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!”
posted by spooked at 7:20 AM
19 Comments:
cue shill #2 demanding to see A.P.'s credentials.
Yeah! A Call to Action on Sphincter's Web page!
That'll stir the masses!
I can hear the masses stirring! The Call To Action!!!!!! To the streets, fellow believers! The streets!!!
"...even though they read my work here."
Keep deluding yourself that you mean something, asshole. Its just you and your parent's computer in the basement that matters. Nothing more.
"We gots one of 'um now!"
Brings forth images of a toothless West Virginian hillbilly, yuckin' it up when their in-bred daughter, pregnant of course, graduates from high school, so the proud papa tells the world he's got a graduate in the family for the first time!
"We gots one of 'um now!"
Again, the shills show themselves to be totally clueless...
Clueless about what! This clap-trap that emits from your world-leading online orifice, Sphincter?
Tell me...how many papers from the Moonbat side of this debate have actually been published in a legitimate technical publication or journal?
If your Anonymous Asshole is really a certified genius like you and he claim he is, why aren't any of his rebuttals to these things published?
I say it again - its because you are too afraid of the lambasting you'd get from the real engineers around the world, plus no publication or journal would publish such shit.
But still, this is some of the best entertainment on the internet, so keep it up!
Remember that movie ":The Color Purple"? When Oprah gets married?
"I's a'married now!"
Sounds a lot like:
"We gots us one of them now!"
wow shill #2 is really going to town!
i like this one:
""how many papers from the Moonbat side of this debate have actually been published in a legitimate technical publication or journal?""
*moonbats* - as opposed to lying fairytale creatures?
hey where is Bazant's *paper* been published?
maybe in the shill handbook! - certainly not in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics!
The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects ... Google and type in "we got nuked on 9/11"
What happens when the FBI are suspect?...Google and type in "FBI '93 WTC bombing"
David Howard:
Thank you and good work!
We need more people like you who take the time to spread the word about the nuking of the WTC on 9/11! I commend you.
Regarding the 1993 tower bombing, and the FBI involvment, have you read my nuke articles where I cited engineer Phil Schneider in this matter? He said he was brought in after the fact, in '93, and immediately saw signs that that bombing was nuclear as well. And he was asked to do a better job of it the next time they would do it, and he refused.
Please inform everyone that Bazant, the official Bozo for the regime has been caught red-handed lying about the dust particle size. He needs to be charged with deliberate fraud to start the indictments rolling. Then NIST, the 911 Commission, and the vermin who ordered these liars to publish the same, to follow.
Lying about the smallest dust particle size is lying about the huge force needed to produce it--nukes; and inventing a laughable, corrupt pristine pancakes scenario.
The best they apparently have is a paid retard/agent who can't refute any of the analysis here, he can't even read or understand any of it.
Anonymous Physicist
Re: What happens when the FBI are suspect?
Trust no one in the FBI, except the FBI polygraphers.
http://www.youtube.com/WTCnucleardemolition
Stoelting UltraScribe AT Polygraph 5 Ch. Lie Detector
Google and type in "Stoelting Ultrascribe polygraph"
How about I Google " Stupid Idiot Moonbat Lunatics" and I bet I'll get Sphincter's page as number 1.
Congratulations AP. I laud you for your work. Please submit your objections to Bazant's work to the relavent journal.
How will you ever achieve anything in your fight against the government, if all you ever do is write a few words down on some blog?
Its like farting in the direction of a hurricane to stop it.
The chance of you ever doing real scientific work in trying to prove your theories and disprove real engineering theories is 0.
By posting your theories and so called "rebuttles" you will never achieve anything in your lone nuke crusade. Excpet maybe convincing a bunch of dumb fuck ignorant shit for brains rednecks that the towers were impossibly nuked.
Your crap is by far the funniest stuff I ever read. Cars spontaneously igniting from an emp, yet cars standing right next to them untouched. Thousands of camera, choppers, laptops cellphones, radios, traffic lights and so on were untouched. Mmmmm something tells me you have no idea of what happens with a surface detonation nuclear weapons emp. Guess what? It doesn't radiate further than the blast radius of the weapon.
So if somehow multiple nuclear devices were some how hidden in the towers without anyone ever becoming suspicious, and were detonated, the emp could not have gone furthere than the confines of the building. So how could the emp extend further than that? Simple - It cannot. Physically impossible. In the hundreds of surface nuclear detonations by the US, USSR and so on, not ONE single EMP has EVER BEEN OBSERVED.
How can an EMP be so strong as to heat the steel ring in a steering wheel to such an extent, that it ignites cars, but does no damage to countless other more sensitive electronic equipment, that were in a much closer proximity to the towers at time of collapse?
You will forever live in a world of ignorance. Lucky you. Your world is so uncomplicated and simple.
You won't win. You are too stupid. Nothing you do on this blog is ever going to help. Time you started submitting your papers to real journals for peer review. I wonder if they will ever see the light of day, within the covers of an engineering journal?
Enjoy your blind world of pure stupidity guided by ignorance and unfounded paranoia.
""Congratulations AP. I laud you for your work. Please submit your objections to Bazant's work to the relavent journal.""
wow good one brian!
hey why was Bazant's "work" rejected by the Journal Of Engineering Mechanics?
hmmm.
hey we need more "brians" around here!
S**t for Brians!
It is not coincidence that the agent "Brian" reappears now. From previous discussions, a likely British MI5/6 scumbag "in South Africa" reappears exactly when one of the bogus "911truth" forums has a shill's piece against nukes with specious "arguments" cited. And when I have proven the case with the dust particle size analysis.
Now this "engineer" does not have anything specific to say against the arguments I have had published here against the lies of Bazant and Seffen.
See Spooked's new blog disproving the bogus "offical" 911 "science" here:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
How about comments on how Bazant is caught red-handed lying about the smallest dust particle size, "Brian?" Instead this agent just uses the same foul language that all the intel agents here have used, including, "Swart", "Conspiracy Smasher" and "Early Wynn". All these agents, and "Brian" working for the same filth at MI5/6 and their slaves at Langley and Ft. Meade.
All the different pieces I have, that cited EMP stand on their own, and need not be repeated.
Instead, people, focus on why this MI5/6/"JREF" agent reappears at this time...
Yes, between proving Bazant's malfeasance and a bogus nuclear piece at a "911truth forum", the scum in London are worried. So their response, instead of trying to reply about the dust particle size analysis (they can't, it's proven) try their tactic of changing the subject completely.
Go back to Tavistock, we know how you got your indoctrination there, agent "Brian". That's why you and the other agents here keep writing about "sphincters" and "assholes."
For those of you that don't know, see the Kay Griggs interviews on what one must do to get made top Colonel or General. Same thing at MI5/6 and CIA/NSA. These "boys" do get sphincter (asshole)-fixated after this. That's why they keep mentioning this.
Anonymous Physicist
I hope to have a separate piece on this later. But recently, an obvious intel agency ploy against nukes was put up at one of the "911truth forums."
Only specious arguments against nukes were cited. And note how this forum has had not one word of my recent proof of the offical lying of Bazant on the CRUCIAL dust particle size, when I have caught them red-handed. Instead such forums have nothingness nearly all the time posted, and "coincidentally" (NOT) now for the first time in months have a (hit) piece against my articles on nukes.
Note also, this forum's owner said a while ago, that he would have a separate video on WMD (nukes) at the WTC, out in September, 2007. Note also how this forum continues to have disinfo trying to resurrect the DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) after I have conclusively buried it as a hangout/psyop to cover-up all nuke evidence and China Syndrome Aftermath evidence.
But this "911 truth forum" desperately tries for two hangouts. The lie that "Nukes is DEW", or the final hangout--we can never know what happened... And we shouldn't care--it doesn't matter. Every single 911 disinfo forum's owner has made that last statement! (They all have the same ultimate intel controller.)
But my articles have made things clear regarding the radiation released during the WTC destruction and the 6 month release of radiation in the rubble pile (3 months therein) and underneath the towers (6 months) that is causing all the WTC responders', and NYC rsidents' formerly rare thyroid, blood and lymph cancers that arise from radiation exposure. The same intel agent at that forum then tries to cover this up with the usual lie about "asbestos" which causes lung cancer-- and NOT these cancers I just cited.
Now for the specious arguments by this intel agent against nukes.
The "Wilson Condensation Cloud" effect is relevant for nukes exploded on or under water--including the South Pacific nuclear tests, and the Port Chicago nuclear blast--not relevant for 9/11.
The "Ball of fire", fireball and flash of light, etc. are OBVIOUSLY 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.)
My earliest writings made it clear that "underpowered" (as I have explained this) nukes were used, in conjunction with conventional explosives (thermite, C4) to hide the obvious effects of a nuke. This is, of course, ignored by this agent.
Those articles are well known to be mostly archived here:
www.wtcdemolition.blogpsot.com
Such an obvious specious posting against the now proven nuking of the WTC on 9/11 and the China Syndrome aftermath, just when my dust particle size analysis has caught one of the gestapo regime's "engineers" red-handedly lying about the regime's "official" mechanism for tower destruction, is no coincidence as I said above.
But it is sickening to be proven correct. From the outset, I knew that all 911truth forums are run by MI5/6 and their lackeys at Langley and Ft. Meade.
Anonymous Physicist
Post a Comment
<< Home