, I would suggest an audit of Indian Point.

2:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger