WTC Destruction Theories: "DEW" versus Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate versus Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
In theory, all of these may have been used in combination with conventional explosives (e.g. C-4) -- and each of these may also have been used in come combination together. But let's discuss the PRIMARY mechanism used for the WTC tower demolition, since there still is apparent controversy over this.
DEW = directed energy weapons; typically described as a powerful beam weapon; type of energy has not been specified; originally proposed by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate = high temperature incendiary mixture (thermite) and hypothetical explosive variants (thermate and super-thermate); originally proposed by Steven Jones
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes = explosive nuclear fusion or nuclear fission devices; proposed by several different people: Finnish Military expert (advanced fusion devices only), Ed Ward, Bill Deagle, Anonymous Physicist
The complete massive destruction of the WTC towers was characterized by several key features:
1) incredible pulverization/"dustification" of all building contents in a matter of seconds
2) pulverized debris violently bursting outward during the destruction
3) a consecutive series of "explosive" waves traveling down the towers during the demolition
4) disappearance/vaporization of large numbers of interior core columns
5) various odd phenomena-- likely EMP effects on vehicles and some electronic devices, odd holes in the ground and in surrounding buildings, early basement explosions, "hanging skin" in some surviving victims
6) extreme high heat in the ground zero rubble (widely-reported/well-substantiated)
7) large number of sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders
8) suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel-- washing, extreme security on trucks taking it away, rapid sale to China
I will now go over pros and cons of these hypotheses, focusing solely on the WTC evidence, without any discussion of the character or reliability of the proponents of the various theories. I am taking for granted that the towers were demolished by added energy devices -- not by fires and gravitational collapse. Further, I am assuming that there has been some sort of active cover-up of the demolition on the part of the official agencies and the media.
--------------------
PROS for DEW:
1) malleable nature of the "DEW" can explain everything associated with the tower destruction except the lingering heat at ground zero
2) towers did not need to be pre-loaded with devices
CONS for DEW:
1) type of DEW-emitting device and what type of directed energy was used on the WTC is completely unspecified
2) no DEW technology known that can explain the vaporization of steel and the extreme pulverization of concrete and the majority of inner building components-- all in seconds
3) huge amounts of energy required for DEW that can dustify the towers but no source of energy has been specified
4) needs to make the major assumption that the extreme heat at ground zero is a massive lie
5) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
6) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Paper-- I do not think the presence of unburnt sheets of paper in the WTC dust can be construed as evidence for DEW, as the towers were undoubted filled with paper, and it's not at all clear what percentage of paper was destroyed. Paper is also light and some paper would thus would be expected to be blown out and away by explosive blasts, ahead of the highest energy wave.
Aluminum versus Steel-- I do not find the argument convincing that aluminum cladding intrinsically avoided destruction whereas the steel columns were vaporized.
Lack of bathtub damage and intact shops and tunnels beneath the WTC-- any sort of extreme pulverization of the towers from the top-down would lessen the overall impact on the ground of the towers' destruction; it's not clear where the intact shops and tunnels seen in pictures were in relation to the two main destroyed towers, thus this is inconclusive
Lack of large explosive sounds-- I do not think there is completely convincing case that can be made for lack of explosive sounds
DEW Pro/Con = Negative 4
--------------------------
PROS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) can explain some of the loss of steel as thermite can melt iron
2) might explain the lingering high heat and reports of molten steel
CONS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) difficult to imagine an incendiary chemical mixture being used to rapidly demolish a building
2) difficult to imagine how explosive thermite/thermate could be used to vaporize steel columns if the incendiary mixture is being dispersed by exploding at the same time
3) not clear that super thermate can account for the pulverization of the towers or that it even exists
4) not clear that residual thermite/thermate/super thermate can account for the extreme heat that lasted for at least six weeks at ground zero
5) requires massive pre-loading of the towers with large incendiary/explosive devices
6) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
7) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate Pro/Con= Negative 4
----------------------------
PROS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) can easily explain all the features of the destruction of the towers
2) powerful, well-known, well-established destructive technology
3) small but extremely powerful and so do not require massive emplacement of devices in the towers
CONS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) cover-up required for radiation at ground zero
One common argument I have seen made against nukes is that extremely bright flashes from nuclear explosions are not seen in videos. However this is not a definitive contrary argument as it is not clear what kind of flash would be seen from a very small nuke going off in the middle of steel tower-- especially once the first explosion has occurred and there are massive dust clouds that could shield the flashes of further explosions. Further, for tower 2, definitely, a few small bright flashes can be seen going off coincident with the tower going down.
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes Pro/Con= Positive 2
-----------------------
Does anyone have a reasonable argument, based on the evidence, not on personalities, to add here?
DEW = directed energy weapons; typically described as a powerful beam weapon; type of energy has not been specified; originally proposed by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate = high temperature incendiary mixture (thermite) and hypothetical explosive variants (thermate and super-thermate); originally proposed by Steven Jones
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes = explosive nuclear fusion or nuclear fission devices; proposed by several different people: Finnish Military expert (advanced fusion devices only), Ed Ward, Bill Deagle, Anonymous Physicist
The complete massive destruction of the WTC towers was characterized by several key features:
1) incredible pulverization/"dustification" of all building contents in a matter of seconds
2) pulverized debris violently bursting outward during the destruction
3) a consecutive series of "explosive" waves traveling down the towers during the demolition
4) disappearance/vaporization of large numbers of interior core columns
5) various odd phenomena-- likely EMP effects on vehicles and some electronic devices, odd holes in the ground and in surrounding buildings, early basement explosions, "hanging skin" in some surviving victims
6) extreme high heat in the ground zero rubble (widely-reported/well-substantiated)
7) large number of sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders
8) suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel-- washing, extreme security on trucks taking it away, rapid sale to China
I will now go over pros and cons of these hypotheses, focusing solely on the WTC evidence, without any discussion of the character or reliability of the proponents of the various theories. I am taking for granted that the towers were demolished by added energy devices -- not by fires and gravitational collapse. Further, I am assuming that there has been some sort of active cover-up of the demolition on the part of the official agencies and the media.
--------------------
PROS for DEW:
1) malleable nature of the "DEW" can explain everything associated with the tower destruction except the lingering heat at ground zero
2) towers did not need to be pre-loaded with devices
CONS for DEW:
1) type of DEW-emitting device and what type of directed energy was used on the WTC is completely unspecified
2) no DEW technology known that can explain the vaporization of steel and the extreme pulverization of concrete and the majority of inner building components-- all in seconds
3) huge amounts of energy required for DEW that can dustify the towers but no source of energy has been specified
4) needs to make the major assumption that the extreme heat at ground zero is a massive lie
5) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
6) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Paper-- I do not think the presence of unburnt sheets of paper in the WTC dust can be construed as evidence for DEW, as the towers were undoubted filled with paper, and it's not at all clear what percentage of paper was destroyed. Paper is also light and some paper would thus would be expected to be blown out and away by explosive blasts, ahead of the highest energy wave.
Aluminum versus Steel-- I do not find the argument convincing that aluminum cladding intrinsically avoided destruction whereas the steel columns were vaporized.
Lack of bathtub damage and intact shops and tunnels beneath the WTC-- any sort of extreme pulverization of the towers from the top-down would lessen the overall impact on the ground of the towers' destruction; it's not clear where the intact shops and tunnels seen in pictures were in relation to the two main destroyed towers, thus this is inconclusive
Lack of large explosive sounds-- I do not think there is completely convincing case that can be made for lack of explosive sounds
DEW Pro/Con = Negative 4
--------------------------
PROS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) can explain some of the loss of steel as thermite can melt iron
2) might explain the lingering high heat and reports of molten steel
CONS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) difficult to imagine an incendiary chemical mixture being used to rapidly demolish a building
2) difficult to imagine how explosive thermite/thermate could be used to vaporize steel columns if the incendiary mixture is being dispersed by exploding at the same time
3) not clear that super thermate can account for the pulverization of the towers or that it even exists
4) not clear that residual thermite/thermate/super thermate can account for the extreme heat that lasted for at least six weeks at ground zero
5) requires massive pre-loading of the towers with large incendiary/explosive devices
6) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
7) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate Pro/Con= Negative 4
----------------------------
PROS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) can easily explain all the features of the destruction of the towers
2) powerful, well-known, well-established destructive technology
3) small but extremely powerful and so do not require massive emplacement of devices in the towers
CONS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) cover-up required for radiation at ground zero
One common argument I have seen made against nukes is that extremely bright flashes from nuclear explosions are not seen in videos. However this is not a definitive contrary argument as it is not clear what kind of flash would be seen from a very small nuke going off in the middle of steel tower-- especially once the first explosion has occurred and there are massive dust clouds that could shield the flashes of further explosions. Further, for tower 2, definitely, a few small bright flashes can be seen going off coincident with the tower going down.
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes Pro/Con= Positive 2
-----------------------
Does anyone have a reasonable argument, based on the evidence, not on personalities, to add here?
posted by spooked at 7:23 AM
46 Comments:
Proof for mini-nukes ... WTC cancer cluster 'like Hiroshima'
The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects.
Well I would remove/change the following, as I disagree: “PROS for DEW:
1) malleable nature of the "DEW" can explain everything associated with the tower destruction except the lingering heat at ground zero”
Several firemen described the great heat on their skin,
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/11/eyewitness-testimony-of-firefighters.html
when no fire was near them during tower destruction. This disproves DEW.
Generally speaking, energy beams can provide energy because of their coherent nature. They don’t diverge--preventing energy loss.
Thus the eyewitness or skin-witnessing by these firemen helps PROVE that there were no “Directed Energy Weapons” used during
tower destruction.
DEW in fact, explains very little of what happened during WTC destruction. Its "proponents" simply deny what actually happened--such as saying there was no heat during destruction. Thus no Felipe David, no Firemen outside feeling great heat from the thermal rays of nukes, no EMP which fits the car damage to a “T”, as I have highlighted with Ondrovic’s statements.
Furthermore, another CON for “DEW” is to explain where the beams came from. And how they can account for explosions clearly emanating from within (as seen on all videos of the explosions), if these were “Space Beams.” So DEW is supported by virtually none of the evidence!
I also disagree about what was written about explosions, the above link from several firemen describe the explosions as the loudest thing they have ever heard, in vivid terms.
Likewise, Spooked’s statement about thermite, et al, “might explain the lingering high heat and reports of molten steel” is also too generous. No evidence has been presented to support Jones’ desperate claim that Thermite can leave heat lasting for more than minutes or hours at best. NOT weeks and months later. Furthermore, if ITS ENERGY WAS EXPENDED IN ITS USE AS AN EXPLOSIVE, there wouldn’t be any energy left over for heat.
As I have written, HEAT GENERATION is clearly what occurred for up to 6 months after destruction. Nothing else is known that could cause heat to “linger” for so long, and I have recommended people to stop using the “lingering” term unless they can find a mechanism that once turned off, allows heat to linger for so long. As I have written, even the million degree temperature of the nuke itself cools to ambient temperature, in stages, first down to 10,000 degrees in but a millisecond, and then down to ambient temperature, likely in minute or hours. Nothing has heat lingering for weeks and months, this was HEAT GENERATION. And it is easily, and solely, explained by fission fragments releasing great heat via radiation.
I have detailed that a fission nuke uses only 1-6% of its fissile material, and also explored how common fizzling nukes are , and the concept of redundancy. All these matters allow for much fissile (radioactive) material at the WTC to cause great heat for weeks and months afterwards, until "cleaned up".
I have cited firemen, like Joe O’Toole, directly seeing, under a tower, flowing metal nearly six months later. Only William Tahil, and I have proposed the one and only mechanism that can account for this--the China Syndrome.
Tahil’s name should be added to the list of nuclear proponents, in the article. Tahil’s book even includes analysis of the dust whereby, he writes, that especially the dust from girders indicated that fission was still occurring in some isotopes therein.
So I think Spooked, in trying to be fair, has been much too generous to both the “DEW” hangout and to the thermite hangout. But despite his over-kindness to those “hypotheses”, his conclusion is indeed valid.
Anonymous Physicist
Hypothesis:
What if all the reports of extreme temperatures are false, or misleading testimony? What evidence for "flowing metal" is there? You think firemen don't lie? That sacred cow should be shot dead.
I'm upset. Somebody visited stevenwarran.blogspot.com after putting in the search term, "mind control venom double helix gatekeeper pentagram" and that makes me feel targeted. I think he/she/it was a Yalie too.
Warren:
Thanks for proving absolutely that you are intel [expletive deleted for now].
There is vastly more proof than the vast number of eyewitnesses (firemen and others) who have no reason to lie.
The hanging skin--without any fire--of at least 4 survivors is one of many pieces of evidence. Too bad we can't exchange you for Felipe David.
You are the person who has admitted he knows nothing about any of this, but is just here to add less than nothing.
Your accustory, and insulting, quote about the intrepid firemen who lost so many brethren that day--"That sacred cow should be shot dead" makes me wish some of them will find you now...
You intel creeps are so foul and gutless.
Skip your stupid attempt at a legend--your joke of a second paragraph. Piss poor attempt.
You've been outed:
Probabilities:
1% imbecile,
99% "intel" ASSet
Note to your superisor in London or Langley/Ft Meade:
This is the best that you got? Why have you never sent an intelligent agent here?
Answer: Since what is said here, about the nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath
is the truth, and it can't be refuted, there's no need to waste the time of an intelligent person.
Alternate answer: They don't have anyone of intelligence there, just the descendants of the British royalty, all intermarried idiots.
Even if all the firemen and other people who described heat, and the AVRIS data was faked, etc-- the nuke explanation is STILL significantly better than the DEW explanation-- if you read my PRO and CONS.
So DEW would be a -3 instead of a -4. IF they were all lying (when they have no reason to lie, and it is clear the fact of the extreme heat generation was suppressed not promoted by the regime).
after reading steven warren's analyses of the actions of responders at the pentagon event i can see why he would consider all firemen testimonies to be suspect, but unlike the pentagon event which was entirely staged from beginning to end including the responders, the wtc event was a true catastrophe involving many real responders. it is unlikely that the wtc responders were all agents playing their script.
what i don't understand is how he knew that Somebody visited stevenwarran.blogspot.com after putting in the search term, "mind control venom double helix gatekeeper pentagram".
can you bloggers tell who visits your blogs and where they acquired a link to your blogs?
----
by the way warren, i think you did a top notch analyses of the pentagon event photos.
^h.
excellent point about the firemen, h.
ABout bloggers, if you have a sitemeter, you can indeed tell how someone found your site, what search terms they typed into google and so forth. It's actually quite amusing to check this info out sometimes.
You have to consider the possibility that SW put out that idiocy precisely to have people from here google on that, and see who/where they are.
A.P.
Oh, A.P., your research skills leave me breathless with desire!
Point taken about the firemen *h., but that a number of them are abject liars is indubitable if you've followed the Building 7 cover-up. And if "mock funerals" were undertaken in Arlington, I should think that some of the higher ups in the 343 didn't march into hell, but rather into rendition in witness protection programs in Maui. That leaves the powerless and unconnected to be crushed insensate in our modern Roman circus machine.
As to the extreme heat being somehow "suppressed," huh???? Just refer back to Governor Pataki's video interview where he shakes his head in amazement at the great heat and molten metals. Tres heavy handed, mais oui?
And the politics of choosing between DEW and Mini-nukes confuses me. Either implicate the U.S. government. Isn't that the ultimately disruptive factor? Shouldn't we cross the methodology bridge after the wholesale slaughter implicit in mass societal breakdown and total political upheaval and structural revolution?
I mean, not to be dramatic.
And whoever you are *h., thank you very much for the compliment. SPOOKED was one of the few people on the internet even willing to be seen as modestly linked to me--so thank you too SPOOKED for the benefit of the doubt!
I would like to please see where it is "indubitable" about firemen lying about WTC7--in regards to the destruction mechanism, and related matters. Thank you S.W.
If anything I have written how the CIA was brought in and threatened the 504 essponders from whom they took statements, and whenever I see a hesitant fireman, it sure seems like they are withholding eyewitness accounting of nuclear demolition and China Syndrome Aftermath. Firemen, I have no doubt, have been threatened with loss of job, pension, imprisonment (with phony "National Security" crap) and worse.
I have written how CIA former director, Woolsey was brought in to the FDNY as "counter-terrorism director" in 2002 I believe.
But I thank SW for providing the above here.
Anonymous Physicist
Is it possible Pataki was being honest?
I simply don't remember-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- that the media spent much time talking about the bizarre levels of heat and molten metal seen at ground zero. Really, the first time the molten metal came up big time was when Chris Bollyn reported it-- which kind of tainted it (intentionally IMO). But more careful research has shown other independent sources talking of the heat in particular. Evidence of the molten metal has been suppressed-- or the whole thing made up. I'm just saying that I don't think extreme heat for weeks and molten metal at GZ was ever a part of the "official story".
And while it's true both nukes and DEW implicate the USG, I also think it's important to go with the best hypothesis and not chase after fantasies. And practically, it is important to know that nukes were used and the responders were exposed to radiation.
If you're saying that it could well be nukes, SW, then that's fine too. It just seemed as though you were pushing DEW exclusively.
"I would like to please see where it is "indubitable" about firemen lying about WTC7--in regards to the destruction mechanism, and related matters."
Yes, I also wanted to ask about that. If there is a reference for this, please post it. Thanks.
probably by the time that wtc7 was destroyed the real responders would have been removed from wtc7 leaving only perp "responders" there.
that's what i would try for if i was the mastermind.
as spooked said, the difference between consideration of nukes or DEW (whatever a DEW might be) lies in the claim that there was either great heat or no heat.
i can't see why the perps would want people to believe it was nukes as a limited hangout to mask a science fiction-like DEW.
much more likely that DEW is the limited hangout to mask the use of nukes.
anyway, isn't a nuclear bomb a directed energy device?
nukes ARE DEW.
^h.
Cancers caused by exposure to nuclear radiation ...
1) I got Thyroid Cancer I was only there for one day.
2) I've been sentenced to Death Row by going to do what I was trained to do as a Rescue Worker on 9/11 at the WTC. Who can help me explain to my young children that because I went to help others, I am slowly dying from lung disease and other ailments?
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2006/11/is_911_causing.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Worby
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=4447
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/
2006/11/is_911_causing.php
Nuclear bombs *aren't* DEW in any real sense of the term "DEW". A nuke isn't very directed, although it is obviously an energy weapon. DEW refers to focused energy beams. It's probably much better not to conflate nuclear bombs and DEW.
Well, the indubitable liar who comes to mind first is retired battalion chief Aurthur Scheuerman, who along with the hateful Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieke did that public access TV video in support of the official conspiracy theory surrounding Building 7--as they still cling to the scared concepts of inviolate fireman heroics.
(Let me interrupt myself here to say that if what David Howard says is borne out about cancer clusters--as distinct from the inhalation damage we all know to be the case--than the responders have my full support. But surely there is Geiger-counter evidence extant to support radioactivity levels in the immediate aftermath?)
I have a hard time accepting that the firemen would simply forgo the firefighting on an $861 million building with such high-level tenants. Pump the fucking water out of the Hudson assholes. Can't you fight fires on the 11th floor, or is that too high up for you? Why do we buy you ladder trucks?
(Or would this get in the way of stealing flags off yachts and robbing jewelry stores of their merchandise?)
All the fireman who now claim that they knew Building 7 was going to come down in advance of its fall are agents of deception.
How about the testimony of PAPD member Danial A. Carbonaro, with his "reports of small arms fire?" I think there might have been mini Tong wars going on around WTC7. What else is being suppressed?
The logic of suppressing the DEW hypothesis over the mini-nuke hypothesis, for me, goes like this:
If both systems implicate the US government, than what benefit is too be gained by suppressing the nukes theory? Responsibility for cancer care? However, by suppressing a new, publicly unknown system of "molecular dissociation," then that would leave a tool in the toolbox for future deployment--like perhaps on that bridge over the Mississippi river in that Muslim's Congressional District? To maybe shut up some loud-mouths with the potential for mass casualties of innocents? Kind of like 9/11?
Also, wasn't Michael Zebuhr's uncle the head of the Free Energy Institute? Wouldn't knowledge of discovery of applied free energy technology be worth suppressing for several more decades as every last dime of profit was extracted from burning fossil fuels?
Can anybody come up with a science fiction scenario as compelling as this?
It's probably much better not to conflate nuclear bombs and DEW
hmmm. can the blast from a nuke not be focused in a given direction?
i bet that it can be (focused in a given direction).
if so, then a nuke bomb is a 'DEW'.
maybe it would be appropriate to point out to 'DEW' proponents that a nuke is a DEW.
and both systems (nukes, DEW) DO implicate the U.S. govt.
And isn't that what we are all living under now? The threat of Dick Cheney unleashing another terror attack? Where are all the real men to stand up and put an end to this shit?
Fuck Obama and the Democrats. The system is broken.
i agree: the system is broken.
^h.
I really like you a whole lot ^h.
XOXO
h--
I appreciate the attempt to bring everybody together but...
1) I wonder how much Wood and Reynolds would agree that nukes are DEW?
2) almost any explosive could be considered DEW by your definition
3) nukes are probably the least "directable" type of energy possible-- due to their great power, they would likely destroy any mechanism used to focus their blast
if a nuke blast cannot be focused in a given direction then the finnish military expert's theory that a single big nuke was placed in each wtc basement must be incorrect - otherwise the foundation/bathtub would have been destroyed.
and what about A.P.'s theory that several mini-nukes were placed in each wtc - wouldn't the lowest nukes damage the foundation/bathtub?
today's nuclear bombs are most likely directable.
what do wood and reynolds know about extreme explosives?
probably not much more than i do and certainly not as much as A.P. does.
i am not trying to bring everyone together so much as i am trying to put a stop to any limited hang-outs.
certainly the "hutchison effect" as posited by webfairy could not destroy each wtc in only 10 seconds, but at least webfairy puts a name to her DEW du jour, unlike wood et al.
^h.
The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive. There are at least 4 classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's and myeloma. There are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers. There is brain cancer. There is breast cancer. For most of these there are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of 'irregular cycles' (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems -- RADIATION.
The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs -- Domestic -- WTC
by Ed Ward, MD
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm
cancers!
and there you have it...
Of course, Nuclear bombs are not “DEW.” Must I detail for the millionth time, that the Regime’s Intel agencies came up with the “DEW” hangout specifically to try to hide, negate or claim the various phenomena that were exhibited during the WTC demolition and the China Syndrome Aftermath? Phenomena that could only, and did, arise from the use of nuclear bombs.
It’s nice to make/have friends, but please do not devolve this discussion into a who likes whom thing.
S.W. was asked to kindly prove that all the firemen eyewitnesses to “extraordinarily high temperatures”(to quote Fire Engineering Professor, Dr. Barnett upon examining the steel at WTC7) or the numerous firemen who are on video or in the press describing directly seeing “flowing, molten metal” weeks or months later. Citing obviously lying, intel filth among the top ranks such as Scheuerman (whose Physics and Chemistry is obviously all lies), is irrelevant. I am not familiar with the others, and no links were provided. I did not know, offhand who Mark Roberts was, but found this.
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/he-oughta-know-better-mark-roberts-and-the-iron-rich-spherules/
It makes clear that yes, Roberts is another liar. But the whole discussion on iron spherules has been addressed by me. Both Roberts (supporting the O.C.T. Hangout) and S. Jones (thermite Intel Hangout) are claiming these spherules for themselves. As the link indicates, Roberts is caught in an obvious lie saying that these spherules are found in ordinary fires, when the report says just the opposite! S. Jones’ lie, I have pointed out is the same lie that Wood performs namely taking a phenomena that could only arise from the “extraordinarily high temperatures” of a nuke, and lying and claiming that this hangout (thermite) could do this, when it can’t. I have written that these spherules are akin to the better known “fused sand” phenomena that arise from nukes.
But again S.W. massively evades the issue at hand. That the NYPD has firemen who are likely on the intel agencies’ payroll is not relevant. I wrote about massive direct observations of honest firemen describing the heat from far away (thermal rays of a nuke) during WTC demolition, or directly seeing flowing, molten metal weeks and months later (from the China Syndrome). At another article’s comments at this blog, S.W. very disingenuously compared the China Syndrome to Sick Building Syndrome. Is this the level of discussion he is capable of, or wants to have here? Sick Building Syndrome refers to “standard” chemical toxins in buildings causing people to become chronically ill, while the China Syndrome obviously refers to radioactive fragments releasing heat (and radiation).
No refutation of the great heat during and after WTC destruction has been forthcoming from S.W. Rather his comment contains irrelevancies (to the issue at hand) or to use his own term bloviations. The rest of what he wrote is not worthy of comment therefore. Numerous times the archived articles I have written on these matters were provided to him here. He has said he prefers to read a book. Fine. But then please don’t devolve this into emotional opinions or bloviations.
The truth is that both the O.C.T. and the DEW hangout proponents falsely claim there was no heat during and after WTC demolition. Both these are MASSIVE, MASSIVE lies. In a court of law, the existence of such a preponderous level of evidence, both physical and eyewitness, that both of these sister hangouts (DEW/OCT) would likely be summarily dismissed if the issue were whether or not high heat existed during and after WTC destruction. (Thermite would likely be dismissed shortly thereafter when S Jones could not prove that thermite residue would remain hot [and not hot enough] for more than minutes or hours after use, and thus could not account for what was proven to be there weeks and months later.) Wood’s website, I have detailed, is an obvious and evil intel agency attempt to take all phenomena that prove the high heat and denigrate these with baby talk, and the like. Like when a photo emerges through all the regime’s Gestapo agencies’ efforts and proves the massive heat GENERATION weeks later, Wood MUST (her handlers demand) denounce this with her baby talk, calling it a “Cheeto”--some scientific ANALysis.
It is correct for h to criticize the Finnish military expert about the claim of a sub-basement nuke causing the events that we see on video, or that were described by witnesses. I have written that I think the simple “one basement level, shape-charge-like upwardly focused nuke” hypothesis from the Finn is wrong. It does not even allow for the Pecoraro explosion, as I have called the sub-basement early nuclear vaporization/destruction of the B and C level, and a parking garage. I don’t believe you can have a nuclear bomb go off below them and “bypass” completely their level, yet vaporize much of a level above them. I don’t see how a shape charge could skip a level or two. I am not saying that it is impossible for a nuke to have some of its energy used like a shape charge. We know that there were large scale efforts to have small nukes used in creating canals and the like. I am saying the actual facts of 9/11 indicate that numerous small nukes were used, not a single larger one. Again, I believe that my articles in the 2 archived blogs include all the evidence and observations. If someone chooses to either not read them or to suspiciously ignore them, then this should not be the blog for such an individual to be at! He should be at the numerous forums created for DEW hangout proponents to yell Halleluiah to each other.
And the issue of radioactivity? FEMA was likely there from BEFORE 9/11, as you may know. They control the release of these data. Need I say more? No one for many weeks, and months, was allowed to get within several blocks of the area. I visited, and sure tried, briefly—-as my eyes started to burn as the high heat caused toxins still to be released at that time (6 weeks later). So I know directly of the high heat in the rubble and below, as do MILLIONS OF NY’ers and other visitors. It is also very telling regarding the immediate use of coating everything there with sand/earth and the massive use of hosing down the rubble are both SOP for lowering radiation. Every car leaving also had to be hosed down, the Koenig documentary video shows. And while the respiratory illnesses resulting are likely from inhalation of toxins, the cancers of the thyroid, lymph and blood are likely from radiation exposure, as was the existence of the China Syndrome itself. I have detailed from studies of Hiroshima, etc that it often takes decades for the stats of these things to reveal themselves. What we have already is actually more than what might have been expected, and is very telling of the numbers that will likely themselves explode, if the truth of this is allowed out.
Anonymous Physicist
Geez, Anonymous Physicist, for all your education you come across as an arrogant bastard. I suppose it is beyond you to imagine that the professed self-educated could bring a perspective to the table that would be useful in untangling the web of deceit that ensnares us. God help me if I come across as ruthless and snide as you do.
Well, I got one example right: of a fireman you agree is lying in support of an obviously directed agenda. My statement about the "indubitableness" of firemen lying spoke directly to efforts at covering up the demise of Building 7, and not to anybody's suffering, or the mechanism behind it, so your theories are safe from me in this regard.
You gave a stupid misreading to what I called the sick building syndrome in the Deutsch Bank Building, which has to do with ongoing chemical reactions within the steel--"fuming," "rustification," or "molecular dissociation," to use some of the terms you ridicule from your lofty perch. Let us remember that two additional firemen died in the recent demolition of that building--maybe, metaphorically, to draw our attention to the secrets therein.
I find inexplicable the testimonies of victims who were burned in the lobby, or at the openings of elevator shafts, supposedly by jet fuel cascading down. This is an open chapter in my book. It speaks to the strange energies at work that day, more so, I think, than your grasping at nukes as an explanation.
Weeding the garden where the meme of "extreme high temperatures" was planted will take some back-digging, but in my fertile imagination that was clearly a manipulated official effort and I'm surprised that SPOOKED feels high-heat was suppressed information rather than something shoved down our throats.
I'll stick with Dr. Judy Wood's analysis where it's impossible for a red-hot "Cheeto" of steel to be extricated via a hydraulic grabber without destroying the machinery.
Oh, and the poor firemen with their melted boots! Boo hoo!
And if I may professor, point out that your statement, "...as my eyes started to burn as the high heat caused toxins still to be released at that time (6 weeks later). So I know directly of the high heat," is a bit of a stretch. You may have been experiencing simple environmental pollution or chemical reactions unrelated to heat.
As well as the inconsistency of your saying, "It is also very telling regarding the immediate use of coating everything there with sand/earth and the massive use of hosing down the rubble are both SOP for lowering radiation," that there couldn't be a "massive use of hosing down the rubble" if the rubble contained molten and flowing metals, as that would give rise to explosions of steam.
But I agree that massive water hosing occurred, as well as the use of dirt as a cover up. However, it was the precise examination and interpretation of the available photographic evidence undertaken by Dr. Judy Wood and company, which brought such a fact to our attention. It is in exactly that style of working that I was successful in explicating some truth of the events in Arlington, Virginia that day, work that you are unfamiliar with.
I look forward to examining your WTC work in the near future. My opinions remain open to shifting as a result.
I am not saying that it is impossible for a nuke to have some of its energy used like a shape charge
and there you go; a nuke is a directed energy weapon.
Judy Wood's analysis where it's impossible for a red-hot "Cheeto" of steel to be extricated via a hydraulic grabber without destroying the machinery.
that is not true. the steel of the grabber machine acts as a heat sink, thus protecting the hydraulic seals from the heat.
the seals wouldn't get hot until all of the steel got hot, and it would take quite a prolonged continuous exposure to any red hot cheetos for that to happen.
SW:
“Sick Building Syndrome” is a well known specific illness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_building_syndrome
But I guess you live in your own Universe, so you have your own definition?. Ah I see you resurrect the ludicrous: "fuming," "rustification," or "molecular dissociation,".. Rustification is new to me, I saw “dustification”. How about massivebullshitification? Or blatentintelopification?
Then your “Oh, and the poor firemen with their melted boots! Boo hoo!” again shows how foul you are. Hundreds of firemen died on 9/11--these guys brethren, as they view it. And many of these responders who had melted boots now have radiation-induced cancers. Your mockery shows when there is massive evidence of something contrary to your set (intel-controlled?) beliefs, you simply mock it, and that is how you “counter” the evidence.
I figured your interpretation of my reaction to the toxins would be forthcoming. At the distance I was from the rubble pile, only high heat could have caused these toxins to be aerosolized and go so far. Furthermore you ignore that this was some 6 weeks after 9/11. Buried toxins would stay in the ground if not for being heated up and aerosolized.
Spooked has long ago laid to rest, the B.S. from MI5’s favorite house-renter to MI5 agents, A.J., in regards to the “if it was very hot, and water was hosed on it, there had to be explosions”, B.S. Only if the rubble were contained under pressure would there have been explosions. The steam did come off with loud hissing at times. Read Myerowitz book and look at all the photos. To accept the ludicrous, evidence-free “new phenomena” of “molecular dissociating clouds” that come and go ONLY WHEN THE FIREMEN HOSED THE RUBBLE PILE WITH WATER! WOW what coincidence, each those two activities occurred in succession! Those molecular do-dads only arise when the water is hosed on them! Anyone who could still mouth off “molecular dissociating clouds” after its been exposed as a non-phenomena, and an intel ploy has to be either intel (99% probability) or a brainwashed jerk (1% probability).
Numerous people got seduced by the combo of baby talk/long words, that was one raison d’etre for the DEW Op. but people who are honest and can change, do change their mind when the obvious is pointed out to them. Others believed in “DEW” based on the supposed suffering/persecution of its creator. I have written that I feel sorry for her. As an expert on the far deeper conspiracy, I know well that she likely has had to suffer years of torture of all kinds (probably during the alleged 6 year coma thing). Like the sex slaves, she may have been given over to the intel agencies as a young child. If they turn out pretty, the PTB make them into sex slaves, if not they are made into engineers. It’s usually the fathers that are secretly intel, and give away their daughters, after abusing them themselves first. (Do you have any inside info on her father?) So she is likely tortured still as her Op dissipates (excuse me gets dustified). So I feel very sorry for her, because I know what may be really happening to her. But the Physics of the matter is crystal clear. And I have to think of the many people who got nuked, and must know this, and must inform and try to get the People to act so as to defeat the PTB. Read all my stuff, if you are real, day will follow night for you.
Now your intel slip is likely showing when you accredit “jet fuel” as causing the 4 people I have cited in my articles as being burned WITHOUT ANY FIRE--IN THEIR OWN WORDS (not their handlers or the MSM of fake 911truthers.) So you emit the regimes O.C.T. after all?!! Do you understand that these 4 people reported great heat on them WITHOUT ANY FIRE, and that their skin was left melted and hanging. Furthermore your citing “jet fuel” seems to give you away as saying planes crashed into the towers. So you are a planehugger!!? Or did you slip up and resurrect jets because you need the jet fuel for your hangout? Your reply here is urgently needed. Most people here (not counting the assigned intel scum) believe the “planes” were merely CGI. I have rarely heard of a planehugger who believed in ”DEW” unless you slipped up. Kindly explain.
Then you again give credit to Wood for her photographic website with all sorts of things depicted. And I have repeatedly written here that there is no doubt that this is SOP for intel agencies to be the first to try to cover up something nefarious by releasing a hangout to obfuscate, deny, claim as their own etc. And I have detailed what those photos really show. The nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath.
I have well described the nature of the grab of the dripping molten metal in the “Cheetoh” photo. You can find that in my articles. One additional point is that NO ONE HAS PROVEN THE PHOTO IS DOCTORED.
You are certainly correct that I have not studied your Pentagon stuff, except for a perusal, which seemed to conclude with one of the two usual ignorant scapegoat conclusions. Killtown is the place for you indeed. JEWS and DEWS, all the time.
Tell me something, why isn’t there the use of dustification, rustification, fuming, molecular dissociation clouds being bandied about regarding the Pentagon? Clearly your analysis has got to be WAY OFF, IF YOU HAVE IGNORED THESE GREAT “PHENOMENA”! Furthermore I believe that Joos/Israelis/Zionists used these evil clouds to only kill those ONI agents that were “working on “ some Jew/Israeli thing, and these clouds killed only those Pentagon agents--the clever Joos alone have this advanced technological breakthrough with these clouds. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
In any case, we here might appreciate a quick summary of your Pentagon findings. Thank you kindly.
BTW, have you seen Hillary or Bill lately? Ever do any acting gigs that we can see you in? I got access to Sundance, IFC, FLIX channels.
On the 1% chance you are not intel, I say to you, be well.
Anonymous Physicist
On the 1% chance that you are a real
physicist, I say to you, get well.
Now 12:33
You are using the idea of a shape charge and a Directed Energy Weapon poorly. And I wrote "some of the energy", and in theory.
The whole idea of a Directed Energy Weapon is that the great majority--near 100% ideally, of its energy is aimed at a target far away. Exploding mini-nukes, with their spherical blast waves is the farthest thing from DEW.
Please read even wiki's page on DEW. Note it's got Lasers and such and particle beam accelerators, but no nukes.Nukes and DEW are diametrically opposite ways of imparting energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_Energy_Weapon
For the millionth time, the great heat on the outside firemen far from the towers DISPROVES DEW.
Using the method of Reductio ad Absurdum, assuming it was DEW destroying the towers, and since DEW beams can only yield high energy if they do not diverge, and we have proof of high heat far from the target, therefore no DEW.
A.P.
ok ok i will stop trying to co-opt the term "DEW".
^12:33
Here is SW's own blog:
http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/
Whereby he has this, "People ask, "If there were no planes, what happened to the people on them?" The answer is simple: They were murdered, disposed of. Gassed on board or disembarked into hangers to be lined up and shot. Get used to it. Power and politics may mean some are alive, but certainly not feeling or sentiment. The deaths in New York City were a matter of pure physics--being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the buildings were struck and fell--considered collateral damage, if they were considered at all."
So he seems to be promoting NPT, and that he is an NPT'er himself. But as usual, he is twisted and the paragraph acutally includes "the buildings were struck." So WTF, eh?
And please leave out "pure physics." That's too painful to read; you have no interest or comprehension of the same.
Now getting back to my post at 12:37, he is quick to utilize "jet fuel" to attempt to account for victims' hanging skin (without fire), but above he claims to be an NPT'er.
Do you realize SW that if there were no planes, there was no "jet fuel"?
You went from 99% probable intel asset to 99.99%.
Congrats.
A.P.
And thanks 12:33 for separating the "DEW" from the nukes.
And good Physics knowledge for citing the "heat sink" effect, RE the crane in the Cheetos photo!
A.P.
Dear A.P. I apologize for using the term, "sick building syndrome," to describe the ongoing catastrophic condition in the Deutsch Bank Building. Perhaps you could describe what ailed the building and why it was demolished at such vast expense?
I do not believe that planes of any kind struck the WTC towers, although a missile perhaps might have. My referencing "jet fuel" spoke to the official testimonies, and not in support of them! I am of a mind the phenomena under discussion is unexplained.
I cannot attempt a summery of all my Pentagon work (any time I may have will be more profitably spent devouring your work,) except to say, that I blame the United States military for a self-wounding--and for that, Jews will have to take a back seat to a virulent organized Christianity.
But I can talk about some nascent concepts I have underway, as I am far away still from understanding the total mechanics of the strike.
In a photo analysis of an aerial Pentagon shot, I hazarded a guess that a buried installation was being constructed in a clover-leaf of the highway adjacent to the Pentagon. This got a rise from a frequent critic of both my blog, and this blog, William "Pinch" Paisley. I erred then, by calling the facility a short-hand, "buried missile silo" defense, much as I erred with you by speaking of the Deutsch Bank Building as having "sick building syndrome." I should know better than asking opponents to meet me half way in these sorts of matters.
In any event, my photo hosting service, Flickr, took that image down, without a word of explanation to me, and I assume it was at Pinch's behest. This photo was "officially released" by the U.S. military web site that first hosted it, like all the images that are posted as a public service by the government, I think I was in the right to consider my use, a fair use.
I then had my entire 3000-image account with Flickr terminated. This represented a horrible loss for me, in terms of both the labor of archiving, and the developed commentary. I think it fair to conclude that I may have been onto something here.
Whatever the new facility represents, it is not missile-based, nor likely a nuclear armament. It represents a new technology, and I won't display my naivety by putting a tantalizing name--like HAARP--to it. But overall, the Pentagon on 9/11 was both a code and a show; a defense and an offense, and perhaps a tutorial explicating the larger destruction in New York for knowing eyes.
Well, that's all your going to get from me for your one-percent faith in my efforts!
You're is the contraction for YOU ARE.
Why do some people continue to say "YOUR" when they mean "YOU'RE"?
Also, it's "LOSING", not "LOOSING".
To make most nouns plural, you add
an "S", but without an apostrophe.
So, for example, chairs, not chair's,
if you're talking about more than one chair.
Thanks,
Anonymous Intel Agent
Dear SW:
Thanks a lot for all that. Much appreciated. I will chech your work out too.
You're up a few per cent, bro.
Hot there in NYC now?
A.P.
check
This got a rise from a frequent critic of both my blog, and this blog, William "Pinch" Paisley.
admiral pinch!
he claimed to be a navy fighter pilot and told a story about a mid-air collision between his wingman and himself which they both somehow walked away from.
Dear Anonymous Intel Agent--
I was born in Iowa and raised in Tennessee, and I attended public schools through high school. Some of those years were spent in predominantly black inner-city schools. In fact, I can distinctly recall walking to my fifth grade class when school reopened after the riots that followed April 4rth, 1968, and seeing all the familiar stores boarded up.
Neither of my parents attended college, so there was never a push for me to go, and I didn't.
But it is an example of the extraordinary opportunities America provides us in general, and a common American public education afforded me in particular, that I became able to communicate, and participate in the discussions here, and share in our common effort at working toward the truth, and hopefully, saving the ideals and values we espouse as Americans.
I hate it when I have to sift through the silly mistakes other writers make when working in haste, and I thank you for helping to keep me on my toes by pointing out my errors. It must be distressing for you to have to take on such a petty role, and I apologize for causing you the inconvenience.
Oh, it's delicious here in Southampton next to the ocean, A.P.! I still have plenty of guest accommodation available for anybody courageous enough to ask! Pinch pussied out!
Thanks for the invite.
I have stayed in a house at the ocean in Montauk once--great.
But I am not in the area any more, thanks anyway.
That "Pinch" seems to have something in common with N. Vietnam's Senator John McCain:
http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2007/02/camelot_114_or_.html
At least Pinch's episode didn't lead to deaths of fellow Navy personnel nor take out a carrier and cost many millions.
Yes, A.P. I know what city your computer posts from. S.W.
Mr. Warran,
Is his computer located in a large
building or complex of buildings?
I won't tell you. You can try and beat it out of me though.
Post a Comment
<< Home