Happy New Year!
Best wishes for everyone out there. And a special thanks goes out to Anonymous Physicist for making 2007 the most interesting year yet for this site!
Monday, December 31, 2007
We Are Ruled by a Lawless Oligarchy
Glenn Greenwald is making sense.
And here he dissects the bipartisan centrist ruse: it's still more bullshit from the lawless oligarchy (who overlap with and are closely related to "the powers that be").
So if even on the transparent mainstream level, it is so easy to see the bullshit put out by the ruling elites, isn't it a given that behind the scenes there is much worse criminality going on?
And here he dissects the bipartisan centrist ruse: it's still more bullshit from the lawless oligarchy (who overlap with and are closely related to "the powers that be").
So if even on the transparent mainstream level, it is so easy to see the bullshit put out by the ruling elites, isn't it a given that behind the scenes there is much worse criminality going on?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Basement Nukes and Top-Down Demolition
Various people have suggested that the basement of the WTC was blown with high explosives (even nuked) prior to, and/or concomitant with, the top-down demolition that was performed to obliterate the towers.
I have always been somewhat unsure of this idea for the simple reason that it wasn't clear to me how exactly basement bombs/nukes fit in with the top-down demolition-- plus there was the fact that during the demolitions, part of the inner cores for each tower remained standing after the initial demolition phase.
However, this post from 911blogger provides more evidence for explosions at the base of the tower concomitant with demolition.
Thinking about this some more, I have an idea for how basement bombs would have been used.
Here we see the remnants of tower one-- and clearly there is a section of the core remaining in the center of the blasted out debris:
(click to enlarge; you can see the people better to give scale)
The key here is that IN FACT, only PART of the core is remaining-- what looks like only the very center of the core-- perhaps a dozen columns at most.
The core was made of 47 absolutely MASSIVE columns-- just think that the core columns that would make up the core at the base of the tower carried much of the weight of those huge towers above. Clearly, most of these massive columns have been blown away from their original location. Note, it's not like there is debris is covering these columns-- the columns have either been knocked/blown away or they have been blown to pieces. Given that the very center core columns survived the "onslaught" (see the picture), it is not clear why the just as strong outer core columns wouldn't survive-- unless they were literally blown away at the base.
What seems plausible-- even likely-- is that several basement nukes took out the core columns at the sides or corners of the core section. A partial dismemberment of the core could conceivably facilitate a top-down collapse by taking away some of the supports between the floors and the core. This would give explosive devices on the upper floors an easier time in peeling the outer walls from the core remnant. Which is really what happened-- the outer walls peeled away from the tower from top to bottom, in an explosive sequence-- leaving an inner core remnant that then must have been blown from below from the lower floors to leave the small column remnants seen in the picture above.
But the key here is that basement bombs-- almost certainly nukes-- would be used to take out PART OF THE CORE specifically to facilitate the top-down collapse.
I have always been somewhat unsure of this idea for the simple reason that it wasn't clear to me how exactly basement bombs/nukes fit in with the top-down demolition-- plus there was the fact that during the demolitions, part of the inner cores for each tower remained standing after the initial demolition phase.
However, this post from 911blogger provides more evidence for explosions at the base of the tower concomitant with demolition.
Thinking about this some more, I have an idea for how basement bombs would have been used.
Here we see the remnants of tower one-- and clearly there is a section of the core remaining in the center of the blasted out debris:
(click to enlarge; you can see the people better to give scale)
The key here is that IN FACT, only PART of the core is remaining-- what looks like only the very center of the core-- perhaps a dozen columns at most.
The core was made of 47 absolutely MASSIVE columns-- just think that the core columns that would make up the core at the base of the tower carried much of the weight of those huge towers above. Clearly, most of these massive columns have been blown away from their original location. Note, it's not like there is debris is covering these columns-- the columns have either been knocked/blown away or they have been blown to pieces. Given that the very center core columns survived the "onslaught" (see the picture), it is not clear why the just as strong outer core columns wouldn't survive-- unless they were literally blown away at the base.
What seems plausible-- even likely-- is that several basement nukes took out the core columns at the sides or corners of the core section. A partial dismemberment of the core could conceivably facilitate a top-down collapse by taking away some of the supports between the floors and the core. This would give explosive devices on the upper floors an easier time in peeling the outer walls from the core remnant. Which is really what happened-- the outer walls peeled away from the tower from top to bottom, in an explosive sequence-- leaving an inner core remnant that then must have been blown from below from the lower floors to leave the small column remnants seen in the picture above.
But the key here is that basement bombs-- almost certainly nukes-- would be used to take out PART OF THE CORE specifically to facilitate the top-down collapse.
The Sad Truth on Bushco Warcrimes
Looking for war crimes committed by members of the Bush administration is a complicated exercise because there are so many to go around. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come immediately to mind. The Nuremburg Tribunals at the end of the Second World War defined an aggressive war against another country if that country has not attacked you first or threatened to do so as "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." A number of leading Nazis were executed for their unprovoked attack on Poland. The Bush administration has its own Poland in Iraq, and if there is an American attack on Iran it would also fit the Nuremberg definition. Unlike at Nuremberg, however, no one will be held accountable.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Who Still Supports the Official Collapse Theory for the WTC???
Just curious.
Funny-- some commenters here don't seem so upset about the idea that the WTC was blown up-- just at the idea that it was nuked. Not that they have any meaningful arguments against nuking, mind you.
Funny-- some commenters here don't seem so upset about the idea that the WTC was blown up-- just at the idea that it was nuked. Not that they have any meaningful arguments against nuking, mind you.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Langley and London—YOU Have The Problem
By The Anonymous Physicist
Recently, at a “911truth” forum, someone cited several specious “arguments” against my articles on the nuking of the WTC on 9/11. So I will reply here. Someone, perhaps David Howard, can post this reply there. Thank you.
The absence of the "Wilson Condensation Cloud" effect was cited. But this effect is relevant for nukes exploded on or under water-- including the South Pacific nuclear tests, and the Port Chicago nuclear blast-- it’s not relevant for the WTC buildings on 9/11.
The "Ball of fire", or fireball, and “flash of light”, etc. are specious arguments, obviated by the nukes being well within the buildings when they went off-- including in the sub-basement. (The Finnish military expert says only in the sub-basement and "focused" upwards, and he said he is an expert on shaped charges of all kinds.) My earliest writings made it clear that "underpowered" (as I have explained this) nukes were used, in conjunction with conventional explosives (possibly thermite, or C4) to hide the obvious effects of a nuke. This is, of course, ignored by that poster, even though she claimed to have read my articles herein. Those articles are well known to be mostly archived here.
Now a recent article I wrote did have many firefighter/responders, in the area during tower destruction, citing how intense light did hit their skin. This was in the wavelength of infrared light, or heat, or “thermal rays” from the nukes. These are known to have the greatest range (as my articles have cited), but, of course, are not in the range of visibility to humans. Note the thermal rays were not emitted by any fire, as none was near the firemen, at that time. Some firemen even correctly thought they were in the midst of nukes going off because of the thermal rays (without any fire) hitting them. This recent article citing this and much other shocking, new evidence-- not written about anywhere else before-- is here.
BTW, these thermal rays, all about the WTC during its destruction, also negate the evidence-free DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) as follows. DEW would be coherent beams of some wavelength of light. Any theoretical, coherent beams with enough destructive power to destroy the towers (ignoring for the moment all the outward explosions from something clearly inside them) could not have that kind of power, and still “leak” significant energy perpendicular to the beam direction (said to be from above by its proponents) to cause all the thermal rays, all about the WTC! Only the known spherical emanations from nukes could do that.
So rather than the nuclear hypothesis for the WTC destruction, it is all the hangouts-- emanating from Langley and London-- that have the problem. This new blog has my, and Spooked’s, articles demolishing the O.C.T. (Official Collapse Theory). The DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) I have previously demonstrated as a desperate, evidence-free hangout to claim or hide all the nuclear evidence of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. And thermite, I have explained, is known to cool down within minutes or hours of use, and could not be the cause of all the heat and molten metal at the WTC, months later, as S. Jones ludicrously claims. Both the DDT and thermite hangouts were sent out after the Finnish militart expert blew the Op, and released to the world how the WTC was nuked on 9/11. My articles on all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC are here. My articles on the China Syndrome Aftermath of high temperatures, molten metal and HEAT GENERATION VIA RADIOACTIVE FRAGMENTS are here.
It is fascinating to see this post shortly after my articles have exposed the official lies of the OCT’ main “engineer, namely Z.P. Bazant, about the smallest dust particle size-- ignored by all the “911truth forums.” Again see Spooked’s new blog proving bogus official 911 “Science” here.
It is sickening to see all the fine work that we have done here ignored by the “911truth forums.” And then to see a specious hit piece posted. But none of this is surprising. Langley and London have spread their agents to create the 911truth forums, as expected. But their desperation at seeing words of truth now resounding from this place is also clear to see.
They have a problem. The nuclear Genie can never go back in the bottle once she has come out!
Speaking of the Nuclear Genie Coming Out, this book [read by this author] The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through the Nuclear Age has this in the first summary paragraph at Amazon. The author-- the father of the field of Health Physics “includes a chilling summary of horrifying radiation experiments conducted by the U.S. government, including downwind studies that rained thyroid cancer-inducing radiation upon "expendable" Native Americans…”"
Does this sound familiar? It should, as we have thyroid cancers among the 911 WTC responders. This, of course, is the reason for all the hangouts coming out of Langley and London. To keep the masses from finding out that they are all “expendable Americans” now! The American regime nuked the citizens of New York City on 9/11/01. The nuclear Genie is out! What are you going to do about it?
Recently, at a “911truth” forum, someone cited several specious “arguments” against my articles on the nuking of the WTC on 9/11. So I will reply here. Someone, perhaps David Howard, can post this reply there. Thank you.
The absence of the "Wilson Condensation Cloud" effect was cited. But this effect is relevant for nukes exploded on or under water-- including the South Pacific nuclear tests, and the Port Chicago nuclear blast-- it’s not relevant for the WTC buildings on 9/11.
The "Ball of fire", or fireball, and “flash of light”, etc. are specious arguments, obviated by the nukes being well within the buildings when they went off-- including in the sub-basement. (The Finnish military expert says only in the sub-basement and "focused" upwards, and he said he is an expert on shaped charges of all kinds.) My earliest writings made it clear that "underpowered" (as I have explained this) nukes were used, in conjunction with conventional explosives (possibly thermite, or C4) to hide the obvious effects of a nuke. This is, of course, ignored by that poster, even though she claimed to have read my articles herein. Those articles are well known to be mostly archived here.
Now a recent article I wrote did have many firefighter/responders, in the area during tower destruction, citing how intense light did hit their skin. This was in the wavelength of infrared light, or heat, or “thermal rays” from the nukes. These are known to have the greatest range (as my articles have cited), but, of course, are not in the range of visibility to humans. Note the thermal rays were not emitted by any fire, as none was near the firemen, at that time. Some firemen even correctly thought they were in the midst of nukes going off because of the thermal rays (without any fire) hitting them. This recent article citing this and much other shocking, new evidence-- not written about anywhere else before-- is here.
BTW, these thermal rays, all about the WTC during its destruction, also negate the evidence-free DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) as follows. DEW would be coherent beams of some wavelength of light. Any theoretical, coherent beams with enough destructive power to destroy the towers (ignoring for the moment all the outward explosions from something clearly inside them) could not have that kind of power, and still “leak” significant energy perpendicular to the beam direction (said to be from above by its proponents) to cause all the thermal rays, all about the WTC! Only the known spherical emanations from nukes could do that.
So rather than the nuclear hypothesis for the WTC destruction, it is all the hangouts-- emanating from Langley and London-- that have the problem. This new blog has my, and Spooked’s, articles demolishing the O.C.T. (Official Collapse Theory). The DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) I have previously demonstrated as a desperate, evidence-free hangout to claim or hide all the nuclear evidence of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. And thermite, I have explained, is known to cool down within minutes or hours of use, and could not be the cause of all the heat and molten metal at the WTC, months later, as S. Jones ludicrously claims. Both the DDT and thermite hangouts were sent out after the Finnish militart expert blew the Op, and released to the world how the WTC was nuked on 9/11. My articles on all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC are here. My articles on the China Syndrome Aftermath of high temperatures, molten metal and HEAT GENERATION VIA RADIOACTIVE FRAGMENTS are here.
It is fascinating to see this post shortly after my articles have exposed the official lies of the OCT’ main “engineer, namely Z.P. Bazant, about the smallest dust particle size-- ignored by all the “911truth forums.” Again see Spooked’s new blog proving bogus official 911 “Science” here.
It is sickening to see all the fine work that we have done here ignored by the “911truth forums.” And then to see a specious hit piece posted. But none of this is surprising. Langley and London have spread their agents to create the 911truth forums, as expected. But their desperation at seeing words of truth now resounding from this place is also clear to see.
They have a problem. The nuclear Genie can never go back in the bottle once she has come out!
Speaking of the Nuclear Genie Coming Out, this book [read by this author] The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through the Nuclear Age has this in the first summary paragraph at Amazon. The author-- the father of the field of Health Physics “includes a chilling summary of horrifying radiation experiments conducted by the U.S. government, including downwind studies that rained thyroid cancer-inducing radiation upon "expendable" Native Americans…”"
Does this sound familiar? It should, as we have thyroid cancers among the 911 WTC responders. This, of course, is the reason for all the hangouts coming out of Langley and London. To keep the masses from finding out that they are all “expendable Americans” now! The American regime nuked the citizens of New York City on 9/11/01. The nuclear Genie is out! What are you going to do about it?
Bhutto Assassination a Tragedy
This is clearly a major destabilizing event.
First, I mourn for Bhutto, who was an admirable woman.
Second, it is likely Musharraf is connected to this somehow-- though I doubt if he can be directly connected. At minimum he is responsible for the general security situation and more specifically for the security forces.
Third, part of the blame for this must rest with the Bush administration-- who propped up the Musharraf for the past six years while he pretended to fight Islamic extremists and hunt for Osama bin Laden.
UPDATE: This statement sounds like typical Al-CIA-duh propaganda:
UPDATE 2: Very relevant and interesting interview with Bhutto (via Piglipstick):
UPDATE 3: One quite possible outcome of the Bhutto assassination will be increased calls for US troops sent to Pakistan to help "stabilize" the country. Now who would benefit from that move?
UPDATE 4 (12/28): Now the word is that she died from bashing her head on the car-- not from bullets or the bomb shrapnel? WTF??? More thoughts here and here they come up with a plausible explanation for the weirdness. More significantly, though, is this-- police abandoning their posts before the assassination-- indicating an inside job.
UPDATE 5 (12/28): Another view of Benazir Bhutto. In this essay, she reminds me quite a bit of Hillary Clinton-- and not in a good way.
I wrote Bhutto was admirable, partly out of respect for the dead, and primarily because my wife admired her. That being said, my wife is fairly naive about politics....
UPDATE 6 (12/30): Skull X-rays. Aftermath violence, blame game and denials. Still controversy over how she died-- evidence hosed away and no autopsy.
UPDATE 7 (12/30): New strong evidence Bhutto WAS shot first.
UPDATE 8 (12/31): Even the NYTimes gets in on the action about the official lies. If something like this had happened in the US, however, it's hard to imagine they would be as skeptical.
UPDATE 9 (1/1/08): More weirdness--
UPDATE 10 (1/2/08): Pakistan retracts the sunroof claim as cause of death.
First, I mourn for Bhutto, who was an admirable woman.
Second, it is likely Musharraf is connected to this somehow-- though I doubt if he can be directly connected. At minimum he is responsible for the general security situation and more specifically for the security forces.
Third, part of the blame for this must rest with the Bush administration-- who propped up the Musharraf for the past six years while he pretended to fight Islamic extremists and hunt for Osama bin Laden.
UPDATE: This statement sounds like typical Al-CIA-duh propaganda:
“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.
UPDATE 2: Very relevant and interesting interview with Bhutto (via Piglipstick):
UPDATE 3: One quite possible outcome of the Bhutto assassination will be increased calls for US troops sent to Pakistan to help "stabilize" the country. Now who would benefit from that move?
UPDATE 4 (12/28): Now the word is that she died from bashing her head on the car-- not from bullets or the bomb shrapnel? WTF??? More thoughts here and here they come up with a plausible explanation for the weirdness. More significantly, though, is this-- police abandoning their posts before the assassination-- indicating an inside job.
UPDATE 5 (12/28): Another view of Benazir Bhutto. In this essay, she reminds me quite a bit of Hillary Clinton-- and not in a good way.
I wrote Bhutto was admirable, partly out of respect for the dead, and primarily because my wife admired her. That being said, my wife is fairly naive about politics....
UPDATE 6 (12/30): Skull X-rays. Aftermath violence, blame game and denials. Still controversy over how she died-- evidence hosed away and no autopsy.
UPDATE 7 (12/30): New strong evidence Bhutto WAS shot first.
UPDATE 8 (12/31): Even the NYTimes gets in on the action about the official lies. If something like this had happened in the US, however, it's hard to imagine they would be as skeptical.
UPDATE 9 (1/1/08): More weirdness--
Musharraf planned to fix elections
NAUDERO, Pakistan — The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.
Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.
UPDATE 10 (1/2/08): Pakistan retracts the sunroof claim as cause of death.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Bazant's Work Rests on Complete Baloney
This is in the intro to his 2001 paper-- and forms the basis for his subsequent analysis of the WTC destruction:
Yes, that is VERY unlikely that "all the impact forces go into the columns" below with equal distribution among the columns!
So why even discuss it?
He SAYS because if it would fail symmetrically, it would definitely fail if there was an asymmetric collapse.
True, the building would "fail" with an asymmetric collapse-- but IT WOULD FAIL IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MANNER THAN IF A TOP SECTION OF BUILDING FALLS ONE STORY SYMMETRICALLY AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED*!!!
If the building fails asymmetrically, it simply is NOT going to undergo complete symmetric collapse, as was seen.**
This, as shown in his paper, would NEVER happen:
PERIOD.
Bazant's whole model for WTC collapse is a fraud.
* This is Bazant's assumption, see here:
** What would be seen is the upper section falling apart and falling off to the side after crashing down one side of the tower. A major section of the tower-- much of the opposite side from the collapse should be left standing.
Yes, that is VERY unlikely that "all the impact forces go into the columns" below with equal distribution among the columns!
So why even discuss it?
He SAYS because if it would fail symmetrically, it would definitely fail if there was an asymmetric collapse.
True, the building would "fail" with an asymmetric collapse-- but IT WOULD FAIL IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MANNER THAN IF A TOP SECTION OF BUILDING FALLS ONE STORY SYMMETRICALLY AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED*!!!
If the building fails asymmetrically, it simply is NOT going to undergo complete symmetric collapse, as was seen.**
This, as shown in his paper, would NEVER happen:
PERIOD.
Bazant's whole model for WTC collapse is a fraud.
* This is Bazant's assumption, see here:
** What would be seen is the upper section falling apart and falling off to the side after crashing down one side of the tower. A major section of the tower-- much of the opposite side from the collapse should be left standing.
Back to Bazant
Did you know that on September 13th, 2001, he submitted not just one but TWO papers to engineering journals pushing the official WTC collapse theory?
1) Bazant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001).
2) Bazant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369–370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001).
You know, a cynical person might suspect him of a hidden agenda...
1) Bazant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001).
2) Bazant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369–370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001).
You know, a cynical person might suspect him of a hidden agenda...
"The Whale Warriors"
I just finished this book and thought it was terrific. Really enjoyable and interesting on several different levels.
One line synopsis-- "Vegan pirates put their lives on the line to try to stop Japanese whalers in the Antarctic ocean".
One line synopsis-- "Vegan pirates put their lives on the line to try to stop Japanese whalers in the Antarctic ocean".
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Save the Whales
The fin whale (above), the blue whale , the North Atlantic Right Whale, the North Pacific Right Whale, and the Sei Whale are all ENDANGERED species.
The Western Pacific Gray Whale is CRITICALLY ENDANGERED.
These amazing creatures are mammals, have high intelligence and use language. They should not be hunted, period.
Worse, the oceans in general are in terrible shape. Simply considering the oceans are where most of the oxygen that is used by all life is made, this is a planetary catastrophe in the making.
A simple thing you can do to help: don't eat seafood. Other things to do are to support oceanic conservation societies and be environmentally conscious.
I'm just saying...
Monday, December 24, 2007
A CIA Black-Ops Project to Shoot Down Terrorist Crop-dusters Before They Could Put Biological Agents on Our Bananas???
Looks Like "Most Americans" Were Fooled, Doesn't It?
Most Americans fully expected that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were just the beginning of a terrorist war on American civilians. After all, we were being told by nearly everyone in a position to know that the question was not if we would suffer another major terrorist attack, but when.
(Says Linda Chavez in a piece thanking the CIA for destroying those interrogation tapes.
Yes, thanking them.)
I'm Not Much of a Ron Paul Fan But You Have to Love His Honesty
MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.
MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?
REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?
MR. RUSSERT: What...
REP. PAUL: You know, it doesn't make any sense.
MR. RUSSERT: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?
REP. PAUL: I don't--why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? Could--South Korea, they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it's drained trillion dollars over these last, you know, 50 years. So stop--we can't afford it anymore. We're going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the, and the currency crashes. That's what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, "You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war." But presidents don't have the authority to go to war.
At minimum, Paul clearly recognizes the insanity of our foreign policy.
There's lots of other interesting-- and brutally honest-- stuff in that interview; it's really worth a read.
The one thing Paul really has is an amazing consistency to his views of government. Personally, I thinks he takes things too far-- it's why I don't think Libertarianism is an optimal political system. And his ideas on how to change the government are essentially never going to happen without some amazing revolution occurring.
But he is still an amazing breath of fresh air in the political landscape.
TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR-- when I say "honesty" and "brutally honest", I don't mean to say that he is necessarily RIGHT. I just mean that he personally is being honest about his views.
Here and here are a couple of egregious examples about things he doesn't get quite right.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Bogus Official 9/11 Science
New site with collected critiques of Bazant and Seffen, for easy reference.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Further Examination of the Physical and Mathematical Hoaxes in Bazant’s Papers
The Case for Fraud is Proven, and a Call To Action
By The Anonymous Physicist
In this post, I have previously detailed numerous falsifications of physical parameters, assumptions, observations, and circular “logic” employed in the 9/11 “collapse” papers of Z.P. Bazant, et al. Here I will first show that the most basic laws of Physics and even the basic tenets of Mathematics are flagrantly violated by Bazant’s nonsense. And I will also cite several other false assumptions and parameters Bazant used.
Let us examine the ludicrous, so-called crush down phase of Bazant, et al. We will ignore, for the moment, the obvious, massive, outward explosions seen on photos and videos, and the resultant evidence-- or lack thereof-- that indicates vaporization of people, furniture, and building structure occurred. Bazant ignores (as he must) that a "gravity-driven" event would never have such near perfect spatial (all around the towers) destruction symmetry. Such near perfect, spatial symmetry violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, commonly referred to as Entropy. Entropy refers to the increased state of DISORDER in naturally occurring events-- which a theoretical “gravitational collapse” would be, once it has begun. Likewise the incredibly rapid, near-free fall time would also never happen from a "gravity-driven" collapse because of both Entropy and Newton's third law-- the reactant upward force of the bottom layers.
In other words, the near perfect symmetrical "collapse" is not only spatially impossible due to Entropy; the rapid time of the near perfect symmetry is also temporally impossible due to both Entropy and Newton's Third law.
The truth is the rapid, near-perfect symmetry of "collapse"-- all around the perimeter and the internal structure all at once-- is proof of what is was-- nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives as detailed here.
Now Bazant’s “analysis” begins with his differential equations, and all his results depend on these. But the most basic tenets of mathematics preclude the use of differential equations here. Such equations are part of the calculus. But the calculus is explicitly built upon the necessary use of what the mathematician calls “smoothly changing functions” or “continuous functions.” And rapid or immediate massive, or phase, changes do NOT allow for the use of the calculus or differential equations. Furthermore, I assert that this is part of why Bazant must ignore the vaporized people, furniture and tower structure. Such vaporization is called a “phase transition” by physicists and mathematicians, and is inherently NON-DESCRIBABLE by the usual calculus and differential equations. Indeed in recent times, new branches of math and physics had to be created to describe such transitions, or discontinuous changes. Such new maths include Chaos Theory and Catastrophe Theory. So the claim of Bazant, et al, to even use his starting differential equations is a mathematical and physical fraud, and the resultant remainder need not even be looked at, as it is all a charade.
But even though it has now been sufficiently proven that Bazant’s entire work is a charade, I will-- for the purpose of further exposing his work-- delve into some other parameters I didn’t expose in my first article here. First (tip to Spooked) is his equation 11 for “F”, the “energy per unit height that is dissipated by comminution [fracturization and pulverization] of concrete floor slabs and core walls…” To this equation, he adds a “Coefficient γ [gamma] (which is > 0) has been inserted in Eq. (11) as an empirical effectiveness coefficient specifying the fraction of Kc [Kinetic Energy] that is dissipated by the work of comminution, and not by other energy dissipation sources. The precise value of this coefficient is extremely difficult to determine theoretically because all the other energy dissipation sources would have to be accurately calculated and subtracted from the total loss of gravitational potential converted into kinetic energy of impact.” Here he, in roundabout fashion, alludes to the chaos present, and the entropy factor. Soon thereafter he writes, “…the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution). Therefore, coefficient γ [gamma] needs to be calibrated empirically. In absence of any crushing experiments on the lightweight concrete used, the calibration of γ needs to be done the basis of comminution theory according to the size range of particles observed after the collapse. The result of such calibration gives γ = 0.74 as the optimum estimate.”
So his ad hoc gamma coefficient is admittedly dependent on “size range of particles observed after the collapse.” And my earlier article demonstrated how he deliberately falsified, by a proven factor of at least four, and possibly by as much as a factor of a thousand, the smallest pulverized particle size! He claimed 10 microns was the smallest size found, when one government study found particles of 2.5 microns, and did not bother to test for anything smaller. The evidence I earlier cited indicates there may well have been particles created as small as 10 nanometers. Furthermore, as Spooked recently pointed out, his admitted “assumption” of “perfectly inelastic collisions” is also ludicrous. And we see again how he mixes ludicrous theoretical assumptions and false observations to fudge his way to his intended result.
Finally, I must point out another false parameter Bazant used in his dust size analysis. He wrote:
“The distribution of particle sizes is, for the present purpose, adequately characterized by Schuhmann’s law of comminution [Refs: 19, 7, 18, 9](Fig. 4a):
m(D) = mc(D/Dmax)k Eq. (12), where m(D) = mass of all particles < D; Dmax= maximum particle size; and k = empirical constant (for which the typical value k ≈ 1/2 is assumed)"
Now I checked the references he used to get his k=1/2, and looked into Schuhmann’s “Law” of comminution. This is not a real law of Physics, but appears to be a correlation of dust particle size whereby the dust particles were created in only one of two ways--by “dropping” or gravitational collapse, and by the use of TNT, such as in mining. His k=1/2 was strongly used to derive his energy needed for pulverization during “gravitational collapse.” And this is perhaps why his article contains only those two possible tower destruction mechanisms—gravity and TNT! His entire paper uses equations, parameters, and assumptions that assumed the result from the beginning, instead of proving it. Other possibilities, including the actual nuclear mechanism employed, were ignored with his corrupt circular reasoning. Furthermore, Schuhmann’s “law” was found or derived in 1940, before nuclear bombs and nuclear energy. As I have written, the very different Physics-- including the tremendous temperatures and pressure-- of a nuke, obviate the use of equations, including a so-called [but not really] “law” whereby the force creating dust particles was assumed to be either “dropping” or TNT. See my first article cited above, for more evidence of bogus equations, parameters, observations, and assumptions in Bazant’s article. The pdf version of Bazant’s article appears to have been taken down now. Here is an html version.
It is clear from this, and my earlier article, and Spooked’s work, and that of others, that the entirety of the articles by Z.P. Bazant and colleagues is deliberate, corrupt, bad science and mathematics. As NIST, and the latest stooge, Seffen (see my earlier article here), base their “findings,” at least in part, on Bazant’s papers, this whole “gravity-driven” charade, or pristine pancakes as I have called them, has been more than adequately pulverized. And it can’t be put back together again.
UPDATE: A pdf version of Bazant’s article is now back up again, and it has been "revised" as of 12/15/07; this is its second official revision. A quick scan of the "revision" shows Bazant has hung himself out to dry even WORSE now!
Just one example. For the first time, Bazant, et al, have listed a "reference" for their claim of 10 microns as the smallest dust particle size. Perhaps Bazant, or some intel agent that frequents this place, informed Bazant of my article here decrying his lack of reference for his crucial claim of 10 micron smallest dust particle size. His revision now cites this website (!):
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
This conspiracy site is clearly a limited hangout itself, and proclaims the "virtues" of S. Jones who would like the world to believe that thermite remains at thousands of degrees for months after use (to hide the China Syndrome). And that website piece cited a sciencedaily.com web article which finally led to the author and the EHP article I cited in my article on the bogus science of Bazant! The EHP article is here.
One problem though, the EHP article clearly stated that 2.5-- not 10-- micron size particles were found and were an UPPER limit to the smallest particle size with the flimsy methods they used-- likely so as not to find vastly smaller particles which apparatuses were available then to do-- down to 10 nanometers, if they had wanted to find them. Nonetheless 2.5 micron size pulverized particles were found and noted in the EHP article.
So Bazant used roundabout references that led back to an article that calls him an out and out liar, as it clearly had 2.5 microns as an upper bound to the smallest particles found, and NOT the 10 microns that Bazant has stated and used in his “equations”! His collapse "mechanism" must energetically account for the smallest size particles, not just for the alleged "majority" or some such nonsense. I have just proven that Z.P. Bazant is guilty of scientific fraud, and I call for an immediate investigation. As 9/11 was a crime of mass murder, and only nuclear weapons account for all the destruction evidence, and the China Syndrome aftermath, and this could only have been carried out by the American government, Z.P. Bazant is now proven to be an accomplice after the fact. Indeed he may have been in on it before the fact, as his first bogus article on “gravitational collapse” was allegedly written and sent in two days after the event!
As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison said when charging Clay Shaw, aka Clay Bertrand, as an accomplice in the murder of President Kennedy, “We got one of them now!” Years later, despite a faulty trial, Victor Marchetti who was CIA assistant Director (and future Director) Richard Helms assistant, revealed that Helms admitted to him that Shaw was indeed a “contract” CIA agent.
The deliberate lying by Z.P. Bazant about the smallest pulverized particle size is clear, and proves that “we got one of them now.” It is up to each of you now to publicize this far and wide on all blogs and try to get it to news sources. Don’t just try for the “911 truth” forums, for as I have written, these are virtually all run by intel operators-- see how many of them will have their owner/moderator put up this article even though they read my work here. Please take the time to post this, and my other article cited at the top, at ALL forums-- I’ve seen my article posted at sports forums-- about anything, to turn up the heat on Bazant’s scientific fraud and the regime’s mass murder of 3000 Americans, which was used as an excuse to murder millions more innocent human beings around the world.
This work may have forced Bazant to finally cite a reference for his claim of the smallest dust particle size. Now that he has slipped up and proven his malfeasance, your help may now get him charged with fraud! And don’t forget, he admits, at the end of his bogus article, that funding for the article’s ludicrous claim of “progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation.” And we know the intel agencies frequently funnel money through other government departments. It’s time to do what Jim Garrison did-- start indicting the perps!
“We got one of them now!”
By The Anonymous Physicist
In this post, I have previously detailed numerous falsifications of physical parameters, assumptions, observations, and circular “logic” employed in the 9/11 “collapse” papers of Z.P. Bazant, et al. Here I will first show that the most basic laws of Physics and even the basic tenets of Mathematics are flagrantly violated by Bazant’s nonsense. And I will also cite several other false assumptions and parameters Bazant used.
Let us examine the ludicrous, so-called crush down phase of Bazant, et al. We will ignore, for the moment, the obvious, massive, outward explosions seen on photos and videos, and the resultant evidence-- or lack thereof-- that indicates vaporization of people, furniture, and building structure occurred. Bazant ignores (as he must) that a "gravity-driven" event would never have such near perfect spatial (all around the towers) destruction symmetry. Such near perfect, spatial symmetry violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, commonly referred to as Entropy. Entropy refers to the increased state of DISORDER in naturally occurring events-- which a theoretical “gravitational collapse” would be, once it has begun. Likewise the incredibly rapid, near-free fall time would also never happen from a "gravity-driven" collapse because of both Entropy and Newton's third law-- the reactant upward force of the bottom layers.
In other words, the near perfect symmetrical "collapse" is not only spatially impossible due to Entropy; the rapid time of the near perfect symmetry is also temporally impossible due to both Entropy and Newton's Third law.
The truth is the rapid, near-perfect symmetry of "collapse"-- all around the perimeter and the internal structure all at once-- is proof of what is was-- nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives as detailed here.
Now Bazant’s “analysis” begins with his differential equations, and all his results depend on these. But the most basic tenets of mathematics preclude the use of differential equations here. Such equations are part of the calculus. But the calculus is explicitly built upon the necessary use of what the mathematician calls “smoothly changing functions” or “continuous functions.” And rapid or immediate massive, or phase, changes do NOT allow for the use of the calculus or differential equations. Furthermore, I assert that this is part of why Bazant must ignore the vaporized people, furniture and tower structure. Such vaporization is called a “phase transition” by physicists and mathematicians, and is inherently NON-DESCRIBABLE by the usual calculus and differential equations. Indeed in recent times, new branches of math and physics had to be created to describe such transitions, or discontinuous changes. Such new maths include Chaos Theory and Catastrophe Theory. So the claim of Bazant, et al, to even use his starting differential equations is a mathematical and physical fraud, and the resultant remainder need not even be looked at, as it is all a charade.
But even though it has now been sufficiently proven that Bazant’s entire work is a charade, I will-- for the purpose of further exposing his work-- delve into some other parameters I didn’t expose in my first article here. First (tip to Spooked) is his equation 11 for “F”, the “energy per unit height that is dissipated by comminution [fracturization and pulverization] of concrete floor slabs and core walls…” To this equation, he adds a “Coefficient γ [gamma] (which is > 0) has been inserted in Eq. (11) as an empirical effectiveness coefficient specifying the fraction of Kc [Kinetic Energy] that is dissipated by the work of comminution, and not by other energy dissipation sources. The precise value of this coefficient is extremely difficult to determine theoretically because all the other energy dissipation sources would have to be accurately calculated and subtracted from the total loss of gravitational potential converted into kinetic energy of impact.” Here he, in roundabout fashion, alludes to the chaos present, and the entropy factor. Soon thereafter he writes, “…the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution). Therefore, coefficient γ [gamma] needs to be calibrated empirically. In absence of any crushing experiments on the lightweight concrete used, the calibration of γ needs to be done the basis of comminution theory according to the size range of particles observed after the collapse. The result of such calibration gives γ = 0.74 as the optimum estimate.”
So his ad hoc gamma coefficient is admittedly dependent on “size range of particles observed after the collapse.” And my earlier article demonstrated how he deliberately falsified, by a proven factor of at least four, and possibly by as much as a factor of a thousand, the smallest pulverized particle size! He claimed 10 microns was the smallest size found, when one government study found particles of 2.5 microns, and did not bother to test for anything smaller. The evidence I earlier cited indicates there may well have been particles created as small as 10 nanometers. Furthermore, as Spooked recently pointed out, his admitted “assumption” of “perfectly inelastic collisions” is also ludicrous. And we see again how he mixes ludicrous theoretical assumptions and false observations to fudge his way to his intended result.
Finally, I must point out another false parameter Bazant used in his dust size analysis. He wrote:
“The distribution of particle sizes is, for the present purpose, adequately characterized by Schuhmann’s law of comminution [Refs: 19, 7, 18, 9](Fig. 4a):
m(D) = mc(D/Dmax)k Eq. (12), where m(D) = mass of all particles < D; Dmax= maximum particle size; and k = empirical constant (for which the typical value k ≈ 1/2 is assumed)"
Now I checked the references he used to get his k=1/2, and looked into Schuhmann’s “Law” of comminution. This is not a real law of Physics, but appears to be a correlation of dust particle size whereby the dust particles were created in only one of two ways--by “dropping” or gravitational collapse, and by the use of TNT, such as in mining. His k=1/2 was strongly used to derive his energy needed for pulverization during “gravitational collapse.” And this is perhaps why his article contains only those two possible tower destruction mechanisms—gravity and TNT! His entire paper uses equations, parameters, and assumptions that assumed the result from the beginning, instead of proving it. Other possibilities, including the actual nuclear mechanism employed, were ignored with his corrupt circular reasoning. Furthermore, Schuhmann’s “law” was found or derived in 1940, before nuclear bombs and nuclear energy. As I have written, the very different Physics-- including the tremendous temperatures and pressure-- of a nuke, obviate the use of equations, including a so-called [but not really] “law” whereby the force creating dust particles was assumed to be either “dropping” or TNT. See my first article cited above, for more evidence of bogus equations, parameters, observations, and assumptions in Bazant’s article. The pdf version of Bazant’s article appears to have been taken down now. Here is an html version.
It is clear from this, and my earlier article, and Spooked’s work, and that of others, that the entirety of the articles by Z.P. Bazant and colleagues is deliberate, corrupt, bad science and mathematics. As NIST, and the latest stooge, Seffen (see my earlier article here), base their “findings,” at least in part, on Bazant’s papers, this whole “gravity-driven” charade, or pristine pancakes as I have called them, has been more than adequately pulverized. And it can’t be put back together again.
UPDATE: A pdf version of Bazant’s article is now back up again, and it has been "revised" as of 12/15/07; this is its second official revision. A quick scan of the "revision" shows Bazant has hung himself out to dry even WORSE now!
Just one example. For the first time, Bazant, et al, have listed a "reference" for their claim of 10 microns as the smallest dust particle size. Perhaps Bazant, or some intel agent that frequents this place, informed Bazant of my article here decrying his lack of reference for his crucial claim of 10 micron smallest dust particle size. His revision now cites this website (!):
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
This conspiracy site is clearly a limited hangout itself, and proclaims the "virtues" of S. Jones who would like the world to believe that thermite remains at thousands of degrees for months after use (to hide the China Syndrome). And that website piece cited a sciencedaily.com web article which finally led to the author and the EHP article I cited in my article on the bogus science of Bazant! The EHP article is here.
One problem though, the EHP article clearly stated that 2.5-- not 10-- micron size particles were found and were an UPPER limit to the smallest particle size with the flimsy methods they used-- likely so as not to find vastly smaller particles which apparatuses were available then to do-- down to 10 nanometers, if they had wanted to find them. Nonetheless 2.5 micron size pulverized particles were found and noted in the EHP article.
So Bazant used roundabout references that led back to an article that calls him an out and out liar, as it clearly had 2.5 microns as an upper bound to the smallest particles found, and NOT the 10 microns that Bazant has stated and used in his “equations”! His collapse "mechanism" must energetically account for the smallest size particles, not just for the alleged "majority" or some such nonsense. I have just proven that Z.P. Bazant is guilty of scientific fraud, and I call for an immediate investigation. As 9/11 was a crime of mass murder, and only nuclear weapons account for all the destruction evidence, and the China Syndrome aftermath, and this could only have been carried out by the American government, Z.P. Bazant is now proven to be an accomplice after the fact. Indeed he may have been in on it before the fact, as his first bogus article on “gravitational collapse” was allegedly written and sent in two days after the event!
As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison said when charging Clay Shaw, aka Clay Bertrand, as an accomplice in the murder of President Kennedy, “We got one of them now!” Years later, despite a faulty trial, Victor Marchetti who was CIA assistant Director (and future Director) Richard Helms assistant, revealed that Helms admitted to him that Shaw was indeed a “contract” CIA agent.
The deliberate lying by Z.P. Bazant about the smallest pulverized particle size is clear, and proves that “we got one of them now.” It is up to each of you now to publicize this far and wide on all blogs and try to get it to news sources. Don’t just try for the “911 truth” forums, for as I have written, these are virtually all run by intel operators-- see how many of them will have their owner/moderator put up this article even though they read my work here. Please take the time to post this, and my other article cited at the top, at ALL forums-- I’ve seen my article posted at sports forums-- about anything, to turn up the heat on Bazant’s scientific fraud and the regime’s mass murder of 3000 Americans, which was used as an excuse to murder millions more innocent human beings around the world.
This work may have forced Bazant to finally cite a reference for his claim of the smallest dust particle size. Now that he has slipped up and proven his malfeasance, your help may now get him charged with fraud! And don’t forget, he admits, at the end of his bogus article, that funding for the article’s ludicrous claim of “progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation.” And we know the intel agencies frequently funnel money through other government departments. It’s time to do what Jim Garrison did-- start indicting the perps!
“We got one of them now!”
Beta Radiation Elevated in WTC Dust
A short section buried in the EPH report:
However, tritium is solely a beta-particle emitting radionuclide-- and of course tritium is a by-product of nuclear fusion reactions.
We already know they found tritium at Ground Zero-- was it found in the dust too?
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.Note also this from the report:
When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias.This radiation is unlikely to be Radon, a relatively common radioactive element fond in building materials, as Radon emits alpha, beta and gamma radiation.
However, tritium is solely a beta-particle emitting radionuclide-- and of course tritium is a by-product of nuclear fusion reactions.
We already know they found tritium at Ground Zero-- was it found in the dust too?
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Bushes and Banking Scams
There seems to be a pattern with the Bushes. With Bush Sr., we had the Savings and Loan scandal (and don't forget the Jeb Bush and Neil Bush connections), with Bush Jr. , it is the sub-prime mortgage scandal. Either way, the pattern is similar-- the bankers scream for de-regulation, bad loans are made, the elites get rich, everybody else picks up their tab-- contributing to an economic downturn. The only real question is how bad the coming downturn will be. Many people think it will be a doozy.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Bazant Takes His Paper Down from His Website!
He must have been feeling the heat!
UPDATE: as noted in comments, he has now put up a revised version which astonishingly seems responsive to a few of the critiques noted here. For instance, relating to my previous post, now he has:
Fc = Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, where Fe = energy "required to accelerate the mass dust and larger fragments ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part". The Fe is new, and is something I said was missing in my previous post. He is still neglecting the energy required to expel outer columns hundreds of feet from the towers.
He also now has a reference for dust size, as noted in comments, though amusingly, uses the WTC7 conspiracy site as a reference!
Of course, in order to argue for rapid collapse, he still uses the ridiculous perfect inelastic collision assumption for his initial calculations of energy.
What's not clear is if the paper, which has been revised twice now, is close to being published-- and further, if the manuscript is being revised in response to reviewers' critiques. Normally, papers are not accepted to prominent journals if they are revised more than twice. More than two revisions indicates flaws severe enough to preclude publication.
Interestingly, the previous paper had at the top-- "Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE", which the new revised version does not have. This suggests the paper was REJECTED by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
UPDATE: as noted in comments, he has now put up a revised version which astonishingly seems responsive to a few of the critiques noted here. For instance, relating to my previous post, now he has:
Fc = Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, where Fe = energy "required to accelerate the mass dust and larger fragments ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part". The Fe is new, and is something I said was missing in my previous post. He is still neglecting the energy required to expel outer columns hundreds of feet from the towers.
He also now has a reference for dust size, as noted in comments, though amusingly, uses the WTC7 conspiracy site as a reference!
Of course, in order to argue for rapid collapse, he still uses the ridiculous perfect inelastic collision assumption for his initial calculations of energy.
What's not clear is if the paper, which has been revised twice now, is close to being published-- and further, if the manuscript is being revised in response to reviewers' critiques. Normally, papers are not accepted to prominent journals if they are revised more than twice. More than two revisions indicates flaws severe enough to preclude publication.
Interestingly, the previous paper had at the top-- "Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE", which the new revised version does not have. This suggests the paper was REJECTED by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
More Fatal Flaws in Bazant et al's WTC Analysis
Bazant et al's analysis supporting the official WTC collapse theory can be found here. I have described other fatal flaws in his model here and here.
FIRST-- his entire paper rests on differential equations for the time of the "collapse", notably equation 2-- the "crush down" equation. He gives this equation on page 3, but for some reason it takes him until page 7 to note that "... Eq. (2), the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution)."
A perfectly inelastic collision is where a body A moving at velocity V strikes a body B, typically at rest, then both bodies stick together (the "accreted mass"), and then both bodies move together after that at the same final velocity. If both bodies are similar masses, then the final velocity will be 1/2 of the original velocity. If body A is much larger than body B, then the final velocity will be closer to the original velocity.
So there are three obvious problems with this:
1) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected -- resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.
2) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable. Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating a significant barrier of debris between floors.
3) most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity.
Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass. In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions (for example as described in part 2 below).
Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.
In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2-- and this is under perfect conditions! This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly. Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor will still be moving at the original velocity, which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions-- particularly in the upwards direction. So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the "crush down" phase-- a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time. And of course, "crush up" is what is actually seen in the videos-- the top part of the tower basically completely breaks apart as it moves downwards. So Bazant et al. not only ignore basic logic but as has been pointed out before, ignores the visual record of what happened.
It is worth adding that Judy Wood's "Billiard Ball example" for the WTC collapse was criticized by many people for assuming (essentially) perfect elastic collisions for each floor. In fact, for reasons I noted above, an elastic collision is a much more reasonable assumption than an inelastic collision for floors striking each other. Obviously in the real world, though, a collision is not going to be perfectly elastic or inelastic-- so models need to really take this into account better. But overall, I find it shocking how UNREALISTIC the official collapse models are-- they barely make an attempt at making a reasonable sequence of events for the collapse. Jeesh-- I sometimes think I could do a better job of explaining the official story.
SECOND-- there is a problem with Bazant et al's equation 4, which they claim specifies all the resisting forces to collapse:
Fc = Fs + Fa + Fb
where Fc is the total resisting force, Fs is the energy required to pulverize the concrete, Fa is the energy required to expel air, and Fb is the energy required to buckle all the columns.
The key problem here is that he completely neglects two important energy sources:
1) the energy required to eject outer facade columns hundreds of feet in all directions around the towers.
2) the energy required to expel pulverized concrete for thousands of feet all around the WTC complex.
Considering the masses of the outer wall columns, and the immense mount of concrete that was expelled, no one can seriously argue that these are trivial sources of energy-- particularly when Bazant is saying AIR gave enough resistance to collapse to bother calculating!!!
And, as has been discussed here before, Bazant et al badly under-estimate the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete (see links above).
The bottom line, again, is that the official analyses of the WTC collapse (such as Bazant et al's) are so fatally flawed that they essentially prove demolition by default!
In other words, if expert scientists must resort to such rigged mathematical models to explain what happened, there can be little doubt they are covering up a very ugly truth.
FIRST-- his entire paper rests on differential equations for the time of the "collapse", notably equation 2-- the "crush down" equation. He gives this equation on page 3, but for some reason it takes him until page 7 to note that "... Eq. (2), the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution)."
A perfectly inelastic collision is where a body A moving at velocity V strikes a body B, typically at rest, then both bodies stick together (the "accreted mass"), and then both bodies move together after that at the same final velocity. If both bodies are similar masses, then the final velocity will be 1/2 of the original velocity. If body A is much larger than body B, then the final velocity will be closer to the original velocity.
So there are three obvious problems with this:
1) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected -- resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.
2) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable. Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each "collision", concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating a significant barrier of debris between floors.
3) most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity.
Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass. In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions (for example as described in part 2 below).
Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.
In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2-- and this is under perfect conditions! This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly. Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor will still be moving at the original velocity, which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions-- particularly in the upwards direction. So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the "crush down" phase-- a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time. And of course, "crush up" is what is actually seen in the videos-- the top part of the tower basically completely breaks apart as it moves downwards. So Bazant et al. not only ignore basic logic but as has been pointed out before, ignores the visual record of what happened.
It is worth adding that Judy Wood's "Billiard Ball example" for the WTC collapse was criticized by many people for assuming (essentially) perfect elastic collisions for each floor. In fact, for reasons I noted above, an elastic collision is a much more reasonable assumption than an inelastic collision for floors striking each other. Obviously in the real world, though, a collision is not going to be perfectly elastic or inelastic-- so models need to really take this into account better. But overall, I find it shocking how UNREALISTIC the official collapse models are-- they barely make an attempt at making a reasonable sequence of events for the collapse. Jeesh-- I sometimes think I could do a better job of explaining the official story.
SECOND-- there is a problem with Bazant et al's equation 4, which they claim specifies all the resisting forces to collapse:
Fc = Fs + Fa + Fb
where Fc is the total resisting force, Fs is the energy required to pulverize the concrete, Fa is the energy required to expel air, and Fb is the energy required to buckle all the columns.
The key problem here is that he completely neglects two important energy sources:
1) the energy required to eject outer facade columns hundreds of feet in all directions around the towers.
2) the energy required to expel pulverized concrete for thousands of feet all around the WTC complex.
Considering the masses of the outer wall columns, and the immense mount of concrete that was expelled, no one can seriously argue that these are trivial sources of energy-- particularly when Bazant is saying AIR gave enough resistance to collapse to bother calculating!!!
And, as has been discussed here before, Bazant et al badly under-estimate the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete (see links above).
The bottom line, again, is that the official analyses of the WTC collapse (such as Bazant et al's) are so fatally flawed that they essentially prove demolition by default!
In other words, if expert scientists must resort to such rigged mathematical models to explain what happened, there can be little doubt they are covering up a very ugly truth.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Unexpected Wing-Tip Explosions for "UA175"
Screen captures from the Michael Hezarkhani "Ghostplane" video. Yellow arrow indicates the "wingtip" and where it struck the tower.
Capture A:
Capture B:
Capture C:
Capture D:
Capture E:
Capture F:
Capture G:
Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion at all?
The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd.
If this was deflected debris, we should see it occurring in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in-- a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.
Capture A:
Capture B:
Capture C:
Capture D:
Capture E:
Capture F:
Capture G:
Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion at all?
The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd.
If this was deflected debris, we should see it occurring in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in-- a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.
Zen WTC Thought of the Day
If the WTC was strong enough to pull itself completely down to ground level, it should have been strong enough to resist collapse.*
Ponder this, oh grasshopper.
*Specifically I am talking about how the official story is that one floor collapse pulled down the whole top of the tower. But if one floor had connections strong enough to pull down the whole top of the tower, shouldn't the floors further down have been strong enough to resist further colapse?
Ponder this, oh grasshopper.
*Specifically I am talking about how the official story is that one floor collapse pulled down the whole top of the tower. But if one floor had connections strong enough to pull down the whole top of the tower, shouldn't the floors further down have been strong enough to resist further colapse?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Links of the Day
No question, the Bush administration has established a "broader and deeper" police state.
Time for the left to take up arms?
NIST tries again to defend the official WTC story, with lots of hand-waving and lots of bull.
Good Apollo moon landing fakery video here.
Excellent WTC demolition site here, with useful presentations for beginners.
Time for the left to take up arms?
NIST tries again to defend the official WTC story, with lots of hand-waving and lots of bull.
Good Apollo moon landing fakery video here.
Excellent WTC demolition site here, with useful presentations for beginners.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Devin Clark-- Totally Busted!!!
Compare this WNYW video of the 2nd hit to Devin Clark's video.
Devin's video has the WNYW announcer, putatively on TV in the background, at the time of the 2nd hit.
In both videos, the announcer says "perhaps purposefully" at the EXACT moment of the first "nose out"/explosion.
This should be impossible-- since there should be a delay between the WNYW broadcast and what the guys at Devin's place are watching (supposedly live)! They should have heard the WNYW announcer say "perhaps purposefully" at least five seconds after they saw the 2nd hit live.
Another major clue that this video is fake is how the people in the background know immediately it was another plane. They should not have seen the plane clearly from their vantage point (almost three miles north of the WTC at 1 Penn Plaza according to Mr. Clark) and since the tower exploded on the north side, they wouldn't have seen the plane directly hit the tower. The background witnesses should have been MUCH more confused about what they saw-- instead of saying immediately -- "another plane just hit".
Then there are the funny connections of Mr. Clark's company and his colleagues to intelligence agencies and contractors and the like (scroll down).
This video is.... FAKE!!!!!!!!!
UPDATE: I should note that more careful examination of the videos shows that there is a fraction of a second delay between the WNYW audio and the audio in the Clark video. In the WNYW video, "purposefully" coincides with the nose explosion, whereas in the Clark video, "purposefully" comes just before the nose explosion. So, *IF* WNYW was truly operating LIVE and there was no standard seven second delay, and the TV in Clark's office was getting reception from cable or the airwaves, then the audio may not be hard proof of fakery. The other points still stand, though.
Devin's video has the WNYW announcer, putatively on TV in the background, at the time of the 2nd hit.
In both videos, the announcer says "perhaps purposefully" at the EXACT moment of the first "nose out"/explosion.
This should be impossible-- since there should be a delay between the WNYW broadcast and what the guys at Devin's place are watching (supposedly live)! They should have heard the WNYW announcer say "perhaps purposefully" at least five seconds after they saw the 2nd hit live.
Another major clue that this video is fake is how the people in the background know immediately it was another plane. They should not have seen the plane clearly from their vantage point (almost three miles north of the WTC at 1 Penn Plaza according to Mr. Clark) and since the tower exploded on the north side, they wouldn't have seen the plane directly hit the tower. The background witnesses should have been MUCH more confused about what they saw-- instead of saying immediately -- "another plane just hit".
Then there are the funny connections of Mr. Clark's company and his colleagues to intelligence agencies and contractors and the like (scroll down).
This video is.... FAKE!!!!!!!!!
UPDATE: I should note that more careful examination of the videos shows that there is a fraction of a second delay between the WNYW audio and the audio in the Clark video. In the WNYW video, "purposefully" coincides with the nose explosion, whereas in the Clark video, "purposefully" comes just before the nose explosion. So, *IF* WNYW was truly operating LIVE and there was no standard seven second delay, and the TV in Clark's office was getting reception from cable or the airwaves, then the audio may not be hard proof of fakery. The other points still stand, though.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Baseball Steroid Scandal
If this is really the list, it's obviously pretty bad for baseball. Only a few of the names on the list are real disappointments for me personally: Albert Pujols, Eric Gagne, Pudge Rodriguez.
LOTS of Yankees on there.
UPDATE: The original post was based on an inaccurate list of names that was leaked to a news organization and later retracted. So the actual Mitchell report doesn't list nearly so many stars, and apparently Albert Pujols and Pudge Rodriguez aren't on the list after all. Of course it's quite possible that many of the bigger names were cut from the list in order to protect a few reputations or because the evidence was not so strong-- even though they may be users. In a sense, the actual report is not so bad as most of the steroid users are second and third tier players. The biggest names in the report are Barry Bonds, Mo Vaughn and Roger Clemens.
UPDATE 2: I love baseball, but I am not a baseball purist. I think it is good to get this stuff out there, but I don't find it shocking nor do I think it ruins the game. Cheating and sports goes hand in hand-- and bravo to the athletes who can win cleanly.
LOTS of Yankees on there.
UPDATE: The original post was based on an inaccurate list of names that was leaked to a news organization and later retracted. So the actual Mitchell report doesn't list nearly so many stars, and apparently Albert Pujols and Pudge Rodriguez aren't on the list after all. Of course it's quite possible that many of the bigger names were cut from the list in order to protect a few reputations or because the evidence was not so strong-- even though they may be users. In a sense, the actual report is not so bad as most of the steroid users are second and third tier players. The biggest names in the report are Barry Bonds, Mo Vaughn and Roger Clemens.
UPDATE 2: I love baseball, but I am not a baseball purist. I think it is good to get this stuff out there, but I don't find it shocking nor do I think it ruins the game. Cheating and sports goes hand in hand-- and bravo to the athletes who can win cleanly.
Rep. Robert Wexler Has a Good Idea
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) says he's hatched a plan that will secure health care for children, help to restore America's reputation around the world, and empower the the Democratic party to rediscover the courage of its convictions. He calls it "impeachment hearings."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Nuclear Double-Speak and Nuclear Truths
Great post here from a blog called Zaius Nation:
So once again, all the blustering about Iran getting the knowledge to build nuclear weapons is just a ruse, pure and simple-- and I suspect the blather about Iran getting "the bomb" is like-wise a diversion.
"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush told a White House news conference. iht.com
Hello!?!? Has everybody forgotten that Bush has already given the secrets of building an atomic bomb not only to Iran, but to every evil empire in the world? I remember when this story first broke. It's lifespan in the news cycle lasted from Friday afternoon to a Saturday morning. Supposedly the story was dropped because it was "unfair" and "too partisan" to run it because of the upcoming election.
A little over a year ago Bush put up a website that contained information that was captured in Iraq. Amongst this treasure trove the administration accidently overlooked part of the information that contained all of the secrets needed to build an atomic bomb. The website was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal", which is of course no longer online. The damage is already done, however. Every intelligence agency in the world is constantly watching the White House website like a hawk. There can be no doubt that the nuclear secrets are now practically in the public domain.The New York Times called the material a "nuclear primer' because it included about a dozen documents in Arabic that contained "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs." The fear was that these documents would give Iraq's nuclear secrets to Iran and thus aid the Iranian WMD program. Wikipedia
So once again, all the blustering about Iran getting the knowledge to build nuclear weapons is just a ruse, pure and simple-- and I suspect the blather about Iran getting "the bomb" is like-wise a diversion.
Google Weirdness
I was experimenting with Google for a bit, to see if I could retrieve comments left at this site via Google. What I've found is that most comments that I've tested cannot be found by Google, though they can often be pulled up by the Yahoo search engine.
However, I was able to find a couple of comments left at this site through Google, who knows why.
One very weird thing though was that I found one comment via Google (it was the top hit), and then later rechecked the same comment via Google-- and it was totally gone.
So there is some funny business with Google and particularly blog comments. I do not understand how a Googled link could disappear like that when re-Googled.
However, I was able to find a couple of comments left at this site through Google, who knows why.
One very weird thing though was that I found one comment via Google (it was the top hit), and then later rechecked the same comment via Google-- and it was totally gone.
So there is some funny business with Google and particularly blog comments. I do not understand how a Googled link could disappear like that when re-Googled.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Fake Terror Plots in Egypt
Egypt 'fabricated terror group'
A US-based human rights group has accused the Egyptian government of using torture and false confessions in a high-profile anti-terrorism case.
(snip)
The "Victorious Sect" arrests came to light shortly before Egypt renewed its enduring and controversial emergency laws, which give sweeping powers of detention to the security forces.
"State security needs to show that it's working, that it's useful, and cases like these are useful politically, around the renewal of the emergency law," lawyer Muhammad Hashim is quoted saying in the HRW report.
But this could NEVER happen here, right?
Hundreds of Hours of CIA Video Destroyed
"Laws? We don't need no stinking laws."
But of course, none of this is really any surprise, if you've been paying attention.
...and in case there is any doubt that the CIA did the waterboarding torture, now they admit it but of course say it was SO useful and that it saved lives.
Right.
Update: This Bushco "torture timeline" is a useful reference.
But of course, none of this is really any surprise, if you've been paying attention.
...and in case there is any doubt that the CIA did the waterboarding torture, now they admit it but of course say it was SO useful and that it saved lives.
Right.
Update: This Bushco "torture timeline" is a useful reference.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Devin Clark
BUSTED!!!!!!!
Note-- the damning part is where he says "it would be totally feasible to create those fake videos". (Emphasis added)
Other damning evidence is how his old company was linked to defense contractors.
Note-- the damning part is where he says "it would be totally feasible to create those fake videos". (Emphasis added)
Other damning evidence is how his old company was linked to defense contractors.
The Book of Mormon and the Genesis of a Religion
The relatively recent establishment of the Mormon religion presents an interesting test case for questions about divine matters, the spiritual world and god.
To many people who read about how Mormonism/the Church of Latter Day Saints was established by Joseph Smith, the story sounds like the start of a classic religious cult perpetrated by a slick charlatan. That seems to be how many people of the 1800's viewed this cult too; and interestingly, Smith met his death when he was arrested and shot to death by a mob who were upset at the actions of Smith and his followers.
I find it fascinating how Mormons believe in the divinity of their religion, despite the rather far-fetched story of how the book of Mormon came into being:
Now the one hard fact of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon-- a lengthy book written in an archaic biblical style that tells the story a group of Jews, the Nephi, who migrated to the Americas over two thousand of years ago, established a civilization here but eventually died as their society decayed (or something like this). Somewhere along the way, Jesus made a visitation to these people after he was reincarnated.
The key thing that makes Joseph Smith more than a simple charlatan is the Book of Mormon, and thus there has been a huge debate over the origins of the book. It does seem unlikely that Smith could write this work all by himself, given his background, but of course the "official story" is rather difficult to swallow too-- even though there are supposedly 11 witnesses to the golden plates.
Apart from the "official story" and the idea that Smith came up with the story by himself, another possibility is that Smith was used by others-- who modified earlier books to produce the book of Mormon-- and most interestingly the basic story in the Book of Mormon was preceded by American books written in the early 1800's: The View of the Hebrews and the Spalding Manuscript.
A likely explanation for the Book of Mormon may therefore be that Smith and his close associates tapped into local legends and contemporaneous theories to start this new religion, and of course this was a very closely guarded secret. The start of Mormonism can be seen as a conspiracy, which over time and iterations of church elders determined to maintain their power and their belief system, became sanctified. And doubtless, the Mormons themselves have been assiduous at squashing evidence that goes against their religion and the honesty of Joseph Smith.
But one major problem with the Book of Mormon is that, apart from the Book of Mormon, there simply is no historical record for Jews coming to the New World and establishing a new civilization in the relatively recent past.
The thing that I find most fascinating is the schism between those who believe and those who are skeptical of this religion. I wonder how many fallen Mormons there are, or whether they are just strongly brain-washed and never doubt the religion.
Nonetheless, the origins of Mormonism can serve as a template for how ANY religion is established, and I have little doubt that the roots of all religions are mostly bogus-- it is just that their origins are both sanctified and shrouded by the mists of time.
Not that I am saying that there are NO other forces out there and that there is nothing to spiritualism. The physical universe is a place we do not fully understand yet, and it is hard to rule out any notion of "god". Though as I posted about recently, one interesting explanation for spiritual/religious encounters is alien visitation.
To many people who read about how Mormonism/the Church of Latter Day Saints was established by Joseph Smith, the story sounds like the start of a classic religious cult perpetrated by a slick charlatan. That seems to be how many people of the 1800's viewed this cult too; and interestingly, Smith met his death when he was arrested and shot to death by a mob who were upset at the actions of Smith and his followers.
I find it fascinating how Mormons believe in the divinity of their religion, despite the rather far-fetched story of how the book of Mormon came into being:
The Book of Mormon is regarded by Latter Day Saints as divinely revealed and is named after the prophet– historian Mormon who, according to the text, compiled most of the book. It was published by the founder of the LDS movement, Joseph Smith, Jr., in March 1830 in Palmyra, New York, USA. Its purpose, as stated on its title page, "is to show the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord has done for their fathers" and to convince "Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself to all nations."
Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of golden plates. He said that the angel Moroni told him that the plates were buried in a hill near his home (which he later called the Hill Cumorah). He said the translation was made through the power of God with the aid of the Urim and Thummim which were with the plates. During the production of the work Smith obtained the affidavits of Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses who testified that they saw the plates. These affidavits are published as part of the book. When the book was complete, he said he returned the plates to the angel Moroni.
Now the one hard fact of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon-- a lengthy book written in an archaic biblical style that tells the story a group of Jews, the Nephi, who migrated to the Americas over two thousand of years ago, established a civilization here but eventually died as their society decayed (or something like this). Somewhere along the way, Jesus made a visitation to these people after he was reincarnated.
The key thing that makes Joseph Smith more than a simple charlatan is the Book of Mormon, and thus there has been a huge debate over the origins of the book. It does seem unlikely that Smith could write this work all by himself, given his background, but of course the "official story" is rather difficult to swallow too-- even though there are supposedly 11 witnesses to the golden plates.
Apart from the "official story" and the idea that Smith came up with the story by himself, another possibility is that Smith was used by others-- who modified earlier books to produce the book of Mormon-- and most interestingly the basic story in the Book of Mormon was preceded by American books written in the early 1800's: The View of the Hebrews and the Spalding Manuscript.
A likely explanation for the Book of Mormon may therefore be that Smith and his close associates tapped into local legends and contemporaneous theories to start this new religion, and of course this was a very closely guarded secret. The start of Mormonism can be seen as a conspiracy, which over time and iterations of church elders determined to maintain their power and their belief system, became sanctified. And doubtless, the Mormons themselves have been assiduous at squashing evidence that goes against their religion and the honesty of Joseph Smith.
But one major problem with the Book of Mormon is that, apart from the Book of Mormon, there simply is no historical record for Jews coming to the New World and establishing a new civilization in the relatively recent past.
The thing that I find most fascinating is the schism between those who believe and those who are skeptical of this religion. I wonder how many fallen Mormons there are, or whether they are just strongly brain-washed and never doubt the religion.
Nonetheless, the origins of Mormonism can serve as a template for how ANY religion is established, and I have little doubt that the roots of all religions are mostly bogus-- it is just that their origins are both sanctified and shrouded by the mists of time.
Not that I am saying that there are NO other forces out there and that there is nothing to spiritualism. The physical universe is a place we do not fully understand yet, and it is hard to rule out any notion of "god". Though as I posted about recently, one interesting explanation for spiritual/religious encounters is alien visitation.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Fake Opposition Democrats
The natives are getting restless:
Since the voters put them back in power, the Democrats have taken impeachment off the table, punted on the war, never figured out a way to hold Republicans accountable for filibusters and obstructionism, so legislation is in the toilet, and never managed to use oversight power to do anything more than chip away around the edges of the Bush regime—though they have written a great number of Sternly Worded Letters.
And now, top Democrats turn out to be enablers of war crimes by our lawless executive. What a surprise. Harry, Nancy, nice work.
The Funniest and the Scariest Thing About Doing this Blog
The funniest thing is the trolls/shills who come here -- day after day after day-- calling me names, lying about what I've said, and generally mocking the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, yet these same trolls/shills, when pressed for any sort of serious response or rebuttal, invariably fail at doing mustering any meaningful response. These people are somewhat like neighborhood children, who throw rocks at the house of someone they think is weird, but run away when directly confronted.
The scariest thing, overall, has been finding over and over, how weak the explanations of the official story put forth by official story supporters are, even explanation from professional scientists-- implying that my worst fears about what happened are in fact true.
The scariest thing, overall, has been finding over and over, how weak the explanations of the official story put forth by official story supporters are, even explanation from professional scientists-- implying that my worst fears about what happened are in fact true.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Big Brother on Steroids
The new "National Applications Office (NAO)" sounds incredibly bland and innocuous, but the reality is that the NAO is the mechanism for legalized domestic spying on a massive scale.
Destruction of CIA Interrogation Tapes
Interesting that this info comes to light-- making the CIA look bad-- in the same week the CIA makes Bush/Cheney look bad with the revised Iranian NIE.
Officially, the tapes were destroyed because they showed illegal use of torture by the CIA. This is plausible. However, since 9/11 was an inside job, and information relating to this fact was no doubt on those tapes gives another plausible reason for why tapes of interrogations of 9/11 operatives were destroyed. This second reason has more weight when the fact that the context for destroying these tapes was denying evidence to 9/11 investigators:
This evidence was also denied during the Jose Padilla trial.
Officially, the tapes were destroyed because they showed illegal use of torture by the CIA. This is plausible. However, since 9/11 was an inside job, and information relating to this fact was no doubt on those tapes gives another plausible reason for why tapes of interrogations of 9/11 operatives were destroyed. This second reason has more weight when the fact that the context for destroying these tapes was denying evidence to 9/11 investigators:
The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.
This evidence was also denied during the Jose Padilla trial.
Pearl Harbor Was an Inside Job
Whoops, meant the NEW Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The OLD Pearl Harbor (of which today is the 66th anniversary) was LIHOP, with a dash of provocation.
The OLD Pearl Harbor (of which today is the 66th anniversary) was LIHOP, with a dash of provocation.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Giuliani's Bizarre Iranian Hostage Ad
Anyone else see the obvious problem in Rudy's premise here?
Speaking of politics-related videos, this one is pretty awesome:
Speaking of politics-related videos, this one is pretty awesome:
The Other Fatal Flaw in Bazant's WTC Analysis
Bazant's WTC analysis can be found here. The other fatal flaw in his model, besides his concrete pulverization analysis, is his "crush down, crush up" model.
His entire model of WTC collapse rests on the idea that an upper block of each WTC tower broke off and acted as a overwhelmingly powerful pile driver that "crushed down" the lower part of each tower, and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction.
This model makes sense-- in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner, that is.
In the real world however, there are two problems with Bazant's "crush down, crush up" model:
1) it violates physics, as Newtons' third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of building floors hitting other building floors, as in a collapse, both sets of floors will get damaged-- and in fact, the upper floors are more likely to suffer in this collision as they are by their nature, lighter and weaker than lower floors. This counters the "crush down, crush up" model.
2) it violates what was actually observed-- as it has long been clear that there was "crush up" of the upper sections of the towers as they fell.
If the paper by Bazant et al's is really the best the official story has to offer, there can be no doubt that the towers were fucking blown to kingdom come by the regime, and that the official collapse story is a load of horse swallop.
His entire model of WTC collapse rests on the idea that an upper block of each WTC tower broke off and acted as a overwhelmingly powerful pile driver that "crushed down" the lower part of each tower, and that this upper chunk of tower was only destroyed at the very end, when it reached the debris pile and underwent a "crush up" reaction.
This model makes sense-- in the cartoon world of the Roadrunner, that is.
In the real world however, there are two problems with Bazant's "crush down, crush up" model:
1) it violates physics, as Newtons' third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of building floors hitting other building floors, as in a collapse, both sets of floors will get damaged-- and in fact, the upper floors are more likely to suffer in this collision as they are by their nature, lighter and weaker than lower floors. This counters the "crush down, crush up" model.
2) it violates what was actually observed-- as it has long been clear that there was "crush up" of the upper sections of the towers as they fell.
If the paper by Bazant et al's is really the best the official story has to offer, there can be no doubt that the towers were fucking blown to kingdom come by the regime, and that the official collapse story is a load of horse swallop.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
The Three Fatal Flaws in Bazant's WTC Concrete Pulverization Calculations and Why His Calculations Really Support Nuclear Demolition
Bazant's WTC concrete pulverization calculations can be found here. Basically, he calculates that 7% of the total "gravitational potential energy" (GPE) is required to pulverize all of the concrete in the WTC towers.
His three fatal flaws are:
1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to completely pulverize the WTC.
3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is no way this process is even close to 100% efficient! Think about the actual mechanics involved in a collapse: a heavy set of floors is dropping ten feet onto a lower floor filled with interior walls, furniture, and the bottom concrete slab is covered with some padding and carpet. There is simply no way that the floor slab concrete is going to be significantly pulverized in this way. Some concrete will be crushed by breakage of the floors slabs and by steel columns being forced downwards at irregular angles, but it is difficult to imagine that more than 10% of the concrete being crushed in this way, and much of this crushing will not result in micron-sized particles. A heavy weight dropping ten feet onto a furniture and carpet-covered floor is thus going to have an efficiency of concrete pulverization of 10% at most. Not to mention that after a few floors are crushed down, there is going to be a build up of crushed material from the previously crushed floors, which will act as a buffer and decrease the efficiency of further crushing. Thus, to simply equate "gravitational potential energy" with the energy required to pulverize concrete, as Bazant does, is incredibly flawed, bad science.
Some corrected energy calculations would be as follows:
1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).
2) extra energy to pulverize interior building contents not including the concrete-- this will use less energy than pulverizing the concrete, as these materials were not as strong on average as concrete, but we can estimate this will still use another 7% of total GPE conservatively to convert these items into micron-sized particles.
3) extra energy required to overcome the inefficiency of concrete pulverization-- conservatively 10 times 14% of GPE-- thus 140% of GPE. For the sake of argument, we will assume that interior building contents are pulverized at 100% efficiency, which is probably not the case, but is the conservative argument. This gives a rough CONSERVATIVE total of 147% of GPE to pulverize the concrete and the interior building contents to micron-sized particles.
In fact, with these three factors taken into account, it should be clear, using conservative assumptions, that the energy required to pulverize the concrete and everything inside the WTC is much greater than the total "gravitational potential energy"-- and this does not even include the massive energy that would be required to destroy the steel super-structure of the towers!
So what would produce this amount of energy, without the impractical course of pre-loading of the towers with thousands of tons of explosives?
Nuclear energy.
His three fatal flaws are:
1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.
2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to completely pulverize the WTC.
3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is no way this process is even close to 100% efficient! Think about the actual mechanics involved in a collapse: a heavy set of floors is dropping ten feet onto a lower floor filled with interior walls, furniture, and the bottom concrete slab is covered with some padding and carpet. There is simply no way that the floor slab concrete is going to be significantly pulverized in this way. Some concrete will be crushed by breakage of the floors slabs and by steel columns being forced downwards at irregular angles, but it is difficult to imagine that more than 10% of the concrete being crushed in this way, and much of this crushing will not result in micron-sized particles. A heavy weight dropping ten feet onto a furniture and carpet-covered floor is thus going to have an efficiency of concrete pulverization of 10% at most. Not to mention that after a few floors are crushed down, there is going to be a build up of crushed material from the previously crushed floors, which will act as a buffer and decrease the efficiency of further crushing. Thus, to simply equate "gravitational potential energy" with the energy required to pulverize concrete, as Bazant does, is incredibly flawed, bad science.
Some corrected energy calculations would be as follows:
1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).
2) extra energy to pulverize interior building contents not including the concrete-- this will use less energy than pulverizing the concrete, as these materials were not as strong on average as concrete, but we can estimate this will still use another 7% of total GPE conservatively to convert these items into micron-sized particles.
3) extra energy required to overcome the inefficiency of concrete pulverization-- conservatively 10 times 14% of GPE-- thus 140% of GPE. For the sake of argument, we will assume that interior building contents are pulverized at 100% efficiency, which is probably not the case, but is the conservative argument. This gives a rough CONSERVATIVE total of 147% of GPE to pulverize the concrete and the interior building contents to micron-sized particles.
In fact, with these three factors taken into account, it should be clear, using conservative assumptions, that the energy required to pulverize the concrete and everything inside the WTC is much greater than the total "gravitational potential energy"-- and this does not even include the massive energy that would be required to destroy the steel super-structure of the towers!
So what would produce this amount of energy, without the impractical course of pre-loading of the towers with thousands of tons of explosives?
Nuclear energy.
Monday, December 03, 2007
More on Bazant's Hack Science and the WTC Nuclear Demolition Cover-Up
The OCT’s & Bazant’s Bogus Dust Analysis is Doomed to the Dustbin of History
By The Anonymous Physicist
The size of the pulverized dust created during the destruction of the WTC towers can play a crucial role in proving what caused their destruction. Desperate, bogus science has been employed, by some in the OCT camp, to claim that the energy to pulverize the towers into dust originated from the Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) of the towers. I will show that the entire issue of the dust has been treated unscientifically.
The papers of Z.P. Bazant have been used as a pillar of the OCT throughout the last 6 years. Bazant’s most recent paper is here.
Regarding what Bazant, et al, called “pulverized concrete particles,” they say, “the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls….” Now the paper does not contain any reference whatsoever for his alleged dust particle range of .01 mm [millimeters] to .1 mm. Note, this particle range can also be written as 10-100 microns (micrometers or millionths of a meter).
The crucial relation of the energy of tower destruction to dust particle size is somewhat analogous to crushing a tablet with a mortar and pestle. Little energy is needed for you to make two large fragments. More energy is needed for creating 10 moderate sized fragments. Vastly more energy is needed to create many of the tiniest particle size possible with this type of tool. A different apparatus, say a massive mechanical press device, would expend much greater energy and could create much smaller particles than you could with the pestle. Bazant’s article only compares gravity driven collapse, and TNT as possible mechanisms of tower destruction. The bogus dust particle range-- devoid of any reference--that he claims, is part of the official ruse.
Now one reference, some researchers have used, for the dust particle size is here. (Hereafter called the “EHP article.”) In this article, the authors state they collected dust samples “from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (9/16/01) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (9/17/01) after the terrorist attack.” Their findings include “Material less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were greater than 53 microns in diameter.” A significant percentage of the dust was in their category of range of “2.5-10 microns.“ They say dust did include “construction materials.” Their apparatus was not capable of detecting how much smaller than 2.5 microns the approx. 1-2% of their sample was. This is crucial because if there were nanometer size particles, vastly greater energy was needed to create this. However their entire dust collection methodology appears meant to avoid collecting the smallest, lightest dust-- or, at least, has this effect. Despite the claim of collecting from “undisturbed, protected locations,” the 3 samples were taken from “external ledges around the entrance of a building,” and “the tops of two automobiles” of which “it is possible that each could have been moved.” The samples were collected, not within hours, or a day, but 5 and 6 days later when winds could have displaced especially the smallest, lightest dust elements. The authors also claim that the “rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001” did not affect the samples either. The farthest away from the WTC that samples were taken from, was about 1/2 mile. Now I know people that live 2 miles from the WTC, and they said there was several inches of “ash” in the streets there. The point is that the smallest, lightest particles created during tower destruction, traveled highest, and farthest away from the site, and also were the most likely to be affected by wind, rain, car movement, etc. There is corroboration of this from another govt study, the U.S.G.S. (U.S. Geological Survey). Although the separate USGS dust study did not analyze the dust they collected-- 3-4 days after 9/11, from 35 locations in a radial pattern up to 0.7 miles away-- for particle size, they had more honest statements on how the weather in the interval before collection affected the samples. They said, “In many cases the samples formed compact masses suggestive of having been dampened by rain and having dried in the intervening 3-4 days… All but two of the samples were collected outdoors and had been subjected to wind and water during a rain storm the night of 9/14/01.“ And “Sample 36 was recovered from an indoor location near the Trade Center complex and had not been affected by rain as were the outdoor samples.” This physicist would assert that the action of falling raindrops would be most likely to cause loss of the smallest, lightest dust particles. Regarding WTC pulverized dust particle size-- especially in regards to the smallest particles-- there is only one conclusion. No honest, complete, scientific study was ever done; and it’s too late now. We can surmise why.
How far away should honest dust sampling have been undertaken? This Space Station photo from 9/11, indicates how high high up and far out the smoke went. Here is another view from space of Ground Zero and another of a day later.
Now I have published numerous articles here in the last year indicating that only small nuclear bombs explain all the tower destruction evidence, and eyewitness testimony, and China Syndrome aftermath. See here and here. And we’ve all seen the central, mushroom-shaped clouds that arose during tower destruction. See the left picture on top here. These clouds, and other plumes, contained the smallest, lightest particles that then traveled high and far, via prevailing winds, and perhaps eventually into the jet stream. Wiki states that a nuclear fission bomb creates particles down to 10 nanometer (nm) size. (1 nm is one billionth of a meter.) If the nukes used were pure fusion, or contained fusion components, as most nuclear 9/11 proponents believe, the temperature of the hypo-centers would have been even higher, possibly resulting in even smaller, lighter particles. And how far could 10 nanometer particles travel? Older folks might recall how radioactive nuclides in fallout from nuclear tests were detected world-wide. More recently, detectors in Sweden, some 800 miles away, blew the cover on the Chernobyl explosion, two days afterwards. That explosion-- though it contained radioactive isotopes-- was itself conventional, and not nuclear. And Depleted Uranium (D.U.) was detected-- and uncovered years later through Freedom of Information laws-- 9 days after the start of the War on Iraq, at 5 locations in England— a distance of over 2500 miles. In fact, Chris Busby, PhD, chemical physicist, and his co-author, state here that “each person in the area (England) inhaled some 23 million uranium particles of diameter 0.25 microns.” Note the sub-micron particle size, found 2500 miles away. Again these small D.U. particles were created in conventional, not nuclear, explosions of ordinance. Nuclear explosions in the towers, created far smaller and lighter particles that would have traveled high and far, and these certainly were not sampled. Why? In all likelihood, those in charge knew that the very small particle size is sufficient proof alone of the power and type of explosive actually used-- nukes. The two blogs linked above also contain my writings on the findings of both fusion and fission components, or resultants, in the WTC area and dust-- including Tritium, Strontium and Barium.
Let us return now to the articles of Z. P. Bazant. They are masterpieces of deception and circular “logic” via 1) ignoring and denying what all the videos and photos prove occurred, and 2) the insidious insertion, into his equations, of parameters based on the prior acceptance of the very mechanism he needed to prove-- and not assume. I will now go over these bogus insertions and assumptions, and some of the math and pseudo-Physics of Bazant’s papers. His, “Dust particle size ranged from 10-100 microns” has no reference cited! Even the above EHP article (which itself was deficient in finding the smallest particles) found 1) that up to 2% dust mass was under 2.5 microns with no analysis of just how far smaller these particles may have been; and 2) A presumably larger percentage of dust was in the range of 2.5 to 10 microns. So no way was 10 microns the smallest dust particle size, as Bazant asserts. If the smallest dust size were 2.5 microns (which was just the upper limit on the smallest filter size in the EHP experiments), the energy needed for pulverization, in Bazant’s equations, would double to 14% of the total GPE.
Then Bazant states, in his equation 5, page 3, “V1, the volume of the rubble on the ground into which the whole tower mass has been compacted” and "Bazant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so K-out (mass ejection ratio) is about 0.20.” (RE: Eq. 5, 6 and ff, page 4) And on page 12, “K-out cannot be higher than the value deduced from the mass of rubble found on the ground (the rubble pile) outside the tower perimeter.” These statements mean Bazant used the following assumption in his “calculations”: the entirety of each tower’s contents went into the small rubble pile, with 80% of the volume of the rubble pile being within the footprint of each tower. His K-out is bogus, due to the obvious massive outward explosions, vaporizations, and missing mass, from the rubble pile. Thus all his equations that use it, are bogus. So Bazant proves his papers are nothing but their own “rubble pile”-- rubbish. Because we have ample video and photos of the massive outward explosions (with some “chunks” said to weigh hundreds of tons that were expelled hundreds of feet beyond the “rubble pile” into other buildings, and many other beams etc. expelled far beyond the rubble pile), photos from space of the volume of small particulate matter from “collapse” that went high up and far out, and some sample collections of building material up to 0.7 miles away, and countless eyewitnesses of much building mass in the streets miles away! Indeed simple rough estimations of one single column chunk weighing 200 hundred tons expelled at high speed to reach and impact the other building would itself have required a significant amount of the total available GPE. Likewise, the many smaller tower elements and beams seen being exploded outwards consume a large amount of the available total GPE. Couple this with the energy needed for the complete crushing of the structural steel framework of the tower and the energy needed for the creation of micron-sized particles from concrete and other tower contents, one can see that an energy source greater than the GPE was employed during the destruction of the towers.
The only thing that Bazant states was expelled beyond the rubble pile was the air in the towers! But, in a desperate attempt to explain the many obvious explosions in the towers, he used the “air ejection” as follows. “The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments.” Here he contradicts himself! His equations had claimed that all “pulverized concrete” was 80% within the towers’ footprints, and the other 20% was very close by in the small rubble pile just beyond the footprint of the towers. Here again, he assumed the force for “air ejection” arose from “gravitational collapse,” and ignores the blatantly obvious outward explosions seen from the very beginning of tower destruction. Bazant claims that ejected air had “fluctuations” moving at supersonic speeds. The latter, he claims, accounted for the explosions heard. There are two problems here though. First, his solutions depend on his other bogus assumptions, and second, there is abundant proof of explosions BEFORE “collapse.” This includes eyewitnesses, recordings, and smoke clouds arising on video.
Elsewhere, Bazant’s equations 12-20 are masterpieces of smearing claimed (but bogus) experimentally found values of the minimum and maximum pulverized dust size with his theoretical calculations for the same. And his calculations ASSUME the force that pulverized the concrete came from gravitational collapse! E.g., his Eq. 14 involves a ratio of the maximum to minimum dust sizes. And then he relies on reference #11 which is an article titled, ““Single particle impact breakage characterization of materials by drop testing.” Thus proving that all his “work” assumes that the force that created the dust was gravitational collapse which he was supposed to prove, and not assume! His using a “drop testing”experiment, ipso facto, precludes an honest investigation into whatever force may have pulverized the concrete-- which includes the very different physical forces and incredible temperatures and pressures from the nuclear bombs, all the evidence indicates, were used therein. Virtually every equation in every section, including air expulsion, assumes and uses factors derived from either gravitational impact, or other CONVENTIONAL forces, and, ipso facto, precludes an unbiased discussion which includes the nuclear probability. So we have subterfuge, and circular logic at its ugliest best in his papers.
Now using his Eq. 22 (assuming it has some validity) for the energy needed to produce the smallest dust particle size, it is clear that if there were 10 nm. size particles created during nuclear pulverization, we would have an energy needed that is about 32 times greater than his value found which was, he claimed, 7 % of the total GPE, converted to Kinetic Energy. Clearly this would be over 200% of possible available total GP energy. Note also that Bazant claims that only “concrete slabs and core walls” were pulverized. He ignores the over 1000 people whose smallest body parts could not be found, and were thus vaporized or pulverized. Likewise for all the furniture, and other tower contents that were pulverized. All that required great energy. And, of course, he ignores all the energy needed for the expulsion (explosion) of many steel beams and large, and very large, building “chunks.” Some of which, I have highlighted in my earlier papers on the nuclear demolition of the WTC, are shown to have parabolic arcs (also highlighted in Siegel’s Eyewitness video) emanating from (arcs traced back to) the center of the tower; and which I cited for proof of several mini-nukes being used through-out the towers, during demolition.
Other ludicrous assumptions Bazant used include, from page 7, his “assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution)” and similarly “is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself” [page 3]. This ignores Newton’s third law of motion. There are many other false statements and denials of evidence that I will leave to others to point out.
Returning to the pulverized dust, Bazant ignores other differences seen in videos of conventional controlled demolition, or building collapse. None caused pulverized dust miles from the site, or plumes going up into space and far away. None have massive chunks of edifice flung up to hundreds of feet away. All this was ignored by Bazant, so as to obtain his “results.”
In conclusion, examination of Bazant’s assumptions, circular logic, false parameters, denials of evidence, and other chicanery regarding the pulverized dust and other tower destruction matters, demonstrate that desperate, and clear cut, fudging or “bad science” was used to attain the results desired. All these interdependent falsifications-- Bazant, NIST, Seffen--collapse into their own rubble pile, the dustbin of history. It is hoped that should the people arise and overcome the present fascism, these corrupt engineers, scientists and mathematicians will be charged with being accomplices to mass murder and high treason.
By The Anonymous Physicist
The size of the pulverized dust created during the destruction of the WTC towers can play a crucial role in proving what caused their destruction. Desperate, bogus science has been employed, by some in the OCT camp, to claim that the energy to pulverize the towers into dust originated from the Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) of the towers. I will show that the entire issue of the dust has been treated unscientifically.
The papers of Z.P. Bazant have been used as a pillar of the OCT throughout the last 6 years. Bazant’s most recent paper is here.
Regarding what Bazant, et al, called “pulverized concrete particles,” they say, “the observed size range (0.01 mm – 0.1 mm) is fully consistent with this theory and is achievable by collapse driven gravity alone, and that only about 7% of the total gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy of impacts would have sufficed to pulverize all the concrete slabs and core walls….” Now the paper does not contain any reference whatsoever for his alleged dust particle range of .01 mm [millimeters] to .1 mm. Note, this particle range can also be written as 10-100 microns (micrometers or millionths of a meter).
The crucial relation of the energy of tower destruction to dust particle size is somewhat analogous to crushing a tablet with a mortar and pestle. Little energy is needed for you to make two large fragments. More energy is needed for creating 10 moderate sized fragments. Vastly more energy is needed to create many of the tiniest particle size possible with this type of tool. A different apparatus, say a massive mechanical press device, would expend much greater energy and could create much smaller particles than you could with the pestle. Bazant’s article only compares gravity driven collapse, and TNT as possible mechanisms of tower destruction. The bogus dust particle range-- devoid of any reference--that he claims, is part of the official ruse.
Now one reference, some researchers have used, for the dust particle size is here. (Hereafter called the “EHP article.”) In this article, the authors state they collected dust samples “from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (9/16/01) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (9/17/01) after the terrorist attack.” Their findings include “Material less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were greater than 53 microns in diameter.” A significant percentage of the dust was in their category of range of “2.5-10 microns.“ They say dust did include “construction materials.” Their apparatus was not capable of detecting how much smaller than 2.5 microns the approx. 1-2% of their sample was. This is crucial because if there were nanometer size particles, vastly greater energy was needed to create this. However their entire dust collection methodology appears meant to avoid collecting the smallest, lightest dust-- or, at least, has this effect. Despite the claim of collecting from “undisturbed, protected locations,” the 3 samples were taken from “external ledges around the entrance of a building,” and “the tops of two automobiles” of which “it is possible that each could have been moved.” The samples were collected, not within hours, or a day, but 5 and 6 days later when winds could have displaced especially the smallest, lightest dust elements. The authors also claim that the “rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001” did not affect the samples either. The farthest away from the WTC that samples were taken from, was about 1/2 mile. Now I know people that live 2 miles from the WTC, and they said there was several inches of “ash” in the streets there. The point is that the smallest, lightest particles created during tower destruction, traveled highest, and farthest away from the site, and also were the most likely to be affected by wind, rain, car movement, etc. There is corroboration of this from another govt study, the U.S.G.S. (U.S. Geological Survey). Although the separate USGS dust study did not analyze the dust they collected-- 3-4 days after 9/11, from 35 locations in a radial pattern up to 0.7 miles away-- for particle size, they had more honest statements on how the weather in the interval before collection affected the samples. They said, “In many cases the samples formed compact masses suggestive of having been dampened by rain and having dried in the intervening 3-4 days… All but two of the samples were collected outdoors and had been subjected to wind and water during a rain storm the night of 9/14/01.“ And “Sample 36 was recovered from an indoor location near the Trade Center complex and had not been affected by rain as were the outdoor samples.” This physicist would assert that the action of falling raindrops would be most likely to cause loss of the smallest, lightest dust particles. Regarding WTC pulverized dust particle size-- especially in regards to the smallest particles-- there is only one conclusion. No honest, complete, scientific study was ever done; and it’s too late now. We can surmise why.
How far away should honest dust sampling have been undertaken? This Space Station photo from 9/11, indicates how high high up and far out the smoke went. Here is another view from space of Ground Zero and another of a day later.
Now I have published numerous articles here in the last year indicating that only small nuclear bombs explain all the tower destruction evidence, and eyewitness testimony, and China Syndrome aftermath. See here and here. And we’ve all seen the central, mushroom-shaped clouds that arose during tower destruction. See the left picture on top here. These clouds, and other plumes, contained the smallest, lightest particles that then traveled high and far, via prevailing winds, and perhaps eventually into the jet stream. Wiki states that a nuclear fission bomb creates particles down to 10 nanometer (nm) size. (1 nm is one billionth of a meter.) If the nukes used were pure fusion, or contained fusion components, as most nuclear 9/11 proponents believe, the temperature of the hypo-centers would have been even higher, possibly resulting in even smaller, lighter particles. And how far could 10 nanometer particles travel? Older folks might recall how radioactive nuclides in fallout from nuclear tests were detected world-wide. More recently, detectors in Sweden, some 800 miles away, blew the cover on the Chernobyl explosion, two days afterwards. That explosion-- though it contained radioactive isotopes-- was itself conventional, and not nuclear. And Depleted Uranium (D.U.) was detected-- and uncovered years later through Freedom of Information laws-- 9 days after the start of the War on Iraq, at 5 locations in England— a distance of over 2500 miles. In fact, Chris Busby, PhD, chemical physicist, and his co-author, state here that “each person in the area (England) inhaled some 23 million uranium particles of diameter 0.25 microns.” Note the sub-micron particle size, found 2500 miles away. Again these small D.U. particles were created in conventional, not nuclear, explosions of ordinance. Nuclear explosions in the towers, created far smaller and lighter particles that would have traveled high and far, and these certainly were not sampled. Why? In all likelihood, those in charge knew that the very small particle size is sufficient proof alone of the power and type of explosive actually used-- nukes. The two blogs linked above also contain my writings on the findings of both fusion and fission components, or resultants, in the WTC area and dust-- including Tritium, Strontium and Barium.
Let us return now to the articles of Z. P. Bazant. They are masterpieces of deception and circular “logic” via 1) ignoring and denying what all the videos and photos prove occurred, and 2) the insidious insertion, into his equations, of parameters based on the prior acceptance of the very mechanism he needed to prove-- and not assume. I will now go over these bogus insertions and assumptions, and some of the math and pseudo-Physics of Bazant’s papers. His, “Dust particle size ranged from 10-100 microns” has no reference cited! Even the above EHP article (which itself was deficient in finding the smallest particles) found 1) that up to 2% dust mass was under 2.5 microns with no analysis of just how far smaller these particles may have been; and 2) A presumably larger percentage of dust was in the range of 2.5 to 10 microns. So no way was 10 microns the smallest dust particle size, as Bazant asserts. If the smallest dust size were 2.5 microns (which was just the upper limit on the smallest filter size in the EHP experiments), the energy needed for pulverization, in Bazant’s equations, would double to 14% of the total GPE.
Then Bazant states, in his equation 5, page 3, “V1, the volume of the rubble on the ground into which the whole tower mass has been compacted” and "Bazant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so K-out (mass ejection ratio) is about 0.20.” (RE: Eq. 5, 6 and ff, page 4) And on page 12, “K-out cannot be higher than the value deduced from the mass of rubble found on the ground (the rubble pile) outside the tower perimeter.” These statements mean Bazant used the following assumption in his “calculations”: the entirety of each tower’s contents went into the small rubble pile, with 80% of the volume of the rubble pile being within the footprint of each tower. His K-out is bogus, due to the obvious massive outward explosions, vaporizations, and missing mass, from the rubble pile. Thus all his equations that use it, are bogus. So Bazant proves his papers are nothing but their own “rubble pile”-- rubbish. Because we have ample video and photos of the massive outward explosions (with some “chunks” said to weigh hundreds of tons that were expelled hundreds of feet beyond the “rubble pile” into other buildings, and many other beams etc. expelled far beyond the rubble pile), photos from space of the volume of small particulate matter from “collapse” that went high up and far out, and some sample collections of building material up to 0.7 miles away, and countless eyewitnesses of much building mass in the streets miles away! Indeed simple rough estimations of one single column chunk weighing 200 hundred tons expelled at high speed to reach and impact the other building would itself have required a significant amount of the total available GPE. Likewise, the many smaller tower elements and beams seen being exploded outwards consume a large amount of the available total GPE. Couple this with the energy needed for the complete crushing of the structural steel framework of the tower and the energy needed for the creation of micron-sized particles from concrete and other tower contents, one can see that an energy source greater than the GPE was employed during the destruction of the towers.
The only thing that Bazant states was expelled beyond the rubble pile was the air in the towers! But, in a desperate attempt to explain the many obvious explosions in the towers, he used the “air ejection” as follows. “The exit speed of air ejected from the building by the crushing front of gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, 465 mph (208 m/s) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and glass fragments.” Here he contradicts himself! His equations had claimed that all “pulverized concrete” was 80% within the towers’ footprints, and the other 20% was very close by in the small rubble pile just beyond the footprint of the towers. Here again, he assumed the force for “air ejection” arose from “gravitational collapse,” and ignores the blatantly obvious outward explosions seen from the very beginning of tower destruction. Bazant claims that ejected air had “fluctuations” moving at supersonic speeds. The latter, he claims, accounted for the explosions heard. There are two problems here though. First, his solutions depend on his other bogus assumptions, and second, there is abundant proof of explosions BEFORE “collapse.” This includes eyewitnesses, recordings, and smoke clouds arising on video.
Elsewhere, Bazant’s equations 12-20 are masterpieces of smearing claimed (but bogus) experimentally found values of the minimum and maximum pulverized dust size with his theoretical calculations for the same. And his calculations ASSUME the force that pulverized the concrete came from gravitational collapse! E.g., his Eq. 14 involves a ratio of the maximum to minimum dust sizes. And then he relies on reference #11 which is an article titled, ““Single particle impact breakage characterization of materials by drop testing.” Thus proving that all his “work” assumes that the force that created the dust was gravitational collapse which he was supposed to prove, and not assume! His using a “drop testing”experiment, ipso facto, precludes an honest investigation into whatever force may have pulverized the concrete-- which includes the very different physical forces and incredible temperatures and pressures from the nuclear bombs, all the evidence indicates, were used therein. Virtually every equation in every section, including air expulsion, assumes and uses factors derived from either gravitational impact, or other CONVENTIONAL forces, and, ipso facto, precludes an unbiased discussion which includes the nuclear probability. So we have subterfuge, and circular logic at its ugliest best in his papers.
Now using his Eq. 22 (assuming it has some validity) for the energy needed to produce the smallest dust particle size, it is clear that if there were 10 nm. size particles created during nuclear pulverization, we would have an energy needed that is about 32 times greater than his value found which was, he claimed, 7 % of the total GPE, converted to Kinetic Energy. Clearly this would be over 200% of possible available total GP energy. Note also that Bazant claims that only “concrete slabs and core walls” were pulverized. He ignores the over 1000 people whose smallest body parts could not be found, and were thus vaporized or pulverized. Likewise for all the furniture, and other tower contents that were pulverized. All that required great energy. And, of course, he ignores all the energy needed for the expulsion (explosion) of many steel beams and large, and very large, building “chunks.” Some of which, I have highlighted in my earlier papers on the nuclear demolition of the WTC, are shown to have parabolic arcs (also highlighted in Siegel’s Eyewitness video) emanating from (arcs traced back to) the center of the tower; and which I cited for proof of several mini-nukes being used through-out the towers, during demolition.
Other ludicrous assumptions Bazant used include, from page 7, his “assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution)” and similarly “is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself” [page 3]. This ignores Newton’s third law of motion. There are many other false statements and denials of evidence that I will leave to others to point out.
Returning to the pulverized dust, Bazant ignores other differences seen in videos of conventional controlled demolition, or building collapse. None caused pulverized dust miles from the site, or plumes going up into space and far away. None have massive chunks of edifice flung up to hundreds of feet away. All this was ignored by Bazant, so as to obtain his “results.”
In conclusion, examination of Bazant’s assumptions, circular logic, false parameters, denials of evidence, and other chicanery regarding the pulverized dust and other tower destruction matters, demonstrate that desperate, and clear cut, fudging or “bad science” was used to attain the results desired. All these interdependent falsifications-- Bazant, NIST, Seffen--collapse into their own rubble pile, the dustbin of history. It is hoped that should the people arise and overcome the present fascism, these corrupt engineers, scientists and mathematicians will be charged with being accomplices to mass murder and high treason.
Previous Posts
- Blog Overview (Permanent Top Post)
- NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCY -- from Malcolm Nance
- What the Tech Oligarchs Want-- Complete Libertaria...
- Mixed In All the Trump Chaos, A Constitutional Cri...
- Two Weeks into Trump Two and It's a Massive Racist...
- RED ALERT: Elon Musk is going to loot and destroy ...
- General Smedley Butler Speaks to the Veterans Bonu...
- Nightmare Fascist Administration
- Trump Elected as 47th President... Where To Begin...
- Trump's former Director of National Intelligence, ...
E-Mail Me!
- Spooked911@hotmail.com
- Name: spooked
- Location: United States
- The "Ultimate List" of Improbabilities and Coincidences Around 9/11
- Manifesto for All Present and Future Military Personnel
- The Nine Circles of Conspiracy
- Ultimate Truths (Deep Conspiracy)
- Nuclear Demolition of the WTC
- China Syndrome at the WTC
- Dead 9/11 Whistleblowers
- Bogus Official 9/11 Science
- Anonymous Physicist's book site
- 120 Reasons for the No-Plane Theory
- People Who Should Have Seen UA175 Hit the South Tower But Didn't
- 9/11: All Roads Lead to MIHOP
- 9/11: Possible Versus Impossible
- Ghost Gun UA175
- Morgan Reynolds, We Have Holes
- Hunt the Boeing, Shanksville Edition
- Hunt the Boeing, WTC2 Edition
- The No Planes Evidence Kit
- Why Don't More Engineers Question the WTC Collapses?
- Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC
- The Problem with the 9/11 "Truth" Movement
- Brainwashed, In Deep Denial, A Government Shill, Or Some Combination of the Three
- 9/11 Conspiracy.tv
- 9/11 Conspiracy.tv blog
- International Center for 9/11 Studies - NIST Cumulus Video Database
- 9/11 "U"
- Killtown's Overview Site
- Killtown's 9/11 Smoking Guns
- Killtown's 2nd Hit Video Compilation
- Killtown's NIST figure gallery
- Morgan Reynolds
- The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites
- Ace Baker
- Killtown's Blog
- Genghis' 911 Taboo
- Ningen's Blog
- 9/11 Truthlings Watch
- Judy Wood's 9/11 site (focuses on WTC demolition)
- 9/11 Logic
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
- August 2012
- September 2012
- October 2012
- November 2012
- December 2012
- January 2013
- February 2013
- March 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
- June 2013
- July 2013
- August 2013
- September 2013
- October 2013
- November 2013
- December 2013
- January 2014
- February 2014
- March 2014
- April 2014
- May 2014
- June 2014
- July 2014
- August 2014
- September 2014
- October 2014
- November 2014
- December 2014
- January 2015
- February 2015
- March 2015
- April 2015
- May 2015
- June 2015
- July 2015
- August 2015
- September 2015
- October 2015
- November 2015
- December 2015
- January 2016
- February 2016
- March 2016
- April 2016
- May 2016
- June 2016
- July 2016
- August 2016
- September 2016
- October 2016
- November 2016
- December 2016
- January 2017
- February 2017
- March 2017
- April 2017
- May 2017
- June 2017
- July 2017
- August 2017
- September 2017
- October 2017
- November 2017
- December 2017
- January 2018
- February 2018
- March 2018
- April 2018
- May 2018
- June 2018
- July 2018
- August 2018
- September 2018
- October 2018
- November 2018
- December 2018
- January 2019
- February 2019
- March 2019
- April 2019
- May 2019
- June 2019
- July 2019
- August 2019
- September 2019
- October 2019
- November 2019
- December 2019
- January 2020
- February 2020
- March 2020
- April 2020
- May 2020
- June 2020
- July 2020
- August 2020
- September 2020
- October 2020
- November 2020
- December 2020
- January 2021
- February 2021
- March 2021
- April 2021
- May 2021
- June 2021
- July 2021
- August 2021
- September 2021
- October 2021
- November 2021
- December 2021
- January 2022
- February 2022
- March 2022
- April 2022
- May 2022
- June 2022
- July 2022
- August 2022
- September 2022
- October 2022
- November 2022
- December 2022
- January 2023
- February 2023
- March 2023
- April 2023
- May 2023
- June 2023
- July 2023
- August 2023
- September 2023
- October 2023
- November 2023
- January 2024
- February 2024
- March 2024
- April 2024
- May 2024
- June 2024
- July 2024
- August 2024
- September 2024
- October 2024
- November 2024
- December 2024
- January 2025
- February 2025
- January 2100
- If we assume 9/11 was a massive psy-ops campaign, then we can assume that nothing about 9/11 is really as it seems.
- WTC Demolition
- WTC China Syndrome
- 33 Watch
- Al-CIA-duh
- Ghost Plane
- Flight 93 Hoax
- Pentagon Hit
- The AIG Scam
- THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
- Bush Administration War Criminals
- Fake Opposition Democrats
- Summary of Evidence for No Plane at the South Tower
- Clearest Evidence of Conflicting Plane Paths in Two Different 2nd Hit Videos
- Freak Plane
- The Curious Plane in the "Live" Video
- Too Small of a Plane in Both "Live" 2nd Hit Videos
- Mutant Tail Section on UA175
- Evidence of 2nd Hit Video Fakery
- Proof that the engine part at Church and Murray Street is not from UA175, a Boeing 767
- 9/11 Blimp
- 9/11 Blogger
- 9/11 Closeup (Gerard Holmgren)
- 9/11 Complicity
- Conspicuous Plot
- Conspiracy Smasher!!!
- 9/11 Cover-Up
- 9/11 Encyclopedia
- 9/11 Exposed
- 9/11 Foreknowledge
- 9/11 Hoax
- 9/11 Oddities
- 9/11 Overview
- 9/11 Oz (Australian)
- 9/11 Plot
- 9/11 Proof
- 9/11 Research (Jim Hoffman)
- 9/11 Resources
- 9/11 Review.org
- 9/11 Review.com
- 9/11 Stealth
- 9/11 Strike
- 9/11 "U"
- 9/11 Verses
- Complete 9/11 Timeline (Paul Thompson)
- Finnish 9/11 Site
- Finnish 9/11 Site in English
- German Engineers 9/11 site
- Hybrideb's 9/11 site
- Icelandic 9/11 site
- Jane Doe's 9/11 site
- Oil and Empire 9/11 (Mark Robinowitz)
- Portland Indy Media 9/11
- 119 Questions about 9/11
- Let's Roll 9/11
- Nerdcities 9/11
- Patriots Question 9/11
- RINF 9/11 Archive
- The Mysteries of 9/11
- Shunned
- Physics 911
- Plague Puppy's Cafe
- Plague Puppy: Alternate Site
- Question 911
- Scholars for 9/11 Truth
- Serendipity (various essays on 9/11)
- Steven Warran
- Stop the Lie 9/11
- Unanswered Questions
- Questions Questions
- The Web Fairy
- Wing TV
- 9/11 Blogger
- 9/11 Citizens' Court
- 9/11 Citizens' Watch
- 9/11 Skeptics Unite!
- 911 Truth.org
- 911 Truth LA.us
- 911 Truth LA.org
- 911 Truth Emergence
- 911 We Know
- 911 Truth Movement Musings
- 9-11 Visibility Project
- 9-11 UK
- 9/11 Family Steering Committee
- NY 9/11 Truth
- San Francisco 9/11 Truth
- Scholars for 9/11 Truth
- Community Currency 9/11
- Summer of Truth
- Proposition 911
- Reopen 911
- Deception Dollars
- Justice for 9/11
- Team 8 Plus
- Flight 93 Hoax
- WTC Demolition
- The Ultimate Hijacker Compilation
- 9/11 Photo Analysis
- Evidence of Explosives on 9/11
- Demolition, the Truth of 9/11 and the WTC
- 9/11 and the Impossible: the WTC collapse
- WTC Streaking Object, WTC7 theories
- Flight 77 FOIA site
- Flight 93 Crash.com
- Pentagon Research
- Brad's Pentagon Analysis
- 9/11 chronology (network footage)
- Buddy Buddy
- Pentagon Strike
- 911 Questions
- FKN News
- Rigorous Intuition v2.0
- Wing TV
- Xymphora
- The Bulldog Manifesto
- Center for an Informed America
- George Washington
- Centre for Research on Globalization
- Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
- Daily Two Minutes of Hate
- The Emperor's New Clothes
- Public Action (Carol Valentine)
- Propaganda Matrix
- Daniel Hopsicker
- What Really Happened
- From the Wilderness (Mike Ruppert)
- Arctic Beacon
- Cryptome
- Crimes and Corruptions of the New World Order News
- Break for News
- Tom Flocco
- Rense
- "The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin
- "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin
- 9/11 Revealed by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall
- "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA" by Webster G. Tarpley
- "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson
- "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert
- "Welcome to Terrorland" by Daniel Hopsicker
- Pig Lipstick
- Weazl's Revenge
- Alex Constantine
- Buzzflash
- The Raw Story
- Democratic Underground
- Progressive Independent
- Think Progress
- Citizens for a Legitimate Government
- Common Dreams
- Consortium News
- Center for Cooperative Research
- Cursor
- Guerrilla News
- Online Journal
- The Memory Hole
- Information Clearing House
- Press Action
- News from Babylon
- Unknown News
- TV News Lies
- After Downing Street
- Eschaton
- Glenn Greenwald (old blog))
- Daily Kos
- Talking Points Memo
- Hullabaloo
- The Brad Blog
- Jesus' General
- The Rude Pundit
- The Poor Man
- Juan Cole (Informed Comment)
- Today in Iraq
- Antiwar.com
- Iraq Coalition Casualties
- Clusterfuck Nation
- Donkey Rising
- Salon
- Slate
- The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
- The Oil Drum
- Land of Black Gold
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Richard Heinberg
- Grist
- 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved several people conspiring to commit a crime. The official 9/11 narrative, as codified by the 9/11 Commission Report, is NOT proven as the most likely explanation for the events of 9/11/01. The official 9/11 story is therefore a theory. This means that the OFFICIAL 9/11 Story is really a "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!
- I have no fondness for any religion, as I think it makes people do extreme and violent things. Islamic terrorists do exist and I detest them as much as I detest the true perpetrators of 9/11. Most likely Islamic terrorists were used as patsies in 9/11, as part of a highly organized covert operation by a group affiliated with the US goverment and US military.
About Me
I blog about politics, interesting ideas and conspiracy theories. Many or most of the official stories for key events are lies. For instance, the 9/11 plane hijackings and crashes appear to be clever hoaxes. The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2. It seems that 9/11 was an evil hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene "war on terror", to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. However, 9/11 was only part of the fraud and evil committed by the evil powers that be (PTB).
Recommended Reading
Interesting and/or Useful 9/11 Sites
Archives
My Other Blogs
Some of My Findings Regarding the Attack on the WTC South Tower
More 9/11 Links (Note: I present a wide variety of 9/11 sites here for the purposes of diversity. I leave it up to you to judge their content.)
General 9/11 Sites
9/11 Activism
9/11 Specialty Sites
Sites that question 9/11 (who views on 9/11 may differ greatly from those presented here)
Good Intro Books to Alternative 9/11 Truth
Blogs, News Sites and Miscellaneous Links
