Monday, April 30, 2007
Questions About the Bay Area Fire and Overpass Collapse
The firemen DIDN'T try to combat the fire--
""With no structures or lives in jeopardy, and with 8,000 gallons of flammable fuel involved, you're basically better off letting it burn itself out," said Price."
That's a bit odd. No structure involved? Does this mean they didn't think the overpass would collapse?
They say the flames reached 3000 degrees F, though it's not at all clear how they measured that. The maximum burning temp of jet fuel is 1800 degrees F, it seems implausible that burning gasoline could get to 3000 degrees F.
The collapse occurred in less than 20 minutes after the start of the fire-- pretty fast.
Burning conditions would have been maximum-- lots of fuel and oxygen.
Importantly, the steel on highway overpasses was naked to the flames-- there was no fireproofing.
So, in summary, while a fire-induced collapse is plausible, there are some unresolved questions, such as how high the temp was and why the firemen didn't try to do more to combat the blaze (they said they didn't want to use foam because it would pollute the bay-- are you kidding me?).
Fire Bad... Official 9/11 Story Good...
I already see the government shills doing what I predicted, acting as if this freeway collapse story vindicates the official WTC story.
Well, sorry, but it's just not that simple.
Here are just a few reasons why the WTC towers were clearly blown up:
-- the near free-fall time in which the massive 1/4-mile high towers went down
-- the complete and utter devastation of the towers resulting from only limited damage near the tops of the structures
-- the near complete pulverization of the concrete floors
-- the disintegration of a large percentage of the massive steel core columns
-- evidence of EMPs in the zone of destruction
All of these facts point to high-energy demolition, most likely by small nuclear bombs.
This guy also finds the freeway collapse story unconvincing with regard to the WTC.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Yes, Fire Can Weaken Steel
I never claimed otherwise:
OAKLAND, Calif. - A stretch of highway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed Sunday after a gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames, leaving one of the nation's busiest spans in a state of near paralysis.
Officials said traffic could be disrupted for months. Flames shot 200 feet in the air and the heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked away from the scene with second-degree burns. No other injuries were reported.
What is very weird is just a month back or so, I posted on a similar fire where the overpass DIDN'T collapse, and I made special note of that fact.
NOW, we have an example where there is a collapse!
Isn't that special? It's almost as if someone was reading this site and was determined to prove me wrong.
In any case, I'm sure the govt shills will look to this story and feel very vindicated! Fire weakens steel and causes collapse!
It is worth noting however, that the bridge BELOW the collapsing overpass didn't collapse from the impact of the tons of mass of the upper overpass falling on it.
Now THAT hardly supports the official story, does it?
Of course, comparing a bridge collapse to a tower collapse is fraught with difficulties anyway. I doubt that will stop the government shills though.
(If one wants to think this story is not quite on the level, I find it odd the driver was able to walk away from such a terrible crash and fire.)
About My WTC Models
Now maybe I didn't make a good enough model to prove the official story.
Why doesn't anyone who supports the official story seem to even want to BOTHER to prove the official top-down collapse story with a model?
Part of the reason for doing my model was as a challenge to the government shills-- MAKE A MODEL THAT WHEN DAMAGED IN A WAY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SEEN FOR THE WTC, UNDERGOES COLLAPSE IN A WAY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SEEN FOR THE WTC!!!
This is a challenge that has gone completely UNMET!
Only Conspiracy Theorists Rely on Eyewitness Testimony
Impeach Photos and Videos With Witness Testimony?
Yes, that's what conspiracy theorists will try to do. Faced with photos and videos showing that no real Boeing 767-200 hit the WTC, they will marshal witnesses whose accounts conflict with the photos and videos. They will then insist that the photos and videos show a real Boeing 767 when that simply is not the case.
How reliable is witness testimony?
Recently, an expert spoke. As the chief staff person for the Board of Review, he had an intimate familiarity with the World Trade Center attack witnesses, many of whom he had interviewed. His conclusion about witness testimony was as follows:The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 5 year old eyewitness testimony.
I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the ground zero clean up who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable.
Likewise, a recent report stressed the problems with witness testimony:Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of people's recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the firemen who went to the Trade center on 9/11. He explained that he was witnessed the 2nd plane hit the south tower. Of course, he was only watching it on TV, like most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of his memory, but it is revealing of how the mind works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
The deposition transcripts and other video evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired over 5 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.
Modified from the original here.
Friday, April 27, 2007
A Helicopter Was Buffeted by a Shockwave as the South Tower Went Down
For some reason, this footage, which shows the helicopter being strongly buffeted by a shockwave as the tower went down, was edited out of the above footage:
Question of the day-- what is more likely to cause this shockwave seen above that went hundreds of feet through the air before it hit the helicopter:
a) a gravity-driven collapse?
b) demolition of the tower by conventional explosives?
c) demolition of the tower by super-thermite?
d) demolition of the tower by directed energy weapons?
e) demolition of the tower by mini-nukes?
Where Did the Bullet Enter Kennedy's Head?
Malcolm Kilduff, JFK's assistant press secretary, who made the official announcement ot the media that Kennedy was dead, indicates that Kennedy was shot in the temple:
The footage of Kilduff can be seen here at 1:54--
(this video has other interesting info, such as the fact that Kennedy's Secret Service detail was clearly derelict in protecting him)
More discussion of the nature of Kennedy's head wound can be found here and here.
The Chinese VT Shooting Suspect
The details for this Chinese person are too specific for a simple mistake about Cho.
I have to think this Chinese fellow was a second shooter-- or was even THE shooter and Cho was merely the patsy.
Important question: did any of the students in the classrooms specifically identify Cho as the shooter (i.e. did they know him from before the shooting and then recognize him)? I haven't heard of any student who knew him and recognized him as the shooter.
Early News Reports
Certainly, it is far from clear how such specific information as a Chinese national being arrested as the gunman was a simple "error".
A cached version of the Chicago Sun Times paper putting out a similar story is seen here.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Ex-CIA director George Tenet has lashed out against the Bush administration in an interview broadcast on CBS' 60 Minutes, accusing it of distorting his pre-Iraq War claim that the existence of weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk."
Tenet, who called the administration's distortion "disingenuous and dishonorable," says it has resulted in the ruining of his career and reputation.
"The phrase 'slam dunk' didn't refer to whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMDs," Tenet says, according to a CBS News report. "He says he was talking about what information could be used to make that case when he uttered those words. 'We can put a better case together for a public case. That's what I meant,'" Tenet explained.
"It's the most despicable thing that ever happened to me," the former CIA director is quoted as saying. "You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me."
Tenet goes on to sharply criticize President Bush for basing his decision to go to war on the "slam dunk" statement, as well as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for continuing to use it as a talking point.
"And the hardest part of all this has been just listening to this for almost three years, listening to the vice president go on Meet the Press on the fifth year [anniversary] of 9/11 and say, 'Well, George Tenet said slam dunk' as if he needed me to say 'slam dunk' to go to war with Iraq," Tenet was quoted.
The funny thing is what Tenet says is exactly what I thought happened. I had read that Tenet's comment was simply about SELLING the case for WMD, not for their actual existence, a couple of years ago. But obviously the "slam dunk" comment was BADLY misused by the administration, and the press simply went a long with it.
I only wonder why Tenet didn't speak out before...
The Chicago Black Sox and 9/11
What was interesting is that while some people realized something stunk about the way the White Sox played in the 1919 series, and rumors went around, the public really didn't know what had happened. The public was initially clueless about the gambling CONSPIRACY. You can imagine how a real baseball fan would be in denial about the idea that something so corrupt could have happened. In fact, the gambling fix wasn't public knowledge until a year later, in September 1920 when a grand jury was convened to look into the case.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the 9/11 commission-- where it sure looked like something was screwy with 9/11, and so a commission was called to figure out what had happened.
In the Black Sox grand jury trial, some strange things happened, and key evidence disappeared. The crooked players were actually acquitted by the grand jury. Much in the same way, the 9/11 commission assembled a "not guilty" verdict for the Bush administration and the government-- despite clear signs of lying and hints of complicity. The public, who might wish not to believe people could do something so foul, could try to believe in the grand jury verdict or the 9/11 commission.
Nonetheless, the White Sox, and baseball in general, had a generally stained reputation. Much like the Bush administration has a stained reputation now.
It wasn't until Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis handed out extremely stiff penalties-- lifetime bans from baseball-- to anyone associated in the slightest way with gambling, that the reputation of baseball recovered.
With respect to 9/11, we need a new Kenesaw Mountain Landis.
If such a thing is even possible with our system, that is.
Demolition of the WTC Twin Towers
I believe this type of weaponry best explains the total phenomena associated with destruction of the twin towers.
This means I no longer think the Wood-Reynolds directed energy beam weapon theory is the most convincing explanation for destruction of the WTC.
Initially I thought their theory was very intriguing. However, I have been dismayed by their lack of follow-up in terms of explaining precisely what sort of devices could have produced the destruction seen at the WTC on 9/11. This is why I have decided the advanced fusion bombs make more sense-- small fusion bombs clearly have enough power, and the technology is well-known.
That being said, I still think that directed energy beam weapons are a good explanation for how the perps created the plane-shaped holes at the WTC, at the Pentagon and at Shanksville.
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind as new evidence comes along, but this is where I currently stand.
We Brought Freedom to the Iraqis!!!
I know, I know. We tried to bring them freedom, but they just wouldn't behave.
P.S. Please take time to look back at this collection of quotes from pundits from the beginning of the war. They are utterly priceless.
JFK Video Pulled from YouTube
Anyway, weird that the video was pulled so quickly after I linked to it-- when it had been there fore a while before I linked to it.
I had no idea I had such power. :)
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Stealing the 2004 Election
This article uncovers how the Ohio vote was hacked.
A Fresh Batch of Kool-Aid
The numbers of US military injured are much much higher, of course. Many amputees and blinded and brain-injured in that category.
Of course, all this pales in comparison to Iraqi deaths and injuries. The countless Iraqi civilian deaths are the greatest tragedy.
Funny, How When the Hard Questions Came
I am curious, though, why one anonymous commenter said the 2nd plane was going 530 KNOTS.
According to NIST, the second plane was going 540 mph, calculated as an average speed from different 2nd hit videos (not every video was in agreement on the speed, for some funny reason).
1 Knot equals 1.15 mph. Thus, officially, the 2nd plane was going 470 knots.
A Long History of the Media Lying to Cover Up the Crimes of the Regime
Rather was the first network television journalist to report that U.S. President John F. Kennedy died in the November 22, 1963 shooting in Dallas. He was also one of the first to see the Zapruder film taken by an eyewitness to the passing Dallas motorcade and reported that JFK's head went "violently forward" when he was hit.
Of course, Kennedy's head went violently BACKWARDS.
Another example in this video. Note at the 7 minute mark, where JFK's press secretary indicates JFK was shot in the head, and points to the forehead. This comment was edited out by ABC. There's a bunch of other interesting evidence in that video to check out.
Note, Wikipedia lies after the excerpt quoted here, by saying that Kennedy's head goes briefly forward before going violently backwards. I see no such movement forward in the Zapruder film. But in any case, in no way does Keenedy's head EVER go violently forward as Rather indicates! Rather clearly lied-- to support the official story.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Geraldo Rivera Shows the Zapruder Film for the 1st Time on TV
Note the reference to the violent jerk of the head backwards, as well as the reference to the "grassy knoll".
Car Bombs/Truck Bombs Near the WTC on 9/11?
The fact that there was a report of this in DC suggests an EMP event there too.
Monday, April 23, 2007
CNN: Only the Finest in Fake Video!
If you look at the end of the video (at 2:24), there is a very damning photo that shows what the view from the park was of the twin towers, and where the damage to the tower was.
Note WHERE the building scar was and also the SCALE of the towers were from that view.
Look at the video at 2:24 and then look at this series of photos:
Compare the size of the south tower to the buildings in front between the shot at 2:24 and the "Carmen Taylor" shot (which is the same angle and view as the CNN "Ghostplane" footage).
The towers are too big in the CNN and Taylor view, compared to the front buildings. This is beyond any doubt.
If you move forward to try to get the CNN "Ghostplane" view, you lose sight of the building scar completely, if you move back to get more perspective, the towers are going to get even smaller.
The only way to explain this is extreme levels of video fakery.
So here is what I think they did. I think they took some video from the Battery park location, and PASTED IN LARGER WTC TOWERS-- and added in a CGI plane thus-- to give an "enhanced view" of the towers and "plane" and the impact.
This is why the camera motion is so fake-- because the whole thing was cobbled together as a montage.
No way would any cameraman be able to pan up so quickly to capture a plane flying over his head at 540 mph-- and then perfectly follow the movement of the plane!
But it can be done here because the camerawork and video is all totally bogus!
This CNN footage is FAKED beyond any doubt, and thus it doesn't even matter what the plane is doing-- the whole fucking video is a fucking fake.
A Pleasant Musical Interlude
Some Other People Can Critically Think About What Happened at VT
More fishy stuff here and here and here and here.
UPDATE: this is the type of thing that bothers me-- that the VT students get so much attention compared to the others that die in Iraq. It's an over-memorialization of the deaths of these students-- as if to reinforce the psy-op.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Physics Says an Airplane Going 540 MPH That Hits the Thick Steel Outer Columns of a Stationary Building
In the latter case, who maintains that the plane WON'T show any signs of crumpling and won't explode at the very moment it impacts the building?
Who says a cluster of thick 14 inch steel columns going 540 mph won't rip the wings right off a stationary plane?
Critical and Reasonable Questions About the Viriginia Tech Massacre That Haven't Been Addressed by the Media
1) where and when did Cho learn to use a hand gun so incredibly efficiently?
2) what explains the lame and completely ineffective police response?
3) who took all those pictures and videos of Cho that were sent to NBC?
4) why didn't any students try to counter-attack? (#16 here says how Cho walked into a classroom and just walks up to students in the back of the class and shoots at them one by one-- it's ridiculous)
More shooting details here and here, but they don't address these key questions.
The Pat Tillman Death
Within hours of Pat Tillman's death, the Army went into information-lockdown mode, cutting off phone and Internet connections at a base in Afghanistan, posting guards on a wounded platoon mate, and ordering a sergeant to burn Tillman's uniform.
My guess is Tillman was killed on purpose, because he knew something and was going public about it.
Last Friday's NASA Shooting Linked to Directed Eenergy Weapon Research0 comments
Even Tim Roemer Used the Pentagon "Missile" Description
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Tesla Invented a "Directed Energy Weapon"
“ I have not thought it hazardous to predict, that wars in the future will be waged by electrical means. ”
—Nikola Tesla, 1915, 
Later in life, Tesla made some remarkable claims concerning a "teleforce" weapon The press called it a "peace ray" or death ray. In total, the components and methods included:
--An apparatus for producing manifestations of energy in free air instead of in a high vacuum as in the past. This, according to Tesla in 1934, was accomplished.
--A mechanism for generating tremendous electrical force. This, according to Tesla, was also accomplished.
--A means of intensifying and amplifying the force developed by the second mechanism.
--A new method for producing a tremendous electrical repelling force. This would be the projector, or gun, of the invention.
Tesla worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon between the early 1900s till the time of his death. In 1937, Tesla composed a treatise entitled "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media" concerning charged particle beams. Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a "superweapon that would put an end to all war". This treatise of the particle beam is currently in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade. It described an open ended vacuum tube with a gas jet seal that allowed particles to exit, a method of charging particles to millions of volts, and a method of creating and directing nondispersive particle streams (through electrostatic repulsion).
Records of his indicate that it was based on a narrow stream of atomic clusters of liquid mercury or tungsten accelerated via high voltage (by means akin to his magnifying transformer). Tesla gave the following description concerning the particle gun's operation:“ [The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks. ”
The weapon could be used against ground based infantry or for antiaircraft purposes.
Tesla tried to interest the US War Department in the device. He also offered this invention to European countries. None of the governments purchased a contract to build the device. He was unable to act on his plans.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Conspiracy Week: April 16th-20th
April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
April 20, 1999, Columbine high school massacre
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech massacre
For what it's worth.
UPDATE: More weird stuff today (end of the Conspiracy Week) --NASA homicide/suicide.
Why Exactly Is It
Certainly, the NYT doesn't do this for every tragedy. This wasn't even a New York tragedy. Why a special memorial page for this Virginia Tech tragedy? Public demand? Something else?
The Liberal and Conservative Blogospheres: Summarized for Your Convenience
Yes, Bush really sucks and is evil and he lied us into Iraq, but his administration could never could have had anything to do with 9/11 because Bush is too stupid.
Yes, the media really really suck, and they cover up Bush's lies, and they really suck-- but they would never lie to us about 9/11.
And government conspiracies simply don't exist, and it's not even worth talking about it.
The Conservative Blogosphere--
Bush is a good man but he was really screwed over by the media and by bad advisors.
The media really, really, really, really, really, really, really suck because they are all liberals at heart and can't stand Bush, and don't understand that we are in the biggest global struggle EVER against the most evil enemy EVER!!!
Government conspiracies only occur when a Democrat is the president.
9/11 isn't the first time the regime showed us impossible physics-- ridiculous physics-- and then told us we were crazy to think otherwise.
Watch as Kennedy's head jerks BACKWARDS, from a shot that officially hit him in the back of the head:
His head goes the wrong fucking way, just like the fireball comes out the wrong fucking side of the south tower.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The "plane" shows no change in course as it slides into the tower-- there is absolutely no deviation from the entry trajectory.
There are only three ways to explain this:
1) the "plane" is disintegrating as it contacts the building
2) the "plane" encounters absolutely no resistance as it enters the tower and effectively acts like a hot knife cutting through butter
3) the plane is fake
Explanation 1 is clearly not the case, as there is not enough debris blowing backward and there is no explosion from the fuel that would be sprayed in all directions upon contact.
Explanation 2 is clearly not the case, as the "plane" apparently disintegrates in the tower, and butter cannot destroy a knife.
Explanation 3 must be true.
Flight 175 Was a Freakshow
Why They Made the South Tower Explode on the Wrong Side
Most of the people and cameras were looking on the north side-- and they wanted everyone to see the fireball.
They had the "plane" come in on the south side, because -- most of the people and cameras were looking on the north side, and they didn't want everyone to see what was going on with the south side.
"Star Wars" in the News
Former Star Wars director Col. Bob Bowman says "Star Wars" is an offensive system, meant to destroy targets on earth. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if this is some kind of disinfo.)
"The ManCHOrian Candidate"
(full credit to "anonymous physicist" for the term)
I see CHO has his own wikipedia entry already.
All the signs of being a programmed-suicide-killer-patsy are there.
-- hints of child abuse (in his play)
-- apparent mental illness and psychiatric medication
-- family emigrated to US for unclear reasons
-- family lives near spookville (DC)
-- family very poor but older sister manages to get into Princeton
-- sister now works (Iraq contractor?) for the State Department
-- Cho angry quiet loner stereotype
-- Cho aware of other conpsiracies and mass killings (by his writings)
-- apparent programming code words (Ishmail Ax)
-- Cho clearly trained to shoot guns and to kill
The incredibly effective killing for one gunman, the confused intitial stories and false leads, the pictures and videos sent to the media, the frequent references in the media to 9/11, and the link to Judy Wood all also clearly indicate a PSY-OP.
I don't think we can rule out a second gunman in similar dress to Cho that did some or most of the killing-- with Cho primarily being a patsy. There is evidence for another Asian-looking shooter.
And I still wonder why no student tried to attack Cho from behind, hit him with a heavy backpack or something. Officially Cho was going to one class and another and another, shooting over a hundred shots. Couldn't a student in one class that Cho left have come up from behind? It's almost as if the students were paralyzed by fear in some way. Of the hundred people who must have been there, there wasn't ONE GUY willing to be a hero?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Yet Another Media-Driven Psy-Op4 comments
Virginia Tech and Judy Wood
I wonder if she got the message?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Multiple Terror Drills Going On in LA
Tuesday's drill will simulate the release of poison gas from an exploding terrorist lab in the aftermath of a major earthquake.
On Wednesday, first responders will deal with a simulated chemical attack over the Hollywood Hills and a simulated attack on a cruise ship, which will be portrayed by a U.S. Coast Guard cutter.
The final day of exercises will be conducted at Universal Studios, where teams will handle a simulated crash between two airliners.
I see Universal Studios is nicely helping out with the airplane crash drill.
Gee, I wonder what exactly they are doing for that?
By the way, I noticed that HBO played "United 93" tonight.
Cranking up the old psy-op...
Cheney Impeachment Put On Hold5 comments
The Nuclear Rifle
New Asian Terrorist Psy-Op?
But, really-- how did this one Korean guy, Cho Seung-Hui, get off so many rounds?
Joseph Cacioppo, a surgeon at Montgomery Regional Hospital who treated some of the injured, said on CNN that the injuries showed that the gunman was “brutal.” None of the injured that he treated had “less than three to four wounds in them,” he said.
He must have fired over a hundred shots just at the students. Then he was in a gun battle with the police too?
What kind of training did he have?
Was he a mind-control victim programmed to go off when given the signal?
He apparently had been on anti-depressant medication, so he must have seen some sort of psychologist.
There was of course, big news yesterday that is totally overshadowed by the shooting.
On a more conventional note-- it is simply INEXCUSABLE that there was a morning shooting and killing, with the shooter on the loose on campus, and that classes were allowed to proceed normally after that. What the FUCK were the police thinking?
The Story Starts to Stink
There are of course rumors of a second shooter.
It's also more than a bit odd that this deranged English major official shooter killed several engineering professors and students.
From an acquaintance:
"NPR is on right now and I'm listening about the shootings in Virginia. Seems most of them took place in the engineering department. They were interviewing a Professor Hendricks; an assistant professor from that department and the interviewer asked him if he could think of any political motivation for the shootings, if anything controversial was studied there and he said "oh heavens no!" and then he was asked what they study and he said fluid mechanics, and how airplanes fly..."
Here's one specific thing they work on at "Techsburg":
Tech faculty members seem glad to have guidelines. One is Wing Ng, an endowed professor of mechanical engineering. He has a 2-year-old research development business called Technology in Blacksburg — Techsburg for short — that employs 15 people, mostly students and former students. It’s best known for the miniature remote control airplane he developed for military and rescue reconnaissance. "I feel that my business adds depth and credibility to my teaching role. I am a practicing engineer as well as a researcher," Ng says.It's not yet clear if Ng was a victim.
Among the dead in Monday's shooting were professors Liviu Librescu and Kevin Granata, said Ishwar K. Puri, the head of the engineering science and mechanics department. Librescu, an Israeli, was born in Romania and was known internationally for his research in aeronautical engineering, Puri wrote in an e-mail to the Associated Press.
Monday, April 16, 2007
At least 22 people were killed today, some of them students, and about two dozen more injured during shootings at Virginia Tech, some of them in a classroom, the police said.
My ddepest sympathies to the victim's families.
Though I guess I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if I didn't wonder about how this huge tragedy is going to knock the French 9/11 pre-knowledge report out of the news.
I'm certainly not saying the killings were specifically done to cover up this 9/11 news, but still...
But It Was the Damn Frogs!
Report: France told CIA about plans to hijack planes prior to 9/11
French secret services produced nine reports between September 2000 and August 2001 looking at the Al-Qaida threat to the United States, and knew it planned to hijack an aircraft, the French daily Le Monde said on Monday.
The newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents that showed foreign agents had infiltrated Osama bin Laden's network and were carefully tracking its moves. One document prepared in January 2001 was entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals", and said the operation had been discussed in Kabul at the start of 2000 by Al-Qaida, Taliban and Chechen militants. The hijack was meant to happen between March and September 2000 but the planners put it back "because of differences of opinion, particularly over the date, objective and participants," Le Monde said, citing the report.
Le Monde said the French report of January 2001 had been handed over to a CIA operative in Paris, but that no mention of it had ever been made in the official U.S. Sept. 11 Commission, which produced its findings in July 2004.
WaPo and NYTimes pick up the story.
What all of these articles neglect to mention is that on 9/11, the hijacked planes were an elaborate hoax, and that the plane crashes were faked, all due to a large pre-planned conspiracy that had little to do with al-CIA-duh.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
BLOCKBUSTER FINDING: Van Romero Attended Directed Energy Conference
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structure.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
A statement he later retracted:
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
How odd. First this explosives expert says it looks like explosives were used to bring down the towers, then he changes his mind. This coming from a guy who was going to Washington DC on 9/11 to discuss defense projects. And coming from a guy whose institute that he headed, benefited greatly from 9/11-related funding.
Now it turns out, Van Romero attended a conference on directed energy weapons in 2000!
Was Van Romero's initial statement on explosives in the WTC a deliberate RED HERRING for conventional controlled demolition???
Since We Know That Government Shills Monitor This Site Every Day
Media Scripting and Foreknowledge
Was 9/11 Truth the Real Motive Behind the Imus Firing?4 comments
Friday, April 13, 2007
The 2nd Plane and the Lack of Deceleration
A) officially traveling 540 mph on impact, the "UA175" plane failed to noticeably decelerate in several videos of the plane hitting the south WTC tower, e.g.
1) initially, the "plane" slid cleanly into one side of the tower, without explosion and without any large pieces breaking off and without any major deflection of debris backwards
2) the plane "disappears" inside the tower, an explosion forms deep inside the tower
3) a large explosion forms on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact, some of this explosion shoots back out through the impact hole
4) some small debris exits on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact but no large part of the "plane" comes out the other side
5) a large plane-shaped hole appears where the plane went in, the building is barely damaged on the far side where the explosion occurred, indicating the plane stopped or disintegrated inside
B) In a test crash at 500 mph, an F4 Phantom jet does not decelerate noticeably as the plane smashes into a concrete wall and disintegrates, e.g.
1) the debris from the plane shoots exclusively backwards
2) no hole is made in the concrete wall
"APPARENT" SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) both planes are traveling similar speeds
2) both planes disintegrate as they crash
3) neither plane undergoes significant deceleration upon impact
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) "UA175" makes a hole in the shape of itself in the object that supposedly causes its destruction, the F4 doesn't make a hole in the object it strikes
2) we can't see "UA175" disintegrate, but we can see the F4 disintegrate
3) there is no deflection backwards of large "UA175" debris, unlike the F4 where we can a see huge debris cloud deflect backwards
4) we can see what causes the disintegration of the F4, but the nature of the structure that causes complete disintegration of "UA175" is not apparent
5) the F4 looks real, "UA175" looks cartoonish
6) there are strange white blotches next to the "plane" that come and go as the "plane" enters the tower, possible indicating editing of the impact sequence
What is most striking about "UA175" crash, is that it PUNCHES THROUGH steel columns and concrete floors WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN OR NOTICEABLY DISINTEGRATING.
The lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle suggests the plane is INVINCIBLE.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
Yet, how can an invincible plane THEN disintegrate against the same material that it punches through?
Wouldn't this violate normal physics?
Thus, the lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle should immediately raise suspicions about the nature of the plane and this footage.
Now, one possibility is that the plane is really DISINTEGRATING as it impacts, but we simply can't see it disintegrate in the footage (for whatever reason).
However, the disintegration then must be occurring without any major deflection backwards of the debris AND without any explosion of the liberated jet fuel at the point of impact.
I submit that this ALSO violate normal physics.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
I submit that "UA175" is not a real aircraft, and is most likely a computer generated image (CGI) inserted into footage of the building exploding.*
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
If you do disagree, you need to explain how the plane is defying physics.
*This conclusion is not based solely on this data.
Silverstein Still Having Problems with WTC Insurance Claims
Silverstein, Port, workers guarantee insurance fight
By Josh Rogers
About 300 construction workers rallied Monday with World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority against two holdout insurance companies whom they say owe $800 million to rebuild ground zero.
“Pay up now,” the workers chanted outside the Hilton New York in Midtown as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners met inside. Truckers driving by honked their horns in support.
Silverstein and the Port, which owns the site, have reached agreements with many of their insurers. Most of the speakers at the rally pointed out that the two worst holdouts are foreign-based firms — Allianz of Germany and Royal & Sun Alliance of England. U.S. Rep. Anthony Wiener, a 2005 mayoral candidate who’s expected to run again in 2009, called for a state investigation into the insurance firms at the rally, organized by the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York.
Silverstein told the crowd that the C.E.O.’s of both firms were co-signers of ads in 2001 saying: “Insurance will be a foundation upon which we will recover and rebuild. You can depend upon us to facilitate claims …with compassion and to meet our responsibilities.”
The firms also promised to “fulfill the hopes and prayers of those who have been taken from us.”
“Where I come from in New York City, we call that chutzpah,” Silverstein said to cheers. He said whether it’s small business owners in Lower Manhattan, or Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans and Mississippi, insurance companies always delay making payments as long as they can.
He said the firms are collecting 9 percent interest on the $800 million. “The float amounts to a huge amount of money,” he told reporters.
Allianz released a “fact sheet” challenging many of the claims of Silverstein and the Port. One apparent area of agreement between the Port and Allianz, though, is that the firm is not required to make any payments now.
The Port’s counsel testified at an Assembly hearing last year that the insurance payments to rebuild were voluntary. Anthony Shorris, the Port’s new executive director, said on Monday that the firms should “do the right thing,” the precise phrase Kenneth Ringler, his predecessor, used last year.
Allianz claims its obligation to pay will begin when all five W.T.C. towers are built. Construction on the Freedom Tower is underway but the Port has not yet prepared three Church St. sites for construction and there is no design yet for the fifth site on Liberty St., where someday a bus garage and tower are expected to replace the damaged former Deutsche Bank building still overlooking the site.
When 16 insurance companies were threatening to stop payments last year, Silverstein said construction could stop in a month if they followed through with the threat. He did not say Monday whether it was a matter of months or years before W.T.C. construction would halt if he did not get the $800 million from Allianz and Royal.
He has received just over half the $4.6 billion he has won from the insurance companies and $3.3 billion in tax-free Liberty Bonds have been dedicated to the W.T.C.
The Port and Silverstein will divide the insurance money under an agreement reached last fall, whereby the Port got the development rights to the Freedom Tower and Tower 5 on Liberty St. Allianz and Royal contend the new agreement changes their obligations.
Silverstein originally sought $7 billion in insurance payments based on the legal theory that the plane attacks on the Twin Towers represented two separate occurrences. He won that argument on 10 of his 26 polices, including three owned by Allianz and Royal or their affiliates.
Royal recently sold off its American subsidiary, now called Arrowpoint Capital. Silverstein and the Port are challenging the sale and filed a lawsuit last month. Arrowpoint and Royal did not respond to a request for comment.
Relations with other firms, however, are going better. Silverstein announced an agreement Wednesday with TIG insurance, which will pay him and the Port $12.535 million. The firm, which lost on the two-occurrence question, had already paid Silverstein $9.1 million and agreed to pay the second $9.1 million and 90 percent of the interest Silverstein claimed.
It would be nice to know the details of the "fact sheet" that Silverstein claims-- AND specifically whether this hold-up is due tacitly to doubts about what happened on 9/11.
Build It, And They Will Come
But I guess rather than channeling "Shoeless Joe Jackson", they were channeling "Osama bin Laden" --and giving him everything he wanted.
Funny how that works.
It truly is unbelievable, how the US invaded a peaceful country, without a terrorist problem, and turned it into a terrorist hellhole four years later.
Gee, it's almost as if the US brought the terrorists with them.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Question of the Day
There simply is no doubt that EMPs caused the roasting and toasting of these cars, buses, trucks and fire engines.
The vehicle fires were definitely NOT caused by flaming debris, since:
1) there is no evidence of large flaming debris near the vehicles
2) small flaming debris could not cause the extreme fire damage seen
3) the burn patterns are far too irregular to be caused by falling debris
4) in many cases, large sections of paint were selectively burnt off, which can be explained by an EMP but not by an ordinary fire
As shown here, multiple vehicles have been severely fried but paper on the ground and buildings nearby are untouched, again implying EMP heating of metal in the vehicles and subsequent fire. In other words, there was not a random wave of hot gas and debris shooting down the street.
The fact that so many vehicles were roasted by EMPs, suggests the EMPs were extremely strong.
Further, the presence of strong EMPs during the WTC demolitions PROVES that the towers were destroyed by high-energy devices.
Thus, the question is: what specific types of devices could demolish the WTC to the extent seen and also produce such strong EMPs?
Heck, this isn't question of the day. It's question of the DECADE!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
What a RADICAL idea!
Try to listen to it, if you can, but here are the closing paragraphs:
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
The JFK Assassination Equivalent of the 9/11 "No Plane" Theory?
I have to say, even though both theories seem to be totally "out there" at first glance, on closer examination, both theories are supported by a surprising amount of evidence.
Personally, I don't find this frame of the Zapruder film that supposedly shows Greer shooting Kennedy very convincing*:
But the other evidence is rather striking.
*Though it seems quite possible that the Zapruder film was altered to make what Greer did less obvious.
Iran Arming Iraqi Insurgents?
BAGHDAD: Arms believed to have been manufactured in Iran as recently as last year have turned up in Sunni-majority areas as well as in the hands of Shiite extremists, a U.S. general said during a news conference Wednesday.
The officer, Major General William Caldwell, said the United States also had information from detainees that Iranian intelligence operatives had given support to Sunni insurgents and that surrogates for Iranian intelligence were training Shiite extremists in Iran.
"We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence sources have provided to Sunni insurgent groups some support," said Caldwell, who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military believed had been largely manufactured in Iran.
Meanwhile, US troops continue to get the shaft:
US troops will now serve up to 15 months in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the usual 12-month tours under new Defence Department rules.
And this is pure insanity:
On March 9, Army Spc. Thomas Smith was ordered to board a plane from Fort Benning, Ga., to deploy back to Iraq, even though he was known to be suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder from a previous tour there. Only weeks prior, military doctors determined that Smith should not be allowed around weapons because of his PTSD symptoms, which included bouts of sudden, extreme anger. Smith's medical records, obtained by Salon, also show that doctors had "highly recommended" that Smith not be deployed because of his condition.
Meanwhile, Bush can't even take responsibility for his two wars and is looking for a "war czar"-- a job that no one seems to want, unsurprisingly.
*Yes, it could still be propaganda but also be a predictable outcome if true.
Evidence of a Explosions Going Off As the South Tower Is Demolished
Unfortanately, the Terrorize.dk site where the videos came from, is gone. Some of the videos are available on other sites, though I think Terrorize had the most extensive collection of WTC demolition videos. YouTube and other similar sites have many such videos of course, but not presented in the same way as Terrorize. Further, flash videos typically don't have the best resolution for detailed analysis.
I certainly can't remember the last time any of these reports reminded us that we went to Iraq to get rid of the WMD, that there were no WMD, that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors and invaded Iraq even though the inspectors found no significant evidence of WMD, and that later Bush pretended that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the weapons inspectors even though Saddam did.
And I can't remember when a reporter told the truth: that Bush and his minions blatantly lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq before the invasion.
And I REALLY can't remember when the Democrats promised to hold the Bush administration responsible for their their pre-war lies.
Quite a cover-up they have engineered-- of some of the most basic and important recent history we have.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
New Winner of "The Fakest 2nd Hit Photo Award"!!!
The new winner--
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this photo is faked, since the trajectory of the plane is radically different from all other sources.
Electro-Magnetic Pulses (EMPs) Explain the Toasted Cars PERFECTLY
From an "anonymous physicist"--
Obviously there were superheated gases at the flash points of the nukes. These would have helped to vaporize or destroy things. But you seem to be using them for explaining things that are much better explained by EMPs and where IMO there probably were not any superheated gases. If Ondrovic is right there and sees cars catch fire or explode, and she is not harmed per se, I don't see the case for superheated gases--rather against that. [I think she ultimately says she was thrown to the ground by an exploded car door--IMO the result of EMP and rapid expansion of the car door and resultant "pop-off."] I am not sure you totally grasp how EMPs affect only metals and not people and paper. The EMP induces a large current in metals which becomes sudden, intense heat. The burning off of paint on cars is the first thing to happen, and is evident IMO. The heat could also make any contacted gasoline or fabrics etc catch fire. Vehicle size, angle, nearness etc. are relevant parameters RE EMPs. Superheated gases would fry a person, or fatally collpase their lungs if breathed in, (and also damage the outside of nearby bldgs--not seen). Neither happened to Ondrovic. Just some asthma or resp. distress from the toxins/smoke she breathed in, as many in lower Manhattan experienced. Superheated gases probably were only within a small radius of the blast and were "used up" in doing their job of taking down the bldgs.
"Ondrovic" refers to EMT Patricia Ondrovic, who was at Ground Zero and witnessed the South tower coming down and cars exploding. She was interviewed by Killtown and has been mentioned on this site previously. Her interview is definitely worth a read and it is interesting to speculate that the explosions she saw in the lobby of WTC6 were also EMP events.
New 2nd Hit Footage
Can see a black object very briefly at 2:39--
The most suspicious thing is the fellow who says it was a "United plane". I have no idea how he could have seen that from his vantage point in such a brief fraction of a second. Seems bogus.
But they always leave some sort of tip off to the bogusness, I think.
New Forum at 911movement.org
Monday, April 09, 2007
Glenn Greenwald Dips His Toe Into the Anthrax Conspiracy Waters
OF COURSE THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS WERE PROPAGANDA MEANT TO LINK 9/11 TO IRAQ AND TO FOMENT PUBLIC OPINION FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ.
Who really thinks otherwise?
One of my earliest posts on this site dealt with the idea that the anthrax attacks were an "inside job" to link 9/11 and Iraq.
Of course, one of the fishiest things about the anthrax attacks, to me, was that only the media and two key Democratic Senators were targeted. It's clear a major reason for the anthrax attacks was to intimidate people who might speak out against 9/11-- and force them to toe the official line. Something Greenwald and bloggers of his ilk seem to conveniently neglect.
At least Greenwald points us to this interesting anthrax investigation site, which appears to be a logical analysis of the anthrax attack story-- with the major flaw being that the author appears to buy the official 9/11 story.
A gratuitous fabrication in a story when the truth would have served just fine.
Kind of ironic given that one of the only few 2nd hit videographers to go public with his story early on was Evan Fairbanks.
A Belated Happy EASTER
You Want a Large, Obvious and Recent Governmental Cover-Up?
There is no doubt they lied about the certainty that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
There is no doubt they wanted to go to war in Iraq and used propaganda to sell the war to the American people.
The weapons inspections prior to the war were a complete sham-- Bush was going to go to war no matter WHAT the inspectors found-- and they never found any stockpiles of WMD.
There is NO DOUBT about this.
This fact, however, has been, for all intents and purposes, covered up-- by the Bush administration, by the Democrats, by the mainstream media.
It has been a systematic cover-up regarding one of the most pernicious crimes possible by the head of a putative democracy: creating false pretext for a war.
And only stupid crazed bloggers like me are willing to talk about this.
How fucked-up is that?
Now-- if something so fucking in-your-face as lying about Iraqi WMD can be covered-up by the politicans and media, isn't it obvious that a 9/11 cover-up is much easier?
All they have to do is say there is no evidence for government involvement and call people who question the official story "conspiracy theorists".
It is EASY to mock and criticize conspiracy theories-- it is child's play, really.
And this ploy has worked for five years.
No doubt, many more people know the truth about 9/11 now than five years ago.
But far too many people are oblivious to what happened, because of the systemic, institutional cover-up.
What to do about it?
Get the word out the best way you know.
Anyway you can.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
How Can We Have "9/11 Truth" If We Can't Even Be Told the Truth About Iraq???
1) the Iraq war was completely unnecessary
2) the war was based on false pretenses-- the Bush administration were set on going to war (see the Downing Street memo) and lied about the certainty of weapons of mass destruction ("There's simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"), and essentially everybody in power in Washington went along with it.
3) the war has been a mind-boggling human tragedy
4) the war has been incredibly expensive -- a horrendous waste of US money, and a great deal of money has been literally squandered by the Pentagon: given away to defense contractors, thrown away, stolen, used for god knows what
5) the insurgency was completely predictable, yet almost nothing was done to plan for an insurgency before the war
6) US intentions about long-term occupation of Iraq have been deliberately vague and no one has seriously questioned what the long-term strategy/plan/goal for the US in Iraq is
7) Iraq has incredibly crucial oil reserves, which must figure critically into US strategy
8) the war has either been horribly mismanaged or has been engineered to keep US troops occupied there for many many years (my guess is the latter)
All of these are basic facts about the war.
How often does any politican or the media talk openly about these key issues?
For the most part, they FUCKING LIE and cover up the truth.
JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH 9/11.
What Was an Airforce E4-B Doing Over Washington DC on the Morning of 9/11?
Clearly, part of the story is that the plane was involved in the NORAD wargames that were going on. Given its capabilities, I have to wonder if the plane could have inserted fake blips onto air traffic control radar screens-- thus mimicking a hijacked aircraft and fooling controllers.
Cheney the Puppet?
But how to explain the constant level of lies that he puts out?
On the one hand, maybe Cheney is just a amazingly calculating one-man disinfo machine-- he has carefully caculated everything the Bush administration has done-- and uses disinfo like a pro.
On the other hand, maybe Cheney is just a giant dupe-- a fool who believes his own bullshit. And Cheney is constantly fed bullshit by the people he "trusts", who use Cheney's power to their advantage-- the ones who are really in charge.
Certainly, this is the role people have pegged for Cheney's relationship to Bush-- that Cheney controls Bush and feeds him bullshit.
But maybe Cheney is also a puppet, who still controls Bush the puppet-- which seems likely anyway, that someone besides Bush and Cheney are really calling the shots in the government.
WTC Paper and WTC Nukes
First off, when I say "NUKES" here, to clarify, I am talking about small "clean" (fissionless) fusion bombs-- very small, but obviously very powerul.
Second of all, we don't know exactly where this paper came from in the towers-- it could have been out from regions not directly hit by the nuke blast, or the light paper could have been blown ahead of the main blast wave.
Third, we don't really have any way to quantify the paper in the streets. The WTC towers were no doubt filled with millions of sheets of paper. One could make an argument that if anything, there was a DEARTH of paper found in the streets around ground zero. In fact, I think there was certainly far less paper in the streets around ground zero, than would be seen in any sort of gravity-induced collapse.
So I'm wondering-- what exactly is the scientific argument against the WTC towers being blown up by several small "clean" fusion nukes?
Wood and Reynolds argue against nukes in their DEW article:
The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.
I think ONLY nukes can vaporize steel to the extent that was seen-- and nuclear blast energy is the only reasonable explanation for that phenomenon. Thus, to the extent that steel was missing and that there was less damage to the bath-tub-- it was done by nuclear energy. Remember, we are talking about small nukes here-- that could have been programmed to go off top to bottom, in the manner the collapse occurred.
Nukes can certainly explain the toasted cars-- both hot gases blowing down and an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) wave that is always associated with nuclear blasts.
Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not.This is not a convincing argument against nukes, as this selectivity argument is not well substantiated. Importantly, aluminum cladding is lighter than steel, and is knocked off the steel columns relaitvely easily. Thus, it will get blown off the steel columns and fly further than the steel columns. Finding aluminum cladding on nearby rooftops is not particularly surprising. The fact is, in the videos, we SEE outer steel facade columns being blown down, with a wave of cladding ahead of them.
I think the nukes were more important in terms of vaporizing the inner core columns, as opposed to the outer columns-- since, as I noted before, a large percentage of the core columns seem to have disappeared.
Finally, one other argument in favor of nukes (as opposed to conventional explosives) is that they are not explode from fire.
NOW-- what was used to take down the WTC?
My guess is that it was mostly nukes, with some conventinal explosives and some directed energy weapons and even a bit of thermite perhaps.
But it was mostly nuclear energy that took down the twin towers.
Hence, GROUND ZERO.
Who benefits from promoting skepticism about man-induced global warming?
Which group is more powerful?
Is there a reasonable middle-ground between these two?
Or are both groups ultimately controlled by the same people-- and there is another explanation for all this "controversy" about global warming?
Thursday, April 05, 2007
What Else But a NUKE Could Do This?
How Could the Government Cover-Up 9/11 When They Couldn't Even Cover Up the Watergate Break-in?
This is a common line of thought, though.
I recently saw this on the Popular Mechanics site on Rosie O'Donnel and WTC7-- "How could the Bush administration cover-up 9/11 when they couldn't even cover-up the firing of US attorneys?"
I've seen this sort of thing repeated before: "How could the Bush administration cover-up 9/11 when they couldn't even cover-up (insert another Bush scandal here)?"
It's merely worth pointing out that some governmental crimes are more important to cover-up than others. And there are obviously times when it is in the interest of both political parties and the media and everyone else in power to maintain the cover-up.
In fact, it tends to be that the more trivial the scandal, the more likley it is to come to light.
9/11 is simply too monstrous a crime for there not to be a huge cover-up.
And by now, almost EVERYONE in DC is implicated in it, by their very silence on the topic. Not that they were directly involved in 9/11. But they are guilty of covering it up from the very beginning.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Penn and Teller, Anti-Conspiracy Shills
Who can argue with rock-solid analysis like this?
The Destruction of the WTC Didn't Simply Produce Some Dust
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
A Shill Exposes Itself as a Shill
I am rolling on the floor here. Here we have arguably the number one Moonbat in the world, the leading Idiot of a village of idiots, the lunatic who can [sic?] even explain herself when interviewed by ANOTHER moonbat, the moron who believes an energy beam laser Destructo ray, whose energy source she can't explain even if there WAS enough energy to accomplish what she claims in her fervent mind, was the reason for this, is accusing NIST of projecting information that is wrong.
THAT has got to be the tip...the very apex...the summit of complete insanity. Those NIST scientists and engineers will eat her alive - IF they even care to respond. Its [sic] been my experince [sic] that professional organizations such as NIST does [sic] not respond to idiots and lunatics.
It is very interesting this "anonymous" (who sounds just like old-time troll "Pinch") brings up the energy source.
Because, according to the official story (which this person apparently is supporting as they call anyone who supports WTC demolition a "moonbat"), NO EXTRA ENERGY AT ALL WAS REQUIRED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE WTC!!! The official story is that all the pulverization, the complete demolition of these huge steel-framed towers, was from jet-fuel and office content fires plus gravity!
So why ON EARTH is this obnoxious person worried about how much energy Judy Wood's hypothetical beam weapon needs???? If this person thinks enough energy was already in the system, how can they rule out that Judy Wood's hypothetical beam weapon adds just enough extra energy, a relatively small amount of extra energy, that completely pulverizes the buildings in the manner observed-- with most of the energy already present in the system?
In other words, why would someone who thinks that no extra energy was required to bring down the towers, be worried about how much energy a hypothetical beam weapon would use to bring down the towers?
That is some pretty awesome double-think there.
But-- basically this person gave themselves away as a shill, by admitting what happened at the WTC required far too much energy than can be accounted for by the official story!
This person knows damn well that the official story is a pack of lies.
And is our shill also the crazy one here? Perhaps from all that double-think? After all, the person admitted, "Its [sic] been my experince [sic] that professional organizations such as NIST does [sic] not respond to idiots and lunatics."
I wonder how they knew that?
Wilted Building, Wilted Fire Truck2 comments
Dr. Judy Wood's WTC Evidence
Please take time to look at her presentation.
Only a fool could look at her presentation and not be convinced that the WTC was demolished, most likely by high-tech weaponry.
The shills of course, know what happened-- they just pretend to be dumb, or simply laugh at everything. Derision is an effective tool for psychological control.
But really, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
Now, what exact technology was used to take down the towers, is not clear. Of course, the burden of proof to show what exactly was used on the towers, is not on Dr. Wood. Dr. Wood speculates that "Directed Energy Weapons" (DEW) were used, and there is some reason to think that they were used.
Personally, I think much of what happened at the WTC can be explained by small pure fusion nukes. Small nukes can explain the series of deep explosions that were heard before the towers fell (see "911 Eyewitness"). Nukes can vaporize ("dustify") steel. Unlike DEW, nukes produce massive amounts of energy and do not require an outside energy source. Mini-nukes are obviously powerful, so very few would be required. Pure fusion nukes would leave very little radioactive residue-- just tritium, and that was found at ground zero. Other pieces of evidence that fit nukes are found here. Finally, there is a history of the US using nukes extensively, in different scenarios, and on innocent people.
I can't rule out DEW-- they quite possibly were used in conjunction with nukes. And there is reason to think DEW was used.
Finally, DEW and mini-nuke technologies overlap to some extent, in terms of their effects-- they both release extremely high levels of energy; in the case of DEW, the energy is more focused. It is even conceivable that there are fusion-based DEWs.