Free form 9/11: diverse voices make Vancouver Hearings messy but intriguing


By Craig McKee

There was definitely no “party line” at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings.

The opinions offered by 19 presenters over three days were diverse, with some openly disagreeing with each other both in their presentations and in question-and-answer sessions. Some may feel that the lack of a common front at these hearings was a problem; I don’t think that’s true.

One thing that was clear from the outset was that organizers Jim Fetzer (pictured above) and Joshua Blakeney were making no effort to emulate last September’s Toronto 9/11 Hearings – apart from the quasi-judicial structure. Where Toronto was safe and controlled, Vancouver was unpredictable and, at times, combative.

The journalist part of me loved the volatility and excitement of it while the 9/11 truther part felt guilty about loving it.

The things that stood out most for me from what I saw (which wasn’t everything):

  • Dwain Deets offering an assessment of limited evidence at the twin towers that pointed to a nuclear component in the destruction. He added that those pushing nanothermite might be “bragging more than they should.”
  • The clash between Fetzer and presenter Barbara Honegger over her claim that there was an impact at the Pentagon near the heliport
  • The confrontation between Fetzer and speaker Webster Tarpley over whether Israel played a role in 9/11.
  • All the 9/11 issues that would never have been mentioned at the Toronto Hearings: Israel’s role, alternative theories about the destruction of the towers (including nuclear and DEW), video fakery, burned vehicles, what happened to the passengers, etc.
  • Tarpley contending that George W. Bush may have had very little advance knowledge of 9/11, but that he “surrendered” the government to the plotters, likely under threat of being deposed
  • In the too good to be true category, a video presented by Fetzer (which he says came from Veterans Today chairman of the board Gordon Duff) which appears to show a missile hitting the Pentagon
  • Fetzer praised Judy Wood for “the most brilliant analysis of effects that have to be explained.” He added that he can’t understand why she has cut off communication with him. Fetzer also praised the research of Citizen Investigation Team.

The thing that blew me away more than anything else over the weekend was the presentation by former NASA executive Deets who looked at what might have brought down the twin towers. He chose nine areas of evidence relating to the destruction of the twin towers, and he then looked at four theories about what could have done it.

1)     Runaway open office space destruction (ROOSD)

2)     Explosive demolition

3)     Nuclear devices

4)     Directed energy weapons

ROOSD, I learned, means that floors in the towers were detached somehow from the inner and outer steel columns and then fell on the floors below, which would not be able to support the weight. Deets says this isn’t the same as the pancake theory because of the floors being entirely detached – and deliberately. This doesn’t support the official story, he adds.

The evidence he looked at (he points out that this is a partial list, and his conclusions can’t be taken as his final answer on the subject) included the debris pattern, hot spots, why the crush down rate was different on different sides of the buildings, nanothermite, the temperature during the event, vehicle anomalies, the presence of tritium, basement explosions, and the presence of radionuclides. I’ll be following up on this.

As with any conference of this type, there were glitches. The live streaming was basically a write-off on Friday night. I stared at a black screen much of the time, and when the picture was restored the sound was almost inaudible. But that was fixed for the next day, and the sound was excellent the rest of the way. The power point presentations often didn’t work properly as well.

The schedule seemed to have been taken more as a suggestion as things ran long. Some speakers kept to their 40-minute time limit while others went on much longer. Speaker John McCarthy said Sunday, “I wish I’d known that 40 minutes was really 80 minutes; I had a lot more to say.”

Speaker Dean Hartwell wrote on his blog that sessions weren’t as effective as they should have been because of the decision not to hire professional audio-visual people. He also reacted to Fetzer’s handling of the conference:

“But worst of all, when we needed a demonstration of discussing differences of opinion politely, we received instead a display of bullying by the leader of the conference toward Barbara Honegger and Clare Kuehn. …  I walked out at that point and did not return, missing the last three speakers.”

It’s unfortunate that the final session on Sunday began to break down into bickering, with Fetzer arguing with (and scolding) Webster Tarpley for minimizing the role of Israel in 9/11 during the final Q & A.

“You’re a one-trick pony,” Fetzer said to Tarpley.

“You’re hysterical,” Tarpley shot back. “This is quite a spectacle you’ve got going on here,” he added. “We have a belligerent and unhinged host.”

I didn’t mind the dispute over substance, but Fetzer was the host and he should have stayed out of the discussion. What happened to MCs Greg Felton and Jack Etkin?

While that was a low point, for the most part the diversity was refreshing and positive – whether I was listening to a speaker I agreed with or not. It seems the sky hasn’t fallen and the Truth movement hasn’t been destroyed by the fact that some controversial topics were addressed.

We had speaker Christopher Holmes who presented the September Clues, video fakery, angle. The majority of truthers reject this position, but I had no problem with hearing it presented. Everyone was and is free to believe or not believe anything that was presented. No one from the New York Times rushed in and said, “Aha, we knew you guys were all loony!”

One thing that Holmes addressed (that I enjoyed) was the on-air TV interview that Theresa Renaud (wife of CBS producer Jack Renaud) did with Bryant Gumbel on the morning of 9/11. She was describing having seen an explosion in the first tower and added, “I don’t know what caused it, or if there was an impact.” Suddenly, she exclaims, “Oh there’s another one, another plane just hit! Oh my God, another plane has just hit another building! It flew right into the middle of it! Explosion!”

I wrote about this in 2010 and my opinion hasn’t changed; she was scripted.

The Honegger/Fetzer clash was really interesting. Honegger (who spoke Friday night) asked a question of Fetzer about the “missile” video clip that Fetzer showed during his talk on fakery and fraud in the official story of 9/11.

Honegger referred to her own position that there was an impact by some kind of aircraft near the heliport of the Pentagon several minutes before Flight 77 is supposed to have crashed there. (She says the craft banked to the left with the left wing hitting the heliport landing pad).

Fetzer broke in saying that he made a point to invite speakers with diverse opinions but her case did not stand up.

“Your evidence for plane impact is flimsy and insubstantial,” he said.

“No, it’s not,” she retorted. As she got more animated, (this reminded me a lot of her exchange with Aldo Marquis of CIT on the February 9/11 Truth Teleconference call).

“I think you’re being abusive,” Fetzer said as Honegger argued with him. “I think you’re clearly mistaken.”

So was it all worth it? For me it was. I didn’t mind hearing presenters offering conflicting positions on what happened on 9/11 and who was behind it. But it did reinforce for me that we can all do the movement a favour by devoting less energy and time to attacking “fringe” theories on the basis that their existence will bring ridicule. That’s the same approach being used by those who want the Pentagon evidence ignored.

Yes, the danger of ridicule is there. But there is just as great a danger in attacking each other endlessly over what will do harm to our credibility. It’s not so much exotic positions and theories that we have to worry about, it’s those who are chipping away at some of our strongest and most agreed upon evidence like the faked plane crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

489 comments

  1. Your excellent review made me feel like I was there, online, for the whole conference but with the saving grace that I was really doing Father’s Day weekend type stuff. Through this article, I was two places at one time. Thank you, Mr. McKee

    1. I predict {with the help of hindsigt} that Señor El Sashadik will be on this thread when Fetzer is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be “less than truthful” in his claim that Superthermites a non-explosive. And this will come about through information from his own cohort, Hightower.
      Señor will also look up Lewis Carroll’s ‘Jabberwocky’ to learn some assonance cipher. He will acquire two deserving and applicable new names. This will cause some confusion with his chin in his Odell’s for a time…almost 400 posts in fact.

      And the topper will be when he finds that I have posted this, in “Q fashion” totally out of order in the thread to “confuse” the poor readers who can’t walk a straight line without the assistance of el perfecto completo sasha sacha totaldik.

      Yea…it’s my crystal ball…never fails me.

      Now…Lol…if Craig will even see this to post it.

      I do hope he does, as this is meant as humor as I really have no ill feelings for our ever buoyant Señor.

      ww

      1. Obviously the whole reason I posted that comment is because Señor goes spastic over every little infraction in HIS RULEBOOK of the way things should be here, from our formatting to our style and delivery, and whether they match his approved frame.

        And because of his spurious use of “tallies” as accusation, regardless of actual word count.

        And because of this bullshit frame of “agenthood A-List of the NSA Q-Group”

        I recognize the angst of Señor, as apparently he had this blog pretty much as his own personal bully pulpit until the fatal day that a rogue element was added to the mix.

        Craig can handle this any way that he wants. As far as I’m concerned leave it all to hang out.

        Meanwhile, let us attend to things at the current point in the thread, that should please sashadik…if anything possibly can.

        ww

    2. On this late July 9, 2012 date and ~426 comments to this thread, Señor Rogue makes his July 8, 2012 at 2:48 pm posting to add to his ~168 (39.4%) tally so far, just to mess with the readability of the comments. Far below his level of output, this humble posting of mine only brings my total to ~38 (8.9%).

      +++ SPOILER ALERT +++

      As dedicated readers will read in this thread, Señor Rogue gets his buttons pushed with facts a few times, causing his Señor Rogue Jeckyl to release his Mr. Hybrid Hyde in a creative furry of ad hominem, seen above with his quaint “Señor El Sashadik” that I encourage him to use for its reflective powers.

      Although he beats his chest like a jungle ape in a WWF grudge match against Dr. Fetzer and whether or not super-thermite has a detonation velocity that squeaks in on the very low-end of the fuzzy range in the definition of “conventional high explosives,” victory will prove to be spun-hollow for Señor Rogue in the grand scheme of things. The iron sphere evidence in the dust, if attributed to super-thermite, would indicate massive quantities [thousands of metric tons] of super-thermite to achieve, according to Dr. Harrit. This is on top of an imaginary 664k mile long garden hose of unreacted super-thermite that would account for the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot.

      Maybe foreseeing himself getting knocked from the super-thermite log, Señor Rogue digs his spikes in for a hefty spin through thermaburic bombs delivered by air conditioning units set to MAX, despite these being not normally a priority for emergency power in the crippled WTC complex.

      The private RJ Lee Group came up with iron sphere numbers in the dust for the property at 130 Liberty, which was 146 times over background levels of iron in dust and was 7 times greater than coincidentally identical McGee & EPA averaging reports. Takes energy in the destruction to create those iron spheres, and to toss them out to the Deutsche Bank building.

      Señor Rogue takes a swing at Dwain Deets via Scott Creighton:

      “You think [Dwain Deets] is stupid enough to buy into Judy Wood’s obvious bullshit? Of course he isn’t. But there he is.”

      Only to be embarrassed by the black eyes Mr. Creighton gives to Dr. Jones and Mr. Roberts for purposely not testing for high explosives in the dust samples that they had [just the govt did not test]… for PR reasons if the results were negative (like the “expire-by-dates” for explosive residue detection were passed by.)

      For many things include many instances of multiple postings in a row, Señor Rogue gets called an agent. Yes, by me. He says that the content of Dr. Wood’s book was making him sick, without recognizing that — if true — this would be a fine nugget to put into his good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review. Instead uses it as an excuse to set the book down. [Did he even really pick it up?]

      Dear latter-day lurker readers,

      Read for yourself in the unfolding saga below whether Señor Rogue’s quaint “Señor El Sashadik” applies to me (Señor El Once) and/or “agenthood A-List of the NSA Q-Group” applies to Señor Rogue. You be the judge. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

      1. The purpose is to skew the perceptions of the lurker readers before they get a chance to judge for themselves who’s making a solid case and who’s not, who’s tactics seem okay and who’s doesn’t.

        Because Mr. Rogue meant his as humor and the laughing has stopped, maybe you should remove his “Memento” posting, my “Memento” posting, and this commentary on those postings.

      2. It is only my opinion Craig, but the purpose is, that I think Señor’s whole case is Pulp Fiction.

        ww

  2. Any word on whether or not the hearings will be made available for re-viewing, on say YouTube? Given the use of unprofessional audio/visual people, I’m guessing no.

    1. I heard a couple of references during the hearings to later viewings on You Tube, but that’s not confirmed. I think they will be available, but I’m not sure if the sessions that didn’t get broadcast on Friday night will be.

    2. This is Chuck Boldwyn, Retired Physics & Chemistry Teacher, who presented at The Vancouver Hearings, one of the 19 Presenters.

      The Videos were, apparently sabotaged and show up only as blackened out and are not available to this date. Most of the mp3 recordings of the presentations are available at the The Vancouver Hearings web site. Just click on the Mp3 links.
      We would like to find someone who has the ability to determined if and how the original recordings at the Denman Theater were sabotaged. Please respond to cboldwyn@bellsouth.net if you have the ability to do this work if we could get you an original copy of the disc recordings….

      If anyone who watched the original Presentations over the internet did the video recordings, we all, Jim Fetzer and all involved in the Hearings and Presentations, would like to hear from you. You can address this issue to me at: cboldwyn@bellsouth.net.
      We would love to get those video put on youtube.

  3. “No, it’s not,” she retorted. As she got more animated, (this reminded me a lot of her exchange with Aldo Marquis of CIT on the February 9/11 Truth Teleconference call.

    Did you leave something out here? It looks like you were about to close the parentheses and finish the sentence.

  4. Craig,
    Excellent job of putting us there! We must all remember that many (or most) right positions start out as fringe. Of course, not all fringe positions advance and survive. But squelching the same will lead us only to the dust bin. We are a movement, not an organization.

      1. Craig, You write:

        “Here’s just the Renaud part:”

        It looks like you meant to post something after the ::

        Was there something you left off there?

        ww

  5. Well Craig, my only observation at this time is that you are a journalist’s journalist. Indeed a rare breed in this day and age. Being open to reporting on what actually took place and keeping your own opinions at a minimum is a premium not often encountered in the postmodern era.

    ww

    1. Thank you, Willy. I appreciate that. I spent many years reporting without including any opinion (or writing columns that were all opinion) so what I’m doing now is a bit of a hybrid (no, I’m not trying to be funny). But I’m trying to bring analysis, opinion, and straight reporting together in the same piece.

      1. “..to bring analysis, opinion, and straight reporting together in the same piece.”~Craig McKee

        A laudable enterprise most surely. And so far you succeed admirably.

        I always look forward to reading your current piece.

        I also want to say that I am hopeful as others are, that we will get a chance to review the presentations in some form. I am most curious to understand Deets’ talking points.

        ww

    1. Hi Glenn, I’m watching for that but I haven’t seen anything in print yet. I know there are radio shows the previewed the hearings. I’ll let you know if I come across an article.

  6. I think we have here, not only in the hearings, but in this forum as well, a demonstration of why free and open dialog is beneficial – not simply because it is fair and just, but in that if gives the dim, the foolish and the charlatans the opportunity to trash themselves in their own words. Of which there are some great examples on these very threads – a few on the one just before this one.

    ww

  7. Excellent summary. I am a big Jim Fetzer fan, finding his radio show always fascinating. He is very intelligent, and is quite open minded but tough on nonsense. That turns some off, but so be it. I’ve learned more from his show and guests than any other source, even Alex Jones. This is a good blog. Consider adding a flattr button so people can support your good work.

  8. Painter says: “Is there a link to a video clip of the TV interview that Theresa Renaud did with Bryant Gumbel on the morning of 9/11?”

    There is a printed transcript of the same Gumbel/Renaud conversation on the Vancouver presenter’s [Chris Holmes] website at:http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html , written there as a part of his own analysis of the movie “September Clues” part A .

    I assume he made pretty much the same analysis in Vancouver as is at his site, which in part says :

    “In the CBS footage, the most outrageous elements of their studio work involve the conversation ongoing while this plane drops down out of the sky in the background. The host Bryant Gumbel has his producer’s wife, Teresa Renaud, on the telephone live from Chelsey, a subdivisions of Manhattan north of Towers, past the other subdivisions of Tribeca, Greenwich Village and Soho. This is the conversation proceeding during the time that the fabled airplane strikes the second tower:

    Host: I understand that Teresa Renaud is with us right now. Mrs Renaud, good morning.

    Mrs. Renaud: Good morning. How are you?

    Host: This is Bryant Gumbel, I am down at 59th and 5th, where are you?

    Mrs Renaud: I am in Chelsey and we are at, er, 8th and 16. We are the tallest building in the area and we, my window faces south. So it looks directly onto the World Trade Centre. And I would say, you know, approximately ten minutes ago, there was a major explosion from probably it looks like about the 80th floor, it looks like it has effected probably four to eight floors. Ur, major flames are coming out of the, lets see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.

    Host: Yes, Um, you’re over in Chelsey? Um, did you hear the explosion from your position?

    Mrs Renaud: Oh, yes, yes we did. As a matter of fact, we we heard it and and cause I was just like standing there, pretty much looking out the window, I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.

    Host: So you have no idea right now …

    Mrs Renaud: Oh, there’s another one, another plane just hit. Oh my God, another plane just has just hit another building, flew right into the middle of it. Explosion.

    “If one listens to this segment several times over, one realizes how preposterous it is. Most significantly, this witness in one breath states “I didn’t see what caused it” and then in the next breath, says “Oh, there’s another one, another plane just hit.” Of course, Mrs Renaud knew what the story was meant to be and she betrays her prior knowledge of this. She forgets in the moment and cannot keep her story straight from one moment to the next. Once again, no explosions are heard over her phone line, despite her report that she is hearing them.”

    “The claim further that she witnessed this second plane hitting the building is a complete fabrication. Firstly, why does she not mention a plane until after the explosion and not before. It is only after the explosion that she reports ‘another plane.’ No media newscaster or cameraman sees the airplane before it hits the building or reacts to anything prior to when the explosions have already occurred, which it seems is what they take as their ‘cues.’ Further, the second plane hit the building on the opposite side from her line of sight, and the manner in which it dive bombed down from above, would not possibly have enabled her to see that it was a plane that set off the explosion. Simply take the police to Mrs Renaud’s apartment and take photographs from there to document the possibility of these things.”

    “Of course, there are other anomalies in the conversation. Firstly, why does she refer to ‘we’ as hearing the explosion and then to “I” as standing at the window? Does she have a multiple personality disorder or is there someone there to support her and guide her through her acting bit, but who is not to be mentioned? I personally think that someone indicated to her so as not to say we, or else she just remembered and shifted her usage. Consider her use of ‘I’ and ‘we’ in these segments: “I am in Chelsey and we are at, er, 8th and 16. We are the tallest building in the area and we, my window faces south. … “ This makes sense as she is likely referring to ‘we’ as to indicate she and her husband, TV producer Jack Renault of the Early Show, as people are apt to do in using ‘we,’ although it is curious how it is then “my window.” When asked if she heard the explosion, Mrs Renault responds, “Yes, yes we did,” and then she continues on, “As a matter of fact, we we heard it and and cause I was just like standing there, pretty much looking out the window.” (By the way, these are not typing errors, but her actual word usage. I am not used to such phrases as “pretty much looking out the window.”) Likely, her producer husband is hiding away in Chelsey with her helping to support her through her acting ordeal and she is not supposed to refer to him, but she cannot help it due to her anxiety, uncertainty and the mechanical speech automaticity of referring to ‘we.’”

    “Other elements of her conversation suggest anxiety and deception. Why does she see ‘major flames’ coming out of the building. This is somewhat unusual description but one must wonder why she is seeing flames, while everyone else including the CBS live coverage is viewing primarily billowing black smoke from an oxygen starved fire. Further, consider how she adds on the word “Explosion” at the end of her last statement. I have never heard anyone in my life simply say ‘explosion,’ without it being in a sentence or something and she simply says it in a most ridiculous sounding way to add it on. She just sticks it on the end probably realizing that she had forgotten to say ‘explosion’ as it was written on a piece of paper before her. As a clinical psychologist, psychotherapist and having worked with criminal offenders for 12 years, this whole thing is an obvious hoax and she is a liar. Once again, one has to be almost brain dead, like the majority of the American public, not to question these things.”

    “Another curious feature of this segment is the ‘swooning’ of some fine actresses in the studio produced to document the dramatic crashing of the fabled airplane into the second Tower. When I hear these swoons, they sound more feigned than real to me, as if part of a dramatization and produced on cue……”

    Regards, onebornfree

    P.S. Mr Holmes, who has a background in clinical and criminal psychology, also attempts close analyses of various purported “eyewitnesses” verbal statements captured in the “September Clues” movies, including that of the despicable media person Mike Walters, who claimed to have witnessed to fl.77 disappearing inside the Pentagon with its wings just folding back on impact . Well worth checking out.

    1. onebornfree relates,

      “If one listens to this segment several times over, one realizes how preposterous it is. Most significantly, this witness in one breath states “I didn’t see what caused it” and then in the next breath, says “Oh, there’s another one, another plane just hit.” Of course, Mrs Renaud knew what the story was meant to be and she betrays her prior knowledge of this. She forgets in the moment and cannot keep her story straight from one moment to the next. Once again, no explosions are heard over her phone line, despite her report that she is hearing them.”

      Where it is SUGGESTED that if one listens to the segment several times over, one will begin to follow the cue of the suggestion.

      One could however think about it rationally, that Mrs Renaud, likely got to the radio or TV as soon as she was aware of an extraordinary event – like most people would do, and did. And there were reports of a plane hitting the tower before the second plane hit. The fact that she didn’t see it her self doesn’t mean she hadn’t heard about it.

      What actually becomes preposterous, is all of this spinning of magical mystery fairytales about matters that have already been established beyond reasonable doubt.

      Such is the steady state of human kind, a race generally preferring stories, myths and entertainments, baubles and beads, to knowledge and wisdom: Homo Vishnu Neuroticus.

      ww

      1. Willy,

        I’m sorry, but your mocking dismissal of this question isn’t going to fly with me. You’re using the old, “This has been debunked for years” line. How so? I’m sorry that you think people who doubt Renaud’s honesty are not rational and indulging in spinning “magical mystery fairy tales.”

        First, you’re saying she might not have seen the first impact. Then she’s lying because she says she did! And then she says “another plane has hit another building.” So you’re saying she saw in on TV, saw there was a plane, then recounted the story of what she saw without any mention of a plane? Don’t buy it. She said she didn’t see “if there was an impact.” She didn’t say, “I didn’t see the plane.”

        Most concerning to me is that you don’t even seem slightly suspicious of what was reported by people like Renaud, Walter, and Jamie McIntyre.

        I’m not impressed, Willy. Stories, myths, and entertainment? Surely you can do better than that.

      2. Craig,

        I have not doubt that the media was prepping the minds of the masses that morning, all a lead up to the foundation of the official story of 19 hijackers, etc. But I wouldn’t be so quick to assert that EVERYBODY interviewed was lying, not consciously lying – more going along with the building of GROUPTHINK.

        I think these issues are more subtle in a lot of instances.

        I do believe there are a lot of liars on TV, but more so is this ‘follow the crowd’ mentality.
        I also think there are a lot of liars and charlatans stepping into the fray in the truth movement as well. And I particularly don’t like nor do I trust this Theosophist mystic Chris Holmes. Yes I do take him as a charlatan, as big a charlatan as any in TVLand.

        Remember the concept of a pincer movement in strategy – just because one side is obviously lying, doesn’t equate to those calling them liars as being anymore honest themselves. This is the way a dialectical process works.

        I suppose this not flying with you could be an invitation to keep my opinions to myself. Is this so Mr. McKee?

        ww

        1. Of course not, Willy. I want your opinions. I want everyone’s opinions. Not flying meant they weren’t persuasive to me. You’re not shy about challenging people so I didn’t think you’d be offended if I challenged you.

          Firstly, I don’t think I suggested EVERYBODY was lying. I mentioned Renaud and Walter. I think they are lying. How exactly does Renaud “go along with GROUPTHINK” when it hasn’t been established yet? She was being interviewed as the second tower was being hit. A little early to be following the crowd, don’t you think? McIntyre, I believe was telling the truth when he said there was no sign of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But he reversed himself, and not unconsciously in my view.

          As for Mr. Holmes: I made no comment about him. I’d never even heard of him before last week. So, the pincer movement doesn’t apply to me. By the way, is anyone who questions the video record a charlatan? Just wondering.

          Help me to understand why you dismiss out of hand the idea that the two I cited were lying or following a script. It’s not clear to me.

      3. Craig asks:

        “By the way, is anyone who questions the video record a charlatan? Just wondering.”

        No, not necessarily. Like you said, taking things on a point by point basis is best.
        However, in my analysis of the Shack group, I have found them simply not credible due to lack of technical expertise. In their case, dismissing them point by point came to a final point of dismissal in it’s entirety.

        As is the case of the video of the “Missile striking the Pentagon” – an obvious fake. But this is not something promoted on MSM is it. This is why one must be discerning in analysis. There is charlatanism coming from both directions.

        As far as the ‘Group Mind’…this is already an entity prior to 9/1, it is the very paradigm of the postmodern world of the Public Relations Regime.

        And no, of course I am not shy, nor do I cringe at some slight criticism. Sometimes I am not sure if you are responding emotionally or with simple reason. We all can get a little hot at moments, I know I certainly do.

        ww

        1. I think it’s possible to react emotionally AND with simple reason. That’s what I was going for. Yes, I became passionate in responding to your comments because I don’t agree with the whole “fairy tale” put-down technique. It sounds like it’s intended to skip over the details and go straight to off-handed dismissal.

          You dismiss the Shack crew because of a lack of technical expertise. Fine. But the points I made have nothing to do with video analysis. And I am suspicious of Renaud and Walter regardless of what Holmes or anyone else says.

      4. Craig, you say:

        “And I am suspicious of Renaud and Walter regardless of what Holmes or anyone else says.”

        And you may well have sound reasons for such. I will admit I was reacting to Holmes’ structure of argument, and that more than whether Renaud and Walter are deep assets of the MSM.
        It is in that particular conversation, so early in the process of the event, that I can have some sympathy for confusion, lack of detail, etc.

        My comments to do with Renaud likely having a radio or TV on, and thus clued in that there was talk of a plane having hit the first tower seems reasonable enough to me. I think the “we, and, I/me” thing is a forced argument. Any married person will have these switchings of plural and singular in casual conversations, it is simply the way things are, and making a big point of something like this is a matter of “me thinks the lady doth protest too much”…that is a ‘leading’, which is what I see in Holmes dialogs as a general observation.

        So more than anything, my comments were meant to convey the suspicions and distrust I have in this character; a self proclaimed Theosophist of the Blavatskian {Illuminati} school.

        ww

  9. Craig McKee says: “Where would one find this analysis? I agree that Mike Walter is also lying. I wrote about Renaud in November 2010. The week before I’d written about Walter.”

    The Gumbel/Renaud analysis starts under the sub heading “CBS”, about 1/5 of the way down this page: http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html , and the Walters analysis is under the sub heading :”Pentagon and Shanksville Absurdities” on the same page, about halfway down.

    If you pick almost any of the sub headings listed on that page link, for almost any of the US networks , you can read his analysis for any/most of the network commentators verbal statements as originally brought to attention in the movie “September Clues”.

    regards, onebornfree.

  10. I’m curious about something: what do other people think about statements by Theresa Renaud, Mike Walter, Jamie McIntyre and other media personalities who happened to be perfect positions to tell us what happened at the towers and the Pentagon? First, do you agree with me that Renaud and Walter are lying about what they saw? Why or why not? If you do think they’re lying, what are the implications of this?

    1. I will speak to Jamie McIntyre. I think in his original report, he honestly didn’t see any indication of a plane crash. I think he then backtracked and changed his story when ‘the script’ was made clear to him backchannel – I think everything he said after his first report was a lie.

      I also think that a lot of people didn’t see the second plane hit, that were supposedly in position to see it. One would have to be looking at the right moment from the right angle to catch what would be a very quick event, especially for people on the ground in a canyon like situation of the streets of NY.

      I make these specific observations particularly because I do adamantly disagree with the video fakery school of thought. I think real airplanes crashed into the towers. Do I need add that I do not believe they were the commercial airliners as claimed? Okay – I strongly disbelieve that they were the commercial flights that the official story claims.

      Grasping that the whole Big Show of 9/11 is a fraud, doesn’t necessarily entail or demand, what I consider to be unsubstantiated theories such as Simon Shack’s. And since I have spoken to the deficits of his technical expertise on numerous occasions, I will leave such comments aside here.

      ww

      1. Willy,

        No, there was nothing at all wrong with your comment. As I may have mentioned before, the comments awaiting moderation show up on a list in reverse chronological order (newest at the top). Every once in a while, a new comment will not show up at the top, but will appear several comments down, and I may miss it as happened this time.

        I gather you didn’t mean you’d literally talk to Jamie McIntyre. You meant you were addressing the point, right?

        We do agree that no commercial airliners crashed anywhere. And I do understand your position on Shack. But I’m still not clear why you aren’t addressing Renaud and Walter. If McIntyre is lying, they why not the other two?

      2. Craig,

        I think what I say above at June 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm, can clear up some of this.

        Yes, I meant that I was addressing the issue of Jamie McIntyre. I never spoke to the man.
        I did however have an email conversation with another reporter who was at the WTC area when the event was happening. I might revisit some of that here as well.

        As far as Renaud and Walter – I really wasn’t defending them; as I explain in the post I mention above, I was concerned with the way the dialog was being molded by Holmes. And as I mention above, there likely is ground for suspicion of Renaud and Walter in a larger context than the one I made my first comments to.

        ww

        1. Understood. I tried to make the point that I don’t care if someone else – who may not be credible – believes something I also believe. So when I raise Renaud and Walter, I’m looking for a reaction to MY contention. I’m not concerned with whether you don’t believe Holmes. I’m reminded of the amusing saying, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

  11. I hear Fetzer showed one of the most blatant pieces of disinfo, supplied by Veterans Today’s Gordon Duff. The “missile” at the Pentagon. Pure horsekack that I personally and repeatedly demonstrated to Duff at his site to be a fake.

    The original footage can be seen here

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=950747302892463742&ei=X3ybSaenHp-G_AHz0uGnBQ#

    One thing is to promote or support a theory or alleged evidence when you truly believe the authenticity or validity of it, but to knowingly pump this crap?

    Unreal.

    1. Wow, that’s amazing. Where did the original footage come from and how was it located to make the comparison? Do you know how that happened? I know when I saw Jim Fetzer show the video in Vancouver I was waiting for him to address the question of whether it was fake or was possibly fake. He didn’t. He just took it as reliable based on his belief in Duff. I took this as being fake from the first time I saw it.

      1. As I recall the ‘Aerial b-roll’ video has been up and around for some time.

        There is another video of footage allegedly taken by the C-140 over the Pentagon. I have seen that footage on YouTube as well. Later there was another “Missile striking the Pentagon” fake made with that footage as well, that was the first one I saw some time ago.

        What is the motivation of such hacking of videos? Perhaps just to see if you can pull it off. Perhaps something more nefarious…too many billions of people on the planet with their various temperaments for cranks and jokes to make an assessment without some knowledge of where such footage originates. I think the original footage are most likely leaks. Whether the original leaker has any part in the tainted add-on’s seems unlikely.

        ww

      2. It was actually poster “paranoia” from Pilots who found the original. He (like me), pokes around anything Pentagon related and he actually recognized it.

        Gordon Duff knows that it’s fake.

        And how come Fetzer never mentioned such “explosive evidence” in his latest pieces?

        What was the reaction of the audience or the judges?

        1. I don’t know how they took it. They live streaming was basically one camera angle (occasionally a second one) on the speaker. We never saw the audience or the judges.

    2. If Jim Fetzer promoted this video as genuine proof of a missile, it only confirms a continuous pattern we’ve seen with him over the years. He seems to have a fondness for taking the flimsiest or most fraudulent evidence and running with it. On his blog a year or so back, he referred to the Porter Goss 9/11 clip as straight up proof of the flyover, without considering the possibility that the “boom” in the background is likely a secondary explosion (which were reported).

      And, of course, his fondness for taking the most “out there” theories and running with them has never more explicitly been illustrated here:

      Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 … I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

      Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

      Fetzer: “Planes?”

      Judy Wood: “No … I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

      Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge … this is huge Judy.”

      Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood; November 11, 2006
      http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3

      1. But Adam, as any of Judy’s supporters will tell you, she never mentioned space beams. That is just a lie her detractors tell to make her look bad {grin}. Why just ask Andrew Johnson, he’ll set you straight on that.

        ww

      2. No, I reported that some have suggested that a missile hit the Pentagon and that here is some visual support, which I was given by Gordon Duff, who assured me it was real. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but it is certainly interesting enough that I had no problem introducing it. If it is fabricate, so be it. We have to work our way though a lot of phony evidence in this case.

        As for that old interview with Judy Wood, which was the first time I had her on my show, she has for reasons I do not understand denied that she used the phrase, “space beams”, but she used it more than once, as I recall, during the 15 times I featured her on my show. I was fascinated by the introduce of such a novel theory (as DEWs), which was what elucidated my enthusiasm.

        Those most opposed to Judy–Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and their buddies–who promoted the myth of “explosive nanothermite” are the ones who have done the most damage to the truth movement. See “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth movement?” and “Is 9/11 Truth based upon a false theory?”, which I co-authored with T. Mark Hightower on this fraud.

      3. Fetzer:

        You repeat in your hit peice on Jones;’Is 9/11 Truth based on a false theory’ that:

        “Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, who specializes in nano-materials research at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France, resigned her position in protest of its publication, which she regarded as very inappropriate.”~JF

        Which you know is a mischaracterization of this situation. Marie-Paule Pileni did no critique of the paper in question. She was upset and quit that position because she had not been informed of the approval of the paper before it’s publication – NOT because of any dispute with the science therein.

        In that same piece you make this statement:

        “Steve Jones made a mistake early in his 9/11 research career by classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category with RDX, HMX, and others, whose detonation velocities are overwhelmingly greater.”~JF

        You give no citation nor reference for this assertion, that Jones “characterized” nanothermates in such a way, as a matter of fact Jones’ only references to RDX, HMX, and other explosives was in his saying that other explosives were likely used in the destruction of the building, and mentioning those. Jones never claimed that thermites alone were responsible for bringing down the towers. It has been lying mischaractorizations such as this paper you wrote that created this misconception.

        You make a lot of noise about nanothermates not being a smoking gun because they alone could not bring down the towers in the explosive way as seen. But the point that it is indeed a smoking gun is the fact of it’s existence in the dust proves energetic materials that should not be present. And to reiterate again Jones expressed over and again that he thought other explosives were necessary, and that they found nanothermates as certainly involved because of their proven presence.

        If you really understood the subject you would realize there are a penumbra of sol-gel mixtures of extremely high explosive nature, even beyond your copper additive thermate mentioned in your paper.

        I find your paper , ‘Is 9/11 Truth based on a false theory’, another dishonest attempt to smear Jones, Ryan, and Gage. And anyone who has interrogated you as I and others here know, your comprehension of applied physics is deplorable at best.

        ww

      4. So IN FACT the editor’s reasons for quitting the journal has NOTHING to do with the science, but to do with a political situation within the staff and owners of the journal.

        Marie-Paule Pileni, the former editor, in fact said she did not feel she has the expertise to critique the actual science performed by Harrit and Jones.

        “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise she would not comment on the science in the paper.

        http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

        ww

  12. Craig McKee says: “I’m curious about something: what do other people think about statements by Theresa Renaud, Mike Walter, Jamie McIntyre and other media personalities who happened to be perfect positions to tell us what happened at the towers and the Pentagon? First, do you agree with me that Renaud and Walter are lying about what they saw? Why or why not? If you do think they’re lying, what are the implications of this?”

    Craig, a broader framing of your question might be:

    assuming: [1] that an individual is engaged in an honest search for truth about 9/11 and is not just a paid government shill here, and assuming [2] that that person has been exposed to , and is fully cognizant of, literally hundreds and hundreds of lies within the official fairy tale to date via their own research, why would such a person then so adamantly defend at this point in time absolutely _any_ single piece of “evidence” [be it alleged “eyewitness testimony”, or network video “testimony”, or whatever], that supposedly “confirms” in any way, shape, or form, literally _any_ part of the governments official story?

    There are a couple of fairly obvious psychological reasons, I believe, but I won’t go there as it would disrupt the thread.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. I think it has to be done point by point. We can’t assume everything is false because even in a mass deception like this one there is likely to be some truth mixed in with the lies to make it harder for us to separate the two.

      1. Craig says:

        “.. some truth mixed in with the lies to make it harder for us to separate the two.”

        Yes, the strongest lies are truth with just the right spin or twist.

        ww

  13. Craig McKee says: ” I know when I saw Jim Fetzer show the video in Vancouver I was waiting for him to address the question of whether it was fake or was possibly fake. ”

    From personal experience I’m afraid your wait will probably be in vain.

    Mr Fetzer neatly side-stepped the whole question of video analysis [vis a vis correct scientific methodology] to ascertain reliability of the “video evidence” before reaching his “definitive, set in stone conclusion” that holograms of planes were deployed on 9/11 , and that I raised with him in the previous thread “Pushing the boundaries of truth: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings embrace controversy”, choosing instead to compliment me on my comments to Mr Balsamo. Very sly.

    But then again, Judy Wood’s supporters did exactly the same thing in the recent Judy Wood thread, as does “onesliceshort” via his June 19, 2012 at 5:09 pm post in the aforementioned previous Vancouver thread, entirely contradicting himself with regard to the video he/she has just posted in this thread in the process. One is fake, the other is not, because? Blank out.

    He/she seems to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to just conveniently cherry pick what is real/genuine, and what are fake videos purely on a whim, depending on which one supports his/her pet 9/11 grand theory, and which ones do not. However, this procedure is “standard operating procedure” around these parts at least, as far as I can tell. 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

  14. Craig McKee says: “I think it has to be done point by point. We can’t assume everything is false because even in a mass deception like this one there is likely to be some truth mixed in with the lies to make it harder for us to separate the two.”

    I see your point. However, don’t you think that every part of the governments story [and I mean every part] should be held to “a higher standard of truth”, and therefor viewed with high suspicion until it can be proven true, “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

    After all, those are the standards [originally ] for all government evidence submitted at a US federal criminal trial .

    Lacking a trial [which would be rigged in any case], should not the government be forced to prove absolutely every part of its story to you, and none of it be taken on good faith, by you?

    regards, onebornfree

    1. I think it should be held to a high standard, I’m not sure what a “higher” standard means. Higher than what? The onus is on the government to make the case for the official story. I would stay away from what’s required at a criminal trial; that’s not what we’re dealing with here.

      So let’s be as tough as possible on every point in the official story. Let’s demand that every inconsistency and every anomaly be explained. But let’s not fall in to the trap of lumping everything together. If we do, then what happens when one point or other turns out to be verifiable? Better not to shoot higher than the facts support.

    2. onebornfree Says:

      “I see your point. However, don’t you think that every part of the governments story [and I mean every part] should be held to “a higher standard of truth”, and therefor viewed with high suspicion until it can be proven true, “beyond a reasonable doubt”?”

      My position is that all stories should be held to the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
      This is my standard when assessing the ‘video fakery’ story put together at CluesForum.
      I have proven, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that Shack and his minions are utter hacks technically with their “analysis”.

      It remains obvious however, that one would need a certain amount of technical expertise to understand my argument, so agreement as to whether the proofs I offer will vary as to such technical sophistication in those parsing this argument.

      ww

  15. Craig’s take on the Vancouver Hearings is much like my own. A more civil and sedate series of exchanges in the last sessions is what I would have preferred, but on the other hand the let-the-sparks-fly proceedings were probably more revealing. While I have great admiration for Webster Tarpley, I did find his defence of “Israel could not have done it” or even have much involvement was very weak.

    1. I agree, Barrie, except to say that Tarpley’s “Israel could not have done it” isn’t a defence; it’s a cognitive denial. Since he was not in the room when I gave my presentation on Israeli involvement, his claim for a lack of evidence cannot be taken seriously. As I told him, I was willing to listen to any criticism of the evidence I presented, but he either could not or would not address it. I started to think that Tarpley might have a personal or professional reason for rubbishing evidence of Israeli involvement, or that he was more interested in insulating his books, and his reputation, from criticism. In any event, his presentation and performance lacked scholarly rigour.

      1. Greg,

        Unfortunately, I was not able to see your presentation in Vancouver, but I’m very interested in learning more about the evidence you presented. Do you have anything in writing (in addition to the books you’ve written) that I could read about it, or any other sources you’d recommend? I’d really like to become more familiar with the case for Israeli involvement.

      2. Yes Mr. Felton,

        I along with Craig would like to have access to more of your info on Israeli involvement.
        I am familiar with Boylan’s [sp?] work, and have been generally against the Zionist regime, and the infiltration of the US government for the past century – but if you could speak to it just a bit here I would appreciate it.

        Thanks, ww

  16. By the way;

    As per my thinking on Holmes – “psychiatrists” and “psychologists” with a profile of working within the penal system have a long history of involvement with MKUltra, the CIA mind control, manipulation program. This plus his mystical Theosophical connections, combine to a profile that I find most suspicious. I see the guy essentially as a very sophisticated carny hawker – a type very often chosen as a candidate for intelligence agencies.

    ww

    1. Christopher Holmes is a fascinating and distinctive human being, who made a tremendous contribution during the hearings, even if you only take his initial slide of the inside of the gash on the South Tower, which revealed massive steel entanglements that could not possibly have been there had a plane entered the building. Some of those posting here qualify for the label of “hacks”, but not Christopher. While I do not buy all of Simon Shack’s analysis of video fakery, I presented ample proof of real videos of fake planes in the case of Flights 11 and 175, as anyone who actually studies my presentation will discover. Several of us, including Enver Masud, Dean Hartwell, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Christopher Holmes and I presented more than enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, which are the four theses that properly define NPT (“No Plane Theory”), which Rob Balsamo has declared Pilots will never accept–apparently, no matter how strong the proof!

      1. Jim Fetzer says:

        “.. initial slide of the inside of the gash on the South Tower, which revealed massive steel entanglements that could not possibly have been there had a plane entered the building.”

        So are you positing that these “massive steel entanglements” were inside the building and should have prevented the plane from entering? As if those floors had been filled with massive tank traps rather than office equipment and furnishings???…Lol

        And you are able to determine that the massive entanglements are steel? Just how was this analysis carried out?

        Is it not more likely and reasonable to conclude that this massive entanglement was the combined wreckage of the plane and building materials?

        The massive entangled illogical arguments you continue to pursue is one of the greatest wonders of the Truth Movement.

        ww

      2. This guy hybridrogue1 doesn’t even need to see what Christopher Holmes was presenting to fault me for describing it. That’s something special! Anyone who actually studies the slide that Christopher was presenting and discussing in detail will be stunned by the extent to which it exposed the fraud being perpetrated on the American public–including that a series of steel support columns were sheered off in a perfectly straight line! It might be a good idea for some one who wants to discard our research to actually LOOK AT IT before attempting to debunk it.

      3. This guy Fetzer says:

        “This guy hybridrogue1 doesn’t even need to see what Christopher Holmes was presenting to fault me for describing it.”

        And this guy Fetzer acts like this argument hasn’t been made before with attendant imagery right on Shack’s Clues forum, showing the same type of thing he is describing here and the same argument. If it isn’t the same ‘type’ of image being discussed then it is the ‘exact’ image being discussed. There hasn’t been any new imagery of the gashes in the towers for years, and I have seen every one of them.

        ww

  17. Craig McKee says: “I think it should be held to a high standard, I’m not sure what a “higher” standard means. Higher than what? ”

    At a criminal trial, the governments evidence [i.e the prosecution] is supposed to be held to a higher standard of truth than is the defense’s [via the evidentiary requirements detailed in the Bill of Rights].

    By design there is supposed to be no “level playing field” for the governments evidence and case at trial.

    Initially distrusting _all_ government evidence [and all evidence that supports any part of its story], is not the same thing as “lumping everything together” and then handily dismissing it all as undeniably fake, by the way.

    False in One False In All ?

    But then again, even at a perfectly normal everyday US criminal trial, there is a standard legal procedure still in operation which dates back to common law courts in the US [maybe earlier], known as “False in One False in All”, which is an instruction given by the judge to the jury by which the judge explains to them that if a witness has been found to have given false testimony in just _one_ instance, then the individual members of the jury are freely entitled to discount all of that witnesses testimony, on the assumption of the applied principle “false in one, false in all” [falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, ] .

    So for example, if an employee of CBS [e.g. Reynaud], has been found to have given false testimony, it would be perfectly reasonable for myself to discount _all_ CBS “testimony” [i.e. “live” broadcasts and accompanying commentary/interviews,] as most likely being false, regardless of which CBS employee is saying what, at whatever time they said it. [The same goes for all of the other networks, of course].

    But that’s just little old me🙂

    Regards onebornfree.

    1. “But that’s just little old me”~Onebornfree

      Are you a woman Onebornfree?

      I have heard that phrase many times while living in Georgia, but never from a man.

      Not that there is anything wrong being a woman mind you…it is just that it is hard to picture you in my imagination…and when I do I see you as someone wandering around the grounds in one of those light pink hospital grounds, barefoot in the grass…daydreaming about your next time at the computer in the day room.

      Sorry, but that is my honest impression. And if you are a woman, that would fit that image much more exactly.

      ww

  18. Hey Craig,

    Last time I checked, Paul Zarembka hadn’t checked back in to tell us whether Judy Wood had answered his email to her.

    Could you perhaps post that forward if he does check back in there? I do not get email notices for updates on any of these threads. And it is a bit of a chore to check back on that thread, which often loads truncated because of its size.

    Thanks, Willy

    1. Willy,

      Sure, I’ll let everyone know about that. I am assuming he didn’t hear back because I think he would have told me if he had. As the size of the thread, Senor El Once has made the point that the main culprit is probably embedded video, not text comments. So perhaps I’ll go back and replace the embedded videos with links. I often don’t realize when a thread is loading slowly because I look at the comments in my WordPress admin queue. Perhaps if I do away with embedded videos this will solve the truncated thread problem.

      1. Great, thanks Craig.

        Maybe switching vids to links will help too.

        As you may have read the dialog by Jeeves and the Suitor, that was written out of my dubious attitude as to whether anyone will hear from Judy unattended by her body guard of handlers.

        In every media appearance she seems to be attended by “Minders” as they were called in the 9/11 hearings. I oft times wonder if she is being “kept” and “protected” in a ‘Safe-house’ or something. Or maybe it’s just the recluse saying, “I vaunt to be alone.”{~Greta Garbo}.

        ww

    2. Go to the article in question, Mr. Rogue, and create a posting with text like “Do not publish, Mr. McKee, I’m just subscribing.” BEFORE posting, mark the checkbox for “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”

      1. Thank you Señor,

        I know the regime, I have personal reasons for not using it.

        And to Craig,

        Point taken as to Leo G. Carroll’s dialog. I do have issues after a certain amount of time in conversation with someone, that they insist on anonymity. I know that Señor has many reasons for defense of such, but as one who is “out” as myself with my real name, I still become suspicious to these strict anonymous persons. I am not “nosy” for the sake of gossip, but for the sake of some sort of reasonable disclosure. And in ways it just seems downright unfriendly to be so tight lipped. Hah…whatever…

        ww

    1. You’ll be able to put in the links to videos just like any link. It just won’t get automatically interpreted and stuffed with the embed code.

      I have to admit that I like seeing the embed images to know that it is a video.

      However, I try not to watch videos from the blog. If I’m watching a video from a posting, I can’t multi-task down and read other postings while the video plays. If I happen to refresh the page to get new comments, it forgets where I might have been in the video.

      Going elsewhere to watch videos is a given for astute participants. Might as well make it easy by letting the links take you there.

      Remember, you can give a meaningful title and use a standard link to go there.

      1. Señor El Once,

        A note as per your last posting on the former thread on the nuclear issue, which I will now characterize as a rant.

        I have laid my cards on the table for you – stated my case. I am confident of my case, which is based in the sound science of forensic examination.

        Signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.

        Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

        I will state ONE TIME that you may continue as you will, but it is redundant and of no interest to me. To continue to reiterate your points is useless at this time. If you wish to convince others, use another approach for your conveyance, not an argument directed at me.

        ww

      2. Dear Mr. McKee,

        After approving this very posting, could you please then delete it and Mr. Rogue’s June 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm posting in, oh, maybe an hour.

        Mr. Rogue’s posting does not belong here. If he wants to have it published, he can very well post it in the proper thread and the proper location (which would be under my June 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm posting).

        Mr. Rogue writes in his misplaced rant:

        Signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.

        Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

        That may be.

        Further, it is your agency agenda and pure, unadulterated disinfo that has you purposely and oh so frequently ignoring and vocally dismissing major pieces of the evidence (e.g., specific signature characteristics of something nuclear in the form of radiation, unquenchable hot-spots, and 1st responder ailments), because it doesn’t fit in with the pretense and conjecture of super duper nano-thermite and thermabutic (sp?) mechanisms that you are paid to peddle to supplement your SS retirement. I do not chalk it up to stupidity but to your assignment that the boojie woojie high school science you avoided in favor of art disqualifies your pretense and conjecture as explaining anything beyond the initial pulverization [and even that is a stretch maybe too far], a fact that you don’t even acknowledge or use to modify your conclusions. If you don’t address all of the evidence in your pretense and conjecture, then the likelihood is greater that your pretense and conjecture is wrong.

        Shall I bore you with the blind men faced with the task of describing what was in the room (an elephant) while each had a hand on a different body part (e.g., trunk, ears, tail, lets, belly) and came to different conclusions as to the animal?

        1. Señor,

          It would be inappropriate for me to remove Hybridrogue’s comment based on your request. Yes, he does refer to a comment from another thread, and he could have made this comment there, but what he writes about is also relevant to this thread. He is talking about the nuclear issue vs. explosive demolition, which relates very much to my summary of Dwain Deets’s presentation on the weekend. If you still wish me to remove your comment I will respect that.

      3. Mr. Rogue is being too lazy to put his posting:

        (a) where it belongs under the proper article [June 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm]

        ~OR~

        (b) where it belongs under this article and any mention of your summary of Dwain Deets’s presentation on the weekend.

        It for sure does not belong under my posting that talked about doing away with embedded video on this forum.

        If Mr. Rogue has a relevant point to make other than a side-swipe of me and spinning how his pretense and conjecture do not address all of the evidence, then he should make that point even more relevant by posting it where it belongs.

        Otherwise, I view this as a variation of his tactic of munging up the comment section.

        Having due and timely notice, let Mr. Rogue re-post his pretense and conjecture in an appropriate spot. Then as far as I’m concerned, what appears below my June 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm (and maybe inclusive) can be removed.

      4. Señor El Once,

        Your attempts to defame me with such foaming at the mouth hot sauce is redundant as well.

        You say above:

        “that you are paid to peddle to supplement your SS retirement.”

        ~~~
        And what evidence is there to this but your bleeding frustrations and the bleating ululations of your hot boiling imagination?

        Every time you get pissed at someone, your eyes and sphincter bulge, and your quivering pointing finger wags as you bellow, “Agent! – Shill!! – Paid Stooge!!!”

        You come off a clown, and that makes it hard to maintain any vestige respect I have for you.

        ww

      1. Craig and Adam,

        Maybe we could compromise and split the difference by posting the videos for a good time, and then going back and replacing them with URLs when the thread gets long or older…?

        ww

      2. Can I make a suggestion Craig?

        Maybe a “go to last post” link at the beginning of the blog, that can be edited by yourself every (other) day might resolve some issues as regards following the thread? Instead of having to scroll down to the bottom.

        2cents

      3. Regarding Mr. OneSliceShort’s suggestion:

        Maybe a “go to last post” link at the beginning of the blog, that can be edited by yourself every (other) day might resolve some issues as regards following the thread? Instead of having to scroll down to the bottom.

        A better solution that might already technically exist within the realm of WordPress is the ability to have to two different views of the discussion. View 1 is a threaded view as it is now. View 2 would be in ascending/descending order so that the last postings are always in a predictable spot. Other forums have this.

        Regarding the discussion about embedded videos.

        Given that even images are not accepted by WordPress as embedded objects — only links to images –, the paradigm is already established that the user must click on the link and go somewhere else to see them, then it seems only logical to enforce the same paradigm to even heavier objects that video embeds are and become. If participants want to post videos, they post the link and make the users go elsewhere to see them.

        Embedded videos present three problems that impact the speed with which long discussions are loaded, as well as all other web related efforts done from the browser.

        I use FireFox as my browser (but the concepts are the same for other browsers.) When you load a forum like T&S, you’ll see in your Task Manager that the size of firefox.exe grows slighty in memory. More importantly, you’ll see that it launches plugin-container.exe. Other programs (like gmail) also use this container. It can grow to be very big.

        Problem one is that embed video hooks insert an image of the video and other features to allow the video to be played. This baggage information is not fetched from WordPress but from some other web service (e.g., YouTube) where they are hosted. The more embed videos you have, the longer it takes to fetch this baggage information from other services and the more the plugin-container.exe grows.

        Problem two is when someone watches the embed video on the blog. You’ll see the plugin-container.exe bloat massively as it fetches the video. If you start a video playing and then pause it, it assumes you will want to watch it eventually, so it continues to download in the background (and continues the growth of plugin-container.exe in memory.) If you do this multiple times, more growth the plugin-container.exe in memory and more slow-down to other computer services.

        As long as the tab with the thread & video are still displayed, the bloat of the plugin-container.exe and its impact on doing other web related things from the browser will be tangible. Closing the tab helps flush this data. [Totally closing all instances of the browser or killing the plugin-container.exe process from the task manager are about the only true complete resets available.]

        Problem three happens if you are actively following/participating in a thread. Refreshing your current instance of the thread will reset the embed videos counter with regards to what may have been already downloaded and awaiting your viewing. However, it doesn’t completely flush the plugin-container.exe in memory. If you open a copy of the thread in a new tab (like to preserve any videos that you started downloading and viewing), well… You have two copies of the same basic thing in memory with its ramification.

        Here are some useful tips for viewing internet videos.

        Always view videos in a separate browser tab or window from any thread that might embed them. In other words, click on the “View on YouTube” link or equivalent; don’t just play the video from its location in the thread. This provides lots of advantages.

        – The video can be played in another window SEPARATE from the thread you are reading. This facilitates multi-tasking, while you read or watch/listen to the video at the same time.
        – The thread you are reading can be re-freshed regularly to obtain new comments without trashing any videos that your internet bandwidth has suffered to completely download.
        – All of the above is important for long videos that if viewed in place would put a serious crimp into instant participation and updated comments.
        – When videos have been viewed in separate tabs from the thread, the clean-up to the memory footprint of the plugin-container.exe is more efficient when the tab is closed.

        The above is common-sense for astute web users.

      4. Regarding Mr. OneSliceShort’s suggestion:

        Maybe a “go to last post” link at the beginning of the blog, that can be edited by yourself every (other) day might resolve some issues as regards following the thread? Instead of having to scroll down to the bottom.

        One other tip:
        CTRL+END will take you to the bottom of the HTML page.
        CTRL+HOME will take you to the top of the HTML page.

        However, this does not take you necessarily to the “last post” chronologically, given that replies can happen at any time to any part of the discussion above.

        This is why I was saying that sometimes the forum databases allow switching between “threaded view” and “chronological view” of the comments, the latter being the one that would actually take you to the last posting.

  19. Some notes to the Digital Fakery crowd:

    Perceptual Acuity means so much more than simply having good eyesight. It involves an acute awareness of the effects of light and shadow, a full grasp of perspective in both the two-dimensional as well as the three-dimensional. A consideration of POV, not only in relation to perspective, but to zero point as well, which becomes an issue in aerial photography. Zero-Point is the position of the POV when directly above and viewing straight down. If there is the slightest geographical angle of the frame, zero-point changes accordingly, and may be found by the reverse technique of finding perspective – thus locating the position of the POV above the target – which may be completely out of the frame of the capture.

    For those who want to simply dabble at the controls of a program like Photoshop, being able to navigate its commands and features, and instantly become expert photo forensic experts, is like having the hand eye skills to open a door to a toy oven, and slide in a mud pie on the rack and close the door, expecting to find a real fruit pie when they open it. Go ahead take a bite, the truth is in the putting.

    ww

  20. Craig and hybridrogue1:

    My speech at the Vancouver Hearings about Israeli involvement in 9/11 was based on three chapters of my book “The Host and the Parasite.” My general argument is that Israel had taken control of the U.S. by 9/11 such that it HAD to know what was going to happen, and my book shows how this would have happened.

    Proof of Israeli involvement must be inferred because, like any criminal organization, Israel and its lobby groups get others to do their wet work and cover their tracks. In space, for example, we know that black holes exist even though we cannot \”see\” them. We infer their existence by observing the effect black holes have on nearby stars and galaxies, but an indirect proof such as this is no less valid. Similarly, we must infer Israel\’s existence from numerous surrounding events: that an Israeli security company runs Logan Airport; the incompetent “9/11 Report“, which filed to mention Israel in any meaningful way; the Pavlovian behaviour of Congress to every Israeli demand, etc.

    When the media, government and military actively cover-up for Israel, prosecution is impossible, as was the case of the Israelis in the Urban Moving Systems van who were arrested.

    I can also point to comments from honest Americans like Adm. Thomas Moorer, Sen. William Fullbright, and Sen. Ernest Hollings who have spoken of the coercive control the Israel Lobby has on U.S. policy. Anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.

    The events of 9/11 need to be looked at as the culmination of the overthrow of the America republic, which began when Reagan was sworn in. It is only from this longer perspective that the thorough zionization of America can be appreciated.

    1. Greg Felton,

      Thank you for commenting Greg. I understand your perspective, and see a lot of merit in it.

      As I mentioned in my first remarks to you, I have studied this issue of ‘Zion’ for quite sometime.
      I think that this larger issue of Zion is the key to much more than 9/11, and as you keep following the thread further back you will find it is centuries old.

      I would suggest serious study of THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION by Douglas Reed, which is available as a free PDF right here on the Internet. As a foundational study into the issue, I have found nothing quite as complete. The information in this book is a total deconstruction of the historical mythos our postmodernist paradigm in based in. It was written in 1956, and like much of this type of material was destine for a campaign of defamation, and Reed’s career as a journalist came to an abrupt end.

      The smear of being one who despises a particular language group has been greatly weakened in the last twenty years or so, and isn’t quite the hex that it once was. Still it is something the mainstream will still use to knock your noggin, as that mainstream is directed by none other than Zion.

      Good luck in your efforts towards revealing the truth.

      ww – Hybrid Rogue

      1. Good OSS,

        it is quite the education. It is pretty intense, and takes some will power to make it through the whole thing, mostly as there is so much to digest. I would read a chapter, and mull it over in my mind for long hours before going to the next chapter.

        But it is well written also, with a lucid clarity transcending much that is called “history”

        ww

    2. I’m very much with Webster Tarpley that the attacks were “made in USA” and that Israel played an observing role at most, and this is why:

      The conventional LIHOP view is that the ongoing military exercises distracted the USAF and caused their lame reaction. This explanation leaves space for real hijackers and real hijackings. But there is another, and, in my view, much more plausible (MIHOP) explanation. All four flights were simulated hijackings, i.e. military exercises. The fact that the military, especially the NEADS section, was alarmed belatedly by the FAA, as I’ve shown here

      http://911woodybox.blogspot.de/2010/11/was-flight-93-part-of-military-hijack.html

      can simply explained as being part of the plot.

      Information delays, wrong or incomplete informations are typical for simulation exercises – the purpose is to test the operative readiness of certain units (NEADS, f.i.). Many participants of the exercises were aware of these simulated (i.e. wrong) informations, but they had no clue that the exercises were a perfect platform, or springboard if you want, for the attacks, so they are completely innocent. Colin Scoggins, the military liaison of Boston Center who was the information link between FAA and NEADS, provided NEADS with wrong informations at least four times. Was he “in on it”? Certainly not. He just played his part of the wargame plot – ill-informing NEADS. He’s innocent.

      Tarpley’s considerations in his 9/11 book point exactly into this direction, and the evidence which has emerged meanwhile confirms his view.

      A direct corollary is that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the US military-industrial complex. Some rogue elements inside the military designed the 2001 exercises in such a way that they could be turned into a false flag attack by some simple modifications. I don’t see any space for Israeli invovement here.

      1. Well then, wasn’t it just another happy coincidence that a wargame plot gone wrong benefited the “observers” of that crime – so greatly, and in so many ways . Thanks, USA!

      2. Hi Woody,

        Your analysis is based on what I would assert is a false paradigm – you are misconstruing the true nature of the architecture of modern political power.

        I would assert that any notions that still rely on the concept of the US as an independent sovereign nation is misplaced and historically inaccurate. Amerika is simply the main garrison of an international/global power. This concept of a Pax Americana is, of course a very popular view in counter academia; Tarpley, Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, et al., but ultimately fails in a deep historical context.

        But even beyond this the Israeli/Neocon nexus can hardly be denied, especially in consideration of the PNAC game plan put into action on 9/11.

        This would be a long and complex argument involving the parsing of centuries of history. It is an argument I am fully prepared to make – however it is doubtful this venue is the proper arena for such discussion.

        ww

      3. Hi Woody,

        (For the record, I’ve been following Woody’s excellent research for years)

        If you’re saying that the actual hands on black ops of 9/11 were carried out solely by elements of the US corporate run military and security complex, I’m more or less in agreement. Though I will say that the underground and on the ground ops before and after 9/11 have the fingerprints of Israel and Mossad all over them.

        On the political front, the US foreign policy virtually revolves around Israeli demands. That “prior knowledge” alone is somehow not equated to being “involved” in the 9/11 op is a play on words IMO.

        “Prior knowledge” has become a phrase hijacked by LIHOP “advocates” and diluted by their insistence that the alleged hijackings were as per the OCT.

        On 9/11 itself I believe Mossad itself was responsible for the multiple distractions and false alarms (if you can call a van identified as having had explosives at some point a false alarm..) throughout Manhattan (and maybe Washington).

        The guy I’m linking to now has recently pissed me off but his research on Israel and 9/11 is pretty good.

        http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

        And his video (well worth the time spent watching it)

        Peace

        OSS

      4. If you can’t find any space for Israeli involvement, you haven’t been looking very hard. Tarpley’s hostile, non-cognitive responses to the issue of Israeli involvement should set off alarm bells.

      5. Thanks for the answers. I’d like to clarify my position.

        I’m ready to upgrade my assessment “Israel played an observing role” to “Israel played an assistant role”. This, however, is not enough to make Israeli involvement the central point of the discussion. We’ve probably also Saudi-Arabian, Pakistani, British or even German involvement on an intelligence level.

        My point ist that the structure of the attacks (willfully degenerated exercises) strongly point to an entity I like to call the military-industrial complex of the USA, with the “military” pronounced. Wasn’t it Eisenhower who created this word and warned of these circles? Here is where the idea of a false-falg attack was born. I’m well aware that the “project of a new american century”, a prominent face of the MIC, had strong links to the Israel lobby. But it was still an US-american entity, and again, the Israeli influence was not enough to make Israel the center point of the discussion. The border between Anti-Israel, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism is a very fine line, therefore I recommend to be careful to make Israel the main culprit. There are enough guys only waiting for antisemitic remarks to throw with mud.

        to hybridrogue: you certainly haven’t read Tarpley’s “911: Synthetic terror” cause you don’t seem to know his concept of the international network of moles. Your statement “I would assert that any notions that still rely on the concept of the US as an independent sovereign nation is misplaced and historically inaccurate” could be from him.

      6. Hi Woody, you say:

        “to hybridrogue: you certainly haven’t read Tarpley’s “911: Synthetic terror” cause you don’t seem to know his concept of the international network of moles. Your statement “I would assert that any notions that still rely on the concept of the US as an independent sovereign nation is misplaced and historically inaccurate” could be from him.”

        Actually I have, I own the book and have read the whole thing. Parts of it several times over.
        I think it is an excellent book.

        That said, I still see Tarpley as narrowing the field of perpetrators, and downplaying the fact of “The High Cabal” {as Churchill put it}. I would replace the phrase “moles” with “agenteur”, which is the term used in the central long-range planning document of the Zionist Cabal.

        I see the PNAC as the “winner” of an ‘essay contest’ in the aspect of the ‘judges’ of that competition being ‘the High Cabal’ as in ‘the City of London’ as in ‘the House of Rothschild’, the Money Changers – or ‘the Money Power’, as the Founders called it. I would also posit that ALL of ‘western intelligence’ is under their ultimate command. At a certain level, the CIA, the Mossad. ISI, Saudi, certainly the European intel services are simply one ‘cult of intelligence’ serving the Global master.

        As 9/11 was a US event, of course the ‘feet on the ground’ [so to speak] were mainly domestic. But by “domestic” we mean under the Zionist umbrella.

        As far as the fear of the slur of “antisemitism” being something to fear…this is hogwash. Anyone who truly grasps the situation knows that “the Lesser Brethren” are no more clued into the agenda and are just as much pawns in the game as the unwitting ‘Goy’.

        But as you must have realized by now, I am not one who thinks that “Israel is the main culprit”, the main culprit in my view is the very top of the Pyramid, where ALL essential decisions are made. And although there may be a physical location such decisions emit from, it is still a Globalist decision having nothing to do with ‘nationalism’ on any scale other than ruse.

        I hope this clears up my position for you Woody.

        ww

    3. Agreed, and I applaud your work, Greg. Regrettably however, it is that same pervasive Zionization, entrenched in all major American institutions for generations now, that has made the any mandated, authoritative criminal investigation into the false flag operation of 9/11 – impossible.

      A completely Zionist controlled government cannot and will not investigate itself. Today, there exists no other non-Zionist controlled authority with the power to do so. There exists no effective vehicle for the masses to mobilize against this criminal organization, let alone for us; the tiny fraction of the population who have the mixed blessing of being actually aware of their existence, the magnitude of their control, and their criminal guilt.

      At Vancouver, Tarpley expressed disgust with the use of the analogy of cancer to describe the criminal behavior of those responsible for 9/11. However, with the increasing awareness of this criminal organization’s ruthless history and relentless spread, I can think of no better one.

      Barring divine intervention or some release of irrefutably damning evidence, I believe it’s been GAME OVER for quite a while now, with Herzl & Co. as the winner of the all-time get-away-with-murder prize.

      . . . or maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

    4. Hi Greg,

      Please allow me this little sidestep!

      You write:

      In space, for example, we know that black holes exist even though we cannot \”see\” them. We infer their existence by observing the effect black holes have on nearby stars and galaxies, but an indirect proof such as this is no less valid.

      Actually, there exist no such thing as ‘black holes’.

      You have been thoroughly and severely conned by ‘shysters’, who would be more interested in the possibilities of further ‘funding’, than anything else!
      These are the same kind of people who 7 – 800 years ago told you the earth was flat.

      ‘Black holes’ are simply total impossibilities, as are ‘expanding universes’ and ‘big bangs’.

      What they on long distances ‘observe’ through their lenses are nothing but “optical illusions”, which they then interpret with the help of immature imaginations and fantasies.

      ‘What they catch in their telescopes, are huge accumulations of ‘Darkness’ separated from their encapsulation in the ether. It is simply radiation-images of the star-globes within the region of the accumulations or of the nebulae that is caught and reflected in these accumulations.
      Just as a raindrop can capture and reflect a “picture” of the sun, so can “pictures” of star-globes be caught and reflected by the accumulations of ‘Darkness’ surrounding the respective globes, which are few in numbers in relation to the enormous numbers which the nebulae display in the telescope’.

      Please check their “authentic” ‘photos’ again, and you’ll quickly see what is in reality happening!

      When they talk about ‘millions of light years away’, just smile, with an air of ‘sadness’ behind it, while shaking your head in total disbelief over the constant absurdities they dish out.
      At least that’s what i would do!

      Cheers

      1. Sorry, but you need a basic course in astrophysics. Your post is nonsense. If you want proof of black holes, which I have studied, I can point you in the right direction. However, I think you’d still get lost.

  21. Re: Israeli Involvement:

    As I had asked in the previous thread on Vancouver :

    “Seeing as how the entire 9/11 psyop was a totally controlled media event, or as Vancouver presenter Christopher Holmes puts it:

    ” … the major network news coverage was indeed completely pre-scripted and intentionally designed to deceive the public from beginning to end. Indeed, those within the corporate media are amongst those terrorists needing to be charged for these horrendous 9-11 events ..”

    and seeing as how both Hollywood and the corporate media organizations are seemingly dominated by those of the Jewish faith, and also that the Israel lobby in congress is so dominant, it is hard _not_ to come to the conclusion that some sort of direct Israel connection has to be there somewhere.

    The question is, does it really even matter? It was an inside job. Almost everyone here and as well as the majority of speakers in Vancouver already know that and can agree on that one simple fact .

    Why are they [and the majority here] all wasting their time squabbling over which of the multitudes of both governmental and quasi-governmental “special interest groups”[including but not limited to the Israel lobby], was/is primarily responsible, or about exactly how the towers were demolished, when none of that can be ultimately proven one way or another, is inconsequential, and is at the same time ultimately divisive? ”

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. One answer Onebornfree, is in the fact that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with “the Jewish faith”. The core of Zionism has nothing to do with “faith” in any manner, it has to do with the concept of “Might is Right”. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with temporal power. Thus, it has nothing to do with “law”, but merely with fiat, diktat, and dominance.

      And it is coming to the realization of these things that should be the ultimate lesson derived from the events of 9/11.

      ww

    2. I suppose it’s just an innate human biological reflex to resist slavery, expose deception and seek criminal justice . . . despite the futility of our efforts.

      1. I doubt that it is ultimately futile Sherif, for:

        Liberty is not the INVENTION of revolution

        Liberty is the DISCOVERY of enlightened reason.

        ww

    3. I think it matters to the extent that Israel’s dominance over the U.S. government needs to be publicly acknowledged and addressed. If we continue to labour under the delusion that we have national governments working in the national interest we will never get to the cause of our economic and political enslavement.

  22. The Dry Fortress

    Zion (also transliterated Sion, Tzion or Tsion) the name Zion is identical to the Hebrew word (sayon) meaning place of dryness, from the assumed root (syh). This verb’s derivation (siya), meaning dryness, drought, occurs in Psalm 105:41. But the Arabic cognate mentioned above, reads fortress.

    As we parse, what is Zion, we must consider the fact that both the ancient Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages, and as such would have cross fertilization etymologically. Thus I consider both the Arabic and Hebrew cognition when defining what is in fact prehistorical considerations. Actual history is based on accounts that are meant as accurate representation of events. It wasn’t until the times of the ancient Romans that such accounts became valuable to the intelligentsia. Formerly accounting had to do more with tribal myth-making, with a strong emphasis on genetic lines and ancestor worship. In fact what we might consider that accurate ‘history’ doesn’t arrive in Europe until the Westphalian concept of nation-state sovereignty.

    What we deal with in Zionism can be traced back ancient Babylon, and the misframed “captivity” of a certain and particular tribe of the seed of Abraham, the Levites. It is during this time that the first written book is put down by the ‘Scribes’, and it is the first major lie promoted, as this book is titled the Second Law, or Deuteronomy. It predates all others, including Genesis, which is then called the First book.

    Now I stated that the term ‘captivity’ is a misnomer in the instance of the time period that this tribe spent in Babylon, and that is because the people were not confined by the laws of the city, in anyway whatsoever from mixing with the other peoples populating Babylon. it was in fact a confinement and the institution of ‘the ghetto’ concept enforced by the Rabbis, for the purposes of retaining a pure blood within the tribe. And it is this concept of seclusion that has been enforced for centuries that kept this people from joining the rest of humanity – to retain their position as a special people, the “Chosen of G-d”.

    It is also in Babylon where the first writings of the Talmud are traced to. This book of dialogs between the leading Rabbis is considered superior to the Torah, even in modern times, except by a small minority of the “Jewish People” {another historical anomaly too complex to address here}.

    So it is in Babylon, close to four thousand years ago that the core ideas of Zionism are developed.
    And thus Zionism can be considered a Babylonian Mystery School, most ancient, and vying with the Egyptian secret societies as far as proximate formulations of such cultism.

    This should give one some idea of the complexity of the issue of Zionism.

    ww

    1. Actually, this is not accurate. Zionism, as we know it, dates only to the latter half of the 19th century and is entirely political. Any biblical writings are used instrumentally to justify it, but the zionist movement itself, is not religious. The fact that the term, however spelled, dates back many centuries is not relevant. More to the point, Israel was concocted by irreligious, secular Jews who held religious Yiddisher Jews in contempt.

      It is important to separate religion from politics when discussing Israel.

      1. Greg you say,

        “Zionism, as we know it, dates only to the latter half of the 19th century and is entirely political.”

        You are correct and you are mistaken. You speak to the visible surface history of Herzl’s movement. I speak to the actual root of the of the system and how it evolved within the works of the Talmudic Rabbis. After all, there weren’t a people called “Jews” until sometime in the seventeenth century – the letter ‘J’ wasn’t even used in writing until then.

        It matters not what the brand name is, “Judaism”, “Zionism”, “Illuminati”, whatever, these are all camouflage of a deep secret cult that has passed it’s dogma down through centuries.
        Of course political Zionism has nothing to do with religion. I think I have been clear enough to that in other commentary on this board.

        Again, I would urge you to read – Reed’s THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION. Nothing therein is without citation, all is firmly documented.

        ww

  23. This guy seems to specialize in obscure references, which he has at his fingertips, which tells me more than I want to know about him. Here, he can’t even get his author straight. Mark Hightower and I collaborated on the study he cites. He quote a sentence about the Editor-in-Chief, which does not say what he faults us for saying, since we did not claim that she had CRITIQUED the paper in question. There is no doubt she resigned over its publication, however, regarding it as inappropriate, which is what we said. As for the comparison, Mark is the expert on explosives and demolitions, not I. He authored the sentence in question, which is completely accurate. When I find someone like this who is going out of his way to manufacture phony complaints, I have a very good idea who I am dealing with, where this guy is a stellar example of someone who is trying very hard to pick nits, even though the evidence is OVERWHELMING AGAINST HIM.

    _______________

    hybridrogue1 says:
    June 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm
    Fetzer:

    You repeat in your hit peice on Jones;’Is 9/11 Truth based on a false theory’ that:

    “Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, who specializes in nano-materials research at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France, resigned her position in protest of its publication, which she regarded as very inappropriate.”~JF

    Which you know is a mischaracterization of this situation. Marie-Paule Pileni did no critique of the paper in question. She was upset and quit that position because she had not been informed of the approval of the paper before it’s publication – NOT because of any dispute with the science therein.

    In that same piece you make this statement:

    “Steve Jones made a mistake early in his 9/11 research career by classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category with RDX, HMX, and others, whose detonation velocities are overwhelmingly greater.”~JF

    You give no citation nor reference for this assertion, that Jones “characterized” nanothermates in such a way, as a matter of fact Jones’ only references to RDX, HMX, and other explosives was in his saying that other explosives were likely used in the destruction of the building, and mentioning those. Jones never claimed that thermites alone were responsible for bringing down the towers. It has been lying mischaractorizations such as this paper you wrote that created this misconception.

    ______________

    But there are tables and charts that substantiate it, including a diagram prepared by Dwain Deets, who supports our conclusions. I can’t believe that this kind of misinformation, which is clearly being disseminated here deliberately, is being published so blatantly. Steve Jones personally advised me in Los Angeles during the American Scholars Conference that nano-thermite could do all of the things he was attributing to it, including pulverizing concrete and decimating steel. He told me that personally when I asked him in the lobby. And this myth of “explosive nanothermite” has been the major obstacle to figuring out what happened to the Twin Towers, because most in the movement were taken in by a fantasy that was scientifically unwarranted but politically useful (for those who did not want the manner in which the Twin Towers were destroyed to be uncovered).

    1. Jim Fetzer says:

      “Steve Jones personally advised me in Los Angeles during the American Scholars Conference that nano-thermite could do all of the things he was attributing to it, including pulverizing concrete and decimating steel. He told me that personally when I asked him in the lobby.”

      Prove it Fetzer.

      I have never heard him make such statements in his presentations, question and answer sessions, nor as asserted in his written papers.

      That you insinuate that Marie-Paule Pileni resigned “because it was inappropriate” certainly gives the innuendo that the paper was “inappropriate” – rather than her complaint about the process of it’s publication being inappropriate. No amount of your weasel word rhetoric is going to hide that fact.

      “But there are tables and charts that substantiate it, including a diagram prepared by Dwain Deets, who supports our conclusions.”

      Which support your conclusions of what? That nanothermates could achieve the effects alone?
      Again, I have read Jones himself saying that he never claimed that it was simply these thermate materials, that there were most likely other explosives involved.

      You say most of the movement are taken in by a fantasy…”scientifically unwarranted but politically useful (for those who did not want the manner in which the Twin Towers were destroyed to be uncovered).”

      And you say this after misrepresenting Jones, and I do believe lying about something he told you with no one else present. And this last sentence is simply liable to claim that Jones et al are trying to hide something for “political reasons’.

      Furthermore, for YOU to accuse anyone of promoting theories that are “scientifically unwarranted”, after all the bullshit you have slung for the last several years is most remarkable, disingenuous, and frankly, Laughable.

      ww

      1. There were others there at the time with whom I shared my conversation with Steve at the time. I would be glad to swear to it in a court of law. This guy is working overtime. For anyone who wants to pursue it, look at our articles, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html , and “Is 9/11 truth based upon a false theory?”, which he and I published in Veterans Today at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/ , which includes the table of comparisons and the chart by Dwain Deets that I mentioned above. My only advantage over this guy is that I was there and he was not and that I and Mark have exposing falsehoods and revealing truths as our agenda and he does not. This is very bad.

      2. Jim,

        Before you and HR1 go off on this discussion, could you please give me a simple answer to a simple question?

        Why did you show the “missile video at Pentagon” in your presentation?

        I’ve shown Gordon Duff that it’s a fake.

        You’re guilty of promoting blatant disinfo.

      3. Fetzer says,

        “There were others there at the time with whom I shared my conversation with Steve at the time. I would be glad to swear to it in a court of law.”

        Yea? What others? Who did you share it with at the time? It’s easy to say your would swear to it in a court of law on a blog like this.

        Yes, I would suggest others read the articles you cite as well. I read them, that is why I am commenting on them. For the discerning reader it is obvious that those articles are rhetorical hit pieces built of tortured language, misrepresenatations and doubletalk.

        Like your pal Hightower admits at his blog with the emails between he and Jones:

        “My opinions that I believe you have paraphrased in questions 2 and 3 are *based upon my interpretation* of some of your writings (cited below). I am saying that the most logical
        interpretation* for me of what you wrote.”~Mark Hightower

        So here Hightower admits that he is not answering Jones, but his *interpretation of what Jones said. He even admits this right there on the page.

        Both of you know damned well that Jones said what he said, and said that the reinterpretation of what he said is not what he meant at all.

        http://tmarkhightower.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/steven-jones-questions-t-mark-hightower-10202011-and-hightowers-response/

        “Jones is definitely differentiating “superthermite” from “thermite,” and
        putting superthermite in the category of explosive rather than
        incendiary like thermite, but it also seems clear that he is putting
        superthermite in the category of high explosive because he defined his
        use of the term “explosive” as high explosive.”Mark Hightower

        This is total rhetorical bullshit. Hightower admits that Jones told him himself that he wasn’t calling superthermite a “high explosive”

        Jones’ sentences in question are:

        “In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. “Superthermites”
        are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation…”

        ANALYSIS:

        “In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered.” “Superthermites”are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation..”

        To claim that Jones has “defined” his use of the term “explosive” as “high explosive,” is obviously rhetorical jabberwacky. Jones was making a statement not defining words…and furthermore Jones has categorically denied that he meant anything more than he said clearly in those sentences, that he does not mean ‘superthermites’ are “high explosives”.

        If it isn’t obvious in this that Jones complaint about putting words in his mouth is valid, then you need therapy.

        ww

  24. What did 9/11 are the same as Chemtrail Planes, Black Helicopters, Orbs of light that make the crop circles, MIBs, and it is connected to the Occult. They are energy BEINGS. They are plasma-based life-forms. They are Alien/Demon Devils, from Sirius. No planes were involved in 9/11, at all. It was an Occult sacrifice to Sirius. Isis (Is Is) two towers = The OCCULT, not Israel, but Satanists, all over the world know about it. They were built to be taken down on 9/11. These alien/demons are going to make themselves known!

    1. Again, how wonderfully serendipitous for Israel and Lucky Larry. Thank you, alien/demons!

      C’mon, you can’t be “Sirius”.

  25. And so, I decided to do some looking into this guy, T. Mark Hightower. I find in him another rhetorical mulchpincher. No wonder he and Fetzer have teamed up to defame Jones, birds of a feather.

    On Hightower’s blog, he reproduces emails sent to him by Steven Jones.

    Here is the first one, which shows Jone’s concern that they are misrepresenting what he has said about nanothermates:

    > Steven Jones – July 20, 2011 { Email to: T. Mark Hightower }

    “Here is my published blog on 911Blogger.com, which offers my views and
    I hope that JimF will no longer misrepresent me — feel free to QUOTE
    anything from this — not paraphrase! Paraphrasing is evidently
    fraught with error and a higher probability for misrepresenting. Note
    particularly the portions highlighted.”

    “You may quote me from my published papers and blogs, but please do not
    put words into my mouth.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The next email from Jones is more explicit, and one can tell from the questions what he considers to be misrepresations of what he has said. I am going to post just the Jones email, as on Hightower’s blog, he takes Jones’ words and interprets them – answering the reinterpretations rather than what Jones actually asks…which is a technique seen used by someone else concerned in this situation, as Jones himself refers to as misrepresenting him.

    Second email from Jones:

    On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Steven Jones { Email to: T. Mark Hightower }
    > wrote:
    > Subject: What say ye now?
    >
    > Mark,
    >
    > We talked briefly and have exchanged correspondance also.
    >
    > 1. Are you still saying that I said or say that the red-chip material
    > is a “high explosive”?
    >
    > 2. Are you still saying that I said or say that nanothermite
    > is a “high explosive”?
    >
    > 3. Do you now say that I place thermite and HMX/RDX in the
    > same category?
    >
    > 4. What are you saying about these issues now?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Steven Jones

    It is quite obvious from Jones’ questions, that those saying he said such things are misrepresenting him and putting words in his mouth.

    Of course this flies in the face of what Fetzer claims Jones said to him in private.

    No wonder Jones called it quits with this type of tactic used against him by not only Fetzer, but Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood.

    Can it be any mystery why the Truth movement is in splinters after this kind of thing happening not only to Jones, but Gage, Ryan, Balsomo and others?

    ww

  26. That onesliceshort says something is a fake does not make it fake. Gordon assured me it’s real, but I presented it because it is interesting as evidence that perhaps a missile did hit the building. We were doing our best to explore alternative theories about what happened and the idea that a missile may have hit the building was supported by no less an eminence than Donald Rumsfeld.

    So I thought it was worth presenting and specifying its source. As I write this, I do not know if it is real or Memorex, but I certainly find it fascinating how quickly some here are to label others as “liars” or as “disinfo ops”, both of which require KNOWING that what you are saying or presenting is false. No doubt I make my own share of mistakes, but misleading people is not among them.

    In this case, I am agnostic. I will share with Gordon your dismissal and get his take on this, which may be to suggest this is projecting. I addressed several theories about how the faking of Flights 11 and 175 may have been done, where I could not possibly consistently endorse them all. In my view, the evidence for real videos of a fake plane–a holographic projection–is now substantial.

    _______________

    onesliceshort says:
    June 22, 2012 at 6:25 am
    Jim,

    Before you and HR1 go off on this discussion, could you please give me a simple answer to a simple question?

    Why did you show the “missile video at Pentagon” in your presentation?

    I’ve shown Gordon Duff that it’s a fake.

    You’re guilty of promoting blatant disinfo.

    1. Jim, let’s cut to the chase here. The video is disinfo. I never called you an “op”.

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-6810

      Apart from the fact that the source of the video has been identified, as an ex-military guy (as well as Gordon Duff) are you suggesting that the white blur seen representing a “missile” striking the facade bears any resemblance to reality?? Seriously?

      Here, have another look:

      Jim. A reminder of what you posted at Veterans Today

      Jim Fetzer
      Aug 30 – 1:51 pm

      A friend of mine, Mike Sparks, has informed me that the video footage of the missile strike is faked. I think Gordon’s article is an excellent summary overview and agree about Jesse’s show. But, even though it looks quite realistic and I believe that a missile was fired at the building–very much as the video suggests–this one is fake, which may lead many to infer that no missile hit the Pentagon. This is parallel to the retyping of Bush’s fitness report, which Dan Rather verified–word for work–with the CO who wrote it and the secretary who typed it. But it had been retyped with a newer font, which meant that the document was faked and many therefore inferred its content was false. This case is parallel.

      http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t827508-2/

      Quote:

      I’m looking for the forum that had this. It was a woman that made the vid & did the CGI. The aerial footage of the Pentagon was from a DOJ publicity film. The woman admitted it was fake.

      The DoD Stock Footage (no missile strike)

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=950747302892463742&ei=X3ybSaenHp-G_AHz0uGnBQ&q=pentagon+stock+footage&hl=en

      What did the audience/judges say?

      1. You have me on this one, slice! I had forgotten that Mike had corrected me about it. It was the last item I added to my presentation in the belief that it was interesting enough to show. Some were impressed by it, but I am going to clarify that this appears to be fake. Thanks about this!

  27. Sherif Shaalan says: “A completely Zionist controlled government cannot and will not investigate itself.”

    True.

    However it is not true _because_ it is Zionist controlled [assuming , for the sake of argument that you are correct about it being so controlled], but because that is simply the nature of _all_ governments everywhere, past, present and future.

    That essential nature can never be changed, controlled, or limited – expecting it to be otherwise is just wishful thinking and a waste of time.

    It really makes no difference exactly which nefarious group [you name it], ultimately controls a government; if you want governments in the first place [which I assume you do], then this [i.e. an innate inability to ever objectively investigate itself], is just one tiny part of the massive price you must pay for having that government.

    Another part of that price is having false flag terror events like 9/11 happening. It’s just what governments do as part of their essential modus operandi, no more, no less, – what they _must_ do, what they’ve always done, and what they always must/will do in the future [as long as they exist].

    If you honestly believe that it would investigate itself honestly if it were not controlled by Zionists but by some other group you favor [again assuming that that is indeed the case], then you are being more than a little naive, in my humble estimation.

    As Murray Rothbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard famously quipped: “the government is a gang of thieves writ large” [or words to that effect] .

    Expecting governments to honestly investigate themselves is about as worthwhile or productive as waiting for pigs to fly.

    See: “The Inherent Criminality of All Governments” :http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2007/01/inherent-criminality-of-all-governments.html

    and: “The Lying, Criminal State” :http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2007/10/lying-criminal-state.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Jim Fetzer says:

      “It seems to me that some of those (such as hybridrogue1) most eager to describe others (such as me) as “liars” appear to be the leading practitioners of the art. In this case, the evidence that nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming.”

      You say nanothermites are not explosive?? That is anal hurlant, go tell it to the boys at Lawrence Livermore doing the sol-gel explosives work there.

      The history of nanothermite appears to go back far enough to be considered as a possible explosive in 2001. Here is a patent which is dated several years earlier.
      US19960684781
      19960722 (July 22, 1996)
      Legal status (INPADOC) of US5885321
      US F 68478196 A (Patent of invention)
      PRS Date: 1997/07/22
      PRS Code: AS02
      EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15

      Abstract of US5885321
      Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing alane-adducts in organic solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highly uniform particles selectably sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic materials including composites, super thermite, and other explosives.
      Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition. Once the nano thermite had been developed one would expect that over time various modifications using additives would be developed for different purposes. For example there is strong evidence that sulphur was incorporated (see appendix C of the FEMA report). Sulphur has the effect of lowering the melting point of steel. The term thermate is applied to such material. Other chemicals can be added to generate gas and thus produce an effect more like a conventional explosive.
      ~~~~~~~~~~

      Thermite Plasma Arc:
      Plasma arc treatment directs an electric current through a low-pressure gas stream that creates a thermal plasma field. Plasma arc fields can reach 5000 to 15000°C.

      In the Komatsu patent, a plasma arc is generated from a plasma torch, but with this difference. The supply gas for the plasma torch is mixed with thermite power and is jetted into the resulting plasma arc environment. The heat of the generated plasma arc causes the thermite powder to ignite, inducing a thermite reaction. When directed at the surface of the concrete structure, the thermite reaction heat and the plasma arc heat synergize each other to efficiently melt the concrete surface. The patent details a method of controlling the rate of supply of the thermite power to the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction.

      \\][//

    2. If you honestly believe that it would investigate itself honestly if it were not controlled by Zionists but by some other group you favor [again assuming that that is indeed the case], then you are being more than a little naive, in my humble estimation.

  28. It seems to me that some of those (such as hybridrogue1) most eager to describe others (such as me) as “liars” appear to be the leading practitioners of the art. In this case, the evidence that nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming:

    (1) it is a principle (law) of materials science that, for an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material;

    (2) the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, 6,100 m/s;

    (3) the highest known for nanothermite is 895 m/s;

    (4) which means, “You can’t get there from there”.

    The myth of “explosive nanothermite” has been perpetuated by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage, who only recently had to revise A&E911’s standard video, “Explosive Evidence”, to slightly downplay the role of “explosive nanothermite” because nanothermite is not explosive.

    (5) “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” appeared 1 May 2011 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

    (6) Kevin Ryan was still trying to defend “The Explosive Nature of Nanothermite” on 20 June 2011, http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite

    (7) “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” appeared on 17 July 2011 in Veterans Today, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

    Nevertheless, during the Toronto Hearings, neither Kevin Ryan nor Neils Harritt nor any other representative of the nanothermite gang bothered to inform the public that it is non-explosive;

    (8) Josh Blakeney published, “The Pros and Cons of The Toronto Hearings”, 20 September 2011, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/20/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-toronto-hearings/;

    (9) I published “The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings”, 28 September 2011, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/28/the-science-and-politics-of-911-the-toronto-hearings/

    In spite of it all, we invited Steven Jones, Neils Harritt, and Richard Gage to speak in Vancouver in our effort to resolve our differences. They not only declined but Gage made an effort to talk Vancouver 9/11 out of supporting our conference, which was a stunning betrayal of 9/11 Truth.

    And now you are making a Herculean effort to resurrect debate about a scientific question that has long been settled and implying that I am not even capable of reporting my own conversation with Steve Jones! I have seen some low life in 9/11, but you are setting a whole new standard.
    _______________

    hybridrogue1 says:
    June 22, 2012 at 9:47 am
    Fetzer says,

    “There were others there at the time with whom I shared my conversation with Steve at the time. I would be glad to swear to it in a court of law.”

    Yea? What others? Who did you share it with at the time? It’s easy to say your would swear to it in a court of law on a blog like this.

    Yes, I would suggest others read the articles you cite as well. I read them, that is why I am commenting on them. For the discerning reader it is obvious that those articles are rhetorical hit pieces built of tortured language, misrepresenatations and doubletalk.

    Like your pal Hightower admits at his blog with the emails between he and Jones:

    “My opinions that I believe you have paraphrased in questions 2 and 3 are *based upon my interpretation* of some of your writings (cited below). I am saying that the most logical
    interpretation* for me of what you wrote.”~Mark Hightower

    So here Hightower admits that he is not answering Jones, but his *interpretation of what Jones said. He even admits this right there on the page.

    Both of you know damned well that Jones said what he said, and said that the reinterpretation of what he said is not what he meant at all.

    http://tmarkhightower.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/steven-jones-questions-t-mark-hightower-10202011-and-hightowers-response/

    “Jones is definitely differentiating “superthermite” from “thermite,” and
    putting superthermite in the category of explosive rather than
    incendiary like thermite, but it also seems clear that he is putting
    superthermite in the category of high explosive because he defined his
    use of the term “explosive” as high explosive.”Mark Hightower

    This is total rhetorical bullshit. Hightower admits that Jones told him himself that he wasn’t calling superthermite a “high explosive”

    Jones’ sentences in question are:

    “In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. “Superthermites”
    are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation…”

    ANALYSIS:

    “In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered.” “Superthermites”are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation..”

    To claim that Jones has “defined” his use of the term “explosive” as “high explosive,” is obviously rhetorical jabberwacky. Jones was making a statement not defining words…and furthermore Jones has categorically denied that he meant anything more than he said clearly in those sentences, that he does not mean ‘superthermites’ are “high explosives”.

    If it isn’t obvious in this that Jones complaint about putting words in his mouth is valid, then you need therapy.

    ww

    1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

      “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)

      I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.

      Defense Laboratory at Livermore, California:

      “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives intothe bulk metal oxide materials.
      These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

      “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]” B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,”~Clapsaddle 2005.

      What is the difference between ordinary thermite and nano-thermite?

      There are major differences, although the basic thermitic reaction is involved in each: Aluminum powder + Iron-oxide powder ? (ignited) ? Aluminum-oxide + Molten Iron

      Enormous energy is released as molten iron is formed, and this typically ends up either as flowing molten metal or, if ejected into the air, as metallic-iron spheres (which are found in the WTC dust in great abundance: Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf ). Technical point: other fuels can be substituted for aluminum, and other oxidizers for iron-oxide. Here’s a summary of major differences:

      THERMITE Starts with larger particles of aluminum and iron-oxide (bigger than about 100 nanometers) Incendiary (non-explosive) Sulfur added (typically called thermate) forms a eutectic with molten iron product, staying liquid at lower temperatures (red-orange-hot) when ordinary iron and steel would be solid.

      NANOTHERMITE Starts with particles of aluminum and iron-oxide smaller than about 100 nanometers; hence “nano” Often mixed with organic material so as to generate gas Can be tailored to be explosive (see point 1 above), or used as a trigger material –for explosives used for demolitions.~Jones

      “I have consistently noted that more conventional explosives may very well have also been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. And the presence of orange-colored molten metal flowing from the South Tower just minutes before its complete fall along with a bright white fire (both admitted by NIST) strongly indicates the presence of pyrotechnic thermite plus sulfur. (Thermite when ignited generates white-hot molten iron; sulfur keeps the iron liquid to lower orange-hot temperatures and allows the liquid iron to attack steel much more vigorously.)”~Jones

      ww

  29. Jim Fetzer says: “In my view, the evidence for real videos of a fake plane–a holographic projection–is now substantial.”

    And yet Jim, you have never, to this day, done any real hard-core purely technical analysis of the videos that you believe are genuine [ at this point I’m assuming Fairbanks, Hezerkhani and Naudet], to try to establish a little more firmly whether they are genuine or not, but have instead assumed they are genuine based purely on the non-cross-examined, none substantiated “eyewitness testimony” of one Scott Forbes who claims to have watched Fl 175 disappear inside WTC2 in the manner depicted in this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGlohdWhY

    As I have mentioned before, and regardless of your conclusion, I still do not understand how the believing of unsubstantiated alleged “eyewitness testimony” has anything at all with reaching a conclusion based on using a sound scientific methodology [versus doing a thorough , honest, frame by frame analysis/ investigation of both the content of those videos and the technical aspects involved in their creation] .

    But , to be fair, you are in “good ” company.

    Neither Prof. Steven Jones, nor Prof. Judy Wood have undertaken any serious prolonged photo/video analysis and authentication process themselves before reaching their so-called “scientifically derived” conclusions about what specifically was used to destroy the towers, and so we are left with the humorous spectacle of Jones and Wood fantasizing about such observed “phenomena” as alleged molten metal cascading out of the side of floors, alleged “hot spots” of molten metal that glowed for weeks after, and the alleged “dustification” of steel, concrete, and God knows what else.

    All such “scientifically derived conclusions” arrived at via the totally unscientific initial assumption that the network videos were indeed genuine real time, and did not need to be thoroughly checked , frame by frame beforehand , when in fact close analysis of all of the various network archive footage for that day depicting the WTC tower collapses [and that of building 7], shows obvious signs of pre-fabrication [including the entire Fox 5/CNN sequence of Fl. 175 striking WTC2 see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ ] .

    See: “CGI Collapse Footage” :http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=59ca4ee1bd6e700a2fbeda89fad97b73 ,

    and “911 Sim City” :http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=386&sid=08adc47134217b2e411e451d49952f15

    And even if you disagree with the conclusions of those various analyses linked to [as most here would] , the fact remains that none of the “big name” scientific personalities currently engaged in 9/11 research has ever made any concerted effort at video or photographic imagery verification before reaching their conclusions, which to a large degree rest on the unquestioned assumption that the images they have reviewed to date must all be genuine.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. I have laid out the case for the use of a hologram on 9/11 many places, which is now about to be supplemented by my presentation at The Vancouver Hearings. Here are some related articles:

      “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

      “9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/

      “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/

      “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

      Now if you think I have something wrong, then quote what I have said, explain why I have said it (so I can tell whether or not you have understood me), then explain what I have wrong and why.

      1. Jim Fetzer says:

        “Now if you think I have something wrong, then quote what I have said, explain why I have said it (so I can tell whether or not you have understood me), then explain what I have wrong and why.”

        To which I reply, Touche’ Fetzer, and if you think I have something wrong, then quote what I have said, explain why I have said it (so I can tell whether or not you have understood me), then explain what I have wrong and why.

        Boola boola?

        ww

      2. “No doubt I make my own share of mistakes, but misleading people is not among them.”~Jim Fetzer

        Smile when you say that pardner.

        Now “this guy” Fetzer has made some bold assertions on this thread. One of which is a slur against me, he says:

        “I have seen some low life in 9/11, but you are setting a whole new standard.”

        I suppose this is meant as an insult, well surely it is – but it is pretty ineffective considering the source. That source, “this guy” Fetzer has the chutzpah to come off like this, but when directly challenged to stand to his own challenging remarks, he suddenly vanishes.

        I have left that challenge below at June 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm. This is why I chose to make this commentary here, so that that challenge is left in plain sight, rather than buried in these surrounding comments.

        Fetzer has come up with, what I and I think some others as well would see as lame excuses for promoting that video on the missile striking the Pentagon. And then he claims in the quote above that, “misleading people is not..” part of his standard repertoire.

        I would assert that this is simply not so, that Fetzer has a well known track record on such an account. There are in fact many examples on various threads of this very blog. “Mistakes”, if they are so, must be rectified to be counted as such. As Rob Balsamo, and others have pointed out, Fetzer never has the wherewithal to admit to a mistake, not even small inconsequential ones, let alone the major tangle of Orwellian twine that he has woven throughout the 9/11 debates.

        It is too late for caveats or excuses from Fetzer as to the challenge I’ve put at the end of this thread, because he obviously has no idea as to what the brisance is for these sol-gel mixtures, because he can have no idea of their formulations. Nor can he have any idea of what their applications might be, whether detonators for a thermobaric aerosol, as cutter charges, as plasma torches, etc.

        In fact it has been shown conclusively {yet again} that he doesn’t have any idea of what he is talking about. Everything is a bluff, top to bottom. One would note, that practically every reference he ever cites is a doubleback to his own articles, or collaborations. These are simply appeals to his own ‘authority’ as a “scholar” – which seems dubious in light of his MO.

        Obviously I am aghast at this person’s influence on the 9/11 Truth community, and I am baffled that such influence is still at play after so many years of his glaringly obvious pranks.

        ww

  30. “It seems to me that some of those (such as hybridrogue1) most eager to describe others (such as me) as “liars” appear to be the leading practitioners of the art. In this case, the evidence that nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming.”

    So, as to Fetzer’s challenge of June 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm:

    “…if you think I have something wrong, then quote what I have said, explain why I have said it.., then explain what I have wrong and why.”

    In your quote above you say, and I quote; “the evidence that nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming.

    To explain why you said it. There are several possibilities: 1} You have no idea of what you are talking about. 2} You are crazy. 3} You are a disinfo agent. 4} All of the above.

    To explain what you have wrong and why, I refer you to these two post right here in this thread today: June 22, 2012 at 4:23 pm and June 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    NOW, it is your turn to explain why you have it wrong, because HOW you have it wrong is duly documented in those posts; That nanothermites are explosive [Lawrence Livermore Labs et al, as listed]. That Dr. Jones has consistently maintained that there were most likely other explosives used along with nanothermites to bring down the towers – and all of your attacks on him on this head are disingenuous bullshit.

    ww

  31. Jim Fetzer and Steven E. Jones were the faces of the first major “9/11 truth” group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They had a very public disagreement and a ridiculous pantomime ensued, before Jones split from the group to create his own group; Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. In hindsight, this was all part of the psychological operation of 9/11 perception management.

    Incidentally, both 9/11 scholars groups chose to use an illuminated torch in their logos – http://st911.org/

    This info comes from the bottom of this you-tube -this is an interview from June 7, 2012 on the Deanna Spingola Show, featuring Dr. Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and Dr. Eric Larsen.

    Jim Fetzer i like the way supposedly said: “Fetzer praised Judy Wood for “the most brilliant analysis of effects that have to be explained.” He added that he can’t understand why she has cut off communication with him. Fetzer also praised the research of Citizen Investigation Team.”….but i am still eagerly waiting along with the rest of the world when you are going to release this info. There seems to be a black-out except for the black box info that was released on you-tube.

    Hopefully Fetzer will manage to put on-line his Vancouver hearing soon and it may well be of better quality.

    Jim Fetzer you need to advise Gordon Duff Senior Editor at Veterans Today that 911 was remote viewed in great detail. We had endless 911 info before 911. There will be mass arrests and we will have endless more 911 info. In other words we already know the real truth. Please look at my web site:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/-Remote-view-this-Aha-Moments/216808478342115

    1. The Dennis Cimino presentation was the “old” Dennis I remember at Pilotsfor911Truth.
      …up until the last 6 minutes. No mention of the NOC testimony – which is fine if he was solely concentrating on the (bs) FDR data – but to use the lightpoles, Lloyd England and the “5 frames” to push the “something must have hit” mantra smacks of exactly the same disregard for verifiable evidence that the likes of Sarns and John Farmer are fond of muddying the waters with.

      Couple that with the Gordon Duff “missile video” that Jim Fetzer showed in the full knowledge that it was a fake.

      So here we have the “missile video” and the “5 frames” being pushed as legit, while claiming that every single image and video of the south tower impact were fabrications.

      Get real people.

  32. Michael John Wegrzyn says:

    “a ridiculous pantomime ensued, before Jones split from the group to create his own group”

    The only “ridiculous pantomime” is this bullshit ‘remote viewing’ trip you keep tossing into the threads here at the most opportune junction to distract the conversation.

    As I am totally familiar with this ‘remote viewing’ scam of Major Ed Dames, I can speak to this without the bafflement that some on this thread might have.

    Wegrzyn goes on to say:

    “We had endless 911 info before 911.”

    Which is very interesting, especially the fact that nothing was told about this until after the fact. The same MO as Ed Dames and the crap he used to put out on the Art Bell show – ‘Coast to Coast’ …which was airing in the months leading up to September 11, 2001, with every sort of wild prediction of what the near future was going to hold {atomic war on the Korean peninsula, for example} – But somehow Ed Dames and his remote viewers FAILED TO MENTION THE SIGNAL EVENT that was just over the horizon from these broadcasts.

    I would suggest that Deanna Spingola get back to her quilting, and Judy get back to cooking spoons in her microwave.
    And you Mr. Wegrzyn, perhaps you can go back to your basement play with your new age Ouija board.

    BTW, the Pentagon flt recorder being a fraud is no secret to genuine researchers.

    ww

  33. Jim Fetzer says: “I have laid out the case for the use of a hologram on 9/11”

    Jim Fetzer says: “Now if you think I have something wrong, then quote what I have said, explain why I have said it (so I can tell whether or not you have understood me), then explain what I have wrong and why.”

    Jim, I don’t know how many more ways I can find to try to make the same point.

    This will be my 4th or 5th repetition of that same exact point. After this I give up on you.

    My critique of your conclusion :”..the use of a hologram on 9/11″ , is purely methodological in nature.

    As I see it, to reach your conclusion [ i.e.”..the use of a hologram on 9/11 ..”], you have made two initial assumptions:

    Assumption [1]: that the laws of physics were not suspended that day and that therefor Newton’s 3rd law of motion was fully operative, meaning it was/is impossible for the plane depicted in the video [e.g. the Evan Fairbanks footage] to enter the WTC2 facade in the exact same number of frames as it took to travel to travel through thin air as the video depicted, or not to have lost significant parts prior to entry :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGlohdWhY ] ,

    and your assumption [2] : that the alleged “eyewitness”, “Scott Forbes” , who you interviewed, and who claims to have witnessed the plane doing exactly what is depicted in the Fairbanks video, is telling the truth, because you claim he “sounds” as if he is credible and telling the truth.

    From those two assumptions follows your subsequent conclusion, which is : “..the use of a hologram on 9/11”,[ because real planes obviously could not have performed the feat seen in the video[s].]

    But as I have repeatedly tried to point out to you before, your “scientific” conclusion [“..the use of a hologram on 9/11”] is 50% based on unsubstantiated, non-cross-examined verbal testimony which has nothing to do with standard scientific methodology!

    You have never even done a thorough background check of this Forbes character. You take him at his word!

    You even appear to be entirely unaware of the fact that the creator of the video linked to above [Evan Fairbanks] l is a known video compositing/editing professional!

    Your conclusion [ [“..the use of a hologram on 9/11”] , manages to completely ignore the other viable possibility : that Forbes character is either extremely confused or a paid liar, and that the video in question, like all others similar in content, is nothing more than a 100% digital forgery, every last pixel of it.

    Methodologically speaking, your giving equal weight to unsubstantiated verbal testimony from Scott Forbes [or whomever] as is given to the “testimony” of a 300+ years old , peer reviewed, laboratory tested [i.e.100’s of 1000’s of times tested/re-tested for confirmation] basic law of physics, to reach your supposedly “scientific” conclusion [i.e.”..the use of a hologram on 9/11″] is highly inappropriate, if not a direct insult to Newton’s legacy and scientific methodology, as far as I can see.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. As far as speaking to Fetzer Onebornfree…el topo seems to have burrowed back into his tunnels under the garden and is feasting on the roots.

      Maybe he could be flushed out with Señor el Verbosogrande’s thermite filled garden hose…?

    2. This is pretty silly. I liked Scott Forbes because he came across as completely credible, as any who listen to the interview can determine for themselves. When he reported his astonishment when “the building swallowed the plane”, I was convinced. Go to radiofetzer.blogspot.com and search for “Scott Forbes”. There are plenty of others who reported witnessing a plane — or, better, what they took to be a plane, including some 300 firefighters. And well they should have. See “911 Flight 175 Radar Data 3-D Analysis” by Richard D. Hall, which complements all of the other arguments I have presented: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=49497 Everyone is going to have to sort this out for themselves. Certainly your posts are not going to persuade anyone.

  34. Michael John Wegrzyn says:

    “9/11 Vancouver Tribunal expected to issue Indictments in 9/11 events around Labor Day 2012”

    “Indictments,” you say. And to what court exactly are these “Indictments” to be issued to?

    Another toothless tribunal in Timbuktu? A presentation to the ‘High Masters of the Earthly Quadrant at Galaxy Edge’? Perchance an offering at the altar of Cathulu the god of space/time vengeance?

    Enough of your rubric lines, speak with your own tongue.

    ww

  35. Oh, Michael! Yes, we are friends on FB! That’s why your name looked so familiar! Michael, are you really going to listen to someone named “hybridrogue”? haha But, Michael, it really wasn’t only remote viewed (which is totally real, and I’ve done it myself, and been targeted for doing it), it was PLANNED, the towers were built to be taken down on 9/11!

      1. Hi Craig,

        I can’t speak to anything elpfeifer has on his mind.

        But I understand that it isn’t a case of the towers built to bring down, it is an issue of at one point recognizing that they would have to be destroyed because of the asbestos content originally used in fireproofing and insulation.

        As this became a costlier and costlier proposition as time and prices went forward and up, the towers became a target for manipulation to the national security operators. As I have it, and it is a deep burrow of suppositions, it wasn’t until the late 70s or early 80s that some precise planning took place with a field artillery group stationed in Germany. I don’t have this on the tip of my file box, but a captain who wrote up the final plans for a false flag psyop similar to what took place did come forward and named names of superiors and such.

        He was first held to ‘state secrets’ protocol, and then some high-up in his command, had a change of mind, and let him loose…

        Like I say, and obscure story that I would have to search through my files for.

        ww

        1. How is this an obscure story, exactly? It sounds like an incredibly important one, if true.

          And what makes you so sure that the WTC towers weren’t built to be destroyed? The fact that David and Nelson Rockefeller were behind its construction should at least make us wonder. As you know, David Rockefeller was the founder of the Trilateral Commission, and he has been one of the most visible proponents of one-world governance at the hands of an “intellectual elite and world bankers.”

      2. Also Craig, as to the plan to destroy the towers. One of the 9/11 commission members, I believe it was Jamie Gourlick {sp?} who said quite enigmatically in a street interview, that the plan went back some 30 years, this would put it in the 70s if he was being specific in any way. This would jibe with the story from the artillery group in Germany being involved in a planning paper of that era.

        [???]

        ww

      3. Craig, you ask:

        “How is this an obscure story, exactly? It sounds like an incredibly important one, if true”

        I mean obscure in the sense that I haven’t heard it discussed anywhere…even here. Had you heard of it before? Do you know the guys name?

        As far as the Rockefeller connections and their influence on anything NY, I suppose there are all sorts of good reasons for theory such as the towers being built as symbolic – with such a demise planned all along. I just don’t know of any hard proofs of the assertion. But it is one of those things that fit together with the whole idea of a fruition plan for a 21st century New World Order.
        And as a theoretic is something I am inclined towards.

        ww

        1. I think if there were hard proofs available, we wouldn’t be talking about 9/11 because we’d know everything we needed to. I don’t think you have to have hard proof of something to examine it more deeply.

          I’m nowhere near an expert on numerology, but there are a lot of aspects of the World Trade Center that one can’t help but wonder about. One is the apparent significance of the number 11. The buildings look like an 11. They have 110 floors while Building 7 has 47 floors. The towers have 47 interior columns and 236 exterior ones (all adding up to 11). Each tower also had 21,800 windows. And of course, the date 9/11 (9+1+1=11). Interestingly, 9/11 occurred 11 years to the day after George H.W. Bush’s speech to Congress calling for the establishment of a New World Order.

      4. @Craig: Bob does not show his hand about the number 30. And his fatalistic statement of, “If that’s the condition upon which we are going to save our country . . . ” is creepy.

  36. Ah yes elpfeifer hahaha you hohoho say that hehehe,

    ” it really wasn’t only remote viewed (which is totally real, and I’ve done it myself”

    Which puts back on the table the question of why this was never revealed by the remote viewing gang beforehand?

    As it is Ed Dames who is the top dog of this new magic, having hauled it out of the bowels of the national security state. It seems he would have been first on it, with his “expert team” culled right from the ranks of the original military team.

    As I mentioned, he was on ‘Coast to Coast AM’ with Art Bell for the period leading up to 9/11. He predicted a lot of things that never came to pass, such as a nuclear war beginning in Korea, the usual monster storm oracles…{how can you loose there? There are ALWAYS monster storms brewing somewhere} – but not a peep about a 9/11 type event for NY.

    After the event he claims to have remote viewed the plotters in the caves of Afghanistan, lending credence to the official fairytale…no mention of space beams or demons with extra hot breath.
    Now this whole new tack comes along like donkey tails on his coat…

    Quo Vadis yo kiddos from the kookoo kloset??

    ww

    1. 9/11 was planned, and I’m sure Major Ed Dames knew about that plan. He’s not working for the good of the people, he works for the military, so don’t expect Ed Dames to come out and warn us of every little thing that is going to happen, Red.

      1. elpfeifer says:

        “Major Ed Dames knew about that plan. He’s not working for the good of the people, he works for the military..”

        Yes indeed, so you are now postulating that the good/bad major who is not working for the good of the people, nevertheless comes ‘out of the closet’ with this new ‘technology’ of ‘Remote Viewing’ and gives the straight skinny on how this all works to the public. Right…Lol

        I can see that you can’t see how none of this adds up, which is a clue as to your certain charming gullibility. And an indicator to me personally – not to speak for anyone else on this blog, that your judgement is perhaps not so trustworthy, Heliotrope.

        \\||//

  37. Okay, looks like I’m not going to get a response to blatant disinfo regarding the Pentagon? Let’s talk about “remote viewing” and 9/11….Jesus..

    It’s this type of “banjo music” (I like that term Willy) that are a distraction to discussion. That, and all the other crap that takes people’s eyes off the basic truth and logic that point to a corporate run military cabal that’s been responsible for millions of deaths throughout the last century. How can there be “Indictments” when these people run the show”??

    What bugs me is that people can make claims of holography and an army of “insiders” with fake footage. Or that orbital DEWs ground the towers to dust. Or that an invisible, zigzagging missile that knew when to blow up and when to stop, hit the Pentagon.

    But the very thought of staging “downed lightpoles” because all witnesses on record in the area saw the aircraft nowhere near them is insane.

    1. They can push light poles over, no problem. They can also erupt a volcano, cause an earthquake, and lots more. There is no insider footage. It looked exactly like it happened. The planes were there, but they weren’t real planes. There was sound, but it was not of a real jet. I have these entities over me all the time. i know what they are.

      1. @elpfeir: What then is the relationship of “they” to the US Government who has been so eager to cover for them, and to the many other beneficiaries of this tragedy.

      2. The relationship is that the entities and the U.S. Government, as well as all leaders all over the world, is very old, and how it works is a mutually beneficial relationship, based on favors that are done for pay!

      3. And what is the endgame for this destructive evil entity with incredible superpowers who does these secret mutually beneficial deals?

  38. The Pentagon was laid in a masonic ceremony on September 11th, 1941, the two towers, flight 11, flight 77, 9+2=11 (92) passengers..it was a sacrifice to Isis, or Sirius. VOICES told the architect how to build them, he said. This entity can talk to you, and it can mimic any kind of aircraft, with sound!

  39. All you have to do is get a little video camera (Sony handycam 60X zoom is good) and go out and film chemtrail planes for an hour or two. Look at your footage, and you will see that they are not real airplanes. That is what did 9/11.

    1. I share your interest in symbolism of numbers in dates, etc., but I have no idea what you’re talking about otherwise. Chemtrails are not made by real planes? Are you serious? Who are THEY exactly? I hope I don’t regret asking this question.

      1. Yea Craig, I am regretting this whole last portion of the thread actually.

        “banjo music” – a joke between OSS and I. I do believe we have a stringed instrument contest playing here way beyond any reasonable conjecture.

        I have gone over the Pentagon – Pentagram connections before myself here, as Craig well knows. Yes Masonic symbolism all over the street layout and architecture of DC as well. But symbolism and what it means to ritual and ceremony is one thing. It is quite another to ‘believe in’ the hoodoo bullshit and be “possessed” as in, “I have these entities over me all the time. i know what they are.”

        It is this kind of dialog that makes me think we are dealing with a psychological affliction in some of the commentators here.

        ww

        1. There is only one group of people who try to discredit anyone who know about the Occult, and they are the ones who came up with the bogus way to do it, through the fraudulent and totally made up afflictions, and that is psychiatry. Calling people mentally ill is how they hide everything, so hybridrogue, you just showed me your true colors.

      2. OMG You know “my true colors” Elpie — help I am shrinking turning to mist…fading awaaaayyy…

        Lol

        ww

      3. “There is only one group of people who try to discredit anyone who know about the Occult” says
        elpfeifer.

        Actually I have a very firm understanding of the Occult. I’ve studies it as a part of my cultural anthropology studies for at least forty years.

        There is a distinction however, between understanding it and being caught in it’s snare, to be enchanted and under its spell. To believe in all of its superstitious dogmatic mind splitting mantras. The original ‘Hashishans’ were these, the ones who failed to grasp the tests of the Old Man of the Mountain. Of course, this is the origin of the word ‘assassin’, the wild eyed fanatics, used as “action figures” by the Masters and adepts.

        It will not quell your distemper elpfeifer for me to reveal that I am Magus Maverik, one who understood and rejected and therefore attained the light. You can’t even understand what I am talking about when I speak to you in plain language. You have so many ingrams and filters guarding your mind that no rational information can get through the dark gates within your skull.

        You maintain these medieval romantic notions about “magic-Majik” that have been translated into new age lexicon for the 21st century ‘Hashishan’. So it is with the many…lost in various spells and delusions. Yours a more esoteric flavor, but delusional nonetheless.

        These ‘mystery schools’ all preach nonsense to the initiate, if they buy it, they get stuck at ‘GO’.
        They is no mystery, it is all before your eyes if you can but see.

        But don’t you worry, nobody lives forever.

        \\||//

      4. As Magus Maverik I speak from the deepest bardo, the center core located in the Pineal gland in the physical brain of the space/time frame. There is the connection to Ta Panta Nous as its experiential being on this plain. There is nothing ‘special’ about me for this – other than I have come to grasp it. WE are all just spirits in a material world.

        These are issues beyond the scope of this thread, and yet they have been opened by the caveat of pretenders, who speak to something so far beyond their grasp that it attains the aspect of tragicomedy to behold.

        May we now return to that material world and speak to it rationally?

        \\||//

  40. Personally I am wondering at the total absence of our dear Dr. Fetzer, and how this sudden affliction of belfry boys, just as the issues got hot enough for the doctor to pull his vanishing act again – seems a rather remarkable coincidence…and I have never been one to dabble in coincidence theory.

    I would very much like to see Fetzer’s excuses for his claiming that superthermates are not explosive in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

    Rather we are now dealing with a babbling cabal of Renfield clones flapping about on their leathery wings. WTF???

    ww

    1. The “occult” elpfeifer is talking about is the mystic, all powerful crock of nonsense that is meant to instill fear and despair among gullible, wide eyed newbies to 9/11. It’s also used to lead them down endless cul-de-sacs to prime them into believing any old bull bar the obvious. Keep ’em watching endless videos in ignorant supernatural bliss until the jackboots are beating on their door.

      The “occult” that should be taken seriously is the disgusting use of child abuse, ritual sacrifice and murder of innocents that have been and are used to blackmail politicians, judiciary, military and whoever else into silence and obedience. I mean, what better way to enforce silence?

      Or the “occult” psyop instigated by military intel (Aquino) for decades to blackmail and terrorize entire communities.

      http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/satanic_subversion.htm

      The “occult” can attract the dregs of society from the rich to the poor and used for whatever purpose. Perfect military black op material.

      Or the “occult” used to syphon out prime MKUltra fodder for experimentation and brainwashing.

      The word “occult” simply means “hidden”. nothing mystical or out of this world. Secrecy and the uglier side of loyalty are the endgame. It may also be a dropnet for the soulless bastards to help fill the black hole where a glimmer of conscience or humanity once may have existed.

      In the end, their god is money, power and control.

    2. I have repeatedly published links to the studies that demonstrate nanothermite is non-explosive:

      “An analysis of the WTC on 9/11”,
      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1

      “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

      “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

      “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

      1. Jim Fetzer says:

        “I have repeatedly published links to the studies that demonstrate nanothermite is non-explosive.”

        Repetition of bullshit is no less bullshit than the original bullshit.

        I have presented a host of counters to this obvious bullshit on this thread – none of which you will acknowledge. Citing your own flawed nonsense is nothing but an appeal to your own “authority” – which is so obviously bogus now that is is astonishing you would continue your dog and pony show.

        I am not going to list the proofs that nanothermites are indeed explosive that are right here on this thread. They are here for the candid world to see – as well as your inexplicable denial of the facts.

        You asked to be shown why and in what you are wrong. I obliged you. Now you simply handwave and deny that information.

        So here it is – you are EXPOSED as the charlatan you are.

        ww

  41. Here is more information to the effect of how much is actually known about the explosive qualities of nanothermates:

    Sol-Gel science and technology. The way of making materials in any form including fibers, films, particles and monolithic solids starting with liquids and molecular…

    A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite” is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 1 micrometre. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

    What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly.
    There are many possible thermodynamically stable fuel-oxidizer combinations. Some of them are:

    Aluminium-molybdenum(VI) oxide
    Aluminium-copper(II) oxide
    Aluminium-iron(II,III) oxide
    Antimony-potassium permanganate
    Aluminium-potassium permanganate
    Aluminium-bismuth(III) oxide
    Aluminium-tungsten(VI) oxide hydrate
    Aluminium-fluoropolymer (typically Viton)
    Titanium-boron (burns to titanium diboride)

    In military research, aluminium-molybdenum oxide, aluminium-Teflon and aluminium-copper(II) oxide have received considerable attention. Other compositions tested were based on nanosized RDX and with thermoplastic elastomers. PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction. Of the listed compositions, that with potassium permanganate has the highest pressurization rate.

    Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet-mixing and pressing.

    ww

  42. Over the last couple of days, elpfeifer has managed to inject his unique variety of superstitious twaddle into this otherwise serious thread about the events of Sept. 11 and the recent Vancouver Hearings. I hope Craig McKee will not allow this to go on, and risk having elpeifer’s prattling about unseen entities, numerology and other such inanities taint the serious science and politics discussed herein.

    June 24, 2012 at 6:59 pm
    The Pentagon was laid in a masonic ceremony on September 11th, 1941, the two towers, flight 11, flight 77, 9+2=11 (92) passengers..it was a sacrifice to Isis, or Sirius. VOICES told the architect how to build them, he said. This entity can talk to you, and it can mimic any kind of aircraft, with sound!

    1. The enormous mind-boggling occultic complexity of Satanism would have us all endlessly chasing the distraction of nefarious ghosts – much to the benefit of the criminals who are truly responsible.

      Although, there are many “grown-ups” who get mesmerized by this kind of thing, perhaps having a drivers license should be a minimum prerequisite for participation here.

  43. Jim Fetzer says: “We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. ” [quoted from the blog entry:“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html ]

    No you don’t “have visual evidence (videos)” Jim.

    All of the collapse sequence videos from all US TV networks allegedly broadcasting live that day,[ and archived here: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html ] , were pre-fabricated computer generated simulations and are all 100% digital fakes.

    Not even very good fakes at that. Fake towers, fake sky, fake bridges, fake trees, fake birds, fake scenery, fake smoke, fake helicopters, fake explosions and fake dust clouds. Fake everything. See : “CGI Collapse Footage” :http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=fd96f9d45ebe9a3d9958da125b8329b7 .

    As with all of the various supposed “live” “Fl.175 into WTC2” sequences, [e.g. Fox5, CBS, ABC, NBC,CNN, etc. plus all of the various “amateur” videos of the same event – also all digital fakes], there were _no_ live broadcasts of towers collapsing that day.

    The exact same [i.e.fake] holds true for the WTC7 collapse sequences :

    Therefor, there is simply no way to know for sure what was used to demolish the WTC complex that day, [and its not even that important to know in any case! ], since all of the current theories, [D.E.W., Nanonthermite, mini-nukes etc.] ,rely heavily on the analysis of 100% digitally faked WTC collapse sequences aired by complicit networks as “live” footage.

    _None_ of the “scientists” involved in the various “means of demolition” hypothesis’ have to date ever even bothered to thoroughly check the authenticity of the video footage to be used as their primary “evidence” source, and from which their “scientific” conclusions were largely to be drawn, before reaching any of those supposedly “scientific” conclusions. Very sad.😦

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. The same old song and dance over and over and over Onebornfree…

      TEDIOUS and yes, “very sad”.

      Perhaps Señor El Once can go through all the threads here and do a count of how many times you have said; “100% digitally faked”. I would reckon it numbers in the thousands by now.

      TEDIOUS..very very tedious.

      ww

      1. Since you are a video effects expert, perhaps you could explain how the apparent anomalies in the video about Building 7 offered by onebornfree can be explained?

      2. Sure Craig,

        Just a few points:

        The “dark lines” around the buildings that Shack claims are problems indicative of “Chroma Key Composits”, are nothing more than run of the mill compression / sharpening artifacts seen in JPEGs as still images and any number of video codecs which use a variety of compressive and image sharpening methods – especially when enlarged, and as a greater degree of these effects is applied – very artificial looking “outlines” are created at the boundaries of contrasting values of pixels.

        The actual major problems with chroma key is color spill: this is the reflection of color from the walls and backgrounds of the studio that tint areas of the subject and casts through the semi-transparent areas of the subject. Affected areas are usually hair, backs of shoulder, arms and legs and transparent clothing such as a wedding veil.

        What this results in are areas in a supposed solid object that show through to the background.

        A few other things to mention are the points made to the angle of the fall, “to the west” in one shot that shows much more of the buildings collapse than another shot that has a building in front that in fact blocks the fall before the westward angle becomes apparent in the first shot showing the angular movement.

        Again, my opinion is ten minutes of jumping from shot to shot with arrows and lines drawn in, and blurbs of commentary is not legitimate ‘Photo Analysis’ – but PR bullshit by someone who hasn’t the slightest idea what he is talking about – and apparently no idea as to why some of the footage is included. What does the footage with the announcer walking around in the rubble supposedly prove as far as digital fakery? That he wasn’t quite sure where he was?

        As far as commentary on the sound – there are too many mics and damping systems for sudden loud noises, to come to any decisive conclusions of any of this. Another indicator of Shack’s amateurish approach.

        ww

      3. Onebornfree

        The “scientific thesis” boils down to there not being enough fires, over any prolonged period of time to bring WTC7 down and that a eutectic mixture was found in the rubble.

        I can’t go into details of the “glitches” and “black lines” but I do know that the timeframes to compare the smoke patterns are up to an hour apart in some cases in that Simon Shack video.

        The Demetri footage has purposely been mixed up and the timeframes quoted by NIST, the timer on the FOIA footage and images from other angles do contradict eachother but this is more in line with upholding the lie that there were fires right through until 5:20pm

        I’ve gone into extreme detail with what we have available (check out the “4pm-5:20pm” section):

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085

        Here’s the video footage with the false timestamp (false in that it doesn’t add up):

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

        All WTC7 (and Ground Zero) footage is purposely jumbled, edited, cropped and generally buggered over a barrel but even with the paltry, exif free, censored and withheld photographic evidence, NIST’s claims are busted.

        That includes audio and the collapses.

        So let’s turf it on the NPT bonfire?

        As for the apparent “discrepancies” in the collapse footage of WTC7, you need to look at the collapse from several angles:

        Here’s a still from the North. The number of floors visible above the structure obstructing the lower floors is @21

        From the same sequence, a still showing the beginning of the deformation of the East facade. 6 floors above the structure:

        Here’s the still from the West. @18 floors are visible above the structure blocking the view of the lower floors:

        So the linear collapse seen in the Shack footage is only visible until 3 or 4 floors before the major distortion of the east facade begins.

        Here’s another still from the West showing the kink of the East face just beginning:

        And from the same footage, the west face can be seen to be majorly distorted:

        Please forward this information to Simon Shack. He must have “missed” those observations.

  44. @ Craig McKee: sorry about the imbedded video in my previous post Craig. I did not mean for that to happen.

    I merely posted a link to a youtube video called “WTC7 Study”, yet the published version of my post has done an automatic embed for some reason. The link, without the “www.” part in front of the address is: youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg hopefully that will sidestep the automatic embed issue. But then again, maybe not.

    regards, onebornfree

  45. Onebornfree

    “Therefor, there is simply no way to know for sure what was used to demolish the WTC complex that day, [and its not even that important to know in any case! ], since all of the current theories, [D.E.W., Nanonthermite, mini-nukes etc.] ,rely heavily on the analysis of 100% digitally faked WTC collapse sequences aired by complicit networks as “live” footage”

    Apart from the impact “analysis” of the same 9/11 “live footage” that you don’t trust. Gotcha.

  46. onesliceshort says: “Apart from the impact “analysis” of the same 9/11 “live footage” that you don’t trust. Gotcha.”

    You are correct, I do not trust that “impact “analysis” that you had previously posted – however, can you tell me exactly why you believe I don’t trust it? [i.e could you summarize my POV regarding my reasons for not trusting it, to make sure we are on the same page vis a vis my last response to you on the same “impact analysis” video ]?

    Also, would you make clear to me your reasons for assuming that it is genuine?

    regards, onebornfree

  47. @Craig McKee:

    Craig , either you have a serious bug in wordpress, or someone is messing with you. The link to the WTC7 study in my June 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm post has been mysteriously replaced with a link to another video called: “Michael Aquino – satinisusn – Mk-Ultra”

    1. The Michael Aquino video was posted by onesliceshort last night. Are you sure you were not looking at his comment? If not, it seems to have been a temporary glitch. I hope so, anyway.

      1. @ Craig McKee. I was thinking the same thing. Only, I clearly remember my text:”Therefore, there is simply no way to know for sure what was used to demolish the WTC complex that day,….” was directly underneath the embed, where it should have been. Anyhoo, it seems to have corrected itself now. Regards, onebornfree.

  48. Jim Fetzer

    “You have me on this one, slice! I had forgotten that Mike had corrected me about it. It was the last item I added to my presentation in the belief that it was interesting enough to show. Some were impressed by it, but I am going to clarify that this appears to be fake. Thanks about this!”

    That people can admit their mistakes openly is always something I’ve admired Jim, but to expect me to believe that you “forgot”? Fair dos if you point out that it’s fake, especially to Gordon Duff who still has it posted at Veterans Today, but I don’t know what to make of this blatant sensationalism.

    It was interesting to see that Gordon Duff removed my comments and link to the video that debunked it (if I’ve missed it, I apologize, but I don’t think I have).

    I also thought it odd that Dennis Cimino didn’t mention the NOC witnesses once in his close on 40 minute presentation. I commented earlier that I thought his insight into the FDR fraud was excellent but the last 6 minutes or so really disappointed me. Quoting Lloyd England, the lightpoles and the low res gatecam footage as “proof” that “something” struck the Pentagon only succeeds in muddying the waters when the NOC witnesses inclusively contradict all three scenarios. Whether intentionally or not.

  49. onebornfree says:

    ”Therefore, there is simply no way to know for sure what was used to demolish the WTC complex that day,….”

    No way to know for sure – aside from the physical results apparent in the aftermath, the exact signature characteristics left by controlled implosion.

    ww

  50. @Craig McKee. Craig, the Michael Aquino video replacing the WTC7 study I’d linked to phenomena was back again, I even took a screen shot to make sure I was not seeing things. ‘Seems to be an intermittant problem, and sometimes clears itself on page reload – just thought you should know.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  51. Jim Fetzer says: “This is pretty silly. I liked Scott Forbes because he came across as completely credible, as any who listen to the interview can determine for themselves. When he reported his astonishment when “the building swallowed the plane”, I was convinced.”

    My question remains: what has your liking of someone, plus their subjective “credibility”, have to do with reaching a “scientific” conclusion [i.e. that holograms of plane images were used on 9/11], methodologically speaking, Jim. I still don’t get it.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  52. Having lived and breathed special effects cinematography from the time I was twelve years old, it is difficult to relate to those who have little to no understanding of such things. This is where the frustrations come to both sides in the issue of ‘digital fakery’ of the 9/11 imagery. It occurred to me last night in the moments before falling asleep {as many epiphanies occur to me} that one of the major misunderstandings has to do with virtual space and things.

    So, to start on the ground floor of this, considering digital effects and animation, one must discard any preconceptions having to do with manual animation techniques, such as redrawing each ‘frame’ or ‘cell’ as it was called during that era. Or repainting backgrounds from varying angles and distances, as was done in Disney’s ‘Snow White’ or ‘Pinocchio’.

    In the digital realm is a virtual space. It begins in this virtual space, which is created in software programs called CAD. If one constructs a simple 3D item in CAD, one is not only dealing with surfaces, one is creating an item that takes up virtual space. All of the relationships of the components of such an item in this virtual space are constant. This is so in the entire digital realm. A virtual 3D space is created, and all component relationships remain constant – until ‘animation’ is applied. This movement is also all integrated into the virtual 3D space which is first and foremost a simple 3D grid with POV and perspective and light source algorithms plugged in.

    The point I lead up to here, is that once this virtual 3D “world” is created, it works on all the perimeters of a real world environment when properly constructed. It is therefore as “impossible” for mistakes such as one POV showing one particular event, while another shows some change in angles or any other component.

    These are things that betray the type of “analysis” done by Shack and his ilk. All of this is over and above the other silly “analysis”, such as ‘black outlines’ supposedly caused by mismatched chroma keying, or evidence of ‘clone tools’ used in animated video.

    ww

    1. As to my above post, I would suggest digesting what I have said above, and then going back to view the Shack “analysis” of WT7 onebornfree posted June 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm, and paying close attention to his arguments with this information in mind.

      As with many of the other “analysis” on CluesForum, there is a lot of pointing out “errors” from one video to another to do with plane paths, building and debris falls, etc. It would be absurd to claim that these are errors do to the ‘creators’ of this virtual presentation, as the first order of the day is to create the ‘virtual world – or stage’ in which all the action or animations would take place.
      And any change of angles would be flick of the switch programming of one time animations.

      Perhaps it is redundant, but I recognize that many are brand new to this. So I will try to make it clearer:

      If a virtual model of WT7 is created in CAD, and then an animation is done of it collapsing. This is now available to be rotated and viewed from any conceivable angle, it can be lit from differing light sources, zoomed into and away from etc. So any shots would be consistent in every way aside from lighting, which would be set based on the time of day the event is to be staged at.

      Thus, any inconsistencies Shack pretends to point out are all the product of his own imagination.

      ww

      1. Willy, if I hadn’t been researching the WTC7 fire progression and the way the building fell, I could have had that little seed of doubt planted in my mind. For me personally, that’s all that NPT entails. Doubt. Hone in on apparently “dubious” footage that in all likelihood has been touched up or censored to lessen the quality (as per the gatecam, Citgo and Doubletree Hotel footage) and let the imagination and naievity do the rest.

        Thanks for explaining the 3D virtual world in layman terms.

    1. David Howard says:

      9/11 Nukes – 9/11 Cancers… Google “China Syndrome Aftermath”

      I have read that. Now it’s your turn to read these rebuttal posts:

      Nanothermites Are Explosive:

      June 22, 2012 at 4:23 pm
      June 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm
      June 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm
      June 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm
      June 24, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      All posted in this very thread.

      ww

  53. I would say based on a dubious assumption, the question is asked; ‘Why would anyone want to hide the fact that nuclear devices were used to demolish the World Trade Center?’

    More to the point I would ask; Why are there those who want to diminish that which is the most coherent and fact based evidence, that of explosive demolition?

    Postulating the existence of mini-nukes is unnecessary; these weapons are well known to exist. Speculating to there use on 9/11 to bring down the towers is another matter entirely. The first question to be asked is, WHY?

    Why with all of the high powered munitions capable of and known to be sufficient – why turn to an exotic weapon such as nuclear or DEW? The second question is more critical however; How is it that the signature characteristics of the destruction so positively matches that of these non-nuclear devices?

    ww

    1. Why turn to exotic weapons such as nuclear or DEW? I’m assuming that someone like Dwain Deets genuinely believes that some major areas of evidence point to a nuclear component to the destruction. Do you suggest he should not say so publicly? And is it your position that all the cancer illnesses and deaths among first responders are due to breathing in airborne toxins and asbestos? Do you think these illnesses are compatible with an explosive demolition of the buildings?

      1. Craig,

        You remark then ask:

        “I’m assuming that someone like Dwain Deets genuinely believes that some major areas of evidence point to a nuclear component to the destruction. Do you suggest he should not say so publicly?”

        To answer your question about Deets; No of course I wouldn’t suggest such a thing as Deets refraining from any commentary he deems fitting to these questions.
        I would not throttle anyone’s right to their own opinions.

        And to this I would add that Señor el Once is as free as the wind to expound upon his nuke/nukeDew theories to his hearts content.
        Let him and others who will make their case to the candid world.

        Let any and all judge by their own lights.

        As to the issue of cancer illnesses and deaths among first responders; let us remember we are not just speaking to asbestos, but all manner of toxins, including mercury, much of it reduced to micro-fragments. There are more to the dust studies that Jones’ search for thermite. These show this material to be a soup of ultra toxicity to the extreme. Just to take asbestos as an example; it was blown to tinier particulates than any normal asbestos hazard.

        I do not know Deets’ new argument made at Vancouver, and cannot speak to it directly. When more is known as to his remarks I will comment at that point.

        ww

  54. Pardon this frank assessment. It is one always fit to be tailored to adjustment upon sound proofs countering aspects of it. For the present however, these are my thoughts:

    At this point I am coming to sense that, DEW, Nukes, No-planes, Digital Fakery…the whole new ‘Alternative 9/11 “Truth Movement” is the full press court by the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group.

    Interesting that Jenkins is “outed”for some very slim connections with NASA, compared to Deets, who is nothing if not deeply imbedded in that agency. This is obvious ‘cherry-picking’ on the part of those arguing for DEW/Nukes.

    It should be red flags high, when it is shown that nano-thermates are indeed explosives, and the family of sol-gels they are related to are certainly in the ‘High-Explosive’ category, but yet those who campaign strongly for nukes deny the open record on this by maintaining that “superthermite is not an explosive”. With a whole leg of their argument stuck in an obvious lie, I would be highly dubious of the other leg.

    ww

    1. Since “no (Big Boeing) planes”, Nukes, DEWs and other forms of fakery BLOW THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 OUT OF THE WATER, I find it very curious that this guy wants to suggest, “At this point I am coming to sense that, DEW, Nukes, No-planes, Digital Fakery…the whole new ‘Alternative 9/11 “Truth Movement” is the full press court by the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group.” As one who has written about the Cass Sunstein “cognitive infiltration” movement and believes it is being pursued, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html I am inclined to believe that Agent Rogue is far more likely to be a participant than an opponent. When we realize that all of the crash sites have been faked or that Nukes or DEWs were used, how could anyone have any doubt that THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD THE PUBLIC NOTHING BUT LIES ABOUT 9/11? And if that is the case, why is Agent Rogue suggesting the opposite is the case? This appears to be one of his most revealing posts. He is not a trustworthy source.

      1. Jim Fetzer says:

        “I am inclined to believe that Agent Rogue is far more likely to be a participant than an opponent. When we realize that all of the crash sites have been faked or that Nukes or DEWs were used, how could anyone have any doubt that THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD THE PUBLIC NOTHING BUT LIES ABOUT 9/11? And if that is the case, why is Agent Rogue suggesting the opposite is the case? This appears to be one of his most revealing posts. He is not a trustworthy”

        hybridrogue1 says:
        June 25, 2012 at 12:50 pm

        onesliceshort says:
        June 25, 2012 at 3:16 pm

        These are two examples of Fetzer’s remaining mum as to challenges against him. But then to suggest that I have in any way said anything at any time that supports the government position or that I disagree with the assertion that: “THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD THE PUBLIC NOTHING BUT LIES ABOUT 9/11” — are the true signs of the sort of rhetorical spin that moles and “agents” put out on these public blogs.

        So just who is the “not a trustworthy” source here is exposed here clearly as; “this guy” Fetzer.

        ww

      2. Jim Fetzer says:
        June 28, 2012 at 8:40 am

        Agent Rogue is not a trustworthy source.
        Only a brain dead blind person could not see Agent Rogue is pure psyop….

        Agent Rogue wanted me to speak in my own tongue so me not much intelligent but will try harder please:
        http://www.infowars.com/disable-the-purveyors-is-us-secretly-liquidating-dissidents/
        Most of this article by Kevin Barrett is correct.
        …..if you keep in mind that over 90% of the so-called 911 truth movement is psyop controlled.This includes Alex Jones and many of the people they talk about being victims are limited hang-out and left-gate keepers. Dr. Bob Bowman said he had 3-6 months to live back in 2006 conference.Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and Alex Jones are proven 911 psyop controlled.
        Mike Ruppert is a true American – world class hero along with some of these other people like Barry Jennings.
        People like Jim Fetzer are starting to realize that 911 was remote viewed in great detail back in Feb 2001. From day one he was being used by psyop and another very serious left gate keeper. Anderw Johnson shows all the evidence on his website -Andrew Johnson: checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/
        Jim Fetzer at the Vancouver Hearings stated: Fetzer praised Judy Wood for “the most brilliant analysis of effects that have to be explained.”…..this is courageous just like Jessy Ventura supporting
        http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/
        on the Alex Jones radio show.

        conclusion: article is a mix of truth and bullshit! Alex Jones knows this and supports this type of dis-info…..

        and….
        .http://theintelhub.com/2012/06/25/egypts-new-president-morsi-called-for-new-911-investigation/
        John Bolton gets Au revoir (pronounced o reh vwah) from fox news…a French Phrase for Goodbye.

        My goodbye word would be:Ciao
        Ciao (pronounced chow) is actually an Italian word. However, it is used informally in France and Québec to say goodbye.
        or….À demain
        À demain (pronounced ah duh mehn) means “see you tomorrow.” This phrase also fits in both informal and formal situations, depending on when you will see the person again.

        my translation is “see you tomorrow.” in jail Hehe

        Au revoir Señor John Bolton

        Cia’O /À demain – (pronounced cia demon)

        Au revoir Señor John Bolton

    1. alwhitesands says: “can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots?”

      Here’s a dumb question for you alwhitesands: how do you know for certain that there were in fact “hot spots”?

      Regards, onebornfree

      P.S. By the way, I’m _not_ pro or anti nano-thermite , I have no idea what was used to demolish the WTC complex, and I don’t even care. I think the whole issue is completely irrelevant and a deliberate distraction designed to cause in-fighting and confusion – a controlled opposition tactic no less . Steven Jones and Judy Wood and anyone else promoting their endless, unprovable theories which mostly rely on faked video imagery for their “proofs” about exactly what was used to demolish the WTC complex, or deliberately promoting endless debate about these type of demolition issues, could very easily be nothing more that parts of that controlled opposition, i.e., deliberate distractions to promote endless in-fighting and confusion, as far as I’m concerned.

    2. alwhitesands asks:

      “can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots?”

      Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steal, and supply their own oxygen source, I think nano-thermites can explain the hot spots.

      As the obvious goal was to totally destroy the towers, I think the destruction was designed in such a way as the evidence would “eat itself” with this extended burn within the rubble. I don’t think it is ‘happenstance’ that there is unreacted thermites in the dust – I think the contingencies were well thought out and the results witnessed and documented were purposely planned for.

      How this was accomplished is a matter of refining postulates that take a good deal of explanation, previously addressed. Rather than starting from scratch here, I will have to reference previous threads on this blog and in my docs.

      I will attend to this later in the day.

      ww

  55. Rubble Hot Spots:

    Anyone who has watched I fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes.
    We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation in the rubble pile.

    In a sense one could say that with these new chemically nano milled metals, and the addition of various gels and even biological material, a sort of ‘time-release capsule’ can be created, useful in propellent design – but can reach out to other tasks as well, such as simply growing ‘warm’ in a sort of slow motion reaction…or reacting so quickly that it can create an open field implosion, such as the so-called fuel-air bombs, known to have been used in Iraq that creates a vacuum within the blast zone as if the area itself is a chamber.

    It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “As for the effects of heat, the products of the pyrolysis of 1,3-DPP at 375°C are styrene and
    toluene, in equal amounts (Poutsma and Dyer 1982). This can occur directly in the dry
    composite (Kidder et al. 2005). Additionally, high temperature oxidation of toluene is known
    to produce benzene (Brezinsky et al. 1984).
    The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of
    typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials,
    buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, shortlived,
    and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all
    combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of
    smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to
    have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic
    materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those
    dates.”~Ryan et al
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Understand that a ‘burn-rate’ of a material is not the same as a ‘burn case scenario’.

    A “scenario’ implies a variety of specific circumstances, and in the case of the rubble pile a exponentially chaotic and complex theater – A ‘rating’ defines one single controlled circumstance.

    ww

  56. “Cast our memory back there lord…”~Van Morrison

    “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin

    The argument that too quickly dismisses, by leaping past the the issue of these distinct signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolition – without explanation of how an alternative can exactly mimic each and every aspect of that established profile, begin their argument in an already hobbled position.

    There are multiple points, including visual evidence, physical forensic evidence, wound evidence, sonic evidence, witness testimonies of their own sight hearing and physical experiences of multiple explosions. Some of these describe the sounds of perimeter wrap-around cutter charges, characterized as “bam bam bam bam,” punctuated by deeper rumbling booms. There is visual photographic evidence of ‘squibs’ – the whole litany every 9/11 researcher should recall from from 9/11 – 101. All of this must be weighed against any alternative theory challenging it.

    And yes of course, we should have progressed beyond 9/11 – 101. And we have, from the general observation made by Griffin above – to a specific find of ‘superthermates’, which leads most naturally into the whole vast technology of ‘sol-Gel’ nano milling, with a bonanza of products to familiarize oneself with, with an eye to narrowing down the field by effect/signature ratio.

    The obvious goal of the perpetrators was TOTAL DESTRUCTION, to turn the concrete, glass, furnishings, equipment…and people into fine particulate dust – and to blast the metal superstructure into thousands of pieces…and then steal that crime scene as entirely as possible.
    The large percussive bombings in the sub basement levels were to unseat the structure at grade level and shatter the rood of the structure as a preliminary – these were sequenced with the airplane strikes. Throughout the time of the plane impacts to final global demolition, there are evidences of continuing bombs going off throughout the buildings.

    An ERROR occurred:

    The area where the liquid iron was spilling from the corner of the first tower to fall was due to a foobar, apparently one of the Thermite Plasma Arc devices malfunction and continued melting the concrete and metal at that spot, causing the structure to weaken sufficiently enough that the weight of the upper stories bearing down caused premature buckling, and the top began to tip and twist.
    A spotter helicopter arrives to assess the situation, reporting it is likely to give way – plan B is immediately put into effect as the helicopter leaves post haste and the ‘wrong building’ is demolished first, as it was the second one hit by a plane. This became a signal suspicious aspect, both the time being shorter than the first tower to be hit – but the anomaly of liquid iron pouring from that area. All becoming clues leading to the thermite hypothesis, and eventually the whole host of sol-gel products; which include the fine nano-particulates used in thermobaric aerosols.
    And it is the thermobaric aerosols, and fuel air blasts that are my current hypothesis as to the major blasts that disintegrated the towers.

    That will be detailed in a forthcoming post.
    ww

    1. Señor Agent Rogue gets his butt kick on the the nuclear topic in another thread, so tries to do his triage over here.

      Aren’t I the lucky one, because across two postings (June 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm and June 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm), Agent Rogue prematurely promises me:

      That’s it Once, I’ve had it with your shit. Don’t address me again. … I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

      WooHoo!!! Time to go to town without backtalk on his last three four six posting here!

      June 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      I would say based on a dubious assumption, the question is asked; ‘Why would anyone want to hide the fact that nuclear devices were used to demolish the World Trade Center?’

      Nice malframing in your question, but I’ll bite anyway.

      First of all, nuclear devices [using a broad definition that includes nuclear means of powering DEW] shoots to high heaven the whole cave-dwelling hijackers, airplanes, jet fuel, and gravity legend that they spent the last decade building and defending. Nuclear devices in the towers could not have been planted by hijackers in airplanes, particularly when the extensive monitoring of their whereabouts (e.g., Mossad cells living next door, flight schools, Jack Abramoff’s gambling yacht) did not show them spending sufficient time in the right dubious places to acquire such devices and plant & arm them appropriately. The circle of conspirators grows larger and at the same time more select with a laser-like focus on (foreign and) domestic govt agencies with access to nuclear devices. [To be fair, most of this can be said about controlled demolition.]

      Second, evidence of “nuclear anything” has about the same PR stigma as a “toxic waste dump”: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of a city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that “nuclear something” was involved. Even though the spectrum of “nuclear somethings” is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The Field of Dreams message to Silverstein paraphrased: “If you re-build it, ain’t nobody gonna come.”

      Third, assuming spin to direct attention to foreign entities as the culprits, the US govt would find it difficult to curb the public mentality that those who nuked us shouldn’t be nuked back. And up in smoke goes the very natural resources that PNAC and the neo-cons in office wanted to control.

      Fourth, assuming the deflection onto foreign entities is easily seen through and domestic conspirators in the US govt and its agencies are pegged, this revelation could end the status quo for everyone elected or employed by the US govt. In fact, it could lead to the dissolution of the USA of 50 states and the creation of smaller regional countries out of those states, and with the might of the vote, any Federal & on that level becomes a quaint concept for the history. Major change that would have deep reaching effects, and obviously one those “in power” would try to avoid.

      I’ll stop here at those four.

      More to the point I would ask; Why are there those who want to diminish that which is the most coherent and fact based evidence, that of explosive demolition?

      Ooooh! Very clever framing, Agent Rogue. However, it really isn’t about diminishing anything about explosive demolition, because just about all of us are on board for the vast destruction of the WTC to have had many different mechanisms, back-up mechanisms, and redundancies to achieve.

      A better framing might be: Why is the nuclear evidence being given short-shrift? Why isn’t it being addressed? Why are you “settling” for a lesser solution, when the features hinting towards nuclear sources still have to be addressed?

      Postulating the existence of mini-nukes is unnecessary; these weapons are well known to exist. Speculating to there use on 9/11 to bring down the towers is another matter entirely. The first question to be asked is, WHY?

      Truth simply is. Gotta follow it where it goes.

      Why with all of the high powered munitions capable of and known to be sufficient – why turn to an exotic weapon such as nuclear or DEW?

      Why not?

      Do you use a hammer to insert screws? Not if you have a screwdriver. Not if you have a screwdriver bit attached to a power drill. Use the proper tool for the job, and make the job easy. Why make 50 trips with a bicycle if you have a pickup truck in your garage that can do it one trip?

      The exotic weapons exist in the arsenals of the PTB. Generals and Majors with itchy trigger-fingers would be literally dying to use them.

      The second question is more critical however; How is it that the signature characteristics of the destruction so positively matches that of these non-nuclear devices?

      Nobody argues against non-nuclear devices being used in tandem and with some redundancy with nuclear devices. Remember, it isn’t just the towers that were decimated: WTC-3 was seemingly crushed, WTC-6 had a massive crater, WTC-4 had its main edifice leveled, WTC-5 had “bore-holes”.

      Before going on with the next posting from Agent Rogue, allow me to summarize my impression of the previous posting. Agent Rogue is trying desperately hard to keep errant thought, brain-storming thought, and imagination-within-the-realm-of-possibility away from exotic weapons. This trend continues. The following quotes by Agent Rogue are from June 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      And to this I would add that Señor el Once is as free as the wind to expound upon his nuke/nukeDew theories to his hearts content.
      Let him and others who will make their case to the candid world.

      Don’t mind at all if I do! Thank you very much for that invitation, Señor Rogue.

      As to the issue of cancer illnesses and deaths among first responders; let us remember we are not just speaking to asbestos, but all manner of toxins, including mercury, much of it reduced to micro-fragments. There are more to the dust studies that Jones’ search for thermite. These show this material to be a soup of ultra toxicity to the extreme. Just to take asbestos as an example; it was blown to tinier particulates than any normal asbestos hazard.

      Yeah, yeah, true enough. However, the cancers caused by, say, asbestos do not have such sudden impact on victims. It takes significantly more time for onset of such cancers to be noticable.

      Not so, for the ailments of 9/11 1st responders. They were suffering within weeks just like Hiroshima survivors.

      Tell me: where is it documented that those toxins — asbestos being the one you like to peg the most — result in the loss of teeth? Because we don’t have to google very far to discover that loss of teeth and sudden onset of various cancers happen pretty rapidly from too much exposure to radiation.

      On to the next posting from Agent Rogue from June 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm

      At this point I am coming to sense that, DEW, Nukes, No-planes, Digital Fakery…the whole new ‘Alternative 9/11 “Truth Movement” is the full press court by the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group.

      Nah, I would say that the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group has a full-court press to prop up super-duper nano-thermite in sol-gel form (yada yada yada) by the likes of its Q-Group A-List Players, Agent Rogue.

      Seeing how you bring up digital fakery — that coincidentally you are an expert in –, let’s just say that your attitude in this genre has been less than genuine. You’re as bad as Mr. Shack (and his representative, Mr. OneBornFree).

      Mr. Shack and Company say: “I have possibly some evidence of imagery manipulation, therefore everything was fake! Can’t trust a damn thing in any of the imagery.”

      You say: “Mr. Shack is a low skilled idiot in the realm of imagery manipulation. I have proven that some things presented by Mr. Shack as examples of imagery manipulation are not; they are examples of Mr. Shack’s poor understanding of the tools of that trade. Therefore, all imagery was valid and no digital fakery took place in any shape or form.” [Obviously, these really aren’t your exact words, but “no digital fakery” is certainly the hard-line agenda-toting message that you want to get across with no wiggle room for imagery manipulation at all. Most closed-minded of you.]

      I’m open-minded enough to recognize nuggets of truth in both. The most obvious example is that I no longer promote “no planes.” I promote “no commercial planes,” because video evidence seemingly of different flight paths was proven (using 3D modeling) to actually represent a real and singular flight path (for 2nd plane) and because velocity-squared in the energy equation has a decimating effect on common materials. However, the velocity in question exceeded that of commercial planes; when combined with the precision targeting and even the “pod on the plane,” the planes were not commercial.

      A more subtle example relating to my still being open-minded towards imagery manipulation are the whacked out color schemes presented by various networks and the unclarity in many versions of the towers decimation. Could not digital filters have been applied that would handle “nuke flashes”? Just some wild-ass speculation.

      Better examples of my mining of nuggets of truth from September Clues — the go-to location of digital fakery — are (a) the speed and complicity of the media in getting the “official story” out and (b) much of the research into simVictims.

      As for DEW and Nukes, I could go either way and both ways with my nuclear powered DEW or nuclear X-Ray devices. The point is that the decimation of the towers is not something you’d do with 5000 trips by bicycle (conventional chemical explosives) but something you’d do with a few trips with a Mac Truck Semi (nuclear hijinx). If both are sitting in your garage, WTF?

      It should be red flags high, when it is shown that nano-thermates are indeed explosives, and the family of sol-gels they are related to are certainly in the ‘High-Explosive’ category, but yet those who campaign strongly for nukes deny the open record on this by maintaining that “super-thermite is not an explosive”. With a whole leg of their argument stuck in an obvious lie, I would be highly dubious of the other leg.

      What you write isn’t “red flags high,” it is “red herring” which I will address in more detail when responding to your posting from June 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

      Anyone who has watched a fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes. We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation in the rubble pile.

      Correct. Agent Rogue goes on to quote from Ryan et al:

      The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nano-composite materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, short-lived, and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those dates.

      VOC stands for “volatile organic chemicals.”

      Table 1 had six dates of maximum detection for five species (of VOC) in air at GZ.

      Here we’ve got Truth and Shadows.

      The Truth may indeed be how the spikes in VOC detection could be explained. No problem. Let’s assume that energetic nano-composite materials were buried in the pile in pockets and ignited on specific dates giving us those spikes. Indeed, the volume of energetic material required for such spikes would not be equivalent to what could be packed into a 664k mile long imaginary garden hose.

      The Shadow is that fires smoldered under the rubble with little to no oxygen for that period of time. In fact, that very same paper (“Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials”) begins with the passage:

      For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.

      – Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC
      buildings.
      – Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
      – Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
      – A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

      Sure, I’m fine with Ryan, Gourley, and Jones making the case that energetic material was in the rubble and caused these spikes. I’m fine with the extension of this that these materials were involved with the destruction. (Redundancy and back-up to achieve a thorough destruction was 9/11’s hallmark.)

      The issue is that nano-thermite is extrapolated erroneous by 9/11 yeomen (and agents) to account for the duration of the smoldering fires that could not easily be put out, with no correction by the authors about this fallacy.

      Woe, wait a minute! Ryan writes:

      The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants.

      Maybe I’m wrong. It wasn’t just science-challenged 9/11 yeomen trying to peg the duration of the smoldering fires on chemical energetic materials. Ryan is doing that himself. He purposely left this impression for the 9/11 yeomen. Ryan covers his ass by then focusing on the spikes:

      The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events.

      After each of the six major spikes, the source chemical energetic material at that location was consumed. What caused the fire to smolder without oxygen despite fire protection efforts?

      The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is not nano-thermite, because to achieve this with its very fast burn rate (2908 fps) would require overwhelming ginormous volumes of unspent material in the pile: [for 1 hot-spot burning just 4 weeks equivalent to what could be packed into an imaginary garden hose 664k miles long.]

      The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is not plastic materials and such, because (a) these require oxygen to burn, (b) these would have been put out by the fire suppression efforts, and (c) these are what are suggested get consumed by the energetic spikes (see speculation by Ryan in first quote) and release their signature toxins in the air that the EPA measured and is a major basis for this paper.

      The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is… WHAT?!!

      Due to the narrow focus of their paper that does indeed PROVE in my mind that chemical energetic materials were present in the rubble pile (resulting in VOC spikes when ignited), they were able to sidestep speculating into the source for the smoldering fires.

      Not to pass up low-hanging fruit, here’s another quote from the paper with such fruit high-lighted:

      Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ.

      … The same EPA who told 1st responders and NYC residents about how safe things were. How come its data was accepted unchallenged? Just like the Tritium Report was accepted unchallenged by Dr. Jones in his no-nukes paper.

      Agent Rogue writes:

      It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.

      You better put some science and experimentation behind that supposition. Burn-rate is burn-rate. Characteristics when it is ignited even in “salted” quantities is for the “salt particle” to reach high temperatures and be consumed very fast. “Salt spikes,” albeit small, but still noticable: not observed. The evidence is that the smoldering of the fires was rather constant and continuous EXCEPT for those big spikes noted in the Ryan paper.

      Certainly, some of the smoldering was wandering, but some of it wasn’t. And for the part that we think was wandering, the “salt particle” might have been immune to fire suppression efforts and the lack of oxygen, but the surrounding material that the “salt particle” was supposed to ignite to keep the smolder going until the next “salt particle” was torched off was not immune to such. Turning to the smolder that didn’t wander, that “salty” dog don’t hunt.

      Another source for the smolder needs to be sought.

      And gee. It just might have a correlation to the juked evidence of nuclear hijinx…

      June 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      There are multiple points, including visual evidence, physical forensic evidence, wound evidence, sonic evidence, witness testimonies of their own sight hearing and physical experiences of multiple explosions. Some of these describe the sounds of perimeter wrap-around cutter charges, characterized as “bam bam bam bam,” punctuated by deeper rumbling booms. There is visual photographic evidence of ‘squibs’ – the whole litany every 9/11 researcher should recall from from 9/11 – 101. All of this must be weighed against any alternative theory challenging it.

      Sure, they threw all that and the kitchen sink at it and much much more.

      Now address the duration of the under-rubble smolder, the nuclear signature, the torched vehicles in the distant parking lot [but not the closer offices of the World Finance Centers, etc.], and the 1st responder ailments… Oh wait! You dismiss then in a delphi concensus slight-of-hand.

      And let’s not get too hung up on WTC-1 and WTC-2, when WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are oh oh oh so interesting.

      Keep cranking away at the steering wheel, Agent Rogue! I love your nuggets of truth, but will continue to mine them from other sources as well in order to get the true big picture that you are trying to steer us away from.

      WooHoo!!! Time to go to town without backtalk on his last three four six postings here! And I’ve got the added benefit of Agent Rogue being tired of addressing my shit, so maybe I’ll get the last word. Yee Haw!!!

      1. I share the concerns of Senor El Once in relation to “Agent Rogue”, whom I completely distrust. I also appreciate that the Senor draws a distinction between “no planes” and “no commercial planes”, where I have sought to emphasize that NPT–“no planes theory”–does not mean that no flying objects, including planes, were involved in 9/11, because we know, for example, that a large plane, probably a Boeing 757, flew toward the Pentagon and then swooped over it; and now, based upon Richard Hall’s brilliant analysis of the parallel paths of the image that entered the South Tower and the plane that appears to have projected it, we know at least one other plane appears to have been involved, where the proper definition of “no planes theory” is that

        (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
        (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
        (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
        (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

        I continue to be puzzled that Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, should assert that Pilots will never endorse NPT–apparently REGARDLESS OFTHE EVIDENCE–or “video fakery”, where Craig has suggested that “fakery” would be a better term, since “video fakery” tends to be interpreted EXCLUSIVELY as though it required manipulation of video images, whereas I have used it to encompass any use of videos to convey a false impression, such as videos that have been used to convey the impression that Flight 11 ACTUALLY DID hit the North Tower and that Flight 175 ACTUALLY DID hit the South, both of which are provably false, where I am advocating these are authentic videos of fake planes. So I am glad to accept Craig’s advice.

      2. “It seems to me that some of those (such as hybridrogue1) most eager to describe others (such as me) as “liars” appear to be the leading practitioners of the art. In this case, the evidence that nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming.”~Fetzer

        “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)

        “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives intothe bulk metal oxide materials.
        These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

        “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]” B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,”~Clapsaddle 2005.

        Mr. Fetzer has stated clearly that “nanothermite (“superthermite”, whatever) is not explosive is detailed, specific and overwhelming.”

        He continues to hold this position despite overwhelming evidence against this assertion.
        Now he has the gall to join in on this “Agent Rogue” bullshit, in full view of these facts. Which in facts give credence to my assertion:

        It should be red flags high, when it is shown that nano-thermates are indeed explosives, and the family of sol-gels they are related to are certainly in the ‘High-Explosive’ category, and yet those who campaign strongly for nukes deny the open record on this by maintaining that “superthermite is not an explosive”. With a whole leg of their argument stuck in an obvious lie, I would be highly dubious of the other leg.

        I maintain that the only one proven to be a mole and “agent” attending this thread on this date is Mr. Fetzer himself. As far as Mr. Bridges, I see him as he himself frequently describes himself as a “useful idiot”…a dupe, and a chump for the latest fairytale BS to come along.

        ww

      3. According to Kevin Ryan:

        The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained… The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire… But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events.

        According to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos:

        The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out. … The chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.

        So, Agent Rogue, does your “boojie woojie JFK/LBJ era high school chemistry” allow you to see the inverse mathematical correlation between something that releases energy very rapidly and something that can burn for many weeks?

        Or rather, if you are using the same substance to account for both pieces of observable evidence — the release of rapid pulverizing energy and a 4 week under-rubble burn –, how much of that substance “unspent” from the original purpose would be required to be “salted” in the pile?

        The phrase that pays is: “if you are using the same substance to account for both.”

        Obviously, if you are, don’t be tripping over that damn imaginary garden hose to help us understand the concepts of massive volumes of materials necessitated by the burn-rate and “salty” burn time.

        If you aren’t, then do tell: What second source accounts for the duration of oxygen-less hot-spots under the rubble?

        And now that your noggin is pried open to let the thought of a second source enter in, answer if that second source has a nuclear signature?

        After all, something has to account for the nuclear signature and the resulting nuclear cover-up starting with

        – the unchallenged tritium report,
        – the re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater,
        – Dr. Jones’ logic errors attempting to rule out all forms of nukes,
        – Dr. Wood ignoring the tritium report and questioning hot-spots,
        – the attribution of the sudden onset of radiation-style ailments to other causes

        So as the duped useful idiot here, my fervent desire is to be free of the yoke of this label. Alas, the key is sound analysis of the evidence with math & science, which out of necessity requires that the evidence not be waved-off.

      4. Jim,

        Your claim that you “forgot” that a video alleged to show a missile striking the Pentagon was fake is exactly why I’m glad Rob didn’t want anything to do with you or your work.

        Craig, do you see this as acceptable? Or an acceptable excuse?

        And onebornfree. Whatever happened to any response to the shockingly deceptive WTC7 “fake video” claims answered earlier?

        1. I saw the “missile” video a few months ago, and without seeing the same footage prior to the missile being “added,” I assumed the footage was fake. So I have a hard time understanding how it got presented. It’s the kind of video that I wouldn’t present unless I was completely sure it was authentic.

        2. No “Reply” button on these:
          __________

          onesliceshort says:
          June 28, 2012 at 9:52 pm
          Jim,

          Your claim that you “forgot” that a video alleged to show a missile striking the Pentagon was fake is exactly why I’m glad Rob didn’t want anything to do with you or your work.

          Craig, do you see this as acceptable? Or an acceptable excuse?

          And onebornfree. Whatever happened to any response to the shockingly deceptive WTC7 “fake video” claims answered earlier?

          Craig McKee says:
          June 28, 2012 at 10:25 pm
          I saw the “missile” video a few months ago, and without seeing the same footage prior to the missile being “added,” I assumed the footage was fake. So I have a hard time understanding how it got presented. It’s the kind of video that I wouldn’t present unless I was completely sure it was authentic.
          ________

          Well, as I have previously explained, the claim has been made (that a missile hit the building) and I was given the video by a knowledgeable source (Gordon Duff). That someone tells me its a fake is not enough to convince me, where arguments later made by Dennis Cimino have had that effect.

          But since I was only introducing it as evidence that seemed to support that inference and did not claim it was authentic, I don’t think it’s a big deal. It is an interesting clip and I thought that it was worth presenting. I would do it again but explain more emphatically that its authenticity is in doubt.

          As for Balsamo, he is not even consistent, which makes his mistakes categorically more serious than what you are attributing to me. Pilots own research has shown that Flights 93 and 175 were elsewhere when they were supposed to be crashing in Shanksville and entering the South Tower.

          Since “NPT”, as I have repeatedly explained, mean “No Big Boeings Crashed as Advertised” or

          (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
          (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
          (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shankvsville;
          (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;

          the evidence for NPT (thus defined) is overwhelming. There are some, such as Agent Rogue, who want to play trivial semantic games about the phrase, “no planes”, which, in NPT, does NOT mean there were no planes anywhere, since we know one flew toward and then over the Pentagon; but that (1) through (4) are the case, for which there is overwhelming evidence. And as long as each of us defines our terms clearly, as I have done with “video fakery”, there is no GENUINE problem.

          What has been going on here–interminably, it seems–is that some have a child-like fixation on one preferred use of language, which is simply silly. As I use the phrase, “video fakery” includes real videos of fake planes, which–if I am right–have been used to convey a false impression of events on 9/11. That fake videos of real planes and fake videos of fake planes are “video fakery” is not in doubt. The only question is what to call real videos of fake planes, which I include by that phrase.

          For Balsamo to declare that Pilots will NEVER endorse NPT, apparently REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE, is completely absurd. Leave the phrase “video fakery” to one side. Since his own group has shown that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, where we already know that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day, he should embrace NPT as defined by (1) thought (4) above. Every rational student of 9/11 should as well.

      5. Jim Fetzer makes quite a few remarks in his posting of June 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm.

        Yet none of these address one of the core issues of his PR, which is his false assertion that nanotermites are not explosives.

        Is it any wonder? Of course it is not, he hasn’t a leg to stand on and he knows it. Which I think should be an indicator towards his attempt to pass off this Pentagon missile video knowing it was bullshit.

        No I do not accept his backpeddling here as sincere, I do not accept anything from Fetzer as sincere.

        ww

        1. Following the path of trivialities he’s blazed with his juvenile disputes about the meaning of “NPT” and of “video fakery”, even though I have explicitly defined them again and again, here this guy denies what has been repeatedly proven, namely: the non-explosive character of nanothermite:

          “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

          “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

          “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

          Why is Agent Rogue beating a dead horse? Many of us are forming the impression that he has nothing of value to contribute here, but likes to run others who are doing better work than he is around in circles resurrecting issues that have already been settled, as in the present instance.

        2. Here is the latest exchange between Kevin Barrett, who continues to hold out hope for nanothermite, and T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer who has explained its limitations. Consider:

          _______

          Kevin,

          I have broken up what you wrote in order into three parts below and responded to each part.

          KEVIN’S QUESTION

          By the way, Mark, is that 895 m/s the maximum velocity for PURE iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite, or also for ALL KNOWN MIXTURES of iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite with organic compounds, mixed at a nano-scale?

          MARK’S ANSWER

          What is clear from the technical paper (attached) that cites the detonation velocity of 895 m/s is that it is an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite aerogel produced by a sol gel process. When you see “sol gel” think “solution gellation.” You create a solution and you get it to gel, and then you remove the residual liquid to get the resultant product. Look up sol gel on wikipedia to get a detailed description of this type of process.

          The technical paper is kind of sketchy on the final composition of this aerogel. From page 10 of the paper I have quoted some sentences below.

          “Burn velocities for selected samples of these materials were
          measured to be as high as 895 m/s for the aerogel material and as high as 320 m/s for the xerogel
          materials. These values are much higher than those for conventional thermite materials.[15] A
          full discussion of the burn rate results and analysis is forthcoming.”

          I just re-read the paper, and my educated guess is that since it is silent on the organic composition of the nanothermites produced, that organic constituents are at a minimum, and by this my guess would be less than 5 % by weight.

          The paper also discusses using sol gel techniques for nanocomposites containing organics and oxidizers, so this is referring to a product that contains no thermite or nanothermite.

          So the 895 m/s detonation velocity was obtained for that particular product. It would not be correct to say that this would be the detonation velocity for “ ALL KNOWN MIXTURES of iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite with organic compounds, mixed at a nano-scale.”

          When you refer to “organic compounds” that could be very different things. For example, the high explosive RDX is an organic compound. RDX contains within its molecule both fuel and oxidizer. It has within itself what it needs to release a lot of energy. Sawdust from wood is a complex mixture of organic compounds. Although the sawdust would contain some oxygen, it would not contain anywhere near enough oxygen to support its complete burning or combustion. So without some additional oxygen or other oxidant provided in addition to the sawdust, the sawdust does not have within itself what it needs to release any energy.

          So to illustrate, suppose you had a mixture of 50 % RDX and 50 % nanothermite, intimately mixed at the nanoscale, and you detonated it, I would expect a detonation velocity somewhere between that of 100 % RDX and a nearly 100 % nanothermite. And since I take the 895 m/s example from the literature (the highest value I have yet to find for an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite in the literature) as the best possible case for 100 % nanothermite, then as a rough guess I would say that the mixture might have a detonation velocity of (8750+895)/2 = 4800 m/s.

          In contrast, suppose you had a mixture of 50 % nanothermite and 50 % sawdust, intimately mixed at the nanoscale (just imagine you could do this), and you detonated it, I would expect a detonation velocity somewhere between that of 100 % nanothermite and that of sawdust. And since sawdust does not contain any oxidant, it cannot detonate, so its detonation velocity would be taken as zero. So then as a very rough guess I would say that the mixture might have a detonation velocity of (895+0)/2 = 450 m/s. If this were ignited in air, I speculate that the energy from the nanothermite might heat up and break down the sawdust into smaller combustible molecules that would then react with the oxygen in the air to form a fireball, but I seriously doubt that such a secondary burning or explosion could account for any enhancement in the overall detonation velocity, beyond that which occurs prior to this secondary effect.

          KEVIN’S NEXT SENTENCE

          “The nanothermite proponents hypothesize that it is this kind of mixture, which would leave little if any trace of the organic substances (but WOULD leave the observed nanothermite residues) that was used.”

          MARK’S COMMENTS

          I am not sure if you mean this exactly the way you have stated it. My understanding is that the “nanothermite residues” found and analyzed are thought to be unreacted nanothermitic material with an organic component. The sample sizes were apparently too small to allow determination of what this organic component is. It does not make sense to me that an intimately mixed nanoscale mixture of nanothermite and organic could react in such a way that the organic would react while leaving the nanothermite unreacted. And if this were the case, what would be the purpose of the nanothermite anyway? I am hoping that you can clarify what you think the nanothermite proponents hypothesis is.

          KEVIN’S NEXT SENTENCE

          The real question is whether this is a reasonable hypothesis to account for the observed residues, and if not, what better hypothesis could account for them.

          MARK’S COMMENTS

          As I said above, I feel I need some clarification what exactly the hypothesis is. About all I feel safe concluding from the nanothermitic chips found in the dust and their analysis is that an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermitic material played some role in the 9/11 WTC event. I personally find it difficult to formulate an hypothesis for the nanothermitic material being the major player in bringing down the WTC towers.

          Cordially,

          Mark
          ___________

          Let me add that there may have been a role for nanothermite at the Twin Towers. As Richard Hall has shown, there were mini-explosions under the dust clouds from the North Tower “hit”, which appear to have been blowing out the cookie-cutter like cut out of the image of a plane.

          The prep work for this may have been done by “the Gelatin group” of Israeli “art students” who were doing “performance art” on the exterior of the buildings, which I conjecture included preping them for the events to come by painting their surfaces with nanothermite to achieve these effects.

          As Christopher Holmes explained with his first slide during The Vancouver Hearings, you can look into the gash on the facade of the South Tower and see how neatly rows of the steel external support columns were cut, how much steel was beneath them and the absence of plane debris.

          Once again, Rogue ignores logic and evidence in pursuit of a predetermined conclusion, which, I dare say, appears to try to smear me and discredit the discoveries that we have made, which are stunning proof that the events of 9/11 were fabrications. Why do you supposed he is doing that?

      6. Jim Fetzer says AGAIN at June 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm:

        >“…here this guy denies what has been repeatedly proven, namely: the non-explosive character of nanothermite.”
        ~~~~~~~~

        Fetzer, you must be blithering mad to go on asserting this, especially as the Reply button you pushed to send this latest packed of drivel is just a post down from these very proofs that you are lying through your teeth:

        A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite” is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 1 micrometre. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

        Patent from 1996: US1996068478119960722 (July 22, 1996) Legal status (INPADOC) of US5885321 – US F 68478196 A (Patent of invention) PRS Date: 1997/07/22 -PRS Code: AS02 – EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15
        Abstract of US5885321
        “Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing alane-adducts in organic solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highly uniform particles selectably sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic materials including composites, super thermite, and other explosives.
        Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition. Once the nano thermite had been developed one would expect that over time various modifications using additives would be developed for different purposes. For example there is strong evidence that sulphur was incorporated (see appendix C of the FEMA report). Sulphur has the effect of lowering the melting point of steel. The term thermate is applied to such material. Other chemicals can be added to generate gas and thus produce an effect more like a conventional explosive.”

        “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005;http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)
        “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives intothe bulk metal oxide materials.
        These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)
        “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]” B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,”~Clapsaddle 2005.
        ______________________

        Fetzer you are simply unbelievable.

        ww

      7. Jim Fetzer says on June 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm:

        “Here is the latest exchange between Kevin Barrett, who continues to hold out hope for nanothermite, and T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer who has explained its limitations.”

        And in that discussions two things become clear, 1} nanothermites are explosives. 2} that the results of Harrit and Jones paper describe a nanothermite material found in the WTC dust, but are not certain as to the organic and polymer components.

        What does this mean? They cannot be sure of which kind of material it is, only that it is a nano-milled sol-gel. As such there is not enough information to postulate for the pressures or brisance this substance would have.

        As per the first instance, that nanothermates are explosives – what now is your excuse for bellowing all throughout this thread that “nanothermites/superthermite is not explosive”?

        Is this another instance of Professor Humpty Dumpty?

        “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”~Lewis Carroll

        ww

        1. No–and deliberately misreading what Mark has written does not make you smart, Rogue. Give it a break. Nanothermite is non-explosive. It is an incendiary. It’s fastest know detonation velocity is only 895 m/s. What is necessary to pulverize concrete is 3,200 m/s and concrete 6,100 m/s. So your display of ignorance about materials science does not turn false claims into true ones, which seems to be the whole point of your being here: trying to create enough confusion about points that are resolved that everything becomes believable and nothing is knowable. Nice try but a “D-“.

        2. From “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory”, in which this issue was explored at length:

          “As Mark has explained in a blog, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, and an interview on “The Real Deal”, 895 m/s is obviously too low of a value to account for the explosive effects observed in the catastrophic destruction of the WTC Twin Towers, including turning concrete and other materials into dust or separating and propelling steel members and other materials outward. Comparisons with the detonation velocities of conventional high explosives, such as 8,750 m/s for RDX or 9,100 m/x for HMX (not to mention 8,040 m/s for C-4 and 8,400 m/s for PETN), it is clear that nanothermite is not even in the same ballpark. While thermite in one or another of its guises as a rapid incendiary could have been used to sever or pre-weaken steel members, this low velocity melting process is a totally different mechanism for the cutting of steel than the shock wave method that requires detonation velocities of at least 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel.

          “With respect to the demolition of the Twin Towers and blowing them to bits, low-explosive nanothermite, which does exist, can be eliminated as an hypothesis because it is ineffective. High-explosive nanothermite as an alternative can be eliminated because it simply does not exist. Mark therefore concludes that the phrase, “explosive nanothermite”, when used to describe the causal mechanism for demolishing the Twin Towers is either seriously misleading under a charitable interpretation and at worst deliberately deceptive under an uncharitable one. Either way, conventional or unconventional explosives would have had to be combined with thermite, even in its nanothermite form. And if such a blend had been employed, the nanothermite would function more as an additive to high explosives rather than as the main ingredient itself.”

      8. Dear Dr. Fetzer and Mr. Rogue,

        Looks like you are using each other as slamming boards. Dr. Fetzer wrote on June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm:

        Nanothermite is non-explosive. It is an incendiary. It’s fastest know detonation velocity is only 895 m/s [2908 ft/s].

        True.

        But to be fair, when one studies Mr. Rogue’s references on nano-thermite, they are adding explosives to this wonderful incendiary to get energy out of it quickly. They are changing its nature. The two gotcha’s to this are:

        (1) When you crank up the speed of energy release, you massively crank up the quantities that would be required to support a long duration under-rubble hot-spot, assuming you are trying to use this source material to explain that particular after-effect anomaly.

        (2) Thermoburic (sp) devices that Mr. Philbin via Mr. Rogue are promoting and are one such mixture of nano-thermite & something else {if I understood correctly} and require oxygen to burn. Between being under-rubble and doused with lots of water, they are an unlikely source for the duration of the hot-spot. Spikes? Maybe. Duration? No.

        Dr. Fetzer wrote the following confusing sentence:

        What is necessary to pulverize concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s] and concrete 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].

        Why the two numbers? What words did you leave out or misplace? I assume they are valid for something and are large numbers.

        Wait a minute. In a June 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm posting, you write:

        (1) it is a principle (law) of materials science that, for an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material;

        (2) the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s];
        the speed of sound in steel, 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].

        I guess maybe the correction to your sentence is:

        What is necessary to pulverize concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s] and to pulverize steel 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].

        When I did my calculations to estimate the quantities of an incendiary/explosive to account for just one under-rubble hot-spot burning for just four weeks, I used a burn-rate of 3,000 fps, which is at the low-end but a little faster than pure nano-thermite. To account for the duration, this material can’t be put into a pile and torched all at once; you configure it somehow to get maximum duration burn like a fuse that you light at one end. I needed a convenient way of estimating volume. So I used the concept of an imaginary hose whose diameter can be tweaked to account for “salting” etc. The hose was 884k miles long. When you plug in your numbers [10,400 ft/s] to account for concrete pulverization, that damn persnickety imaginary hose grows to 3M miles (3,064k miles) before “salting” is applied.

        {Pulverization of steel [19,825 ft/s] — if it occured [and I doubt] — would grow that damn imaginary garden hose to 5.8M miles (5,841k miles).}

        I don’t care whether the inside diameter is 1/32″ or 1″, the volume quantity of those imaginary hoses is ginormously massive and for this reason alone would UNLIKELY to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spot. Moreover, Ryan & Jones speculate that such material only accounted for six or so notable spikes in the release of gases.

        Ergo, some other source must be sought to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

        Dr. Fetzer, we’re in agreement that the aircraft at the towers were not commercial planes primarily due to the speeds and elevations recorded on video and radar. The point you are missing from the Sandia crash (as well as the MythBuster rocket sleds) is what veleocity-squared does to the amount of energy applied to “common” materials in vehicles (cars or aircraft) when the velocity is huge (e.g., 500 mph).

        The WTC aircraft had the two fold operation of that massive energy being applied to the tower steel as well as reflected back off of the tower onto the light aircraft components. Because the exterior box column were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers, the WTC aircraft didn’t hit a completely solid surface like Sandia. There was window slit space for the scredding to go.

        Assuming the planes were real (albeit suped up), I have no more difficulties believing how the steel was severed while aircraft seemingly was decimated & shredded into nothingness in a time frame that lower-speed cameras would not necessarily catch. This is one point I think you should drop, because I do not think you are appreciating veleocity-squared at high velociy from both Sandia and MythBusters.

        The other point is holograms. It wasn’t just videos that caught the 2nd plane from multiple angles, but radar. Holograms would have have radar returns. Moreover, nothing you have provided so far substantiates the ability to project a holographic image that could be captured from multiple angles on video.

        June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm

        And that is the give-away. Rogue fixates on anything that might possibly support the official account and ignores the evidence that falsifies it. He is willing to accept the occurrence of miracles on 9/11 in the form of the suspension of Newton’s laws, when the plane should have crumpled, iwings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground.

        To repeat, MythBuster tests and Sandia tests at extremely large velocities demonstrate how veleocity-squared in the energy acting on the materials produces non-intuitive, decimating results. Crumpled fuselage, broken off wings and tails, etc. would not necessarily have been observed. At lower velocities and landing velocities, then what you bemoan would have been more evident.

        As for the bodies, seats, and luggage. The only way the aircraft could have achieved its reported velocity at sea level would have been for the aircraft not to have been a commercial one. Switch the plane and all bets are off regarding what seats, passengers, and luggage would be involved in the crash: probably zero. [Or viewed another way, zero bodies, seats, and luggage is another clue that the planes weren’t commercial planes.]

  57. v 2 EXPANDED:

    Here is my hypothesis {w/added notes from Mike Philbin} as to the destruction of the towers, with mention of both DEW and nukes as issues I do not abide:

    There are signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific effects to determine the cause and effects of events. The known physical signatures of various types of explosions are well known, and that which distinguishes their differences and similarities. For example the signature of an explosion of a stick of dynamite is easily distinguished from the explosion of an electrical sub-station, and that to the explosion of a gas tank…etc.

    Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.
    But this is only the proximate point for the argument countering DEW. As has been detailed above, there are countless absurdities in the DEW hypothesis.

    As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.
    So we are now to presume that mini-nukes were used to take down the towers…but they supplemented the nukes with some standard demo charges, for what reason? Oh, perhaps to throw researchers off the nuke trail?? No, the whole thing was staged to give the appearance that the planes and fires were responsible, not to mimic a controlled demolition. Any weapon on top of a nuclear one is just needless redundancy, and the show was obviously to blame the “terrorist hijackers”, not inside job pro demolitions. There are no nuclear weapons characteristics, other than blatantly hollow assertions.

    “Physics just doesn’t account for all the energy required to collapse the building while turning each story into dust while falling, plus the upward momentum and outward momentum of the debris, making it look like a fountain. I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into official use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

    The explosives in the WTC towers were controlled from a control center in WTC-7. Then, after that was sucessful, the control center (WTC-7) had to be destroyed to destroy the evidence. As far as WTC 7 goes, more conventional explosives were used for it’s demolition.

    I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.

    Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.

    And this “significant advantage” would certainly apply to tall sealed skyscrapers as well. Aye?

    Like dispersing the fog through the AC and having ignition points at locations sequenced to go off in a downward cycle…

    It would certainly cut down on the need to ‘wire’ the entire building. Even though I do believe cutter charges were used to control the sequence and timing, to get the building to fall down the way they wanted it to.”~Mike Philbin

    a typical (thermobaric) weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, in the center of which is a small conventional-explosive “scatter charge”. Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals such as aluminium or magnesium, or organic materials, possibly with a self-contained partial oxidant. The most recent development involves the use of nanofuels.

    In confinement, a series of reflective shock waves are generated, which maintain the fireball and can extend its duration to between 10 and 50 msec as exothermic recombination reactions occur. Further damage can result as the gases cool and pressure drops sharply, leading to a partial vacuum, powerful enough to cause physical damage to people and structures. This effect has given rise to the misnomer “vacuum bomb”. Piston-type afterburning is also believed to occur in such structures, as flame-fronts accelerate through it.

    The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa, 30 bar) and the temperature can be 4,500 to 5,400 °F (2,500 to 3,000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s).

    There’ve been attempts to retrospectively cover their Military Industrial Complex asses with post-911 (2005) patents for nano-aluminium Thermobaric Weapons aka novel explosive, as seen in this video

    (3 mins in, watch all that pulverised concrete), WHICH THE MILITARY USE TO DEMOLISH ENEMY BUNKERS AND VAPOURISE THE OCCUPANTS WITHIN but this really has been covered already in a 1987 patent #4,873,928 where the phrase “nuclear-sized explosions without the radiation” actually originates from.

    Let’s go back to Dr Stephen Jones’s comment that nanothermite charges were used on 9-11 as evidenced by the vast amount of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Well, yeah, nano-thermite charges would be an excellent way to CHOP THROUGH support girders for the demolition of WTC 1 and 2 but… you’d still need to blow all the floors out of the way or it would just sink into its basement and/or partially topple over. And then you’ve got a crime scene to pull to pieces. What clearly happened on the day is floor-by-floor the resistance from the lower floors was REMOVED. And there were still TONNES of aluminium nano-powder found in spectral analysis of WTC dust … it needn’t have all been nano-thermite aluminium.

    So, what’s the difference between explosives and thermobaric weapons? Well, it’s the combination of all the above elements; the novel explosive (fluoridated?) aluminium nanofuel, oxygen-rich environment (WTC aircon system), pulverised concrete, imploding building and very high temperatures. All these parameters are catered for by a THERMOBARIC WEAPON. You don’t need traditional single point explosives. You don’t need petrol/wet combustibles. Deliver the microfine, dry aluminium nanopowder to a volume of architecture via the aircon, which also supplies the oxygen for the reaction.

    Set off the timed charges in a top-down sequence that correlates with the impact point of the ‘highjacked flights’ on each WTC building.

    John Deutch was the Director of the CIA and, before that, an Undersecretary of Defense also published two papers while he was a physicist at MIT on … wait for it … fuel air – thermobaric weapons.

    ww

    1. June 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm and June 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm demonstrate why Agent Rogue is on the A-List of Q-Groupies. The former has been addressed, but not the later, where he writes:

      Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

      Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!

      How about this scenerio? Nuclear powered or enhanced DEW — directed energy weapon — decimates the inside while your sol-jello nanny-therm-i-bob chunks the outer wall structure milli-seconds later, so as to hide the inner shinnanigans while releasing aforementioned forensic signatures and leaving salted pockets in the pile.

      As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.
      So we are now to presume that mini-nukes were used to take down the towers…but they supplemented the nukes with some standard demo charges, for what reason? Any weapon on top of a nuclear one is just needless redundancy, and the show was obviously to blame the “terrorist hijackers”, not inside job pro demolitions. There are no nuclear weapons characteristics, other than blatantly hollow assertions.

      Quite the strawman. First off, look up “nuclear fizzle” yet again and maybe it will dawn on you why it wasn’t needless redundancy.

      Secondly, even I’m not saying that mini-nukes were involved, although I keep pushing the nuclear evidence.

      I’m saying that the energy requirements of pulverization were massive and that nuclear sources of energy were more likely to meet those. A nuclear device designed for energy output or for channeling of specific wavelengths of electromagnetic energy is a vastly different nuclear beast in all aspect than a mini-nuke.

      Yep, I agree: “there are no nuclear weapons characteristics” when the weapon is narrowly defined as Dr. Jones did in his “no-nukes” paper.

      It is by far not “blatantly hollow assertions” that there were no characteristics of nuclear devices. Refer to smoldering hot-spots, tritium measurements, 1st responder ailments, etc.

      Agent Rogue displays his stellar level… no, genius level… skills at the computer by being incapable of doing anything useful to readers to differentiate his words from that of Mike Philbin. Not even a single lowly instance of bookending Mike Philbin’s words with <blockquote> and </blockquote>. Not even as much as a +++++ or —- or ===== line.

      I gather that the Mike Philbin source was given to Agent Rogue to fill the void and distract us. This is the second time he’s pasted in the same information with the same piss poor attrition techniques.

      Mike Philbin wrote:

      I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

      I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.

      So Agent Rogue via Mr. Philbin is saying this thermobaric particles were salted in the debris pile and accounted for spikes and smolder, eh?

      Mike Philbin wrote:

      Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). … Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.

      Unspent thermobaric explosives, relying on oxygen and being unsuitable for use underwater, kind of makes them poor candidates for explaining the duration of under-rubble smolder upon which massive amounts of water was discharged.

      Agent Rogue, you should have Mr. Philbin calculate the quantities of thermobaric explosives necessary to pulverize the innards of the towers. Is it reasonable?

      Have him explain how thermobaric explosives would relate to tritium radiation. Would it account for 1st responder ailments mirroring that of Hiroshima survivors?

  58. A Further Note on the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust Due To Its Nano-Particulate Nature:

    RJ Lee report:

    “Additionally, WTC Dust can be differentiated from other building dust on the basis of its unique composition and morphology. WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone high stress and high temperature. *Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”

    Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

    ww

      1. Does David Howard have the capability of articulating for himself what all of these links mean in some manner?

        ww

  59. The Demolitions were certainly not a one pony act:

    Of course, the thermobaric aerosols were the grand disintegration final explosions. But we must also take into account the prepping cutter charges, likely nano-RDX, and incendiaries of likely Thermite Plasma Arc devices, plus the real likelihood that the so-called fireproofing was sprayed on thermite. By 9/11 the towers were probably loaded to the gills with sundry sol-gel products of varying natures for a variety of jobs. One of which was for a good amount to survive the blasts and end up in the aftermath pile to continue melting the metal and burning as much evidence as possible.

    ww

  60. The edge of hysteria to Señor Bridges’ current postings are more than apparent. Perhaps he should settle down with a glass of wine and collect his wits before he himself implodes.

    If he wishes to make a case for nuclear demolition, it is certainly his right to do so. However this lunatic approach of spurious accusations, and run-on textual diarrhea is very unpleasant theater.

    Of course, if it his goal to appear an unhinged loon, he is making that point particularly well.

    ww

    1. Señor Rogue can’t address the criticism of his theories, so in typical agent fashion, he dishes out the ad hominem.

      The edge of hysteria to Señor Bridges’ current postings are more than apparent. Perhaps he should settle down with a glass of wine and collect his wits before he himself implodes.

      Señor Rogue, who at one point not that long ago had 380 out of the last 1000 postings on Truth & Shadows, ought to take his own advice. With ~228 total posting (so far) to this thread, Agent Rogue has contributed 80 of them making up 35%.

      True to form, Agent Rogue says that my 10 postings (4%) represent “the edge of hysteria.” Gee, and I thought I was just being thorough going point-by-point through his mess, lest the Agent Rogue come back and say: “You didn’t address this point X, so you must either agree with it or be too [fill in ad hominem adjective] too tackle it, which by [dubious] default means that I win.”

      If he wishes to make a case for nuclear demolition, it is certainly his right to do so.

      Proof that Agent Rogue isn’t reading things, just posting.

      Right now, I’m making the case for nuclear-powered DEW.

      Mr. David Howard, on the other hand, is making the case for a nuclear demolition with the help of the Anonymous Physicist’s work. It is well worth the read for the evidence and analysis presented.

      However, I am not completely in that camp, so please stop putting words in my mouth, as is your habit.

      However this lunatic approach of spurious accusations, and run-on textual diarrhea is very unpleasant theater.

      Very clever, Agent Rogue. My spurious accusations into agency your agenda aren’t so spurious. It is the impression you make on me from your behavior.

      You obviously have no concept of what constitutes a good solid bowel movement versus what doesn’t. Yesterday, I made just two solid, detailed postings in response to seven of yours, and yours dribbled on for yet four more.

      Of course, if it his goal to appear an unhinged loon, he is making that point particularly well.

      Oh how I love it when your arguments so run out of steam that they must scrape the bottom of the barrel for insults.

      1. It is suggested that I cannot address the criticism of my theories when in fact there is a clear history of a back and forth debate between Mr. Bridges and myself that extends through several threads on this very blog.

        Mr. Bridges confuses himself in that he cannot distinguish between my expository writings, and my argumentum towards his concepts. As I am no longer concerned with making an argument to Mr. Bridges slurry of hypotheticals, he continues to “kick my ass” {grin} by slamming his face against it.

        It is true, I no longer read his book length postings but for a glance. This is because I have dismissed the idea that there is any value to concepts relating to ‘non-radioactive nuclear reactions’, and to fanciful ruminations of science fiction scenarios such as “The China Syndrome”.

        Mr. Bridges seems to have a problem with making a positive argument towards his theories without the crutch of a counter argument to bounce off of. As I have removed his backboard, his hypotheticals naturally fly beyond into the audience dressed in inappropriate costuming.

        Mr. Bridges can do the squawking twaddle boogaloo here for as long as it gives him the jollies to do so. That I have broken off our engagement has enraged him and he has become a stalking horse is obvious. He has been ridden hard and put away wet too many times already. I do wish him luck, but I am beyond his reach, and he would do well to take my advice and desist.

        ww

      2. Agent Rogue writes with such manly strength and vigor:

        I have dismissed the idea that there is any value to concepts relating to ‘non-radioactive nuclear reactions’, and to fanciful ruminations of science fiction scenarios such as “The China Syndrome”.

        Of course, he posts this below my June 28, 2012 at 7:40 am posting when it belongs under my June 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm posting.

        Playing your game of juking the comments again, no?

        Dr. McCoy on Star Trek used to say things like: “I’m a doctor, Jim, not some damn [—-]!”

        Agent Rogue needs to be reminded that “he is an artist, not some damn [scientist, engineer, mathematician]!” He maketh his “non-radioactive nuclear reactions” accusations from his imagination and doth not understand whereof he speakest.

        Whereas a science fiction movie with the name “The China Syndrome” does indeed have fanciful ruminations, Agent Rogue deftly waves-off some of the very real concepts that formed the premise for that movie.

        Looks to me like Agent Rogue is running scared, is running on empty, and doesn’t have the chops or back-up to address the specifics, so he purposely mis-posts his non-response and waves his hand in the air like a gay Hitler, “Zuruecktretten! Ich bin fertig damit!”

  61. Everyone needs to learn that 9/11 was the American regime nuking its own largest city, and it created the China Syndrome which then poisoned thousands of responders and millions of NY residents.

    1. The “China Syndrome”…Oh hah…I had assumed David was speaking to the psychological affliction of some of the darker hued crockery, such as iron pots and pans. You know, the deep jealousies and grudges against the the white china tableware that their treasures are transferred to before entering the dining rooms to be served.

      But I see now; Mr. Howard is speaking to a fictional scenario to describe a fictional scenario based on fictional concepts to address a complex real-world event. Very well, it’s better than the iron pot calling the the china plate “black”.

      A slow boat to would be faster way to get there.

      ww

      1. Reminders:

        ———And all of this figuring is predicated on thermite – not the nano-grade thermate that only comes from the military if the product is still classified. Any pretense of dealing with an unknown quality by writing mathematical equations is simply symbolic mumbo jumbo: The unknown quality cannot be assigned a factor to equate. It is known from some public releases by scientists at these labs that these materials are “Designer” specific, they can be molded to react at precise specification. The are said to be capable of creating enormous pressures, and phased ignitions within the dispersion.

        Putting a factor, or a number to anything that you can only imagine or postulate about, will inevitably end up an imagined and postulated factor. This is more basic than grade school mathematics this is simple logic.

        This is where the “enormity of amounts” argument fails. The quantity will necessarily balance as per quality. The more powerful the quality, the less quantity demanded. Since the quality of power is unknown, the quantity is equally unknown as their factors are diametrically intertwined.

        Señor Bridges’ entire argument against a creeping-wandering “smolder” of thermates in the pile relies on the argument you made concerning packing the material in a hose, the speed it would ignite in such a circumstance, ie, a “fuse”.

        BUT, as with the evidence of thermates in the dust, this is not the scenario we are dealing with. We are dealing with this material mixed in with other materials – not in one solid pile or mass, but distributed throughout the pile.

        ww

    2. I love how Agent Rogue is starting is squirming.

      Was Fukushima a China Syndrome? May 16, 2011

      The China Syndrome refers to a scenario in which a molten nuclear reactor core could could fission its way through its containment vessel, melt through the basement of the power plant and down into the earth. While a molten reactor core wouldn’t burn “all the way through to China” it could enter the soil and water table and cause huge contamination in the crops and drinking water around the power plant. It’s a nightmare scenario,the stuff of movies. And it might just have happened at Fukushima.

      With respects to 9/11, China Syndrome at the WTC: Rabbit Hole WARNING!!!

      The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath, 2nd Edition. I have this and read it. It essentially republishes concisely what can be found on his blog.

      One should research WTC-4 a bit more closely.






      Cavern below WTC-4 Video. Granted, this might be a natural thing. Might not. In any event, the main edifice of WTC-4 was supposedly leveled by the falling towers while its North Wing, also within the same radius of falling matter, was not.

      And by golly, what is with that damn massive crater in the middle of WTC-6?

      9/11 Conspiracy – The Mystery of WTC6 (video), shows that WTC-6 burned before falling tower debris came raining down.
      The Smoking Gun from WTC 6

      1. “The geographic, planet-piercing concept of the China syndrome derives from the misperception that China is the antipode of the United States; to many Americans, it is the “the other side of the world”. Moreover, the hypothetical transit of a meltdown product to the other side of the Earth (i.e. China) ignores the fact that the Earth’s gravity tends to pull all masses towards its center. Assuming a meltdown product could persist in a mobile molten form for long enough to reach the center of the Earth; gravity would prevent it continuing to the other side.”~Wiki

        Just to be clear, I acknowledge that the term “China Syndrome” has entered the popular lexicon as meaning any full on meltdown of a nuclear reactor. This still does not admit to its application to 9/11, which is obviously a case of Neuromarketing techniques of disingenuous PR.

        ww

      2. Whereas I take the time in my responses to go point-by-point through my discussion opponent’s argument to find both common ground and where we differ, Agent Rogue writes on June 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm:

        It is true, I no longer read [Señor El Once’s] book length postings but for a glance.

        Alas, with my June 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm posting, I wrote but a tiny novella readable in its entirety without scrolling (on my computer) [albeit with Rabbit-Hole Warnings].

        Instead of following the white rabbit into the sites that explain how and what part of the China Syndrome applies to 9/11, Agent Rogue does his own googling into Wiki for its fanciful understanding. And in doing so, Agent Rogue with deft and purpose misses the point.

        Very gracious:

        I acknowledge that the term “China Syndrome” has entered the popular lexicon as meaning any full on meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

        Not so gracious:

        This still does not admit to its application to 9/11, which is obviously a case of Neuromarketing techniques of disingenuous PR.

        Na, that is not so obvious.

        The way I see it, we have (unchallenged) evidence of tritium radiation at WTC. This report was released probably as a “Neuromarketing techniques of disingenuous PR” so they could get away with not releasing any other reports on, say, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. [The EPA was busy shooting itself in the foot with its reports “all is within safe margins, go back to work or shopping.”] Because were they to do so, valid concerns with the source of the under-rubble hot-spots would mirror that of: Was Fukushima a China Syndrome? May 16, 2011.

        [Unspent but fizzling nuclear material from the 9/11 destructive mechanisms] could enter the soil and water table and cause huge contamination in the crops and drinking water around the power plant.

      3. I have made it crystal clear to Mr. Bridges that the reason I am no longer engaging him is this, “Agent Rogue” crap. He understands this, that;s why he keeps it up. Then he can use it as an excuse to claim I am avoiding his specific criticisms.

        This will not work. I am no longer playing Bridges’ carousel loop’the’loop games.

        We have gone through his garden hose dance time and again. Now he wants the explanation of how separate sol-gels may have been used particularly for the slow burn in the rubble pile, when the question itself is the answer.

        My main point to Mr. Bridges is that it is obvious he cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board. I have done so with my argument, one that I stand by.

        I only comment on Bridges as he keeps jabbing his shank at me. So here is the tip of my shank;
        Bridges has no viable argument. This is why he has nothing but counterpunches. If he could describe a clear and viable scenario he would have done so by now.

        ww

  62. How do you justify this claim? It seems to me that you have to do more than belch out bald assertions. You need to convince us that you know what your talking about. I submit that there were others more interested in JFK’s death and the WTC attack than ol’ Bushie.

      1. David, since this is a comments section, it isn’t very useful to just suggest books or links without telling us why they are important or why you think we should look at them.

  63. Having strong opinions is not a mistake. It is in having nothing else that is the mistake.

    Perhaps David Howard has come to us unprepared. It may be his first foray into the world of serious debate. Like anything else, it takes time to learn. I would recommend that Mr. Howard begin with something simple to bring himself up to speed:

    ‘A RULEBOOK FOR ARGUMENTS’ by Anthony Weston

    “A uniquely useful book, one which combines elementary logic and a guide to expository writing.”
    ~Joel Feinberg, University of Arizona.

    It is not more than a pamphlet really – less than a hundred pages. It is modeled on Strunk and White’s THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE.

    ww

  64. @Craig McKee:

    Here is an interesting proposition for you Craig, one that I have not seen addressed in your blogs entries since I have been around as far as I can tell, and one which was apparently not brought up by Vancouver presenter Chris Holmes, even though it _is_ a very important, integral part of the September Clues research conclusions to date, and which basically asks :

    what if the towers were empty and no one [or hardly anyone] died on 9/11?

    Here is a good general introduction as to why this might indeed be the case, and why the idea is at least worth serious consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0 .

    Here are a couple of related links by “Veterans Today” reporter Stuart Ogilby : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/29/were-real-persons-murdered-on-911/ ,
    and: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/26/911-missing-posters-of-disembodied-souls/

    And here is a link to the original September Clues research on the 3000 odd alleged victims, or “vicsims” as they are now known: http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm

    regards, onebornfree.

  65. Fetzer continues to repeat that “the proper definition of “no planes theory” is that:

    (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
    (2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
    (3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
    (4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

    When in fact real planes DID hit the North and South towers. The proper definition of “No-Planes” in the English language remains “no planes”, regardless of Fetzers attempts at Newspeak redefinition.

    It is clear that I am not, and likely none on this thread would assert that Flight 11 hit the North Tower, nor that Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Not even that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But I DO assert that real planes it the towers, and that a real plane flew over the Pentagon.

    It is however Fetzers technique to obfuscate these issues by entwining it all in his Newspeak mumbo jumbo. This and his outright dismissal of the FACT of Nanothermites being explosives, puts this “agent” Fetzer in the mole’s tunnel where he belongs.

    ww

      1. Craig,

        It is the same objection I have always had. “No-Planes” in the English language means, no planes. Video Fakery means manipulating video technically via photographic trickery, which is distinct from from PR spread through media.

        Diluting language is simply Orwellian, this is why I object.

        Fetzer has finally admitted a real plane flew over the Pentagon. Well bully…after how many teeth were yanked out of his head to get him to spit this out?

        He still seems to maintain that if there was a plane at the WTC, it was one “projecting”…I can only assume he means holograms – while it is absolutely forensically clear that there were impacts of real planes into those towers.

        ww

      2. “In my view, the evidence for real videos of a fake plane–a holographic projection–is now substantial.”~JIm Fetzer

        Unless Fetzer has amended this idea in the last couple of days, I can only assume the “real plane” at WTC is one he proposing to be “projecting”, means projecting holograms of planes hitting the towers.

        I suppose it goes without saying that I consider such a proposition as absolute science fiction nonsense. It is technically impossible to “project” a hologram that would appear solid in full daylight, let alone from any conceivable angle that it might be viewed.

        There have yet to be any “projections” of holograms that do not demand a screen of fog, and a controlled POV of an audience viewing such IN A DARK SETTING. Period.

        ww

        1. I’m not sure why you’re kicking this can. You and he have covered it in every way imaginable. And he has said he sees some value in dropping the “video” from “video fakery.” So why pick this fight again?

      3. Craig, When Fetzer passes from “seeing some value” to seeing the necessity of dropping “video” from fakery, and begins speaking in plain English, I will drop it. When he admits that nanothermites are explosives, I will drop that too. When he admits that his entire scrabble about the physics of the plane crashes into the towers is ludicrous BS, I will drop that as well.

        As long as Fetzer continues to waffle about with half way, ‘almost admissions’ to his errors, I think he should continue to be challenged.

        ww

        1. If you read his comment from earlier, I think he did one of the things you’re pushing him to do. When someone shows a willingness to make a compromise, even a small one, I think it’s helpful to take a slightly more positive approach. But that’s just me. You are free to continue to challenge points that Jim or anyone else makes, but just rehashing things you’ve said many times before doesn’t seem very productive, or interesting, to me. Yes, I know Jim was also guilty of repeating his points over and over on the “Gage” thread, but he’s not doing that now. I think “no commercial planes” or “no passenger planes” is more accurate than “no planes” but if that’s the term he’s going to use – and he clearly defines what he means by it – then I think it’s pointless to keep harping on it. If he were to use this terminology to deliberately deceive people, that would be different.

      4. Craig,

        Due to this continued ‘agent rogue’ bullshit from Fetzer and Bridges, I repeal my comment from;
        June 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm – and declare, NO QUARTER.

        ww

  66. Señor El Once on June 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Quotes me as to this:

    Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

    Once replies;

    “Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!”

    Yes “mutually exclusive,” is precisely the point of forensic analysis of signature characteristics. It is what defines the signature. Like your mutually exclusive signature in your handwriting under the magnifying glass of an expert analyst, like your mutually exclusive fingerprints.

    The only “pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense,” is the high pitch anal hurlant squall attempting to drown out the validity of such standard forensic science.

    ww

    1. Mr. Hybrid Rogue makes some valid points. For instance, on June 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm he writes:

      It is obvious he cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.

      I have been using you as a slamming board. I have been bouncing ideas off of you. Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction. You’re the ying to my yang. You’re the Laurel to my Hardy. You’re the Mutt to my Jeff. “You complete me, baby…”

      I only comment on Bridges as he keeps jabbing his shank at me. So here is the tip of my shank;

      Such harsh and violent language, Mr. Rogue. Not very becoming. You’re not being fair, because when you go off-road and into ad hominem ville — which you have (tried) on numerous occassions against me –, your attacks are more creative and much worse than the tiny, iddy-biddy agency logo I painted on the face of your slamming board.

      Mr. Rogue winds up for his round-house joust:

      Bridges has no viable argument. This is why he has nothing but counterpunches. If he could describe a clear and viable scenario he would have done so by now.

      Before I respond to this, allow me to remind readers that Mr. Rogue previously wrote on June 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm:

      It is true, I no longer read [Señor El Once’s] book length postings but for a glance.

      The skew was when Mr. Rogue gave up reading my book length postings. It must have started a lot earlier, because that would explain his unfounded assertion.

      Because my clear and viable scenarios are posted and the failing is by Mr. Rogues own admission his own for only glancing at them, the onus is on Mr. Rogue to go back and re-read my postings for the scenarios that I say he missed.

      My earlier scenarios suggested mini-nuclear reactors that powered multiple DEW devices placed at various levels within the towers. They broadcast microwave energy that turned residual water molecules in content (like concrete or drywall) into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew the containers apart, while explosive nano-thermite milli-seconds later chunked out the sections of the outer wall. The pulsed DEW could also be used to ignite thermiberic (sp) bombs to assist with the pulverization. I called this “nuclear-powered DEW”

      My newer thinking borrows from Project Excalibur abd X-Ray Laser that really specially milli-nuclear devices were used that were designed — not for blast wave energy or heat wave energy which are the typical desired side-effects but — for electromagnetic energy that it would channel (ala DEW) in a controlled fashion as above. I call this speculation “nuking DEW” because the nuclear reaction eventually consumes the rods used for directing the energy.

      The PR from the car commercial, “This isn’t your Dad’s [Catalac]!” gets paraphrase for both: “These aren’t the public’s concepts of how a mini-nuke or nuclear weapon should behave!”

      In both scenarios, its radiation signature would not match conventional nukes. And even if it did, the magician’s PR trick unfolds.

      The more I got into the Tritium reports and its handling, the more I saw that as a magician’s left-hand waving about so companion reports on alpha, beta, and gamma radiation wouldn’t even have to be brought to light as if they never existed, were never important, don’t even ask for them, “nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.”

      Ryan & Jones’ (valid) focus on the six excessive spikes in the release to the atmosphere of chemicals was the magician’s left-foot to distract from the fact that the average hot-spot temperature and duration between the spikes wasn’t even mentioned or analyzed as if [average hot-spot temperature] didn’t exist so had no source! Dr. Wood used unchallenged thermal reports from the govt to cast further doubt on even the existance of hot-spots. To which Mr. Rogue promotes “salting.”

      Mr. Rogue, unable to sleep, consumes four hours of thinking to come back with his June 29, 2012 at 1:03 am second rejoiner. It begins with his earlier words:

      Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

      I replied:

      Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!

      Mr. Rogue tries to come back with:

      Yes “mutually exclusive,” is precisely the point of forensic analysis of signature characteristics. It is what defines the signature. Like your mutually exclusive signature in your handwriting under the magnifying glass of an expert analyst, like your mutually exclusive fingerprints.

      I reply in a similar fashion:

      Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!

      Having spent much of your professional career in animation, ever hear of overlays or layers? You use one transparency layer to define the motion of character X, and use another transparency layer to host the background. They get overlayed to produced one image with character X on the desired background.

      Music does the same thing: drums on track 1, guitar on track 2, vocals on track 3, etc. They get overlayed together onto one track and produced into the music heard in the commercial product.

      It is entirely possible for me to touch an object with my thumb, for someone to put tape over that, and for you to touch the object on the tape at the same spot and for both of our thumb prints to be overlaid but with each print being distinguishable (by computers).

      It is entirely possible for me to sign my name on a piece of paper and for someone else to sign their name right over the top, and both would be super-imposed and legible.

      9/11 didn’t have one signature, one fingerprint, one track, one overlay, one source for the destruction. It had many. You point out one, so that the other one that is overlaid, underlaid, always present isn’t discussed: nuclear evidence.

      To prove my point, you conluded with this wonderful gem of an ad hominem overlaid on your case to really put that final nail in the coffin of your case:

      The only “pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense,” is the high pitch anal hurlant squall attempting to drown out the validity of such standard forensic science.

      1. Very good, Mr. Bridges has a somewhat cohesive theory. I congratulate him on that.

        Nevertheless we do not see this dual image of two separate signatures in the event itself.

        Bridges presses hard to impose this on the aftermath signatures. But I still see no compelling evidence for this.

        The following information on tritium is useful. But of course will have no bearing on Mr. Bridges hypothesis, as he is not speaking to “nuclear explosions” – but this hybrid “nuke reactor driven DEW” { if I have that right}. In which case any and all data can be dismissed as we are now speaking to pure mystery and supposition.

        Nevertheless, some data for the forums consideration:

        “Tritium is also produced commercially in reactors. It is used in various self-luminescent devices, such as exit signs in buildings, aircraft dials, gauges, luminous paints, and wristwatches.
        Tritium occurs naturally in the environment in very low concentrations. Most tritium in the environment is in the form of tritiated water, which easily disburses in the atmosphere, water bodies, soil, and rock.

        A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium. tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. Since tritium is almost always found as water, it goes directly into soft tissues and organs. The associated dose to these tissues are generally uniform and dependent on the tissues’ water content.

        Nuclear explosions cause large amount of tritium. Amount of tritium which is formed during a fission’s reaction composes 4*10 10 Bq/kt and fusion reaction produces less.

        Tritium at WTC aftermath:

        The gamma spectrum of the samples was analyzed using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). The MDA [mimimum detectable activity] for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard. This is only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers.

        Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC)  ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074nCi/L of HTO. A split water  sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained  3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively.
        The quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.”~Jones, et al.

        ww

      2. Mr. Rogue tries to quote Dr. Jones, but gets it wrong, because this paragraph comes directly from Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center, and even Dr. Jones writing makes this clear:

        Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively.

        Y-a-w-n. I guess here is another book-length posting of mine that Mr. Rogue only glanced at: June 18, 2012 at 10:23 am. I use most of the same quote from Dr. Jones and show how they did the magician trick of redefining trace level to be 55 times greater than it was.

        That same report also says:

        These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

        Assuming Mr. Rogue quoted Dr. Jones correctly, Dr. Jones puts his own spin on it:

        The quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.

        Mr. Rogue’s gambit continues:

        The following information on tritium is useful. But of course will have no bearing on Mr. Bridges hypothesis, as he is not speaking to “nuclear explosions” – but this hybrid “nuke reactor driven DEW” { if I have that right}. In which case any and all data can be dismissed as we are now speaking to pure mystery and supposition.

        Quite right, my old man! Dr. Jones accepted unchallenged the tritium report. He then tilts the table using signatures for three types of nukes, finds their signatures don’t match the reports, so rules out all nukes AND offers wimpy supposition of his own for the tritium that you do us the favor of highlighting.

        Quite right again in saying that my “nuking DEW” and “nuclear-powered DEW” are both “pure mystery and supposition” when brought up by me. It keeps good company with the “pure mystery and supposition” that you peddle.

        Where you are wrong is explaining why “any and all data can be dismissed”. The reason is that it was never verified as being accurate or trustworthy in the first place.

        Because it was in a book-length posting on
        June 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm
        , you probably missed this excellent quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:

        They would tackle you and take your camera away. … When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn’t go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. … The rescue people – when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don’t wear anything on the site you’re not prepared to leave there because it’s contaminated. … My teeth are falling out. … If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn’t say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they’d say, “Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second.” And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [AJ: AJ: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn’t take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn’t control. … Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people’s teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I’ve lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, “I’ve never seen anything like this in someone who’s healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can’t stop it either.” … The doctor said to me, I have – 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It’s this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems.

        It isn’t even as if an astute individual with independent measuring equipment would be admitted to even the outer perimeter of the WTC security line.

        I offer up further “pure mystery and supposition” by saying that we have no reason to trust any of the govt radiation reports.

        Oh, and here is something else to add to my “pure mystery and supposition.” Dr. Jones said that a trigger for a super-duper nano-thermitic device could be a laser. I’m sure the same is true for Mike Philbin’s thermobaric explosive. “Directed” and “energy” are two keywords from DEW.

        In conclusion, B-I-G     Y-A-W-N.

        You become more like Q-bot everyday, Mr. Rogue.

  67. My problem is not with the ‘reactors’ so much as with the DEW, which is built on total supposition.
    However as per ‘reactors’, mini-reactors are proven feasible in 2008. A 7 year back-leap = supposition.

    Again, as my problem has been all along is; hypothesis based purely on supposition. It may be reasonable to ‘suspect’ that these technologies are ‘military secrets’ circa 1999 – but that is not proof.

    Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.

    Also immediately after the event, thermobaric weapons, massive “bunker busters” were used three months later in Afghanistan on the cave complex of Tora Bora.

    Then there is the physical proof of superthermite in the aftermath dust.

    I find this a more compelling line of reasoning.

    ww

    1. Dear Mr. Rogue,

      My June 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm was one minute after your June 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm posting, but due to moderation delays, neither of us would have known that.

      However, the question is: why did you write the 3:59 pm posting at all? You already had the last word with your 1:59 pm posting. If you had something more to say, why didn’t you delay your 1:59 pm posting, expand it to book-length, and include information from the 3:59 pm posting? You put two in a row, Mr. Rogue.

      As for your wave-off that DEW might be just a supposition: Nope. DEW is operational. Active Denial System proves it; videos of lasers destroying missiles proves it; published speculation from 1977 (Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser) before Star Wars kicked into gear does a bit more than hint the direction some of the research would go.

      Regarding Excalibur, Wiki has this to say:

      Conceived by nuclear scientist Edward Teller, the concept involved packing large numbers of expendable x-ray lasers into a nuclear bomb. When it detonated, the bomb would fire laser beams in many directions. … Ten known tests of nuclear-pumped x-ray lasers were conducted between 1978 and 1988. The project was determined to be out of reach of current technology and was formally abandoned in 1992. … Research was redirected to laser satellites and kinetic weapons under the Strategic Defense Initiative.

      Yep, I’ll bet directing fire at multiple targets was out of reach of the technology (1992), but what elements of the concept were still feasible [and permitted the 10 known tests of nuclear-pumped x-ray lasers]? I’d be willing to speculate in a wild-ass & crazy fashion that they could hit at least ONE target… like whatever was placed in the path of the laser… like on 9/11 a whole series of tower floors.

      Alas, speculation it remains, but speculation that at least tries to address the evidence. Your super-duper nano-thermite in a sol-get thermobutic bomb? Not so much. Yeah, it was in the dust, but it wasn’t radioactive nor could it account for hot-spot duration (just hot-spot spikes). It doesn’t merit shutting down all lines of inquiry into other sources that can explain these bothersome piece of evidence.

      Your concerted effort — postings in a row — to have the readers of this forum not consider such bothersome pieces of evidence and to settle for what a genius artist “finds a more compelling line of reasoning” should be duly noted by all.

      [Yeah, yeah, yeah, they’ve already noted how bat-shit crazy & waffling I am to even go there. I wouldn’t be such a duped useful idiot on this front if your scientific analysis was better. It ain’t. You’re just repetitive in a Q-bot-ish way.]

  68. onesliceshort says: “And onebornfree. Whatever happened to any response to the shockingly deceptive WTC7 “fake video” claims answered earlier?

    Dear onesliceshort, I’ve in fact been waiting to see if you’d ever notice my [deliberate] lack of response to your post to me [June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm].

    Aren’t you getting a little ahead of yourself here? We already had[have?] a pre-existing conversation going on regarding an alleged “plane impact analysis” video you had posted .

    As part of that conversation I had last asked you two very specific questions [ June 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm- almost 4 hours before your post of June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm], to which, to date I have not received a direct response from you, as far as I can see.

    Do you now believe I should first reply to a subsequent post/comment of yours [June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm] that attempts to comment on a comment of mine not even initially directed at yourself, but at Mr Fetzer?

    I am not going to chase you [or anyone else] around this board. So, to avoid confusion, why not just keep the original conversation going between us instead of you just leaping head first into a conversation between myself and another person?🙂 Wouldn’t that make a little more sense?

    Assuming you just missed my June 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm reply post directed specifically at yourself, as admittedly it is now out of sequence, [although it was not so at the time], here is that entire almost 4 hour earlier post of mine made directly to _yourself_ :

    ” onebornfree says: June 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    onesliceshort says: “Apart from the impact “analysis” of the same 9/11 “live footage” that you don’t trust. Gotcha.”
    You are correct, I do not trust that “impact “analysis” that you had previously posted – however, can you tell me exactly why you believe I don’t trust it? [i.e could you summarize my POV regarding my reasons for not trusting it, to make sure we are on the same page vis a vis my last response to you on the same “impact analysis” video ]?
    Also, would you make clear to me your reasons for assuming that it is genuine?”

    So my two questions from that June 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm post remain:

    1] can you tell me exactly why you believe I don’t trust it? [i.e could you summarize my POV regarding my reasons for not trusting it, to make sure we are on the same page vis a vis my last response to you on the same “impact analysis” video ]?

    2] would you make clear to me your reasons for assuming that it is genuine?”

    Although I have quite a few questions regarding your other, subsequent post [June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm] that you are now [unjustifiably in my opinion] expecting a reply to, if you still are looking for a serious, considered response from me then I first need the clarification that would be provided by your making a serious attempt at answering those 2 chronologically precedent questions of mine .

    If not you do not address those two questions first, do not expect a reply to your chronologically antecedent post to me of June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm .

    Regards,onebornfree.

    1. Onebornfree

      That’s your response? That Simon Shack video has been torn a new one so now you want to enter your back-up circular argument? Your “In case of emergency break glass” shimmy?

      What, it’s irrelevant that Shack used deceptive footage, timeframes and angles? Is it?

      You don’t have to follow me obf. Do me a favour and do the opposite.

  69. I suppose it is my fault for mentioning Mr. Bridges by name at all, in that he now seems to think I am interested in “jousting” with him over various points of minutia – I am not. We have done that or thread after thread.

    As I said earlier, I have presented what I feel is the most productive direction to explain the demolition of the WTC.

    Mr. Bridges has his alternative views, which I encourage him to continue pursuit of.
    [ Minus the Q bullshit if he can manage some self restraint. ]

    ww

    1. Noted that nobody has even commented on the points raised about Simon Shack’s dishonest piece on WTC7. That’s okay. I’m used to it by now.

      1. Well OSS, as you know I have been attempting to put that monkey back in it’s cage for some time now. I do appreciate that you have come to grasp the utter lunacy of the Shack’n’jive burlesque.
        Like you I have grown used to it as well, the lack of attention to criticisms long thought out and presented with care…
        It does seem that quite a few are but dimly lit and browsing like lazy shoppers here at times.

        ww

  70. HRogue1 says, ‘It is technically impossible to “project” a hologram that would appear solid in full daylight, let alone from any conceivable angle that it might be viewed.”

    Take another look at the picture of the wing disappearing in the Hezarkhani vid. Does that look
    solid to you? As for the “any conceivable angle” part, you might remember that many witnesses, viewing the scene from certain angles, did not see the plane.

    And who sez, “It is technically impossible…”? How do we know what is “impossible”?

    1. ben collet says:

      “Take another look at the picture of the wing disappearing in the Hezarkhani vid.”

      As I have explained countless times here, what you are seeing in this video is simply a problem of drop out of thin lines do, in this case to pixel ratios, but that also takes place in analog photography at distant shots, where a wing viewed as to its plan-view will have enough resolution, but edgewise blends into the background. It is a simple matter of resolution.

      ben also exclaims with a question mark:

      “And who sez, “It is technically impossible…?”

      I do, by acknowledging the underlying physical principles of light and shadow, which are yin and yang entwined in the physical universe. If such a phenomena is to be created, it will be on principles beyond that of fractal hologram technology.

      ww

      1. hybridrogue1 replied to my pointing out the disappearing wing in the Hezarkhani vid with the following,

        “As I have explained countless times here, what you are seeing in this video is simply a problem of drop out of thin lines do, in this case to pixel ratios, but that also takes place in analog photography at distant shots, where a wing viewed as to its plan-view will have enough resolution, but edgewise blends into the background. It is a simple matter of resolution.”

        I infer from this garbled syntax that hr1 is saying that the plane is so far away, and therefore the number of pixels in the thickness of the wing is so small, that they just disappear and fade into the background.

        But if that were the case then one should expect that other details of an equally fine resolution would also be disappearing – but that is not the case. Only the wing disappears.

        Hr1’s effort at refuting this evidence of a hologram fails.

      2. 911truthsea says:

        “I infer from this garbled syntax that hr1 is saying that the plane is so far away, and therefore the number of pixels in the thickness of the wing is so small, that they just disappear and fade into the background.”

        I said that the RESOLUTION is so bad that the thin edge of the aircraft is indistinct, [plan-view means looking down on the wing] – as far as pixels the wing itself is only two pixels in the compressed versions of the Hezarkhani video, and that is the 3/4 view before the bank which seems to show the wing disappearing – yes, low resolution and extreme pixelation = this optical illusion.

        Other details, such as the smoke shapes are caused by this same resolution problem in this video. In fact all the bogus rap given to this imagery is explained by such technical knowledge.

        ww

        1. How much more proof do we need that his man is a complete fraud who is willing to make up any excuse, no matter how feeble, to explain away proof that these crash sites were faked, which in the case of the North and the South Towers, involved the use of holograms. He has demonstrated that he is not on the up-and-up too many times to excuse him. He does not belong here or on any other 9/11 research site. He is clearly uninterested in truth.

    2. Nice point, Ben. Agent Rogue likes to make sweeping statements which are not supported by the available evidence. In this case, John Lear, Stephan Grossman, Stephen Brown, and (now) Richard Hall have provided support for the hologram hypothesis. This guy does not think about how else to explain the image of a plane that is (a) flying faster than a standard 767 can fly at that altitude; (b) entering the building in violation of Newton’s laws; (c) passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frame it passes though its own length in air; (d) produces no collision effects–no crumpling, no broken wings, no bodies, seats or luggage and no tail breaking off–as it melts into the building; (e) where the cut-outs in the facade appear to have been created during the smoke (as Hall has explained); (f) the plane has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, has a disappearing left-wing, and cannot be seen from various locations; not to mention (g) that a fake engine component was found at Church & Murray, which did not come from a Boeing 767 and appears to have been planted by agents wearing FBI vests! How much rubbish are we suppose to accept from this guy without concluding that he is not on the level?

      1. Fetzer – who doesn’t know diddly squat about photography or video says:

        >”Nice point, Ben. Agent Rogue likes to make sweeping statements which are not supported by the available evidence….This guy does not think about how else to explain the image of a plane that is (a) flying faster than a standard 767 can fly at that altitude”

        As per point (a) – It is already determined this is not “a standard 767”, but a souped up and hardened military aircraft camouflaged as a commercial airliner.

        As per (b, d, e, f) – these are all video anomalies due to lack of resolution. Close inspection of that video shows that there IS a shadow, which only becomes apparent as the plane is very near the building because of the nature of multiple reflective light.

        As per (b) “entering the building in violation of Newton’s laws.” It is Fetzer himself who is denying Newton’s laws by disputing their application to the formula’s proven by the Sandia tests; that the center of gravity in a body at momentum is the center of mass. As the Sandia tests prove, the mass does not decelerate at impact until the center of mass reaches that impact point. An object traveling at such speeds passes through the impact point in a matter of micro-seconds, and the slight slowing of the tail section as it reaches the impact point is simply imperceptible to the human eye, or standard speed on video.

        As per (g)” that a fake engine component was found at Church & Murray” – is an issue of agreement among most of the Truth community already and is nothing I have ever argued against.

        As per “John Lear, Stephan Grossman, Stephen Brown, and (now) Richard Hall have provided support for the hologram hypothesis.” – All nothing but an appeal to authority – so what? Support for a hypothesis is not PROOF of the hypothesis; of which Fetzer has NONE.

        Fetzer likes to spout off about Newton’s Laws, but has zero comprehension of applied physics, as has been proven time and again on these very threads.

        ww

        1. Well, if showing and sharing is “promoting”, he might have a point. As I have explained, the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon is out there. This looks like evidence that supports it. I do not believe I stated it was authentic, which I am not in the position to verify. But I would present it again under similar circumstances with greater emphasis on the point that I cannot vouch for its authenticity. But to try to turn this into a major offense reveals that this guy is willing to exaggerate and has no respect for those of us who are attempting to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.

  71. CLEARCHANEL – NEUROMARKETING – ALTERNATIVE RADIO
    A Historical Example of Technique:

    In the early 90s a genre of rock music came onto the scene via preponderantly college radio stations, very innovative, individualized and oft very esoteric music. I hit the airwaves in much the same way as the early FM – Frisco lead ‘psychedelic rock’ of the early 70s – little chatter, almost no commercials almost all music. This era was mutated by the marketeers slowly buying into the format and then a drip by drip escalation of music/commercial ratios until the unbearable formats we still see today.

    The early 90s genre became known as “Alternative”. Within but a few years the bean counters took note of an “untapped market” in this “Alternative” phenomena, broadcast by small independent and college radio stations. The technique of “Hostile Takeovers” was fully developed in the corporate world by this time, and it took a very simple strategy of neurotmarketing and unlimited monetary resources to move in on the independent stations nationwide with a K-Mart style subsidy ownership protocol. The repeat of what happened to the psychedelic rock stations of the early 70s, happened virtually over night to “Alternative Music/Rock” etc..

    This very same template of neuromarketing has now been applied to what was actually the original “Alternative” 9/11 Truth v the Official Story.A ‘Lampoon Alternative’ movement has infiltrated the original.

    As a ‘national security’ concern, there is little doubt that vast resources are put into a counter “Alternative” of the 9/11 Truth issues. These programs are sophisticated, sly and subtle. It is a continuing psyop in itself, evolving naturally out of the planning for the original event.

    It is my regrettable opinion that the movement will not recover from the counterinsurgency, it is without precedent historically for such recoveries to take place. This is why Amerika entered the 21st century as a full blown police state as it was. A panoptic maximum security state, a technocratic scientific dictatorship.

    I don’t believe that the average 9/11 researcher has the foundation of socio-cultural study to truly grasp the depth of the situation, nor distinguish between actual alternative 9/11 theory and the counter insurgent PR 9/11 “alternative theories”.

    The crux of the real battle are elsewhere: The realization that it is a war between the “Banksters”, and the common people of the planet. This is beyond 9/11, and beyond the issues of this thread, so I will make short of it, and leave it to what I have already said.

    ww

  72. Jim Fetzer says: ” In this case, John Lear, Stephan Grossman, Stephen Brown, and (now) Richard Hall have provided support for the hologram hypothesis. ”

    Jim, with all due respect,I do not think you are thinking too clearly with regards to your hologram hypothesis.

    If holographic plane images _were_ used on 9/11 as you claim, then how do you explain the “engine parts” [or whatever they are supposed to be] coming out of the far side of the building in the Evan Fairbanks footage :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGlohdWhY .

    Are those parts a part of your holographic projection hypothesis as well, Jim?

    Similar “engine parts” can also be seen in the Scott Meyers sequence : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyBsEIsKMJk .

    Are they also part of your holographic projection hypothesis as well, Jim?

    To answer my own question:

    There were no holograms. Both videos [and all videos showing planes crashing into WTC buildings, whether “amateur” or network derived] are 100% fraudulent, every pixel was created on computer in a studio _before_ 9/11 ever happened.

    Simple logic eliminates holograms because of the presence of other factors in these two video sequences [i.e. flying “engine parts”] that could not be easily replicated via holographic projection, and which at the same time could not possibly be real images/depictions of real-world post crash debris “spray” either. [For many reasons that I will not get into right now].

    And simple, not even especially deep, investigation into the backgrounds of the alleged amateur photographers such as Evan Fairbanks and Michael Herzekhani, [ which you have apparently never even bothered to try to perform, Jim] , as well as related chain of custody issues regarding their famous “amateur” videos, would give the average honest, unbiased investigator more than enough pause for thought to reach the conclusion that these videos and all similar are blatant forgeries from start to finish.

    Holograms? Schmolograms!

    regards, onebornfree

    1. Well, it cannot have been anything other than a hologram, since the witnesses reported seeing what they took to be a plane but it was performing feats that no real plane could perform, including an effortless entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, as I have explained again and again. That Rogue continues to resist a point this obvious tells me he does not have a full deck.

      Since the had previously positioned explosives that were detonated after the plane (per impossible) had completely entered the building without any collision effects (which this guy swallows hook, line and sinker), when it should have exploded on impact, it would not have been difficult to have some thing ready to blow out the opposite side so those like Rogue could make arguments like these.

      But the fact of the matter is that the engine component that was purportedly blown out of the South Tower was found under a steel scaffolding, lying on an undamaged concrete building, where it did not even come from a Boeing 767–and we have FOX NEWS footage showing agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy at that intersection. How much proof does rationality require?

      And that is the give-away. Rogue fixates on anything that might possibly support the official account and ignores the evidence that falsifies it. He is willing to accept the occurrence of miracles on 9/11 in the form of the suspension of Newton’s laws, when the plane should have crumpled, iwings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. That didn’t happen. He doesn’t care.

      1. Fetzerspeak. And insinuating that I’m the one whose word should be viewed upon with suspicion when he’s on record as stating himself that the video is fake.

        Jim Fetzer stated in August of last year

        “A friend of mine, Mike Sparks, has informed me that the video footage of the missile strike is faked. I think Gordon’s article is an excellent summary overview and agree about Jesse’s show. But, even though it looks quite realistic and I believe that a missile was fired at the building–very much as the video suggests–this one is fake, which may lead many to infer that no missile hit the Pentagon”

        Anyway, here’s some of my own research (and speculation) posted at Pilotsfor911Truth:

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21128&view=findpost&p=10798964

        Here’s a question. Given the topography of the area immediately before the Pentagon, where would they fire a missile from?? Did the “missile” pull up? How’d they get that cardboard cut out shape of an “aircraft” with a missile? How did it suddenly stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed?

        Rumsfeld and others were allegedly in “A” Ring. Would they risk an errant missile blasting its way through the building? Wasn’t a limited fatality rate at the Pentagon more desirable? Take out the accountants? 0% survival rate?

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21208&pid=10799837&mode=threaded&show=&st=#entry10799837

        I think the problem is that people are stuck in a groove in that something must have struck when in reality a controlled, grounded event would have been more risk free and a 99% guaranteed successful effect on both witnesses and rescue workers/firefighters/Pentagon occupants.

        A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon’s surrounding network of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building’s five concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well. According to Evey, “The Renovation Office recognized this shortcoming and was determined to address it effectively by incorporating improved personnel safety features into the overall renovation program.” The blast protection task was included in the new design work for the first of the Pentagon’s five “wedges” and is now a “template” for the follow-on renovation of the other sections. 

        The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Protective Design Center evaluated possible threats to determine a “most likely” bomb blast scenario, calculating dynamic, time-varying forces for various blast sizes and locations on the building’s perimeter. From this analysis, the Renovation Office established blast resistance structural design criteria for the project. The next step in the process was to develop the design, incorporating the established criteria.

        http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pentagon-retrofit.htm

        The analyses assume that the Pentagon frame is sufficient to resist the loads transferred to it from the exterior walls. Evaluations of the original and retrofitted Pentagon structures were performed using the Antiterrorist (AT) Planner software [1]. AT Planner is a PC-based computer code that assists installation-level personnel in analyzing the vulnerability of buildings and their occupants to the effects of terrorist vehicle bombs. The program also contains information to aid in developing protective measures.

        AT Planner is being developed to present concepts and procedures for protecting deploying forces from terrorist/saboteur attack using expedient methods that require a minimum of engineer resources. Recent experience has shown that the demand for military engineering in support of antiterrorism has risen dramatically as the Army is drawn into a succession of operations other than war. In these situations, U.S. troops may be subject to attack by unfriendly civilian or paramilitary groups. AT Planner is a Windows 95-based application suitable for operation on a notebook computer by combat engineer officers, and draws on completed and ongoing research related to the protection of fixed facilities from terrorist attack as well as work on field fortifications. AT Planner is based on references 2-7. AT Planner provides standoff distance evaluations, structural damage and window hazard calculations, protective measures checklist for terrorist threats, and vehicle velocity calculations and barrier recommendations. When a vulnerability analysis from a terrorist bomb is calculated in AT Planner, blast pressure is calculated at the center of each structural bay on a structure. 
        Angle of incidence is considered in calculating airblast levels on structures, but clearing effects and shielding effects are not. AT Planner uses PI (Pressure Impulse) diagrams to allow a user to quickly estimate building damage from a vehicle bomb attack.

        ….

        The PI curves presented above are used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and small truck bomb threats as shown in Figure 8 (the windows control these stand-offs). 

        To analyze the existing retrofits response to blast load, SDOF models of the wall and window systems were developed. The wall model did not consider the effects of window failure. The resistance of the wall included the strength of the façade, the masonry wall, and the tubular framing system (dominant contribution). The wall system model was used in WAC to generate RTE and PI curves and these curves were validated with FE analyses. The high level PI curves were used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and the small truck bomb threats. The custom PI diagrams for the window and wall retrofits of the exterior wall of the E-Ring were used for all walls. Damage plot in figure 9 are intended to illustrate damage to the outside of the E-Ring only.

        http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/34/paper/63hall.pdf

        Lt. Gen. Bob Flowers commands the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps helped design the Pentagon’s new protection. The engineers studied past attacks, including the 1983 marine bombing in Lebanon, Oklahoma City in 1995, the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia and the US emassies in East Africa.

        “at Khobar Towers, for example, most of the damage and casualties were caused by flying debris from the structure and the glass, et cetera,” says Flowers. “and so based on that, we worked, designed, things to prevent flying debris and flying glass.

        At Oklahoma City, the bulk of the casualties were caused by the collapsing structure. So one of the things we studied was how to put redundant capability in a structure to prevent it from collapsing if it was attacked. So by applying the lessons that you learn from doing those studies, you can better protect structures in the future.” 

        It was a tough way to learn a lesson. But there is an easier way. The Corps is making a study of safer buildings by setting off its own bombs at a research center in Mississippi.

        Reed Mosher is the technical director for survivability. They have developed a team of specialists that goes to these terrorist strikes as soon as they happen.

        The buildings tell the team a great deal. “we want to find what performed well, what didn’t perform well, try to characterize the size of the bomb, the blast,” says Mosher.

        Mosher also designs his own terrorist bombings in miniature with exacting scale models of reinforced concrete buildings.

        Recently, Mosher’s team tested a common interior wall, particle board, steel wall studs and sheetrock. The wall is set in a steel frame with instruments inside. 

        Then they set off a bomb. Mosher has done hundreds of these, in an effort to create new building materials. The corps of engineers runs these experiments through its super computer center, which is one of the most powerful in the nation. The computer can test various kinds of bombs against different buildings without breaking any glass. 

        In a special 3-d imaging room mosher showed how the super computers recreates the blast wave that hit khobar towers. It predicts the path of every shard of glass from a single breaking window.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/60II/main319383.shtml

        There it is in black and white. They knew how the structure would react to various sized blasts from different angles.

        Why use a terrain hugging “missile” in a multi-obstacled, topographical nightmare?

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21208&pid=10799861&mode=threaded&show=&st=#entry10799861

        On the manipulation of visible “debris” on the lawn, I searched through all available images (AFAIK) of the lawn and came across some irregularities to the south of the lawn:

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795793

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795859

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795876

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795908

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10796019

        I know it’s pointless trying to convince anybody that their own gut instinct is wrong unless they come to their own conclusions but even though there’s no definitive proof and it’s based on my own personal speculation, these images always stood out to me as a very realistic and possible controlled method of covering a lot of bases from damaging the facade to spraying “debris” :

        I can’t see how any “flying craft” or “missile” could physically plough through this obstacle (the former), or how a “missile” would not detonate prematurely on striking it.

        The NOC aircraft couldn’t physically cause it. A smaller modified craft’s engine raises just as many problems. I was never in the military (I just noticed the question) but was raised in a military state (N. Ireland) but I’ve seen the damage caused by improvised mortars primarily used against fortified bases

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster

        If those people could do it, imagine it from a military perspective. A recoilless mortar mounted in the generator trailer with the calculated amount of HE?

        The facade was allegedly a mesh of tubing bolting the floors together. The larger bolts were found on the first floor of the renovated section.

        Another HSMM design consideration was the projectile potential of the brick infill walls in the event of a terrorist bomb. The solution incorporated a system developed by Protective Design Center to mitigate this concern. The Protective Design Center system employs an extremely tough mesh geotextile material, normally used to stabilize highway embankments, to arrest wall debris loosed by a blast. For the proposed solution, the fabric ends are wrapped around steel plates, which are then bolted to the sill tube and to the support plate at the floor slab below the window. The fabric is also installed between the vertical tubes and the existing concrete columns with the wrapped plates bolted to the support plates at the ceiling and the floor. Masonry Arts, Inc., was the contractor for this portion of the work, and likewise offered a number of practical solutions when circumstances varied from the design. These renderings show the fabric as loosely woven to allow the viewer to see the wall beyond. In reality, however, the material is woven much more tightly. This taut screen deflects to absorb missile energy if brick wall masonry is loosed in a blast, allowing the masonry material to fall harmlessly to the building floor. 

        http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.jpg  

        This “safety feature” ran through the facade:

        You can see how it actually worked:

        Now I know it’s way over my head, but I can see how they could have ripped the (desired) hole in the facade with a well calculated, controlled blast. The retaining wall at Column 11 may have been precut to aid collapse. I believe that it was meant to collapse immediately and they f*ed it up.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21208&pid=10800658&mode=threaded&show=&st=0#entry10800658

        Another physical debunk of this alleged debris, namely the “N” and “C” pieces would have had to have been expulsed, whether by the blast or the heat just as the explosion went off in any “impact” scenario. Why? Look where the “C” and “N” are situated on the left hand side of the aircraft:

        The ASCE Report claims that the fuel “rebounded” before “igniting”.

        Physics and logic would have any explosion occurring by “impact” when the central and wing fuel tanks make contact with the facade. So how could those two pieces have been blown out and away from the facade before the explosion occurred?

        They couldn’t physically have been “peeled off” on “entry” as there wouldn’t be any lettering visible as the outer skin of the aircraft is only milimetres thick and would have been crushed beyond recognition. Blackened at least.

        Lastly, look at the lettering on the vertical stabilizer compared to the letters that were allegedly found!

        ——————————

        1. Come on, slice. I have explained this before. I would still show it because it is interesting and we have to sort out the real from the phony evidence. But I would accent that there are reasons for us to suspect that, in this case, the video clip is not genuine. Since there appears to be evidence that a Global Hawk may have fired a missile into the building, however, it seems to work like the Rather sting op, where an authentic letter was retyped to discredit it, since everyone would presume that the contents of a fake letter must be false, when that was not the case. The parallel is that, given a presumably fake video of a missile attack, everyone presumes that no missile actually hit, when it may very well be the case that one actually did, as Barbara Honegger has recently contended. So I think you are leaping to unjustifiable conclusions. There is something here well-worth exploring.

      2. OSS asys:

        “Rumsfeld and others were allegedly in “A” Ring. Would they risk an errant missile blasting its way through the building? Wasn’t a limited fatality rate at the Pentagon more desirable? Take out the accountants? 0% survival rate?”

        Yes, this has been my thinking for some time. I think I made this argument to A. Wright on a thread quite a few back. That there was no possibility of the brass going along with a hit on the Pentagon that wasn’t totally fail-safe. Therefore a something as potentially chaotic as a real plane crash would be immediately eliminated from consideration. A missile strike would be dismissed for similar reasons. The control available with shaped charges of known pressures and brisance would have been the only ‘fail-safe’ option.

        They were planted in the building and walls as part of the “up-grade” to the section that was demolished.

        You’ve done a good job here of covering this from many different angles OSS. Bravo.

        ww

      3. To repeat: if the Myers and Fairbanks videos [and all other similar “plane into WTC2” videos] are genuine videos that captured “real life” holographic plane images “entering WTC2, as you claim Jim, and not just outright forgeries, are the supposed “engine parts” seen exiting one side of the WTC2 building in both the Fairbanks and Myers videos [linked to in my previous post] , part of your alleged holographic projection scenario as well,or not? If yes, then how was this effect achieved in your opinion- if not why not?

        regards, onebornfree.

        1. I already dealt with this, slice. Just as they had previously positioned jet fuel to explode on command, they also appear to have had something to shoot out the other side, so people like you could make arguments like this. But the actual engine component found at Church & Murray, as you would know if you had ever read any of my studies about this, was under a steel scaffolding, lying on an undamaged sidewalk, and was not even from a Boeing 767. How dumb is that?

          Plus Jack White discovered FOX NEWS footage in which you can see agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white van at just that intersection. What do you suppose it was, slice? I am becoming increasingly troubled that you are not doing your homework. If you don’t know this story by now, you really are unqualified to be addressing these issues. Rogue is doing it on purpose, but you are supposed to have some scruples and not be unaware of facts like these.

      4. To repeat: if the Myers and Fairbanks videos [and all other similar “plane into WTC2” videos] are genuine videos that captured “real life” holographic plane images “entering WTC2, as you claim Jim, and not just outright forgeries, are the supposed “engine parts” seen exiting one side of the WTC2 building in both the Fairbanks and Myers videos [linked to in my previous post] , part of your alleged holographic projection scenario as well,or not? If yes, then how was this effect achieved in your opinion- if not why not?[and what are they then?]

        regards, onebornfree.

    2. Fetzer says;

      “And that is the give-away. Rogue fixates on anything that might possibly support the official account and ignores the evidence that falsifies it. He is willing to accept the occurrence of miracles on 9/11 in the form of the suspension of Newton’s laws, when the plane should have crumpled, iwings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. That didn’t happen. He doesn’t care.”

      In what have I ever made an argument for anything to do with the official story?

      You are the one ignoring Newton’s laws you ingnoramus by disputing their application to the formula’s proven by the Sandia tests; that the center of gravity in a body at momentum is the center of mass.

      As the Sandia tests prove, the mass does not decelerate at impact until the center of mass reaches that impact point. An object traveling at such speeds passes through the impact point in a matter of micro-seconds, and the slight slowing of the tail section as it reaches the impact point is simply imperceptible to the human eye, or standard speed on video.

      Then to this assertion that “the plane (per impossible) had completely entered the building without any collision effects” us more bullshit piled on, as any clear video show these exact collision effects you deny.

      And where would “luggage” come from when our postulation is that a hardened military stand in crashed into the building. You talk about “full decks” when you can’t even parse the actual argument you think you are countering. This and your obvious absolute ignorance of applied physics is apparent in every post you make.

      You have ZERO proof of a hologram that can be projected in the fashion you assert. An assertion is not a proof, oh “philosopher of science”…Lol

      There was no magic in NY the morning of 9/11, all is accountable to real world physics, the only “magic” is the fairydust in your eyes.

      ww

      1. Egad! The Sandia test? I can’t believe it. This was a fighter (probably made of synthetic material) that was filled with water and run at around 500 mph into a concrete barrier. It blew apart in tiny pieces in every direction. It’s velocity fell to zero. (It did not pass through the concrete barrier.)

        The plane shown in the Flight 175 fake videos shows an aluminum aircraft that hits the South Tower at more than 500 mph, but does not blow apart at all. Instead, It effortlessly enters the building its whole length in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air.

        If anyone has any lingering doubts about the competence of Rogue in matters of this kind, they should be decisively settled–once and for all!–by this, his latest post. But then, advancing faulty analogies is probably the best he can do, other than fallacies of equivocation and special pleading.

      2. Fetzer: Drawing From the Rat’s Side Of the Brain

        Speaking to the Sandia crash test Fetzer says AGAIN:

        “It’s velocity fell to zero. (It did not pass through the concrete barrier.)”

        As if this has bearing on the point of the test, which proved, as I point out above that in high speed crash physics, there is no deceleration of the momentum of the object until the center of gravity of that object meets the impact point.

        One would note that in the plane crashes into the towers – the velocity fell to zero as well.
        The Sandia jet’s velocity fell to zero – NOT IN A SINGLE INSTANT – but in a definite amount of time. It was an exceedingly small amount of time – that is what speed accomplishes after all; shorter amounts of time.

        This is the very simple physics that Fetzer is incapable of – or refuses to admit to out of ulterior motive {agenda}. As I said, agent Fetzer can play this same loosing bullshit hand over again here because he is playing to the lowest common denominator, those who are not familiar with and do not grasp the nature of and findings of the Sandia tests.

        To preempt Fetzer’s flying aluminum beer cans and little birds bullshit; let it be understood that,
        the aluminum used in aircraft construction has a tensile strength greater than industrial steel.
        Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6 – yield strength: 400 – ultimate strength: 450.

        He claims that this plane that hit the tower “does not blow apart”. Of course it it did. It shredded as it crashed through the facade of the towers.

        Fetzer cannot speak to actual physics, he speaks in political language, he is a PR operator running on a script, one that has a certain percentage of success that keeps him in business. His strategy is attrition – he repeats this bullshit over and over just like a used car salesman.
        Yes, it is a technique that works. As PT Barnum said, “there’s a sucker born every minute,” – this is Fetzers working philosophy, that there are enough suckers to keep buying tickets to his circus to keep him in business.

        ww

        1. More drivel from Rogue. The aluminum aircraft would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. It was allegedly intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel support columns at the other. Each was filled with 4-8″ of concrete or about an acre apiece.

          I do not understand what benefits Rogue thinks he derives from the reiteration, over and over, of false claims about the absence of any impact collision effects. There were many witnesses who reported seeing a plane, where Scott Forbes was just one among them. I especially appreciated his description of astonishment when “the building swallowed the plane”, which was believable.

          There were hundreds of other witnesses who saw what they took to be a plane but which cannot have been a real plane, since it was performing feats that no real plane could perform. The left wing disappears in some of the videos as it approaches the building. From some perspectives, a hologram would have not been visible. So the totality of the evidence supports that hypothesis.

          It has no strobe lights. It casts no shadows. It has a disappearing wing. It is flying faster than a standard Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude. No real plane, special or not, could have entered the building in violation of Newton’s laws. The engine component found at Church & Murray was a plant. Any sincere seeker of truth would acknowledge that the evidence is simply overwhelming.

  73. And the Reagan Administration? It was clear from the attempted assassination of Reagan very early in his administration that the actual president was his Vice-President – GHW Bush – CIA thug involved in killing President Kennedy and many other evil deeds. As was Reagan himself involved in the cover-up of the Kennedy murder when he was on the so-called Rockefeller Commission, after enough people balked at the ludicrous Warren Commission. http://anonymousphysicist.com/category/blog/

    1. Do you have any education to speak of? On what basis to you make such ridiculous comments about GHW Bush? Any idiot can make sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations of criminality against anyone. Since you were not present at the Vancouver Hearings and clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, all you’re doing is wasting everyone’s time.

    2. “For everything there is a time and a season”

      David, now is not the time nor season for the “Daddy Bush” iteration. It seems you are just reaching into a grab bag and pulling out a card, and posting it here sans rhyme nor reason.

      Do you understand this complaint?

      ww

      1. The selective use of polygraphs by corrupt FBI officials must stop! No one is above the law, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, who conspired to cover up the Pan Am Flight 103 incident. Google “the selective use of polygraphs”

      2. “No one is above the law” claims Davy brief-packets.

        Whattaya talkin’ about David? What Law?

        There is no law – only rule by decree, diktat and fiat.

        Slap yourself awake son, join the real world. This is and has been oligarchy for a solid couple of centuries here now. And probably never was the mythical, “Home of the Brave – Land of the Free” that ye be yearning for. It’s all a blow up plastic love doll my jejune friend.

        In every dreamhome a heartache…

        Shhhhhh…….they can hear you breath from three miles away, and can smell your blood from a quarter mile off. It’s called Panopticon, and it’s the real deal.

        ww

  74. I can see clearly, Agent Fetzer’s strategy and why it has worked for him. He speaks to the lowest common denominator, of which he himself is one. Thus the rapport of certain audiences.

    After all with what has happened to ‘education’ in this ‘nation’ plus the incessant perception manipulation by the Public Relations Regime, the general cognizance is almost that of a zombie – foamed gray-sauce filling their skulls. And for the most part this larger “viewing audience” is no longer aware of 9/11, it is ancient history to them until the anniversary rolls around and the media reminds them for a few hours.

    But the dimly awake, those living in a twilight world between cognizance and trance are those such that see in Fetzer an ‘authority’ due to his highly touted ‘credentials’. This is why most all of Agent Fetzer’s arguments are appeal to authority. This is why Agent Fetzer cannot pass muster when confronted by those who understand the foundations of science. Oh, he can spin some fanciful tale with plausible seeming rhetoric that will dazzle the dimly awakened.

    So here he is this “leader” of the “Truth Movement” who baffles the lowest common denominator with his counterfeit “brilliance” now caught in the snare of those who can see through him like a sheet of gallery glass.

    ww

    1. Well, since there are fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority, where a non-fallacious appeal involves citing someone who IS AN AUTHORITY on the matter at hand, why don’t you trot out some examples of what you think you are talking about so we can example them. Examples?

      1. “Examples” Fetzer? Just this morning:

        Jim Fetzer says on July 1, 2012 at 2:32 am:

        “Give it a break. Nanothermite is non-explosive.” — This is a prime EXAMPLE.

        a prime example of a flat out lie, and has been shown to be a lie over countless postings on this very thread citing Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore scientists speaking to nanothermite as explosives.

        You think repeating this lie often enough is going to make it true. And it surely will make it true for the dimly lit chumps who buy into a charlatans sales pitch.

        You appeal to Slice, for some slack, and claim it was a “mistake” showing the fake video of the “Pentagon missile strike” – as you can see he isn’t buying your poison tongue bullshit.

        If people want EXAMPLES that you are a dishonest charlatan, all they have to do is read carefully through the posts on this thread – it is there plain as day.

        ww

  75. Jim Fetzer says: “Egad! The Sandia test? I can’t believe it. This was a fighter (probably made of synthetic material) that was filled with water and run at around 500 mph into a concrete barrier. ”

    I’m still waiting for the day when a test is arranged whereby a 767 is propelled at 500mph impact velocity at just 1 [not 20 or more], firmly rooted in place, 10 ton steel girder of similar size and cross-section to those at the WTC .🙂

    Or alternatively, [seeing as how Newton’s 3rd law still holds true if the exact opposite were to occur instead], a 767 is rooted firmly in place, and just 1 [not even 20 or more], 10 ton steel girder of similar construction to those used at the WTC, is launched broadside at the wing, or nose, or even the side, of that firmly rooted in place 767, so that it impacts that locked in place plane at 500mph.

    My guess is that this test will never happen in real life, for obvious reasons🙂

    regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree has about as much understanding of crash physics as a mouse has of the physics of a mousetrap. He’s still flying around on Fetzers ‘little bird’ on an ‘aluminum beer can’, and squawking about video technologies that he hasn’t the slightest grasp of.

      What a ludicrous roundabout of utter fantastical bullshit we have here between Fetzer and this nincompoop…smiley faces and all…WTF?

      ww

  76. David Howard says: “And the Reagan Administration? It was clear from the attempted assassination of Reagan very early in his administration that the actual president was his Vice-President – GHW Bush – CIA thug involved in killing President Kennedy and many other evil deeds. As was Reagan himself involved in the cover-up of the Kennedy murder when he was on the so-called Rockefeller Commission, after enough people balked at the ludicrous Warren Commission. ”

    All good points.

    However, its not just about Reagan, or even Bush, the corruption is equal and systemic on both Republican and Democratic “sides” [2 “sides of the same political “coin” actually], and entirely irreversible by political means.

    You appear to be entirely unaware of the fact that all governments are inherently corrupt- and that it is impossible for an organization funded entirely by both stolen money [i.e. direct theft – politely known as “taxation”] , and by the direct counterfeiting of the money it cannot directly steal [ via its own centrally run counterfeiting system – in the US politely known as” the Federal Reserve system”] to be anything other than 100% corrupt.

    See “The Lying Criminal State”: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2007/10/lying-criminal-state.html

    regards, onebornfree.

    1. Deep Underground Military Bases and the Black Budget —

      The first part of this talk is going to concern deep underground military bases and the Black Budget. The Black Budget is a secretive budget that garners 25% of the gross national product of the United States. The Black Budget currently consumes $1.25 trillion per year. At least this amount is used in black programs, like those concerned with deep underground military bases. Presently, there are 129 deep underground military bases in the United States.

      They have been building these 129 bases day and night unceasingly, since the early 1940s. Some of them were built even earlier than that. These bases are basically large cities
      underground connected by high-speed magneto-levity trains that have speeds up to Mach 2.

      The average depth of these bases is over a mile, and they again are basically whole cities underground. They all are between 2.66 and 4.25 cubic miles in size. They have laser drilling machines that can drill a tunnel seven miles long in one day.

      http://www.apfn.org/apfn/phil.htm

      1. Mr Howard,

        Has it not occurred to you that this thread is on the topic of 9/11?

        How does your post even vaguely touch upon the issues at hand here?

        JFK – Poppy Bush – polygraph tests…now, underground military facilities…WTF?

        ww

  77. Jim Fetzer says:

    “Well, it cannot have been anything other than a hologram, since the witnesses reported seeing what they took to be a plane but it was performing feats that no real plane could perform, including an effortless entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws,”

    But plenty of other “witnesses” close by did not even see a plane. As I have repeatedly asked you in this thread and elsewhere [and never received a reply to]: what has your subjective belief in the testimony of one alleged “witness” [Scott Forbes] have to do with employing a “scientific” methodology to reach your “scientific” conclusion that holograms were used? [Zero! zilch! nada! Sweet FA! ]

    Jim Fetzer says: ” ..it would not have been difficult to have some thing ready to blow out the opposite side”

    So you are claiming that the “plane/building” parts were real world, not holograms, and that they were expelled from the other side of the building via some artificial explosive means in order to enhance the impression of a real plane hit. I understand your reasoning, within what you think you know.

    However, you appear to be entirely unaware of the fact that those alleged real-world [but artificially expelled] “plane/building” parts, just like the plane image itself, perform scientifically impossible feats upon their exit of the building, including unexplainable mid air change of direction without colliding with anything else,[like the JFK “magic bullet”] as well as subsequently flying over buildings that are well above their maximum possible downward trajectory height due to constant deceleration, as well as “flying” well beyond the maximum distance possible while airborne and constantly decelerating to finally land at their alleged ground contact points.

    And depending on which video you watch, the same parts exit from entirely different sides of the building. [ And depending on which photo you examine, there is either a post crash exit hole in either one side, or another of the WTC2 facade, as even Morgan Reynolds has acknowledged🙂 ]

    In other words , those exiting “plane/building parts” you claim are real world and were expelled by planted explosives to simulate a plane crash are just as fake as the plane image itself, because both are in direct violation of fundamental laws of physics.

    If you are interested in seeing some “proof” of my above assertions concerning those alleged “plane/building” parts, let me know.

    regards, onebornfree

    1. I’m not quite sure where you stand, based upon this post. My inference has been that you agree the effortless entry of “Flight 175” into the South Tower is a fantasy. The “plane”, of course, has a speed in excess of that possible for a Boeing 757, enters the building in violation of Newton’s laws and passes through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is impossible–unless a 500,000-ton building provides no more resistance than air.

      The apparent ejecta from the opposite side, like the explosions that only occur AFTER “the planes” are completely inside the buildings, when they should have exploded on impact, has to have been a prop. Certainly, the engine component that was found at Church & Murray, which was under a steel scaffolding and sitting on an undamaged sidewalk and did not come from a Boeing 767, does not support the fantasy of a real plane having hit the South Tower. Do we agree at least on this?

    2. And of course since we have footage from FOX NEWS showing persons wearing FBI vests who are unloading something heavy from a white van at the corner of Church & Murray, we know the engine component was planted. Whatever additional violations of laws of physics you may have in mind, this was obviously another prop. I infer we agree about the Sandia test, where the fighter came to an abrupt halt and did not pass through the barrier, which raises questions about why even Rogue would cite it, since “Flight 175” not only did not come to an abrupt halt but did not even slow down, where frame-by-frame analysis shows no change in its velocity at all. NONE.

  78. NANOTHERMITES ARE EXPLOSIVE:

    “Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2]

    MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]”

    [2]^ “Effect of Al particle size on the thermal degradation of Al/teflon mixtures”. Informaworld.com. 2007-08-08. http://www.informaworld.com/index/780214180.pdf. Retrieved 2010-03-03.

    [3]^ a b c d Murday, James S. (2002). “The Coming Revolution: Science and Technology of Nanoscale Structures”. AMPTIAC Quarterly 6 (1). http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf. Retrieved July 8, 2009.

    [5]^ Novel Energetic Materials, GlobalSecurity.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

    ww

    1. MOREOVER:

      In addition to the citations above, let me cite Fetzers crony, Hightower, who also says that superthermites are high explosives:

      “So the 895 m/s detonation velocity was obtained for that particular product. It would not be correct to say that this would be the detonation velocity for “ ALL KNOWN MIXTURES of iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite with organic compounds, mixed at a nano-scale.”~Hightower

      You can not “detonate” a “low explosive”; they are “ignited”, as they “deflagrate”, they do not “detonate”. If Hightower is talking in correct chemical-physics lexicon; then the nanothermite is a ‘high explosive’. Regardless: The material detonates at 895 m/s, well above the speed of sound.

      Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be “high explosives” and materials that deflagrate are said to be “low explosives”.

      As I mentioned this before and Fetzer gave me a grade of D- for my first comment to these points -it is obvious that Fetzer fails totally.

      ww

    2. Here is T. Mark Hightower’s response to the additional questions raised by Kevin Barrett. As I have explained in many places, nanothermite is non-explosive but, like toothpaste, could be combined with explosives to make it explosive. There appears to be no ridiculous theory about 9/11 that Rogue is unwilling to reject as long as it contributes to creating the IMPRESSION of confusion and uncertainty, even when questions like this one have been conclusively resolved.

      From: Kevin Barrett
      To: T HIGHTOWER
      Sent: Sat, June 30, 2012 8:23:50 AM
      Subject: Re: a listener sent this (re: explosive nanothermite)

      Thanks, Mark. This clears much of it up.

      Still have a couple of questions though.

      You use RDX and sawdust as examples of organic substances that could be mixed in with nanothermite. The implication is that the only thing that could possibly increase the detonation velocity of nanothermite would be something that by itself would have a higher detonation velocity than nanothermite. Is this true? I had understood that perhaps some organic substance(s) other than sawdust, something which by itself might not be explosive, could be mixed with nanothermite to promote the rapid production of gasses upon detonation, and thereby raise the detonation velocity of the mixture.

      In any case, we know that even conventional thermite can be used in cutter charges that slice steel in demolitions. I undertand that this “cutter charge” hypothesis is the most common one among nanothermite advocates. Additionally, Christopher Bollyn thinks the concrete could have been helped out in its pulverization (much but not all of which could have been done by gravitational energy) through nanothermite or some more powerful explosive painted on the bottom of the floor pans.

      Kevin

      MARK’S RESPONSE:

      Kevin,

      I feel like my views have been pretty clearly explained in the documents I have prepared going back to 5/1/2011, and my two internet radio interviews of July 2011, one with Jim Fetzer, as well as in the Veterans Today article of August 2011.

      http://www.scribd.com/collections/3158869/Nanothermite-and-explosives-research-pertaining-to-911

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/t-mark-hightower.html

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

      I have been and still am of the view that if your goal is to create a nanothermitic high explosive on a par with other common high explosives like RDX, you need to incorporate within the nanothermitic structure significant amounts of that which is itself a high explosive. I feel that my view here is supported by the available technical literature that I have cited going back to my 5/1/2011 paper.

      I believe that the term “cutter charge” is a general term that would cover both the more common use of high explosives to cut steel members through a shaped charge creating a supersonic projectile of molten metal that instantly penetrates and cuts the steel, as well as the less common use of incendiaries (like thermite) to cut by means of a subsonic low velocity reaction and melting process.

      I have done rough calculations for how much conventional high explosives would have been necessary to cut the steel members in the WTC twin towers. I have asked nanothermite advocates to do a similar calculation for the proposed low velocity thermite or nanothermite “cutter charge.” No one has stepped forward to do this. If nothing else, surely this should be doable based on the experiments done by Jonathan Cole on cutting steel members with thermate.

      Niels Harrit has cited the evidence of the large quantities of iron rich spheres in the dust as evidence of the thermite reaction product iron, but when you calculate the quantity of thermite necessary to have created this much iron rich spheres, you get such a large number that it seems totally unreasonable that such a huge quantity of material could have or would have been transported and installed within the WTC Twin Towers.

      http://tmarkhightower.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/does-the-huge-quantity-of-iron-rich-spheres-in-the-dust-point-to-nuclear-or-dew-hypotheses/

      Concerning the idea of painting nanothermite onto concrete surfaces to pulverize the concrete, I have not yet studied in detail this hypothesis, but I suspect there is no explosive in existence powerful enough to be able to do such a feat. (Has anyone even established that there is such a process that would allow nanothermite to be painted on a surface?)

      Also, I do not agree that much of the pulverization of concrete into dust is reasonably explained by the release of gravitational energy. It appears that most of the mass is being blown outwards as the towers come down rather than functioning as a pile driver to release gravitational energy.

      It is easier to poke holes in a theory than it is to propose an alternate theory. So I don’t have one particular theory of WTC destruction that I am settled on.

      For many months now I have been too busy with family issues (both parents and children) and my regular job to devote much time to 911 research as I would like. I was not even able to follow the recent Vancouver Hearings. So I am not up on all the latest diversity of thinking on 911.

      I do recall when I attended the lifting the fog conference in November 2006 at UC Berkeley and I was hearing that thermite could be made to be an explosive this seemed odd to me right off the bat, but I was assured by someone there that there was a patent for it, and at the time I just believed it and went on my merry way. It wasn’t until years later that I started questioning the claims being made for nanothermite.

      http://www.liftingthefog.org/

      I hope this helps answer your questions.

      Cordially,

      Mark

      1. The question Fetzer is not whether or not nanothermite/Superthermite is alone responsible for the demolition of the towers. The question is whether nanothermite/Superthermite is an explosive.

        An explosive is classified as a low or high explosive according to its rate of burn: low explosives burn rapidly (or deflagrate), while high explosives detonate. These definitions are distinct.

        Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be “high explosives” and materials that deflagrate are said to be “low explosives”.
        The speed of sound is the distance travelled during a unit of time by a sound wave propagating through an elastic medium. In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second.

        Superthermite = 895 m/s according to the paper in question, as per this comment:

        “So the 895 m/s detonation velocity was obtained for that particular product. It would not be correct to say that this would be the detonation velocity for “ ALL KNOWN MIXTURES of iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite with organic compounds, mixed at a nano-scale.”~Hightower

        Now if Hightower accepts the possibility of a detonation velocity of 895 m/s for this material; he is:

        1} Saying it can be “detonated” – meaning the material “detonates”, which means it is a high explosive – as low explosives DO NOT DETONATE, they can only be “ignited” as they burn rapidly or deflagrate.

        2] A 895 m/s detonation velocity is faster than the speed of sound; 343.2 metres per second.

        Yet you Fetzer, uncomprehending in the slightest what you are talking about, still maintain: “As I have explained in many places, nanothermite is non-explosive.”

        The fact is, and even Hightower makes that clear above, nanothermite IS an explosive, and furthermore at a 895 m/s detonation velocity, is a HIGH EXPLOSIVE.

        This whole thing is laughable Fetzer, that none of this has sunken in by now, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you.

        It is truly amazing.

        ww

        1. Rogue lives up to his name by repeatedly attempting to make something out of nothing. Nanothermite viewed as an explosive is feeble and has 1/13th the explosive force of TNT.

          With a detonation velocity of only 893 m/s, it cannot pulverize concrete (which requires 3,200 m/s), much less decimate steel (which requires 6,100 m/s). It can’t have done it.

          Why this guy continues with this trivial semantic games is beyond me, except that he appears to have the assignment to find ANYTHING that could be used against me.

          I suppose I should be flattered. But T. Mark Hightower and I have gone over this issue again and again, where no serious student of 9/11 would continue to raise this question:

          “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

          “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

          “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

      2. Fetzer says AGAIN:

        >”With a detonation velocity of only 893 m/s, it cannot pulverize concrete (which requires 3,200 m/s), much less decimate steel (which requires 6,100 m/s). It can’t have done it.”

        And I remind the “professor” that I never claimed that superthermite can pulverize concrete, nor that it decimated steel.

        I said that superthermite is an explosive, in fact as it detonates faster than the speed of sound it is classified as a high explosive.

        Fetzer keeps insisting that superthermite is NOT an explosive, let alone admitting that it is a high explosive – by the very definition of explosive science. To point out its brisance is not capable of the effects on concrete and steel, is as I have CLEARLY PUT, not the question I ask Fetzer over and again, that he claims to be a semantic argument – it is NOT, it is that he refuses to admit that superthermite is an explosive, as defined by the scientific field.

        I have posited a Thermobaric weapon as the grand finale, and argued that superthermites had a back up job, along with nano-grade RDX and other explosives as cutter charges, including the use of Thermite Torches in the earlier stages.

        Fetzer will admit to the FACT that superthermite is an explosive or will be characterized as a fool or a liar, as there are no other choices regarding this issue.

        ww

        1. Calling something a “high explosive” does not make it one. With only 1/13th the force of TNT, it cannot possibly qualify as a “high explosive”. Everyone in the world understands that by now, where your constant reiterations of a grossly false and exaggerated claim has made it apparent to everyone who reads this thread that you are not an honest broker.

  79. Pureed gray-matter flambe:

    This incendiary soup, is meant to flame out any reason and rational discourse.

    The ‘clown’ and the ‘straight man’:

    This thread is full of Onebornfree popping up like the puppet in a jack-in-the box, with it’s foolish leering grin and startling appearance to shatter any sequence of reasonable dialog. An obvious distractionary tactic. There is some indications here that Fetzer and OBF are in cahoots for the sake of dissemblance.

  80. Jim Fetzer says:
    July 1, 2012 at 2:45 am

    “Asked and answered–more than once! Catch up on your reading.”

    It might have helped if you had directly addressed me and quoted at least a small part of what you were replying to so that it was clear who you were actually addressing in your post, but no such luck. Sloppy and lazy , [ like the lazy onesliceshort who instead of addressing me directly in a post, asks for a reply to a post of his in a post actually first addressed to someone other than me, as a mere afterthought. ]

    Anyway I subsequently found you reply to me [July 1, 2012 at 9:03 am ] , and my reply to that was posted July 1, 2012 at 9:03 am .

    Regards, onebornfree

    P.S. why you bother in these fruitless exchanges with a bunch of dunderheads who imply by logical extension that all of the WTC building frames should have been made from airplane aluminum instead of steel [‘cos its, you know, stronger🙂 ], is simply beyond me.

    But then again, by claiming that the Fairbanks video is genuine, and since it was first aired on national TV on either 09/11 or 09/12, as irrefutable “proof” of the governments story, you are doing exactly the same thing as you have been accusing others here of doing, which is: supporting some part of the governments story that handily suits your agenda, so perhaps your continued arguing with dunderheads vis a vis simple to understand [for non-dunderheads, that is] crash physics is in the end understandable.🙂

    1. Well, I agree about the “dunderheads” who do not understand Newton’s laws and continue to insist a “special plane” could have passed their complete length into the towers in the same number of frames they pass their complete length through air?

      As for the Fairbanks, where we have demonstrated the same phenomenon based upon frame-by-frame advance, do you have some reason to take it as faked? I am unaware of that proof, so I would be glad to learn about it. I believe that it’s genuine.

  81. @ Jim Fetzer CORRECTION to my post for July 1, 2012 at 12:13 pm:

    I had said: “Anyway I subsequently found you reply to me [July 1, 2012 at 9:03 am ] , and my reply to that was posted July 1, 2012 at 9:03 am .”

    My mistake, I meant your reply of June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm , to which my reply was posted July 1, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Part of you and Fetzer’s coitus interruptus, aye Onebornfree….it is getting much too obvious as this thread blooms with your turd blossoms.

      ww

  82. Do YOU want to save a lifetime of desperate searching – down so many wrong turns, created to ensnarl YOU – for the Ultimate Truths of what was done to the World Trade Center on 9/11? The Anonymous Physicist – with massive documentary proof – has created the only reference work that fits everything that happened during and after the nuclear destruction of the WTC.

    http://www.anonymousphysicist.com/

    1. Do tell us David, just what proofs are offered that this “anonymous physicist” is actually a physicist?

      ww

      1. Dear Mr. Howard and Mr. Rogue,

        Mr. Rogue writes:

        Do tell us David, just what proofs are offered that this “anonymous physicist” is actually a physicist?

        Wimpy. Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

        I have studied his ealier blogs (like http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/). They make a more comprehensive case for nuclear means. Like Dr. Wood’s textbook, A/P’s “The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath” will get you thinking out of the box. It is worth the price.

        I’ve promoted Dr. Wood’s work, but am deviating myself from her conclusions. When the Anonymous Physicist critiques Dr. Wood, I think he hits the nail on the head when he says that her disinformation purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear event(s) and wrapping it under “The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.”

        Mr. Rogue, seeing how you like rabbit holes, the Anonymous Physicist has a really really deep one with his “Quarantine: Mankind Held Hostage.” They say that all disinformation has some sort of a self-destruct mechanism. This might very well be what will shoot the Anonymous Physicist is the foot. It is certainly fascinating, and dovetails nicely with themes that Mr. Rogue has touched on.

        Mr. Howard, you make many postings that indicate you have studied all of the work of the Anonymous Physicist. I encourage you to not put all your eggs in one basket. Mine the Anonymous Physicist — like any other disinfo source — for nuggets of truth. Preserve those. Don’t consume everything as gospel. Like Dr. Jones, like Dr. Wood, like Dimitri K., like Simon Shack (and September Clues), I have reason to suspect the Anonymous Physicist as being a disinfo source himself.

        Don’t get me wrong. I have found a wealth of information from his older blog. A slightly different path his newer blog travels since being launched in started May 2012, but is in line with all his books. I’m not even sure “John” is the Anonymous Physicist. I purchased his books a few years ago. In August 2010, I communicated to him through “Darci Katz”, who said: “This is the agent for the A/P responding. The A/P is beset with serous health challenges and also is under very real threats to personal safety and so cannot respond directly.” [I never did get an answer to my physics questions or critique on what I was writing to debunk Dr. Jones.] The A/P himself mentions mercury poisoning.

        Yet he now seems healthy enough to make regular postings to his blog.

        However, his split with “Spooked” is rather curious, or even lame. UNMASKING A SPOOK WITH 100% CERTAINTY. Evidently, a picture of the limo at the time of JFK’s assassination shows a “man” in the street after the lead car and before the limo. Spook (and I) say it isn’t a “man”, but a flag on the limo. A/P possibly shows the effects of mercury on his reasoning.

        Another article [In the Matters of ZP Bazant and Spooked/Flagman.] on his split with “Spooked” has an awesome nugget of truth from that article that Mr. Rogue should mull over:

        All came back to a Govt study that listed the smallest dust particle size officially found as 4 times smaller than the one [ZP Bazant] claimed. 2.5 microns and smaller vs. his claim of 10 microns. This proved much greater energy was needed to create it.

        Another nugget of truth from the newer blog is
        Patricia Ondrovic, EMT and the Truth of the Nuclear Destruction of the WTC. A Witness to Electromagnetic Pulses along with EMT, Robert Ruiz

        Robert, Ruiz, EMT:
        His utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason is clear…. Ruiz just barely escaped WTC 2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking before the “collapse” starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC 2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, “I was trapped there. Like things weren’t bad enough already, the car that’s parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don’t mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don’t ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire.”….

        Again both Ondrovic would have been vaporized or melted if neutron fluxes did that to the cars right near them. They were not directly affected by the cars catching fire, except for Ondrovic being injured when the door flung off the car and hit her. This was not neutrons; nothing but EMPs can account for this.

        The Massive Evidence of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) During WTC Destruction on 9/11, & Combating the Fetzer-Prager-Jones Op-Plan of Denying It

        I do not actively follow A/P’s blog. The whole spooked thing spooked me along with other detours his new blog makes.

      2. My only comment on the once and future sashadik is:

        It is all rather like, “Twas brillig…” and all that.

        ww

  83. I was initially drawn to this site by the outstanding writing of Craig McKee whose style and clarity of thought I greatly admire.

    I visit this at least site at least once daily. I used to read almost ALL the posts. Now, I’m disappointed to see how the quality of this forum has diminished into the sport of keystroke ego battles, one-upsmanship, and unnecessarily voluminous posts about what begins to blur the boundaries into irrelevancy. Sadly, the “confusion” that has infected the culture at large, obscuring it from truth, is alive and well within the 9/11 truth movement (for lack of a better name) on a smaller scale as well.

    Do we really have the luxury of time to debate the endless minutia of 9/11? The next “false flag”; likely will render ongoing pursuit of 9/11 truth into complete insignificance and obscurity,

    Do we wait too long for the final conclusive “aha” evidence, and miss the opportunity to act on what all of us agree to – that the common-knowledge “official” story of 9/11 is absolutely and demonstrably false beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, THUS the US Gov’t. (at the very least) participated in a massive pre-meditated fraud against it’s own citizenry and MUST be held accountable for it by trial in accordance with the Constitution of the United States – assuming we are still a sovereign nation (that behaves much more like a corporation).

    We do not, and likely may never, agree on exactly WHAT happened and HOW, but we have individually and redundantly confirmed, and DO agree on what did NOT and could NOT happen – shouldn’t that be enough to warrant some sort of authoritative investigation.

    Besides there’s the other massive and mostly unaddressed obstacle of somehow undoing mass “cognitive dissonance” resulting from years of the best, 24/7 propaganda Federal Reserve Notes can buy. Did Bernays ever really tell us how to undo one of his spells?

    1. Sherif,

      I thank you for your compliment about my writing, and I understand your frustration. I hope you won’t give up on this site because we need thoughtful and intelligent people like you contributing here.

      I would like to see less attacking of each other and more genuine discussion of the issues. And I agree with you that we need to spend more time looking at the big picture and how we can actually get our message out effectively. And, especially, I would like to see less emphasis on how one position or another will bring disrepute upon the Truth movement.

      As I have written, I think this is overblown, and I think the attempts to weed out the “bad” evidence by attacking the messengers can sometimes do more harm than good. Yes, we have to refute poorly thought out positions (and intentional disinformation), but we have to weigh the benefit of focusing a great deal of attention on something we don’t believe deserves anyone’s attention – if that makes any sense.

      I have no problem levelling attacks against the group that is intentionally marginalizing Pentagon evidence because I think they are trying to lead us down the garden path. There is no choice but to shine a light on these efforts because they are influencing the positions of very prominent members of the movement: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, to name two. They have fooled some people into thinking they represent a large proportion of the Truth movement. They do not.

      In any case, I will do my best to keep the discussions here going in a productive direction, and I hope you’ll continue to offer us your insights into the task at hand.

    2. Sharif, I certainly appreciate your concerns.

      But also want to point out that this particular thread was not set up to be a strategy meeting on how best to overcome the counterinsurgency of the national security state. This thread addresses some very specific details of what are and are not reasonable theories for solving the crime.

      I think all involved here are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a systemic hit – and an ongoing psychological operation. As this last point is essential – that psyop is likely playing out here on this blog and thread. There are certainly good reasons to assume this blog would be targeted – are there not?

      It is not my purpose to be combative here – my purpose is to parse what is and is not rational in these theoreticals. Some may be obviously absurd to most lucid minds. But others can be spun very effectively as to seeming plausible – and when spin is detected, I believe it essential to attend to it and untwine it.

      As the question has already arisen here. If we could form ‘indictments’, what body could they be served to in order to have them enforced? We revert back to our systems problem, and it’s attendant dilemmas.

      ww

      1. Regrettably, there exists no body to make or enforce indictments against criminals within the US government beyond the bumper-sticker slogan of “vote the bums out of office”, naively chanted by the masses still stuck in the left/right, red/blue, conservative/liberal, democrat/republican paradigm. (This is not to mention the extra-US government criminals involved.)

        Further lacking is any sort of vehicle for mass mobilization of any kind (be it legal, intellectual, or physical) both against the government, AND contrary to the controlled mass-media. TV still reigns supreme. Even the primary medium of communication we are using now to discover and collect information, can now be turned off like a light switch in the event of a perceived threat to “National Security”.

        Even further, all of us have experienced the utter frustration of attempting to “enlighten” someone with the facts – only to discover insurmountable emotional barriers that defy logic and reason.

        So, as I see it, we really have NO way to convince the masses, NO way to mobilize if we did, and NO authority to enforce any decision they would demand. A government of, by, and for the people has indeed long since perished from the earth.

        Forgive my pessimism and lack of patience with the myriad of details in our collective online investigation here on this forum. To me, it’s fourth and very long with only a few seconds left on the clock at best before 9/11 is reduced to the same pile of irrelevant ancient history with the rest of so many other unsolved scams like the so-called Holocaust, JFK, and the phony Apollo Moon hoax.

        However, I still cling to what tiny thread of hope exits for us slaves. After all, my brother, an ex-Navy Seal, was “suicided” at the hands of these criminals.

        Perhaps, some great leader will emerge that we can all rally around that will put a nice Hollywood ending to all of this – that is if he can miraculously escape the mass public demonization of an Adolf Hitler or the bullets of a Kennedy.

      2. Let me offer my my condolences as per your brother. You have mentioned this before. I see it is a signal experience in your life.

        There is a concept in evolution called “punctuated equilibrium,” perchance it will happen to Homo Vishnu Neuroticus – a [FFWD>>] propellant into a more ‘enlightened’ model, deluxe and delightful.

        Who knows what the morrow might bring?

        ww

      3. Thanks.

        I mention the tragic event of my brother’s death here to illustrate the formidable shock value necessary to cause me in particular to re-examine my own sacred myths, and the systematic dis-information that I previously trusted to be the truth.

        Each of us comes to this enlightenment in his/her own time and in their own way, based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, and their ability to overcome the nearly universal genetic weakness we humans are afflicted with; a marked inability to suspend our first impressions.

        And so it is with mass psyops – who over gets their propaganda story out there first, WINS!

  84. sherifshaalan asks after a very good commentary:

    “Did Bernays ever really tell us how to undo one of his spells?”

    Yes, of course, Knowledge is always the most powerful talisman. You know first of all that they are “spells”, a form of enchantment. But more, if you have studied Bernays and the whole school of thought of Public Relations, you know intimately the very incantations and formulas used.

    It is in recognizing these things that you become alert to rejecting their influence by not buying into the programming. Isn’t this why you Sharif, are able to articulate the question? Because you have become aware and adept at building your defenses by conscious determination?

    But as in all things, this is an individual process of discovery. As such, the idea of force feeding what you have learned on your own about these things to others – those who are enchanted, leads to the catch 22 of despotism out of “good will”…”We are doing this for your own good” “Re-education Programs”, “Great Leaps Forward”, a dialectical antithesis to the thesis of the Controllers, which means ‘systems’ design – which means regimentation. This is a dilemma, one yet solved by human kind.

    I invite you to put your mind to this riddle.

    Leaderless resistance is a viable model, but one needing a tipping point, and this tipping point cannot be SYNTHETIC, it must arise naturally within circumstance.

    The gates to the City are ours, if you can think of how to attend to that circumstance.

    ww

    1. In my own attempts to enlighten people of the complete fallacy of, for example, ingesting Fluoride – a known neurotoxin, I’ve sadly found that a lifetime of pre-programming almost always trumps knowledge. PSYOPS are a bitch.

      1. What is there to do but rejoice in our own escape from the enchantment? It is after all seemingly a rare blessing. It leads to the rarest gift of all; a sense of wonder.

        ww

      2. I’ve relinquished myself to the idea that the ONLY hope for the “home of the brave” lies squarely in the ability and courage of us citizens to understand and confront our own individual fears – from Student, to Professor, to Marine. For it is only in Truth that we shall be set free from the slavery of tyrannical rule.

        I think that A&E for 911 Truth has at least this much right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYeqO0zdHg

      3. “Hope” and “Wonder”…which is more “self indulgent”? Sherif?

        I see a state of wonder, as simply the ability to be comfortable with the lack of certainty that is part of the state of being in the flash frame moment of a human lifetime compared to infinity.

        We are here for but a moment in the scheme of things. The knowledge we may gain, the lessons from experience learned… minuscule in relation to ‘All That Is’.

        The only hope is not to mope.

        ww

  85. True. And the more we learn, the more we discover there IS to learn. I should design T-shirts of these slogans.

  86. We receive news of an alternate 9/11 from a bridge to an alternate universe, where there was panic in the news rooms of the alternate nation when the feeds from alternate Manhattan suddenly went black because of a massive EMP attack, which is also the reason there is no video or pictorial evidence of this alternate 9/11 because the circuit boards in all the camera’s and recorders and feeds were fused during this alternate event on an alternate world in an alternate universe far far away…queue “Vaders Theme” as this scrolls down the screen in forced perspective blue text on a star field.

    Script by, Gina Lol la Bridgedahaha and Luke Squawkwalker and introducing O-B1 Canopy
    With special thanks to Spookydooky and Anonymous Pinhead

    [No Returns After First 15 min. viewing time]

    \\||//

    1. Dearest Señor Rogue like “the slothy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe” when he wrote on July 2, 2012 at 6:04 pm:

      My only comment on the once and future sashadik is: It is all rather like, “Twas brillig…” and all that.

      Your only comment?

      If that was all it was going to be, you should have heeded the advice repeatedly given that you are under no obligation to respond to my postings. This would have been a prime opportunity to act on such freedom of duty by not acting, not even a lowly lonely “ACK” in computer-speak for “acknowledge.” Your “only comment” aspired to be “no comment” at all.

      What-hoe? With no further traffic on the blog, Señor Rogue like “the mome raths outgrabe” something to add to his only comment [– proving him a liar maybe? –] via his July 3, 2012 at 12:39 am posting. Before I get into Señor Rogue’s specific wording, one should note:

      (1) His posting represents two-in-a-row, despite being separated. Is he therefore talking to himself?
      (2) His 2nd posting is made where it doesn’t belong, either to hide the two-in-a-row time stamp, or to screw with the readability of the comments section.
      (3) Both postings were examples of ridicule.
      (4) Neither posting had substance.

      Thus we see how Señor Rogue maintains his 38% posting frequency (129 postings out of 338 so far in this thread). I am restraining myself, Señor Rogue, from making my guesses to your affiliations known.

      Señor Rogue brings up EMP via the belittling conjecture:

      Alternate Manhattan suddenly went black because of a massive EMP attack, which is also the reason there is no video or pictorial evidence of this alternate 9/11 because the circuit boards in all the camera’s and recorders and feeds were fused during this alternate event on an alternate world in an alternate universe far far away

      Here is where my alternate universe has more validity than Señor Rogue’s super-duper nano-thermite and thermaburic bombs that leave out explaining duration of hot-spots, nuclear radiation, damage to vehicles, and Hiroshima-esk 1st responder ailments.

      If explosive nano-thermite was used to dismantel the outer steel walls of the towers milli-seconds after a “nuking DEW” performed its wonders on the inner concrete and structure — wonders that created 2.5 micron particle size and is a HUGE energy sink –, why by golly! Those same steel walls [together with many other buildings in Manhattan] would pretty much reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy [from a “nuking DEW” or a milli-nuke’s EMP], thus sparing the alternate Manhattan the very effects Señor Rogue hypes in his ridiculing wave-off dismissal.

      WITH ONE EXCEPTION. That exception is any directed energy that might have slipped out through a window slits to suddenly “pop off” and “torch” vehicles as per testimony from Patricia Ondrovic and Robert Ruiz and the string of torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.

      1. As a kind of a lifelong car guy (bought ’em, sold ’em, raced ’em, from factories to showrooms to junkyards) who grew up in the Motor City, I find the accounts of cars, predominantly made of steel, spontaneously combusting in highly unusual ways to be very compelling evidence for the presence of some sort of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) – at least what I understand about it.

        That really stood out for me first in Dr. Wood’s book and at A/P’s blog. While no expert, I became quite familiar with how cars are constructed and the behavior of the steel and other materials used to construct them. As a whole, they just aren’t that flammable. I’ve studied those pictures for hours and still get this weird feeling that the photographed phenomena is a result of something closely related to what goes on right under my nose in the microwave.

        Too bad we can’t round up John Hutchinson, a few test cars, a laboratory, authoritative witnesses and some video documentation for a little fun with science. While we are at it, we might as well play around with some concrete, too.

      2. We certainly should NOT expect to see this experiment on the paid 9/11 co-conspirators TV program, “MythBusters”.

      3. Sharif says:

        “…compelling evidence for the presence of some sort of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) – at least what I understand about it.”

        Then I can suggest is that you learn more about Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

        ww

      4. Mr. Bridges says:

        >”That exception is any directed energy that might have slipped out through a window slits to suddenly “pop off” and “torch” vehicles as per testimony from Patricia Ondrovic and Robert Ruiz and the string of torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.”

        So these “window slits” are impervious to this “directed energy” beam that can “pop off” and “torch” vehicles.” Hmmm?

        Further more Bridges goes on:

        >”Those same steel walls [together with many other buildings in Manhattan] would pretty much reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy [from a “nuking DEW” or a milli-nuke’s EMP], thus sparing the alternate Manhattan the very effects Señor Rogue hypes in his ridiculing wave-off dismissal.”

        So he is now contending that these “steel walls” are also impervious and would some how “reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy…” and not “pop off” and be “torch{ed}” as were the vehicles.

        This is why I find the reasoning of Mr. Bridges to be Jabberwocky {‘Twas brillig}.

        This is also why I find it a waste of time to deconstruct all of the other nonsense he asserts in his arguments on this subject.

        ww

      5. Willy,

        You’ve made it abundantly clear that none of the rest of us, especially me, can rival your demonstrated encyclopedic, Spock-like expertise in just about everything – nor can we rival the amount of time you apparently have to invest in this forum.

        Given that, your latest condescending comment to me seeks to completely invalidate what was simply offered as my limited perspective, and to affirm someone else’s limited perspective. Apparently, in your eyes, we are thus both unworthy and disqualified to participate here.

        I already know I’m not an expert in anything and will never be one. So, I don’t need or want you, or anyone else to constantly remind me of that here.

        I think if you truly desire to enlighten others, it can best be done without the ridicule.

        I, for one do not appreciate it in the least.

        Sherif

      6. Sharif,

        In what do you find “ridicule” in my suggestion that you learn more about EMP?

        I simply think it is a good idea to read up some on such subjects as we deal with here. If you think it was my purpose to belittle you, you are certainly mistaken.

        As far as everyone here having a right to express their opinions, I have never argued against this.

        While I am blessed with the time to study and put most of that time into studying these issues related to 9/11, and to engaging the issues here; I don’t see the point in taking offense at such.

        I do recall that you entered this blog as a rather prickly pear, directing quite a bit of ire in my direction. I had hoped we had gotten past that. Apparently I tweaked your periwinkles again – but it was certainly not purposeful.

        I also do not see the benefit of apologizing when someone takes my comments beyond my intent. Although I am sorry that you have, it is your mistake to take it that way.

        ww

        1. Apparently, I’m wrong again!

          Your finding it necessary to even ask your first question of me, reminds me of several other brilliant people that I know – who somehow are lacking in proportion to their brilliance, in tact, humility, and the ability to see how they appear to others. “Tweaked your periwinkles”? Who writes condescension like that?!

          Apologies are like compliments, they are meaningless if you have to ask for them. Still, it appears by the rest of your comment that you lack the requisite humility.

          I’ve never met you in person, but that is how you come across online here, if that is of any concern to you.

      7. Sharif remarks:

        “Still, it appears by the rest of your comment that you lack the requisite humility.”

        “Requisite” Sharif?

        Required for what? For a ‘popularity contest’?

        My purpose here is to parse the truth from the blather, not to deal with the trivial issues of those who cannot stand the heat.

        I have not been particularly combative with you, nor offered you ridicule since the thread where you entered this discussion and immediately began calling for my banishment. As far as I am concerned YOU are the one who is again stirring up shit between us over a very trivial affair. If you have issues of self esteem I would suggest you don’t wear them like cuff-links to the majestic ball.

        \\][//

        1. Have you considered starting your own blog? Seriously. You clearly have the time and the knowledge. Why not? The sheer volume of what you’ve written here vastly exceeds that of Craig McKee, the blogger.

      8. My own blog? I have had them, but never one to get involved with the science of promotion, or having the perhaps luck or timing, I found they never took off.

        I do have a joint blog with COTO, and I write there almost daily as well. And I keep up with an email stream as well.

        But I certainly don’t see it as a ‘competition’ in anyway.

        Is it really so egregious to be intensely interested and engaged on these issues? Is it viewed as some criminal act, that I do have this time and use it to attend these matters?

        While I do not see this as a popularity contest, I am yet somewhat taken aback by some of these reactions to my commentary. After all, I am not holding anyone else back from putting their own time into this blog.

        I am prolific, I cannot make excuses for this as I wanted to be a writer, and to be blessed with the antithesis to ‘writers-block’ is something I’d rather not argue with my Muse about.

        I know Sharif, that you were not being facetious in your suggestion, and I am not reacting to such in this reply. It is rather a compliment and I thank you for that.

        ww

      9. Dear Readers of this forum,

        What you are about to read is an example of Señor Rogue’s carousel with this being yet another spin. He evidently has the assignment of keeping all consideration of the evidence of electromagnetic energy on 9/11 off of the table.

        I wrote July 3, 2012:

        If explosive nano-thermite was used to dismantel the outer steel walls of the towers milli-seconds after a “nuking DEW” performed its wonders on the inner concrete and structure — wonders that created 2.5 micron particle size and is a HUGE energy sink –, why by golly! Those same steel walls [together with many other buildings in Manhattan] would pretty much reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy [from a “nuking DEW” or a milli-nuke’s EMP], thus sparing the alternate Manhattan the very effects Señor Rogue hypes in his ridiculing wave-off dismissal.

        WITH ONE EXCEPTION. That exception is any directed energy that might have slipped out through a window slits to suddenly “pop off” and “torch” vehicles as per testimony from Patricia Ondrovic and Robert Ruiz and the string of torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.

        Señor Rogue replied:

        So these “window slits” are impervious to this “directed energy” beam that can “pop off” and “torch” vehicles.” Hmmm?

        Yep, Señor Rogue. My contention is the directed energy from the devices was aimed in a particular way primarily up and down. But on occassion during the chaotic destruction of the building around them, they may have been misaligned. Given the nature of the electromagnetic energy and steel, the steel outer walls provided a barrier for any such errant mistargeting… except for the window slits that did not contain steel.

        So he is now contending that these “steel walls” are also impervious and would some how “reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy…” and not “pop off” and be “torch{ed}” as were the vehicles.

        The above is a prime example of the artistic genius’s blind spot, which is put further on display with Señor Rogue’s condescending comments to Mr. SherifShaalan that are really words for Señor Rogue himself to heed:

        I can suggest is that you learn more about Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

        I suggest Señor Rogue study Eddy Currents and how they can be created by electromagnetic fields, because this explains why sheet metal in cars would be affected and not flags, leaves, people, etc.

        I was about |<– this far –>| from writing from scratch how electromagnetic energy works (whether as an EMP from a nuclear device or emitted from DEW devices). But my short-term memory has been proven to be superior to that of Señor Rogue’s. Here is a selection of relevant snippets from postings that I made to Señor Rogue over the last half of year.

        My Hybrid View 2012-01-31. Note: I no longer champion Hutchison effects and am more inclined towards Excalibur nuclear DEW. However, effects of electromagnetic energy remains valid. Or rather, the evidence is there for those with eyes to see. Those with agendas, like Señor Rogue, will always try to shove that round evidence into square holes.

        The scattered damage to cars and surrounding areas — in my speculation — I attribute to the separate energy source. The nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator may have emitted electromagnetic fields (or other anomalous fields ala the Hutchinson effect) as a side-effect, that slipped through, say, the window slits. Its polarizing form flipped cars in cases like a powerful magnet, and more importantly induced massive Eddy currents in the (sheet) metal of car parts intersecting such fields. Large Eddy currents caused heat that ignited paint and touching-plastic components (like door handles, gas caps, door & window seals). Anomalous burn patterns resulted from what was line of sight from the source to an area of the car.

        Pictures of cars outside the towers burning before either had fallen suggest to me they were radiated in EM fields early during the powering-up of such an energy generator.

        Mixing up Principles 2012-03-05

        To your discussion of an EMP, it has errors. A nuke exploding an elevation would have an EMP that affects electronics. One exploding underground or within a building would have far less. EMP is line-of-sight, more or less. Its magnitude is dependent on distance. EMP is another one of those design factors along with radiation, blast wave, and heat wave that can be tweaked. Assuming a much smaller nuclear device and explosion from within the steel towers, the EMP effects could have been reduced dramaticly. … Errant EM fields from the reactor slipping out through window slits may have caused the anomalous fire damage to vehicles.

        Science-Challenge Understanding 2012-03-06

        Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.

        Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn’t guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then “bakes” the internal circuitry.

        ++++

        Señor Rogue tries some some more skew on July 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm with:

        So what could be the distinctive feature between steel buildings and steel cars?

        Personally the first thing that comes to mind as to the cars; is they have gas tanks with petrol in them, and gas lines leading to engines with petrol in them, which to me would indicate conflagration caused by ignition from other burning material; say hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers.

        Unfortuntely for Señor Rogue’s hypothesis is that the “hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers” had a considerable distance — a cooling one at that — to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. One would think that they’d torch flags, leaves, trees, paper, and people along the way. They didn’t. Also, the aforementioned “gas tanks with petrol in them and gas lines leading to engines with petrol in them” were shielded by — oh, I don’t know — sheet metal hoods, sheet metal body parts, and other components of the vehicle. How much cooling would those “hot and spicy thermitic particulates” undergo while they wound their way through the grill, passed the radiator, and over other parts before they found gas vapors on gas lines to ignite?

        Were Señor Rogue open his thinking to how electromagnetic energy really works, he’d understand better how induced Eddy currents in sheet metal by the electromagnetic energy — depending on magnitude & duration — would heat up the metal, cause its paint to burn, and torch rubber & plastic thinks affixed, touching, or adjacent to such metal pieces. Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched.

      10. Eddy scratches, and he scratches well. But that is not currently where the itch is.

        The question remains: How are all the other metal items impervious to the EMP? Regardless of technical data of the effect of eddy currents. Even the metal walls bearing our famous ‘slits’ would be in direct line.

        If the answer that it is; “sheet metal” {cars} which is most liable, then what is this EMP capable of in ‘taking out’ the core I-beam superstructure, but incapable of ‘taking out the outer walls of not only the towers, but any surrounding metal structures?

        If it is ‘tweaked’ and focused for close work within the towers, how does it then reach beyond this focal point to reach vehicles along West Broadway and the car park?

        ww

  87. So what could be the distinctive feature between steel buildings and steel cars?

    Personally the first thing that comes to mind as to the cars; is they have gas tanks with petrol in them, and gas lines leading to engines with petrol in them, which to me would indicate conflagration caused by ignition from other burning material; say hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers.

    I know this isn’t going to fly in Wonderland, but I do believe it can account for what went on in Manhattan in this particular universe.

    ww

    PS,
    Yes another sneaky gawdam post, rather than saving all my thoughts and replying with a book next year sometime after Mr Bridges finishes his magic grimoir tome.

  88. I found Denis Cimino’s presentation at Vancouver to be fascinating and convincing. The criminal evidence pile just got even more massive.

    In the comment section below, there’s an indication that “he is no longer affiliated with the Vancouver Hearings.”

    Is it true, and if so, why?

    1. Sharif,

      All I know is that there has been some sort of break between Fetzer and Denis Cimino. Apparently over Fetzers images being included in the Veterans Today article that were added to the article without Cimino’s prior approval.

      Details on such infighting are always scarce, but there is some dialog of this affair on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth blog. I am sure Balsamo could be more specific on this matter if he were to address it here.
      _____________________

      BTW Craig, I have found that this new format loads much quicker and is more responsive than the earlier one – as well as having a much cleaner look to it.

      ww

      1. Typical of the drivel that we have come to expect from this guy. There was exactly one image–of the official approach to the Pentagon–which had been superseded in the meanwhile, so I updated it as soon as I was informed about it. Dennis and I are doing just fine, another indication that Rogue is up to no good. Citing Rob Balsamo in this context is ridiculous, since he has displayed irrationality about these events:

        “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

        Since he has declared that Pilots WILL NEVER ENDORSE NPT–“no plane theory”, the claim that none of the “officially designated” flights crashed as has been claimed REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE–he is not a competent source. He even denies video fakery in New York, when his own members have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the ST.

        Craig has suggested using the term “fakery” since many have the disposition to infer that “video fakery” means the videos have been faked, while in this case we appear to be dealing with real videos of a fake plane. My most recent presentation of the evidence about all of this was during The Vancouver Hearings and is archived here:
        http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jim-fetzers-vancouver-powerpoint/

      2. “Typical of the drivel that we have come to expect from this guy. There was exactly one image–of the official approach to the Pentagon–which had been superseded in the meanwhile, so I updated it as soon as I was informed about it. Dennis and I are doing just fine, another indication that Rogue is up to no good. Citing Rob Balsamo in this context is ridiculous, since he has displayed irrationality about these events.”

        Yes indeed “typical drivel” which is the reason you used a second post to admit that Cimino did have a problem with you at one time:

        “Well, that was a temporary state of disillusionment with some whose views about those who were responsible struck him as grossly irresponsible.”

        Actually Fetzer I recall exactly Cimino being upset and complaining about the images you plugged into the article on VT…and Balsamo will remember as well.
        Balsamo “displayed irrationality”? says the king of spurious bullshit.

        Are superthermites explosives Fetzer?

        ww

        1. But that wasn’t me! You are such an obvious fraud by desperately trying to put words in my mouth or by contriving non-existent complaints or even converting nanothermite into a high explosive. I am sorry, Rogue, but you have overplayed your hand, again and again. I certainly hope that everyone can see the obvious: You are a wholly untrustworthy source.

    2. Well, that was a temporary state of disillusionment with some whose views about those who were responsible struck him as grossly irresponsible. I am glad to report that all is well and Dennis is continuing to make contributions of extraordinary value.

      1. Fetzer exclaims:

        >”even converting nanothermite into a high explosive.”

        What is this utter idiocy Fetzer?

        Explosive science defines this precisely:

        Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be “high explosives” and materials that deflagrate are said to be “low explosives”.

        The speed of sound is the distance travelled during a unit of time by a sound wave propagating through an elastic medium. In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second (1,126 ft/s).
        Superthermite = 895 m/s

        I am not the one doing the “converting” Fetzer it is YOU that is the “wholly untrustworthy source”.

        ww

        1. Everyone has your number, Rogue. The issue of the “explosiveness” of nanothermite was thoroughly addressed in these studies, which you continue to distort as an assignment:

          “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
          http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

          “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

          “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

          Personally, you are very good at committing the kinds of fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid, including equivocation, special pleading, and of course the ad hominem.

          Anyone who wants to assess whether this guy should be taken seriously should review his exchanges with me and Senor El Once, which offer ample evidence of why this man is here.

      2. Fetzer continues this idiocy with more:

        “Everyone has your number, Rogue. The issue of the “explosiveness” of nanothermite was thoroughly addressed in these studies, which you continue to distort as an assignment”

        And then he offers the same string of URLs that are posted here again and again.
        While he accuses me of claiming that superthermites are a high explosive, when I have pointed out that a ‘high explosive’ is defined by the science of explosives anywhere you care to look up these terms, as ‘detonations’ of explosives with a speed higher than the speed of sound.

        My “assignment”? Fetzer? I am totally independent and thus self-assigned. Your joining in on Beancounter’s innuendo as per my being an “agent” is some weak woowoo, especially for one considered a mole by a large segment of the legitimate Truth Community. How long you can continue to spew this anal hurlant about superthermites is the question. So, you are stuck with this lie now…no way to squirm out of it, so you keep repeating like a broken record. Disgusting.

        ww

  89. @Craig McKee: Craig, are you aware of any problems with the template for your page? I have lost all original page formatting style for your front page -it now appears as all white, and no grey, and everything usually at the top left of page is now at the very bottom of the front page, below the last posted comment . Although I usually use firefox with the script editor add-on , which was what I was using when I first noticed the dramatic changes to your front page content, when I checked with plain old vanilla Safari exactly the same weird formatting errors were present. Is it me or are others having the same issues?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Well, the changes you’ve noticed are the result of a design change that I made yesterday. I’ve been thinking about it for a while because the theme I had – while very attractive – was also very popular. I didn’t much like the idea of having the same look as many other blogs. When I looked at options offered by WordPress, my eye kept coming to the ones with more white space and a more magaziney look. Absolutely essential for me is a bold header for Truth and Shadows and decent-sized headlines. None of the themes available is perfect, which drives me crazy a bit. Some are too busy, some too weak, some have tiny headers, others have all the tags right under the header. Yuck.

      Anyway, this is the one I chose. If most people hate it, of course, then I’ll rethink the choice. I think it’s clean and easy to read. The only thing I don’t like is the widgets (recent posts, archives, and other items) being at the bottom of each page. I’m concerned that fewer people will read older articles because they won’t be as readily accessible.

      I’m open to feedback on this and the design in general.

      1. Dear Mr. McKee,

        I like the clean template. What isn’t clear is when white will appear versus gray. Maybe you are the only one who gets gray as their background.

        My suggestion would be to tweak the format of blockquotes further. I like the green bar along the left, but not the gray background because it gets confusing with other postings that are gray. Maybe a very light minty-green or something off-white (blue, yellow) would be a better choice for highlighting blockquotes ~if~ they have any background color at all.

        Here is an example of the blockquote formatting.

        1. I know what you mean about the separate grey boxes for block quotes.But I don’t think this theme allows me to change that. If it does, I haven’t figured out how. One thing that did occur to me was that if the block quotes actually had opening and closing quotation marks added, then it would be a lot clearer that the person commenting is quoting someone else. Does that make sense?

    2. I noticed the change in format as well. I appreciate it as a much cleaner and more readable form. I don’t believe it is a “formatting” error at all, but a vast improvement over the former.

      \\][//

  90. I understand that Homo Vishnu Amerikanus is involved in some vast annual mystical ritual today…a ‘boostershot’ mass of great significance/snuffnificance to recharge the jingoberry batteries and sprinkle fairydust in their eyes.

    When once upon a lonesome dreary it was held that certain truths were ‘self evident’, this date did matter as a practical matter instead of this madhatter teaparty of fireworx hotdogs and poison apple pies.

    “The People” have become adept at the ‘Bendover Game’. “Independence” would feel like an attack of appendicitis to them, they’d be so scared they would all queue up for that obammycare.

    It has been said that; “in a ‘democracy’ a people get the government they deserve”.

    A periwinkle is just a flower…

    \\][//

  91. “She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she “saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern.”
    This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to “pop.”~Anonymous Pinhead

    http://anonymousphysicist.com/combating-the-fetzer-prager-jones-op-plan-of-denying-the-massive-evidence-of-emp-during-wtc-destruction/

    This is bullshit. An EMP hitting the area would first of all, use all the wiring in the buildings and vehicles as antenna, causing an immediate blackout of anything electrical, and would fuse all electronics. Lights would not go off in a series of flashes, the whole area would go dark at once — at the speed of light.

    EMP is not a weapon that blows things up, EMP is created by an explosion.

    Anonymous Pinhead is no more a physicist than Max Beancounter, or I am.

    ww

  92. I owe Señor Rogue a debt of gratitude for being my smashing board. By responding to me, he gives me another opportunity to further my argument. His ridicule minus some thinking from July 5, 2012 at 12:14 am:

    Eddy scratches, and he scratches well. But that is not currently where the itch is. The question remains: How are all the other metal items impervious to the EMP? Regardless of technical data of the effect of eddy currents. Even the metal walls bearing our famous ‘slits’ would be in direct line.

    First, let us not call it an EMP. Let us call it “electromagnetic energy,” because this can cover more scenarios. Whether or not it was a single pulse or multiple pulses or a steady stream of such microwaving energy we don’t have to determine at this point in time.

    Second, the adverb “directed” applied to the word “energy” used as an adjective to modify the noun “weapon” of the acronymn DEW should tell you 50% of what you need to know with regards to your question above. It was aimed away from what they didn’t want it hitting, which may include the “spire” [to which I speculate one of the DEW devices was mounted.]

    As for the other 50% of what you need to know, the metal items within the targeting beams of electromagnetic energy would also experience Eddy Currents. Very large ones, resulting in lots of heat radiating from the steel. Think of a kitchen stove burner: coat it with something, let it dry, and then turn on the stove: what was on it gets burned off in a stinky haze likely to trigger smoke alarms. The energy absorbed by inner-steel within aim of the DEW would burn off what was coated on it.

    Why do so many pieces of the exterior wall chunks on the ground have their interior sides — where they were most likely painted and conditioned — with nothing but exposed steel that quickly became rusty?

    Worse, as you’ll see in images below (compliments of Dr. Wood’s collection), the steel could get heated to a point where it loses its rigidness.

    Video of construction worker talking about 8 ton steel I-beam bent like a horseshoe.

    The above image shows the 8 ton steel I-beam bent like a horseshoe.


    The above image shows more bending of beams.


    The above image is of a core column; look at the nice smooth bend.




    In the above image, pay attention to the “rolled up dobbie” of an externior section. Note that this is bending around the vertical axis, which suggests a really strange direction for the force lines that caused this.

    Here’s more from a Let’s Roll Discussion:

    http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
    Just to get your bearings in the above image [that you should open in a new window], look to where the fireman is climbing up a beam. Now just to the left of that is a section of the wall lying flat that would have been three vertical beams connected by two broad pieces of flat metal. Note for reference purposes the square hole in one of the beams about at the level where the firemen are. Any problems with my description so far?

    If you go down to the bottom of this picture, you’ll see another similar section to the wall lying flat, including that square hole in one of the beams, which I believe the construction workers used to insert heavy bolts to connect sections one on top of the other. Any problems with my description so far? Plain as day, those are two sections of the outer walls of the tower.

    Here is where it gets strange, because in that very photograph between those two very representative examples of the outer wall IS A THIRD SECTION. The difference? It is rolled up like a used piece of carpet. You can see the three beams and the requisite square hole at one end of one of those beams. Yet those two pieces of broad flat metal are rolled around those beams like a rubberband holding asparagus in the produce section of your super market.


    The above image shows a fused block of WTC debris referred to as “the Meeorite.”


    The above image is supposedly the only filing cabinet found and was in the basement.


    In the above image from Bankers Trust Building on Liberty Street across from WTC-2, why does the yellowish beam in the middle have a shriveled up portion? Like the cars in the car park and along West Broadway, this appears to be evidence of an errant DEW beam.

    Let’s take this further with a discussion of what imagery shows during the tower’s decimation. Here is something discussed on Let’s Roll Forums

    http://imageshack.us/f/816/richarddrewwtc2collapse.jpg/
    [Open the above image in a new browser window.] Turn our attention to the large chuck [A] of building fascade that appears on the left-hand side and the first chunk we see as our eyes scan from top-to-bottom.

    Now turn your attention to the bottom edge of that chunk and scan to the right to locate [B] the “five pieces of smoking meteor” (or so it appears.) I’ll address this in a moment.

    Secondly turn your attention to the wall chunk just above the “meteors” [C] as well as the ones below them [D]. [If those chunks are from the interior side — my thoughts –,] where is the “finishing” material that would be glued or painted onto the interior beams? [If those chunks are from the exterior side, how did the external aluminum cladding get cleaned so completely from them?]

    Go back to the original chunk [A] and note that we see the exterior side [due to the aluminum cladding pieces.] Directly under it is another large chunk [E] with the exterior side also facing us. This one seems to be “billowing smoke” but not as badly as the 5 meteors [B].

    Look at the nature of the smoke.

    My hypothesis is that this isn’t really smoke. It is a combination of steam and fine particles. The directed energy weapon turned the residual trapped water molecules in office content (e.g., dry wall, concrete, porceline) instantly into steam. Volumic pressure of the expanding steam from everywhere within the content “containers” caused those containers to blow themselves apart leaving dust and steam.

    Lots of factors determine the rate at which such “watery” content will dissolve and have the the molecules stream off or rather steam off, as we see with the 5 falling “steaming meteors”, which aren’t on fire, don’t have flames, and don’t have traditional smoke.

    Those wall sections that give us views of the interior red? The hollow tower’s crowd says they were never finished. On the other hand, I say that there is enough residual “white” on these interior faces to suppose they were finished to a degree, but that those “watery” elements had “steamed” themselves nearly clean. The wall [D] and those meteors appear to be still steaming apart the “watery” drywall and paint that were affixed to them.

    At any rate, the “steaming 5 meteors” are a smoking gun to get us to look at other steaming elements in the collapse.

    And as an aside, we know about WTC-1’s spire. WTC-2 had a short-lived spired. However even more critical than that in WTC-2 is this point in its decimation (Link to Image) where it should have halted [if we go with the OCT of a “pile driver”.] Something neatly took out this lower portion, which was taller than WTC-7 at 47 stories.

    Anonymous Physicist writes:

    “She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she “saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern.”
    This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to “pop.”

    Señor Rogue on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 pm does two-in-a-row