Alex Jones Talks About Small Nukes Pulverizing the WTC
Then refers to a physicist from England (about half-way in here). Is he talking about the Anonymous Physicist who posts here, and mistaken that he's from England? Certainly, there's no obvious physicist from England found on the internet who has proposed nukes as a mechanism of WTC destruction...
posted by spooked at 11:43 AM
26 Comments:
The more I listen to this strange brief conversation between Rokke and Jones, the more suspicious it seems.
It occurs at about 5:20. First Rokke strangely mentions nukes in towers and pulverization and free fall time, but does NOT say he is talking about the WTC on 9/11!
Jones then jumps in and falsely cites "Physicists in England" saying "nukes may have been placed in the towers". Strangely again this terminates this crucial discussion!
This whole, short dialogue may have been designed not to promulgate my "Many Nukes in the WTC Scenario", but to short-circuit widespread dissemination of it!
Anyone who searches on English physicists and nuclear demolition of the WTC, will get nothing; and may conclude there is nothing to this. They will not get to my archived articles on the destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath here:
www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com
Again, it appears (to my disgust) that I remain the first and only Physicist in the world who has written and researched on the nuclear destruction of the WTC on 9/11. And I am an American.
Anonymous Physicist
This whole, short dialogue may have been designed not to promulgate my "Many Nukes in the WTC Scenario", but to short-circuit widespread dissemination of it!
- Anonymous Physicist
If they truly wanted to "short-circiut widespread dissemination" of your "Many Nukes in the WTC Scenario" as you claim, then why bother mentioning it at all!???
You statement makes no sense for:
Mentioning = promulgation
Not Mentioning = No promulgation
Or is Alex Jones pulling out reverse logic on us?
Intel Imbecile:
As I pointed out, searching on "Physicists in England" and nuclear destruction of the WTC, will never lead to my archived articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath here:
www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com
Such a search ends in nothing.
What part of nothing do you not understand Intel boy? The "no" or the "thing"?
And why do you put "short-circiut" [sic] in quotes when that is your spelling error and not mine?
Now
1. Tell everyone here what you believe brought down the towers!
2. Tell everyone here how all your posts have nothing but lies, but you are ordered to be here for "truth"?
A.P.
google: WTC Cancer Cluster Like Hiroshima
Someone disagrees with you and instantly they're an "Intel" agent? Jeez...
Talk about having an obvious case of: http://tinyurl.com/6hp2x
Guess I hit a nerve.
Guess what THE VERY FIRST HIT THAT CAME UP when I searched the term "nuclear destruction of the WTC"!!??
Guess, just guess! I DARE YA!
Here's the link so you can see with your very own peepers:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=nuclear+destruction+of+the+WTC&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
But did you not just claim above, in your insult-filled diatribe (sure sign you've already lost any argument), that searching on "nuclear destruction of the WTC", and I quote:
"...will never lead to my archived articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath here:
www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
-Anonymous Physicist
Looks like our resident "Physicist" has egg all over his/her face, no?
BECAUSE THE VERY FIRST WEBSITE THAT COMES UP WHEN YOU SEARCH "nuclear destruction of the WTC"...IS YOURS!!!
Are you on drugs!!!!?????
I would've assumed (incorrectly) that as a "Physicist" you would've AT LEAST checked any claim before declaring it fact.
If you couldn't even spend the 0.08 seconds it took Google & myself to link you with YOUR archived articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath, how silly does that make you look?
so what if AP thinks everyone is an agent?
he has proven to know what he is talking about in matters of science.
it is a good thing that his articles show up in a google search of "nuclear destruction of the wtc".
^h
At 5:11, Rokke tries to start telling about the WTC.
Any Geiger counter readings in New York or New Jersey at the time?
When did Bush visit the China Syndrome Aftermath, risking his health?
Once again Intel filth, a search of "English Physicists" and nuclear destruction of the WTC leads to nothing. Which is why Jones threw in the lie of "English Physicists" when none has ever said 9/11 was a nuclear destruction.
It's nice to know that you and Jones work together.
Filth, you can keep trying to distort what I wrote, you are paid well for it, but you do a poor job, as always.
And again you dare not answer this to let everyone know the truth about you:
1. Tell everyone here what you believe brought down the towers!
2. Tell everyone here how all your posts have nothing but lies, but you are ordered to be here for "truth"?
3. Tell everyone why you do not use any moniker (name) with your posts, liar.
A.P.
Pter:
Since you are here to try to knock down the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath, it is up to you not to use generalities.
You need to prove exactly where Bush was, and for how long.
The issue of radioactivity readings and the issue of the regime allowing release of said data by FEMA was addressed in the archived blogs.
And do you think the Ultimate PTB care if a near-retard, who isn't in charge of anything, gets some Rads?
Even the far more intelligent Jimmy Carter was ordered to appear at the Threee Mile Island Nuclear Site (as I recall), when I believe it was still "hot."
The Bush-puppet who still read about the goat after being told that "America is under attack" and only left when his puppetmasters yanked him up, will be sent to wherever they send him. I doubt he comprehends radiation, as he couldn't see it or feel it, as such.
Bush's visit proves nothing except the motives of those who cite this as meaning anything, or as a poor attempt to dissuade people from seeing the truth. (And again you need to show where he was and for how long.)
Citing data that FEMA collected and did not release fits in well with the regime's overall plan.
Remember also some sources have said that FEMA came in the day before (with foreknowledge) to take charge of all these matters.
A.P.
We should not allow "Early" to hijack this discussion with his lies.
Can anyone find any "English Physicists" who have said or written that the WTC was brought down by "nukes in the towers"?
This is what A.P. said was patently false in Jones' broadcast, and once again A.P. is correct. Also the roundabout way Rokke brings up the subject is indeed strange, and the way Jones ended it immediately is also very strange.
Was the nuking of the WTC not worthy of a discussion longer than 20 seconds or so? And by a "conspiracy expert" no less--who supposedly wants to alert the masses of nefarious deeds by the govt?
What is more nefarious than the nuking of America's largest city and the China Syndromke Aftermath?
Why so short a mention of this, Alex? Why lie about "English Physicists"?
A.P. is not a "phony". He knows his stuff, and makes reasonable claims for the most part in his articles.
However, I think A.P. should relax a bit about the English physicist issue, as I just searched google for "english physicist wtc" and got A.P.'s nuke thesis as the #1 hit.
When you google on "English physicist wtc", this comes up,
“No results found for "english physicist wtc".
Then it says,
“Results for english physicist wtc (without quotes):”
And the first item cited is this,
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/05/wtc-nuke-thesis-from-anonymous.html [One of my articles.]
And if you click on this article and then use your find function, the ONLY time “English” comes up is not as “English physicist,” but rather in Spooked’s list of other websites and ONLY as this:
“Finnish 9/11 Site in English”
A link to an English TRANSLATION of a Finnish site clearly is not about English Physicists saying the towers were nuked (or anything else).
As I wrote, there is no mention anywhere of English Physicists saying the towers were nuked.
In fact, if the Finnish cite were not fortuitously translated into English, and linked in Spooked’s blog, the next several pages of google searches ["english physicist wtc"] come up with nothing on nukes.
Anonymous Physicist
Spooked said: "A.P. is not a "phony"."
You left out the word "physicist".
If he's not a phony physicist, then
what evidence is there that he is a real physicist?
If he's a real physicist, produce
verifiable evidence that proves it.
We are still waiting for you to critique the Physics and Mathematics in A.P.'s archived articles in these blogs:
www.wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
www.wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com
www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
If you do not comprehend any Physics, all you need to do is get a physicist to critque those articles, and report that here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous Physicist at 12:55 PM:
Multiple nukes must be the only plausible mechanism. I have even promulgated this knowledge in my environment, and given your sites as the best reference.
I don't know when and where Bush visited. That's why I asked.
I was just curious if there were any Geiger reports from outside the blocked area. I still don't know.
Pter--
thanks for the clarification. I've searched for radiation readings around manhattan near ground zero and found few good reports. At one point I found a reference for someone who said they detected elevated radiation, but have lost the link and can't find it again. The lack of may mean the data is suppressed, or that no one has checked, or that people have checked but found nothing. I tend to think the first explanation is true. This Portland Indymedia piece says micro-nukes were used that had only low short-lived alpha radiation:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341768.shtml
9/11 and cancer is the key!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Worby
Pter:
Yes, thanks for the clarification.
If I am wrong about your motives, I will apologize. But some of what you write, and the way you write it are strange. You still did not simply search on Bush's WTC visit to find out where he was, and for how long?
If you are truly just playing devil's advocate to get answers to the questions your contacts are asking you when you inform them of my work on the nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath, that is fine.
I have always said, as a Scientist, I welcome bona fide criticism, or questioning. Indeed that helps to refine a hypothesis.
If one google’s President Carter’s visit to TMI nuclear mishap site, this url comes up:
http://www.greens.org/s-r/10/10-05.html
Note that it says “Sunday, April 1, 1979: This was the weekend of the "hydrogen bubble" scare. President Jimmy Carter and Rosalyn Carter went on site and into the control room, wearing little yellow plastic booties and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), or radiation badges, and potassium iodide was administered to a select few.”
This was just 4 days after the initial “mishap.” Did you catch the “plastic booties”? Sound a bit familiar? I guess they suspected air-borne radioactive elements had wafted down to the ground there.
Note also, strangely, that the mishap happened exactly one year to the day after the initial opening criticality event. Improbable, IMO.
But Carter, a supposed nuclear engineer and even his wife Rosalyn were there a mere 4 days after the event and when the area was still somewhat “hot”, indicates he was likely ordered to do so.
And the mindless shrub being sent to the WTC does not prove anything as I wrote.
I did find this (your job, Pter) http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm.
Curiously it shows nearly the same time frame, as Carter's TMI visit. Bush was at the WTC on Sept. 14 2001, three days after that (nuclear, IMO) event. He did a good photo-op mostly, if not solely with a fireman/responder, Bob Beckwith, Fireman #164.
It doesn’t say how long he was there, but it likely did not take much time to take those photos and hug Bob, and get on the bullhorn.
But I don’t think it means anything. Remember with radiation, the worst thing is either inhaling or ingesting some. Or being there when a “big one” goes off --in the open air (which wasn’t the case for micro-nukes inside buildings that, as I wrote, were “underpowered” to ensure they did not break through the buildings.)
Karen Silkwood was poisoned by emplacing Plutonium in her food. Some Hiroshima survivors only got cancer or other immune disorders, decades later.
And as Judy Wood’s dis-info site showed (IMO), the regime began treating the radioactive rubble with dirt and water the very next morning! This lowered the residual radiation levels starting on 91/12/01.
I hope all this helps. Keep spreading the word on the nuking of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath. Especially important to let all Metro New York area residents and responders know what the regime did to them.
Anonymous Physicist
What are your qualifications for holding yourself out as a scientist?
This post has already been censored by Spooked once. As a "progressive"
who is wedded to the search for truth, I trust you're aren't afraid to allow this important question to be raised. Actually, it's odd that YOU aren't even curious to know the
answer. Or maybe you do and that's why you don't want others to know.
Dude-- either critique A.P.'s science or get off the pot.
Thanks for your comment. I'll do that just as soon as "A.P." provides
verifiable credentials showing that
he is a physicist/scientist, as he claimed.
Thanks, Anonymous Physicist at
3:19 PM!
Before I even asked, I thought that Bush's visit was irrelevant. But I still asked. I was lazy and didn't search for it first.
My contacts are not asking questions about the nuking. I have just asked some small questions that came to my mind.
My questions may have been a bit provocative, so that they don't get lost here.
As you wrote, those silly questions, and informed answers to them, serve to refine and strengthen the case of nuking, and that is my motive.
You're welcome Pter.
Your questions were not silly, some were good, like the melting radioactive fragments you asked about elsewhere and I answered therein.
Can I ask why you use Pteranodon for a moniker?
Anonymous Physicist
A.P., I was about to tell today and now you asked!
I once saw this pteranodon photo:
http://paranormal.about.com/od/othercreatures/ig/Gallery-of-Monsters/Pterosaur-with-Soldiers.htm
Thanks.
Very intersting photo. Not sure what to make of it (and some othgers I viewed there).
Unfortunately it is so easy to doctor photos and videos, as with 9/11, Z-film, and the Apollo (TV) Program, so...
I guess you like getting into "the unexplained" and trying to explain them, if possible.
Me too.
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home