In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its “separate but equal” legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War in 1861–65.
The legal principle of “separate but equal” racial segregation was extended to public facilities and transportation, including the coaches of interstate trains and buses. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to facilities for white Americans; sometimes, there were no facilities for the black community at all.As a body of law, Jim Crow institutionalized economic, educational, and social disadvantages for many African Americans living in the United States.
Jim Crow laws and Jim Crow state constitutional provisions mandated the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains between white and black people. The U.S. military was already segregated. President Woodrow Wilson initiated the segregation of federal workplaces in 1913.
Jim Crow Library Tour the Jim Crow museum with founder and curator, Dr. David Pilgrim. Dr. Pilgrim discusses some of the major themes of the Jim Crow Museum. Jim Crow was not just a character or a set of “laws”, it was a system that built upon itself to create and sustain a society with a racial hierarchy.
Who Was Jim Crow? Fifty years ago, the Voting Rights Act targeted the laws and practices of Jim Crow. Here’s where the name came from.
Racial discrimination existed throughout the United States in the 20th century, but it had a special name in the South—Jim Crow. Fifty years ago this Thursday, President Lyndon B. Johnson tried to bury Jim Crow by signing the the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. The Voting Rights Act and its predecessor, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought racial discrimination in the South by banning segregation in public accommodations and outlawing the poll taxes and tests that were used to stop African Americans from voting.
Who Was Jim Crow? Jim Crow Museum The name Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s. How did the name become associated with these “Black Codes” which took away many of the rights which had been granted to blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?
Jim Crow Laws – History.com Jim Crow laws were a collection of state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Named after a Black minstrel show character, the laws—which existed for about 100 years, from the post-Civil War era until 1968—were meant to marginalize African Americans by denying them the right to vote, hold jobs, get an education or other opportunities. Those who attempted to defy Jim Crow laws often faced arrest, fines, jail sentences, violence and death.
Furthermore, according to the NTSB animation reconstruction, the aircraft allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03am(4). How can the aircraft possibly receive a message activating an audible signal in the airplane at 1410 (10:10am Eastern)? It can’t if it crashed in Shanksville, it can if were in the vicinity of CMI. Finally, there is no possible way that an aircraft can receive a message from a remote ground station which is 500+ miles away. The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet(5).
We now have several levels of corroboration demonstrating the aircraft were still airborne after their alleged crashes –
– From our first article, the logs themselves showing time sent and received based on statements made by Ed Ballinger, – Ground station routing based on flight tracking protocols, – Expert statements, – And now, messages that were received well out of range from Shanksville, PA after the time of the alleged crash.
It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.
THIS IS SOLID *PROOF* FOR THE OFFICIAL UA93 STORY BEING FALSE.
Somehow I think a plane going over 500 mph, hitting wing first, is suddenly going to flop over and produce this crater: Not to mention that Miller’s explanation doesn’t account for the perfect upside-down imprint.
SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) — The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues.
Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.
Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds.
This is really, really hard to believe, given the official story that much of the plane was buried deep underground and small pieces of the plane were found for acres around the official crash site. In fact, it sounds like total baloney. Keep in mind, that they are not only saying that they recovered 95% of the bris in less than two weeks, but that they managed to reconstruct the plane with the debris enough to know that they got 95%!!!
Let’s look at this photo again of the Shanksville crater:
Here’s the best possible match of a Boeing 757 with the Shanksvile crater, given the official trajectory of inverted impact, with the plane traveling in the basic direction of the top of the photo:
Notice a wee problem?
Even if we assume the whole plane both blew up into tiny pieces or burrowed into the ground (as the official story holds), the fuselage would have had to have make some sort of crater in the ground where it hit. But there is nothing there where the fuselage should have hit.
The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie
As I have discussed previously (for instance, here and here and here and here), there are many reasons to think the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.
Here I offer rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.
Here is an aerial view of the crater, from the southwest, looking northeast. The plane officially came from the north, and thus would have come from the top of the picture. Notice the wing scars are towards the top, northern side of the crater– this is important. Also, notice the apparent tail imprint made on the north side of the crater. This mark was described as a tail imprint in the book “Among the Heroes”, written about flight 93.
Now, the issue is, what attitude was the plane before impact to make this crater, officially?
Thus, the government is telling a story where the plane was inverted before it impacted– that the plane was upside-down or belly up as it hit the earth.
The tail-mark at the north part of the crater in the aerial picture above supports the upside-down story as well. A tail mark made by a plane going southwards can ONLY be produced at the north side of the crater if the plane was going upside-down when it impacts.
So what does it look like when the plane is going upside-down when it impacts? How would the plane FIT in the crater?
I’m going to use this picture, where the camera is looking down one of the wing scars, to the west. North is to the right and south is to the left. Thus, the plane would come from the right.
Here is a diagram, with a plane superimposed onto the crater, using the picture above. (The tail end of the plane is cut off in this diagram because of size.) (click to enlarge image)
Immediately, you should see there is a problem.
Even if the fuselage impacts at the very north part of the crater, THERE IS NO WAY THE WINGS CAN IMPACT THE GROUND TO PRODUCE THE WING SCARS.
The wings simply do not line up in the right place.
If you move the fuselage so that it impacts the ground further to the left (further southwards), the wing alignment problem is even worse.
Further, it is impossible for the plane to flip backwards as it impacts, to have the wings produce the side scars, particularly when the plane (officially) is going 563 mph.
If anything, the wings are going to slide further southwards as the plane breaks up, and make marks further south of the crater.
I submit this wing alignment problem as rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie. ——————————————————-
Curiously, the wings DO LINE UP with the side scars, if the plane is right side up, as shown below–
However, if the plane was in fact right-side up as it impacted, why a) is the government lying about it, and b) what made the “tail” scar on the northern edge of the crater???
I don’t know exactly what happened at this crash scene.
I strongly suspect the crater was made artificially, to make it LOOK as though an airplane crashed there, and then plane debris was strewn around the site. Perhaps a bomb or projectile of some sort was used to create the damage.
In any case, the important point is that: THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS A LIE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
Government photo of the crater looking west along the length of the “wing” gashes. Note the unburnt grass on the right (on the northwards side of the crater). Another view from a similar angle as in the photo above but further out near the tips of the “wing” gashes. Note the unburnt grass out here.
This aerial photo shows the “tail” scar on the left (northwards) side of the crater:
Diagram of the official crash scene (the top of the diagram is northwards) froma similar view as in the top photo:
Everyone should be able to agree about what I presented above. It is just a description of the crash scene using official photos as evidence.
Now keep in mind, NO LARGE PLANE DEBRIS was found on the ground around the Flight 93 crash site. By large, I mean no intact engines, tail sections, wing sections, no landing gear struts, no intact seats, no pieces of fuselage larger than a few feet across (and only two of these). None of the large debris seen in almost every other plane crash since 9/11.
OFFICIALLY, most of the plane went into the ground in the crater. The black boxes were supposedly found 15 or more feet below ground, along with most of the fuselage. Many people bought this story because there was no significant plane debris outside of the crater.
Again, this is the official story.
Now.. .we’ve never seen photos of the excavated crater showing the buried fuselage. The FBI says 95% of the plane was recovered, but we’ve never seen pictures of this recovered debris.
We’ve seen 3 pictures of “large” debris, two chunks of fuselage maybe 4 x 4 feet each, and a hunk of engine about 2 x 3 feet supposedly thrust into the ground by the crash. Two of these pieces of debris have signs of being planted, as I have noted before.
Nonetheless, let’s try to understand what happened with this crash.
UA93 officially impacted the ground flying inverted at a 40 degree nose-down angle.
On the other hand, if the plane crashes and at the same time bounces off the ground, then debris would be flung mainly forward. But then there should be much more big debris.
An analogy here might be useful. Imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water on a hard flat surface, at a 40 degree angle. You can see the water primarily splashes forward. This is analogous to the plane crashing and the debris bouncing off the ground and spraying forward.
Now, imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water at a 40 degree angle into a shallow hole in the ground. Now you should see that a lot of water is going to deflect backwards, back towards the hose. This is analogous to the plane crashing and burrowing into the ground and spraying debris backwards.
Physics, simple physics, says the official flight 93 crash story is just WRONG.
Measuring the Flight 93 Crater Again: It’s Still Too Small for a Boeing 757
Following up on the post here, this official government image also supports my previous measurements and significantly, the idea that the distance between the engine craters (or engine “scars”) is too small:
Measuring the Flight 93 Crater: It’s Still Too Small for a Boeing 757
(click to enlarge images)
Here, A and C denote the “engine” marks, which should be 44 feet apart (center to center) for a Boeing 757. B denotes the central crater presumably made by a the fuselage. We can assume the legs of the person are 3 feet. The orange line denotes the top three feet of a six foot person, and a torso and head are sketched into the image.
Using the measurements from above, we can assign distances to this overheard view of the crater. Now we can clearly see the engine marks are too close together (only 31 feet or so from A to C):
This photo confirms that the engine spacing is too close together (about 33 feet, close to what was measured above):
Here is a Boeing 757 super-imposed on the picture above at proper scale– the engines don’t line up:
This is officially one of the engines from flight 93, apparently freshly unearthed.
However, there are a few problems with this scene:
1) why did this engine go in the ground but the other one went flying away?
2) how exactly was it, that this heavy engine impacting the ground at 600 mph, only went ONE FOOT underground– when the black boxes in the TAIL of the plane went at least 15 feet underground?
3) are they really using an excavator to dig out a hole that is in theory packed with human remains? Shouldn’t they be doing this excavation a little more delicately?
5) most interestingly, the engine looks as though it went into the ground at close to a 90 degree angle. How can this be the case, when officially flight 93 hit the ground at a 45 degree angle?
But the story gets even more strange!
Although the engine is clearly not at a 45 degree angle (as the official account would hold), the engine is actually at about a 70 degree angle, where 90 degrees is straight vertical.
This picture nonetheless deviates drastically from the official story.
You should be able to see in the picture that there are trees in the background. The only foliage near the crash site was straight to the west. This means the picture was taken to the east of the crater looking west. (See here for a high-res version of the photo.)
This means the topmost part of the engine is leaning TOWARDS THE SOUTH.
Officially, the plane came from the north, heading south, and if the plane went into the ground at some angle (most sources say 45 degrees), the engine should be positioned with the topmost part tipping significantly to the north. In other words, the engine debris should be leaning northwards. In this picture, the engine is tilted completely the wrong direction!
It is extremely unlikely the engine was tilted the opposite way during the digging process, since removal of dirt on the northern side if anything should have made the engine tilt more in that direction, which would have supported the official story more. Further, if the engine was moved significantly prior to the picture being taken, it invalidates this official evidence.
I think the engine was moved from its original location before the picture was taken — and most likely was planted to bolster the case for a 757 crash at this site.
Dimensions of the Flight 93 Official Crash Crater: Proof No Boeing 757 Crashed There
Using the pictures here, I finally decided to get a solid estimate for the flight 93 official crash crater. I used the men on the ground next to the crater in the various pictures to estimate the crater size, and assumed each man was 6 feet tall.
The problem is that the 93 crash crater shows only 30 feet– at MOST– between engine scars:
Considering that the a plane HAD to have come down with both engines hitting roughly the same time on the ground to produce the observed crash scar, I submit the 30 foot distance between engines as proof no Boeing 757 crashed to make this crater.
I’ve been trying for about a week to convince the resident skeptics (and likely operatives) that it is very unlikely that a Boeing 757 crashed in this crater:
Feel free to chime in at DU. I could use some help fighting the skeptics.
It seems to me as though some of the trees were on fire early on 9/11, but perhaps the fire burned on for a while– flared-up overnight? Was that on purpose?
Why wasn’t more attempt made to put out the forest fire?
Also, why were the tops of the trees on fire while the ground below was largely left untouched?
I’m not sure I buy the idea of ordnance bouncing out of the crater to hit the trees, but overall I think there is something to the idea that something bounced out that way.
Tere was quite a bit of debris thrown into the forest– not a huge amount, as far as I can tell, but still a fair amount, which included victims’ remains and some clothes from the luggage. Was there some explosive package that contained this stuff that was dropped from above?
All I know for sure is the flight 93 crater makes no sense for a crash of a 757.
The most extended official explanation for the flight 93 crash comes from Jere Longman’s “Among the Heroes” (as far as I know, there is no NTSB report on the crash). In that book, he posits that before crashing, the plane was flying upside down (based on eyewitness reports and the crater alignment). The plane then hit at a 45 degree angle and the front third of the plane shattered completely on the ground, spewing debris all around. The rear two thirds of the plane rammed deep into the soft earth, and crumpled in an accordion-like fashion. This would explain the black boxes being deep in the ground. The front fuselage apparently shattered into very small fragments. Longman does not explain what happened to the tail section and wings. He says the passengers and crew were completely torn apart, and that the main remains were small fragments of skin. It is not clear what happened to the skeletal remains or teeth of the passengers.
This explanation is of course absurd, as this story defies physics. Basically it is impossible that the front of the plane disintegrate while the rear part of the plane enter the ground as an intact piece. This is akin to ramming a pretzel stick into an orange, where the front one third of the pencil smashes into crumbs right before the rear two-thirds penetrate the skin and drive deep into the fruit. One could see the whole pretzel stick penetrating the orange, or the front of the pretzel breaking off before the rest goes in– but in this case the front piece would not turn into tiny crumbs. Basically, any material that is strong enough to cause the front of a projectile to smash apart is not going to allow the rear part of the projectile to slide completely in.
It is also absurd to think that the huge tail section went into the ground completely, yet how else to explain the black boxes being so deep underground, since the black boxes are kept in the tail section? The idea ANY sort of projectile could drive itself 25′ deep under the soil is absurd.
So the official story is a lie. There is no doubt.
But clearly the shoot-down story that many people persist in believing is a lie as well. No shot down plane will crash like this either.
Frankly, the easiest explanation for the whole crash scene is that it was a staged hoax– where there were planted explosives along with some junk debris that went off to coincide with a plane flying over. Then plane parts and body parts were planted, and debris was strewn over a wide area to be misleading. It is curious to note how the 9/11 commission says flight 93 officially crashed at 10:03 am, but the explosion by many accounts wasn’t until 10:06am. This could be explained by a discrepency in whatever the plane was doing that was mimicking flight 93 versus the actual explosion. Finally, of course, the many phone calls from flight 93 are highly suspicious due to a number of abnormalities, and were likely another layer of deception.
Nonetheless, I welcome any other explanation for the flight 93 crash site that takes into account the facts as I outlined above. You can contact me by email (spooked911@hotmail.com).
How can a huge (Boeing 757) jet completely disintegrate and only leave a 10 foot wide by 50 foot long by 10 foot deep crater?
No one seriously believes the plane disappeared into the ground, do they?
I have yet to see anyone give a rational explanation for what happened to the plane according to the official story.
In my opinion, the flight 93 crater is one of the most obvious clues to the 9/11 hoax. Which is probably why flight 93 was shrouded in sentimental and patriotic mythology. And the obvious hoax of the flight 93 crash site is also why the government deliberately put out rumors that flight 93 was shot down.
This post by Killtown pointed me to this picture of one of the flight 93 engines that was supposedly dug up from the crater (a picture released at the Moussaoui trial):
Now, already this is odd, because officially the rear three-quarters of the 150 foot long flight 93 fuselage “accordioned” and disappeared into the hole completely, 30 feet below the earth’s surface.* The two black boxes were found 15 and 25 feet underground!* Yet here we have the massive jet engine– with all it’s weight and thrust–that barely managed to penetrate the surface of the ground!
But beyond that, a Boeing 757 of course has TWO engines. What happened to the other one?
Many of you may recall that the fate of one of the flight 93 engines was already famously described in the press very early on. According to mainstream media accounts, the other engine landed over a thousand feet from the crash site, as shown in this diagram from Popular Mechanics:
This story of one of the engines being found so far from the crash crater led to the theory** that flight 93 was actually shot down by a heat-seeng missile that targeted one engine, blowing it off and causing it to land far from the rest of the plane.
The supporters of the official 9/11 story, such as Popular Mechanics, said there was no shootdown, that the engine merely ricocheted off the ground as the plane impacted and was flung over a thousand feet by the force of the crash.
And now we seem to know what happened to both of the flight 93 engines. One broke off as the plane crashed and bounced over a thousand feet away by the force of the crash, and the other was deposited in the crash crater.
No problem then, right?
Err, well, um, I have a wee problem with this scenario.
Leaving aside the many other oddities of the flight 93 crash site, there is this question: if flight 93 simply crashed into the ground as the official story holds, how could the two engines suffer such completely different fates? How is it possible that one engine burrowed into the ground right next to the plane while the other engine broke off and flew a quarter of a mile away? What accounts for this huge discrepency? Even if the plane hit at an angle such that one engine hit first, it is not at all clear to me how this explains the discrepency. Remember, the BULK of the plane officially burrowed into the soft ground (which was mostly topsoil covering an old stripmine). What would have caused one engine to break off and bounce so far away? And why did the second engine not burrow into the ground as deeply as the huge fuselage?
Fairly pristine grass/foliage underneath the piece. You would think that if there were enough fire/heat to strip every bit of insulation and facing and windows and their seals, there would be enough residual heat to brown the grass/foliage where this fragment landed.
The following is a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder aboard United Airlines Flight 93. All times are in EDT on Sept. 11, 2001. Text in parentheses was translated from Arabic. “Unintelligible” indicates that the tape couldn’t be transcribed.
09:31:57 _ Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.
09:32:09 _ Er, uh … Calling Cleveland center … You’re unreadable. Say again slowly.
09:34:12 _ Down, down, down. Sit down. Come on, sit down. No, no, no, no, no. No.
09:34:16 _ Down, down, down.
09:34:21 _ Down.
09:34:25 _ No more.
09:34:26 _ No more. Down.
09:34:27 _ Please, please, please …
09:34:28 _ Down.
09:34:29 _ Please, please, don’t hurt me …
09:34:30 _ Down. No more.
09:34:31 _ Oh God.
09:34:32 _ Down, down, down.
09:34:33 _ Sit down.
09:34:34 _ Shut up.
09:34:42 _ No more.
09:34:46 _ (This?)
09:34:47 _ Yes.
09:34:47 _ Unintelligible.
09:34:57 _ (One moment, one moment.)
09:34:59 _ Unintelligible.
09:35:03 _ No more.
09:35:06 _ Down, down, down, down.
09:35:09 _ No, no, no, no, no, no…
09:35:10 _ Unintelligible.
09:35:15 _ Sit down, sit down, sit down.
09:35:17 _ Down.
09:35:18 _ (What’s this?)
09:35:19 _ Sit down. Sit down. You know, sit down.
09:35:24 _ No, no, no.
09:35:30 _ Down, down, down, down.
09:35:32 _ Are you talking to me?
09:35:33 _ No, no, no. Unintelligible.
09:35:35 _ Down in the airport.
09:35:39 _ Down, down.
09:35:40 _ I don’t want to die.
09:35:41 _ No, no. Down, down.
09:35:42 _ I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die.
09:35:44 _ No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down.
09:35:47 _ No, no, please.
09:35:57 _ No.
09:37:06 _ (That’s it. Go back.)
09:37:06 _ (That’s it.) Sit down.
09:37:36 _(Everthing is fine. I finished.)
09:38:36 _ (Yes.)
09:39:11 _ Ah. Here’s the captain. I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet.
09:39:21 _ OK. That’s 93 calling?
09:39:24 _ (One moment.)
09:39:34 _ United 93. I understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead.
09:39:42 _ And center exec jet nine fifty-six. That was the transmission.
09:39:47 _ OK. Ah. Who called Cleveland?
09:39:52 _ Executive jet nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?
09:39:56 _ Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board.
09:39:58 _ That was all you got out of it also?
09:40:01 _ Affirmative.
09:40:03 _ Roger.
09:40:03 _ United 93. Go ahead.
09:40:14 _United 93. Go ahead.
09:40:17 _ Ahhh.
09:40:52 _ (This green knob?)
09:40:54 _ (Yes, that’s the one.)
09:41:05 _ United 93, do you hear the Cleveland center?
09:41:14 _ (One moment. One moment.)
09:41:15 _ Unintelligible.
09:41:56 _ Oh man.
09:44:18 _ (This does not work now.)
09:45:13 _ Turn it off.
09:45:16 _ (… Seven thousand …)
09:45:19 _ (How about we let them in? We let the guys in now.)
09:45:23 _ (OK.)
09:45:24 _ (Should we let the guys in?)
09:45:25 _ (Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back.)
09:45:57 _ (In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other God, but Allah.)
09:47:31 _ Unintelligible.
09:47:40 _ (Allah knows.)
09:48:15 _ Unintelligible.
09:48:38 _ Set course.
09:49:37 _ Unintelligible.
09:51:17 _ Unintelligible.
09:51:35 _ Unintelligible.
09:52:02 _ Unintelligible.
09:52:31 _ Unintelligible.
09:53:20 _ (The best thing: The guys will go in, lift up the) … Unintelligible … (and they put the axe into it. So, everyone will be scared.)
09:53:27 _ (Yes.)
09:53:28 _ (The axe.)
09:53:28 _ Unintelligible.
09:53:29 _ (No, not the.)
09:53:35 _ (Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window.)
09:53:52 _ Unintelligible.
09:54:09 _ (Open.)
09:54:11 _ Unintelligible.
09:55:06 _ You are … One …
09:56:15 _ Unintelligible.
09:57:55 _ (Is there something?)
09:57:57 _ (A fight?)
09:54:59 _ (Yeah?)
09:58:33 _ Unintelligible. (Let’s go guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest.)
09:58:41 _ Ugh.
09:58:43 _ Ugh.
09:58:44 _ (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.)
09:58:47 _ Ugh. Ugh.
09:58:52 _ Stay back.
09:58:55 _ In the cockpit.
09:58:57 _ In the cockpit.
09:58:57 _ (They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold).
09:59:04 _ Hold the door.
09:59:09 _ Stop him.
09:59:11 _ Sit down.
09:59:13 _ Sit down.
09:59:15 _ Sit down.
09:58:16 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:17 _ (What?)
09:59:18 _ (There are some guys. All those guys.)
09:59:20 _ Lets get them.
09:59:25 _ Sit down.
09:59:29 _ (What?)
09:59:30 _ (What.)
09:59:31 _ (What?)
09:59:36 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:37 _ (What?)
09:59:39 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:41 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:42 _ (Trust in Allah, and in him.)
09:59:45 _ Sit down.
09:59:47 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:53 _ Ahh.
09:59:55 _ Unintelligible.
09:59:58 _ Ahh.
10:00:06 _ (There is nothing.)
10:00:07 _ (Is that it? Shall we finish it off?)
10:00:08 _ (No. Not yet.)
10:00:09 _ (When they all come, we finish it off.)
10:00:11 _ (There is nothing.)
10:00:13 _ Unintelligible.
10:00:14 _ Ahh.
10:00:15 _ I’m injured.
10:00:16 _ Unintelligible.
10:00:21 _ Ahh.
10:00:22 _ (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious.)
10:00:25 _ In the cockpit. If we don’t, we’ll die.
10:00:29 _ (Up, down. Up, down, in the) cockpit.
10:00:33 _ (The) cockpit.
10:00:37 _ (Up, down. Saeed, up, down.)
10:00:42 _ Roll it.
10:00:55 _ Unintelligible.
10:00:59 _ (Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest.)
10:01:01 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:08 _ (Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?)
10:01:09 _ (Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.)
10:01:10 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:11 _ (Saeed.)
10:01:12 _ … engine …
10:01:13 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:16 _ (Cut off the oxygen.)
10:01:18 _ (Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.)
10:01:34 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:37 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:41 _ (Up, down. Up, down.)
10:01:41 _ (What?)
10:01:42 _ (Up, down.)
10:01:42 _ Ahh.
10:01:53 _ Ahh.
10:01:54 _ Unintelligible.
10:01:55 _ Ahh.
10:01:59 _ Shut them off.
10:02:03 _ Shut them off.
10:02:14 _ Go.
10:02:14 _ Go.
10:02:15 _ Move.
10:02:16 _ Move.
10:02:17 _ Turn it up.
10:02:18 _ (Down, down.)
10:02:23 _ (Pull it down. Pull it down.)
10:02:25 _ Down. Push, push, push, push, push.
10:02:33 _ (Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:35 _ (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:37 _ (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:40 _ Unintelligible.
10:03:02 _ (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:03 _ (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:04 _ (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:06 _ (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03;06 _ (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:07 _ No.
10:03:09 _ (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:09 _ (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)
Not a whole lot of useful information here. A lot of repetition. Interesting, not much in the way of actual conversation about flying the plane! You would think a novice might have more trouble than what we hear! (granted, there are a lot of unintelligible things that might be flying conversation, but still…)
What does this mean? “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.” Put it in it??? In what? Are they talking about the plane or something else?
The actual tape would be much more useful, to hear the expressions and what voices were english versus hijacker.
If we assume this is a scam, presumably actors would be saying all these things. The actual tape could tell us how good the actors were…
The only other thing of interest is who the non-hijacker person in the cockpit is who pleads early on. A pilot or other crew member?
I’m very curious how the govt explained how 93 crashed to produce so little visible debris, and I wonder why they showed new pictures of debris that have never been seen before:
Of course, this is always the problem for 9/11 researchers: the govt has confiscated so much evidence and not shown much of anything, so now they literally can pull out anything and say it proves the official story– and we are hard put to refute it.
The new pictures of debris could easily have come from some other spot where the plane crashed or the parts were planted, of course. Or maybe even flight 93 crashed where they say it did, and the media/govt has done a crappy job of explaining the crash/showing the evidence.
What I will also say is these few new pieces of debris are a still only a tiny fraction of what a huge Boeing 757 would produce.
What is amusing/interesting is comparing the new pictures of flight 93 debris to the sad little collection of parts that were shown in this article (scroll down for slideshow link). E.g.
Much like the other three plane crashes on 9/11, we have a few recognizable plane parts, no attempt at matching the exact parts to the plane that crashed, and nowhere near enough pieces of debris to account for the huge planes that crashed.
I will analyze the flight 93 cockpit transcript that was released here.
Picking through the wreckage, they got the first clues.
The engine fan blades were bent backward from the way they rotated, which meant the engines were running when the plane struck the hill. That ruled out engine problems.
In the mangled cockpit, the airspeed indicator was at 264 knots – about 300 mph – the plane’s speed at impact.
Passenger belongings littered the woods: boxer shorts with red diamonds, a flight attendant’s apron, a Hooters T-shirt, a Purdue University sweat shirt.
There were lots of books: Forrest Gump, the Pocket Prayer Book, Rush Limbaugh’s The Way Things Ought to Be, a John Grisham novel, a management training manual called Firing Up Commitments During Organizational Change and the Bible.
And everyday stuff: a garage door opener, family snapshots, a teddy bear, a Swiss Army knife, pocket calculators, a rosary.
Full-size body bags arrived for the victims, but the bodies were in so many pieces that most were taken from the hill in 1-gallon Ziploc freezer bags.
The site was considered a biohazard. Investigators and wreckage were sprayed with a Clorox solution when they left the hill. Summer downpours and the hot rubber suits made for wretched working conditions. The smell of bleach and the unforgettable odor of death made a suffocating stench. Investigators dabbed cologne, orange juice or Vicks VapoRub on their surgical masks to hide the odor. Haueter smeared his mustache with Tiger Balm, a sweet-smelling ointment.
Wayne Tatalovich, the Beaver County coroner, converted an Air Force Reserve hangar into a giant morgue. Identifying the victims went slowly. There were 132 people on the plane, but 2,000 Ziploc bags.
Their basic scenario is that: 1) flight 93 crashed in New Baltimore after being shot down by the air force 2) the government hid this real crash site and created a fake crash site near Shanskville 3) the plane was going so fast that it was only a few seconds from Shanksville to New Baltimore, so it was possible to fake the Shanksville crash site 4) the Shanksville crash site was created by a missile, which one witness saw flying (forget her name, but she saw a weird white jet going overhead around the time of the crash) 5) flight 93 was real
Their BIG 9/11 scenario is that the whole 9/11 plan by the government was screwed up by flight 93 leaving late from Newark Airport. This is actually Dave McGowan’s idea– that flight 93 leaving late ruined the Washington DC attack part of the plan (DC was supposed to get hit by two planes at the same time as NYC, thus creating a rationale why there was no air defense).
The WingTV folks don’t say much about the hijackings, or remote control, but they definitely seem to believe there was a real flight 93. They don’t say what was really on flight 93 that the government needed to cover-up.
I think their basic logic is that if flight 93 had left on time, then DC would have been hit early and there would have been no air defense. But because flight 93 left late, and because flight 93 was supposed to coordinate with flight 77, the Pentagon attack got altered (though they don’t say what DID happen at the Pentagon). Thus, according to the WingTV people, there was SOME air defense that eventually got to flight 93 and shot it down.
The problem for me here is that it is not clear that even early attacks on DC would have led to a virtual stand-down for the air force. This is one reason I like the no-plane idea better.
But my main question is— why on EARTH would government plotters (or terrorists for that matter) rest their whole evil plan (i.e., they had to hit DC first to insure no air defense) on A PLANE LEAVING ON TIME FROM NEWARK AIRPORT???????!!!!!
9/11 researcher Woody Box has a new piece out on flight 93, and finds fairly convincing evidence that flight 93 was a twin-flight, which underwent a plane swap towards the end.
Since he thinks one of these planes landed near Pittsburgh and one at National Airport near DC, this two-plane scenario is still consistent with the idea that the flight 93 crash crater is a hoax. The plane swap idea might also support the idea of flight 93 being involved in the Air Force hijacking drill wargames that day.
Of course the big mystery is WHY was flight 93 set-up to run like this, with a faked crash site along with a plane swap?
Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax puts forth an extremely convincing argument that Flight 93 did not meet its demise in Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of September 11, 2001, but was instead shot down by U.S. military forces and subsequently crash landed in the rural hamlet of New Baltimore, Pa., 6-8 miles away from where the government alleges this event took place. Furthermore, to create a massive diversionary site to draw attention away from the actual wreckage in New Baltimore, a missile was fired into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville, Pa. – the result of this ordnance blast being a 200-foot mushroom cloud and an 8-10 foot deep crater, but absolutely no airplane wreckage whatsoever. In other words, while the media’s attention was focused on Shanksville, the actual debris from Flight 93 was clandestinely being scuttled away from New Baltimore, Pa., which had been immediately cordoned-off by the FBI and local State Police.
Also included in Phantom Flight 93:
– First-hand eyewitness testimony of a missile being launched into Shanksville, which resulted in a massive hoax and cover-up being perpetrated on the American people. – Claims that emergency rooms in Shanksville were originally notified to be prepared for victims from TWO separate airplane crash sites. – The emergence of three (or more) wreckage-debris sites in Southwest Pennsylvania, not simply one as the government alleges. – Irrefutable evidence that there was NO plane at Shanksville, but instead Flight 93 (or something purporting to be Flight 93) actually crash landed in New Baltimore, Pa. – Admissions by the Department of Defense based on seismographic data that the government blatantly lied about its Flight 93 timeline. – 9-11 Deconstructed: What Went Wrong – how the real devils behind 9-11 blew it – a list of six major tactical blunders that allowed researchers to expose the lies of this horrific event, along with a brief history of other failed examples of state-sponsored terrorism, including OKC, the USS Liberty, and WTC ’93. – The Evil 13: 9-11 Master-Minds named by name, along with their nefarious dossiers! – 9-11 Passenger List oddities, including the mystery of Todd and Lisa Beamer – Plus gag orders, faked cell phone calls, human remains found at Indian Lake marina, a confession that the U.S. military shot down a plane on the morning of 9-11, and much more.
Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax completely shreds the government’s ‘official’ version of events, and reveals that something far more sinister occurred near Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of 9-11 than was ever revealed to the American public.
“The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.
“He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard,” she said. “I said, ‘Oh.’ Then I went back to the TV.” Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot’s manual — she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport — and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.
“And there was some black webbing — a lot of people found that,” she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn’t burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.“
(emphasis added)
This story would seem to support the idea that the plane crashed in New Baltimore or was damaged very close to New Baltimore. There is no way that so much debris blew eight miles specifically into her yard. EIGHT MILES is a long way on the weak wind that day.
This fellow says that Flight 93 was going the opposite way from the official story before it crashed, after the passengers regained control, and that it was shot by air force interceptors initially over New Baltimore. His scenario fits the debris field (another major debris field was Indian Lake, three miles from the official crash site), but I don’t buy his “semi-official” interpretation of the flight 93 story (with the evil hijackers and heroic passengers), as the phone calls of flight 93 are just too bizarre, and the Shanskville crater still doesn’t add up. Nonetheless, it is worth considering that the plane was going the other way and was shot by fighters.
Was Flight 93 Part of the 9/11 Hijacking Exercises?
There are two ways to treat the flight 93 hijacking story: either to try to make sense of the official story or to assume the hijacking was fake and part of one of the hijacking exercises being run on 9/11. I think the latter makes more sense.
How could flight crash so forcefully and explode so violently as to cause most of the plane to disintegrate into small fragments and to almost completely vaporize the passengers, and still create such a compact, plane-shaped crater?
As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.
But if 6000 pounds of human flesh burned, WOULDN’T IT SMELL ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE at the crash site?
But instead, people who arrived at the scene very shortly after the crash only spoke of the smell of jet fuel and the smell of burning rubber from a burning tire. No one spoke of the smell of burnt flesh– which is a very distinct and horrible smell.
Very very odd– and along with the fact that the coroner never saw any blood anywhere, supports the idea that the human remains were planted, and the flight 93 crash site faked.
This story is very recent and has the most pictures.
Detail of the Nigerian crash:
Dismembered and burned body parts, fuselage fragments and engine parts were strewn over an area the size of a football field.
A wig, human intestines, clothes, foam seats and a hand were seen wedged in the sodden earth. A check for 948,000 naira ($7200) from the evangelical Deeper Life church was one of a number of personal papers found in the smoldering wreckage.
Similarities: 1) a medium size Boeing jet (757 for UA93, 737 for Nigeria jet) crashes at high speed in soft ground (filled in mine for UA93, swamp for Nigeria jet). 2) the plane disintegrates upon crashing, leaving a large crater (some pictures n the links). 3) passengers are all killed, bodies are mostly torn apart. 4) the crash was very violent, in both cases “small bits of fuselage, human flesh and clothing were strewn in nearby trees.” 5) the debris fields are similar sizes
Differences: 1) the Nigerian crash was on fire for over a day, unlike UA93 2) the Nigerian jet does NOT disappear into the ground, unlike UA93 supposedly did 3) most importantly, large easily-recognizable body parts and large plane pieces were strewn around the crash site and were easily found, unlike UA93 where no plane parts were near the crater and human remains were in very small pieces– mostly pieces of skin.
So– why so many similarities yet so many major differences?
Why does the flight 93 crash defy logic, unless it is faked?
Because they didn’t want any incriminating evidence at the crash site. The plane that witnesses around Shanksville saw flying crazily was probably a drone without passengers. If they crashed that, then they would have obvious plane debris and no dead bodies. This is particularly a problem in the rural area where the plane crashed, because local people might get to the site first and take pictures of plane parts that didn’t match UA93. They would also wonder why there were no bodies around.
BUT– if they create a crash site where it looks like the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, people aren’t going to wonder too much about the lack of passengers because the plane is gone too. In the awfulness of the moment, people will simply accept the official story that the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground.
A Detailed Pictorial Analysis of the Flight 93 Crash
Here is the official government version of the flight 93 crash (all of the details can be found in the book “Among the Heroes” by Jere Longman): A
B
C
According to the official story, the remains of people that were in or near the flight 93 cockpit were found outside the crater, whereas all other passenger remains were found in the hole. BUT– both types of remains were quite minimal– they only found about 10% of the total possible remains from the known passengers. In other words, there should have been about 7000 pounds of body parts but they only found 700 pounds worth.
Things that don’t make sense:
1) That the front of the plane broke up up while the rest of the plane went in the ground. By normal physical principles, either the nose went into the ground first followed by the fuselage or the plane didn’t go into the ground period. I don’t see any way around it. A good comparison would be with the planes crashing into the WTC: the nose didn’t break off as the planes hit and broke through the wall– the nose went in first. Moreover, the front of the plane smashing into bits should slow down the momentum of the plane quite a bit and thus it is not clear what drove the rest of the plane into the ground.
2) How did the front of the plane that supposedly didn’t go into the ground break entirely into very small pieces? There wasn’t even large sections of seats– it’s as if the front of the plane totally disintegrated. How would smashing into soft ground do this? Even an explosion doesn’t rip everything into small unrecognizable pieces.
3) I can see bodies vaporizing to some degree if they were outside the crater and were subjected to the full force of the explosion and fire, but I don’t understand why more intact bodies weren’t recovered from the crumpled plane in the crater. What force shredded even these bodies to such an extreme degree?
4) What caused some debris from the plane to be found miles away? Some significant debris, including human remains and pieces of seats were found two miles away at Indian Lake.
D
Scenario A would be analogous to most plane crashes. An example is the recent crash of the Helios flight in Greece– the plane crashed into the ground going full speed, but large sections of the plane were recovered including the tail, and passenger bodies were relatively intact.
1) the whole crash site was faked (the lack of any tail section near the crater is very fishy since the black boxes were found in the hole) with a planted bomb and human remains were planted later, or
2) the plane had a massive bomb on it (in the cockpit area?) that went right off before the plane crashed or the plane was shot by a powerful missile right before the plane crashed. But the timing is tricky for either detonating a bomb or being struck by a missile in order for the rest of the plane to bury itself in the ground. Possibly, the plane was blown up and they are just lying about the plane and the black boxes being in the ground in order to cover up that the plane blew into smithereens by a missile or bomb right before it crashed. But if this is the case, what created the crater?
3) The plane crash site was bombed by interceptor jets after it crashed. But if the plane crashed, why would they need to bomb it, and how could they be sure there were no witnesses? Also, wouldn’t there be two seismic signals– the crash and the bombing?
Since we had two Boeing 757 crashes on 9/11, both with suspicious holes and not enough debris (flight 77/Pentagon and flight 93), I have to think both were faked. But if this is true, it is mind-boggling to think how they must have planned and coordinated this. And if this is all fake, why didn’t they do a better job? Why did they make it look so fake? Just to stoke conspiracies? To save the cost of a couple of 757’s?
None of it makes a lot of sense, but the clear thing is that THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS WRONG!
In looking over some of the CGI videos of the second tower hit, I realized that perhaps no one before has summarized some matters of what is and isn’t on these CGI videos. And that this summary is also a good, accurate catch phrase for the 9/11 truth community.
Now many have stated that the videos of the “second hit” show impossible crash physics. In a sense this is very true. But that summary may beg the issue. After all what do we have on these CGI videos? I suggest we focus now on the tower. I assert that we have NO INTERACTION PHYSICS or NO CRASH PHYSICS!
In the first few “plane entering tower” frames of the videos, what some have called “melding” occurs. That is the front part of the plane appears to DISAPPEAR into the tower–without ANY interaction of the tower. Very importantly, I could state this better WITHOUT THE WORD “INTO,” as I assert this CGI video just has the plane image sequentially disappear, and not “into” anything! Now one video, the Spiegel [German TV] video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-hlbw4a40Q has a close-up view from the side. It purports to show a flash at the surface of the tower just before the plane “enters.” This led to the hangout/distraction of pods and missiles fired. Then the Hezarkhani video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdfd6hLGWA of the frontal view shows–in the first frames–the “melding” or disappearing of the front of the plane, along with first a white puff or two, and later frames have gray puffs.
But the curious thing is two-fold.
1. First all these puffs appear to be at the surface of the tower.
2. Nothing is shown to happen to the tower, at least while the front half of the plane is “entering.”
Thus all these puffs appear to be painted onto the tower’s surface. This includes the alleged “missile fired from pod” bright orange puffball (seen from the side), and the white and then gray puffballs seen from the front. All the puffballs do not have any accompanying tower damage at all. No tower damage can be seen until much later in these GCI videos. They contain zero interaction physics or zero crash physics. Both the above side and front videos merely have puffballs painted on to the surface of the tower–until after about half the plane or more has “entered.” The side view has only the initial orange puffball. It’s either pretending to be a pre-entry puffball, or the initial contact moment. Then there are no other puffballs until much of the plane has “entered.” And no interaction physics as well.
Now the tower CANNOT have waited to display interaction physics— pieces breaking off, or bending, some going inward some possibly even breaking off and falling out and such– or crash physics. In the real world, it would be there from the instant the tip of the nosecone hit the tower. And puffballs painted onto the surface of the tower do not constitute interaction physics. I have also written that from the moment of a real plane hitting the 4 inch steel of the tower, a shockwave would have traveled down the plane at 5000 mph and would have deformed the back of the plane almost instantaneously or caused it to break off. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/06/further-proving-911-plane-hits-are.html So the plane also shows zero interaction physics or zero crash physics.
So no attempt to show the interaction of the plane and tower was employed in the CGI software used to create the second hit “videos.” Simplistic puffballs were painted on to the SURFACE of the tower. And at least for the first half of the ”second plane” disappearing into the tower, there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics, not merely impossible crash physics.
Now a method used in the analysis of the Zapruder film of the Kennedy Assassination might be useful here. Except of course, it may not be needed, or work here. Why? Because the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see, at least had their origin in a real film, whereas the WTC/9/11 “second hit videos” appear to be entirely CGI. Now all real JFK researchers know that the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see have been massively doctored. There are many missing frames, and altered frames, and a moving background is added in, when the limousine was brought to a halt, and much else. I have seen some 15 versions or more–none of which is accurate based on eyewitness testimony. But some Z-frames are relevant here.
Frame 313 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg is the fatal head shot frame; and you can even see the end of the gun of the shooter/driver, SS [Secret Service] agent, William Greer, as the it goes past the curvature of the head of S.S. agent Kellerman. The side flap, the back of the head, and the spray coming off the head of Kennedy have been analyzed, and are predominantly bogus. Here are frames 321 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg , and 335 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg to make this clear. Now the side flap is known to be painted in because of both analysis and the eyewitness accounts from the Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda autopsy viewers. But my main point here is that some of these frames show an intact back of Kennedy’s head when numerous witnesses, again at Parkland and Bethesda, have stated that a good portion of the back of his skull was missing. And dot density analysis was used to verify this. That is, Kennedy’s brown hair was found, in these painted in frames, to be far more black than anything else in the frames that really was black. The black dot density [black dots per square millimeter] of JFK’s back of head far superseded anything in the frames that really was black.
Some type of similar analysis of the various puffballs could be attempted by the experts in this regard. Of course, this discussion indicates it isn’t even necessary as there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics of the tower and the plane for at least the first half of the plane “entering” the tower. And we are apparently dealing with total CGI here. Adding on puffballs of differing colors to the SURFACE of the tower does not afford interaction physics or crash physics at all! That is the tower remains PRISTINE for far too long a time.
While some could analyze all these painted on surface puffballs, the terms zero interaction physics or zero crash physics should be employed by actual 9/11 truthers, as it may be stronger, more relevant and more understandable than saying impossible crash physics. And it should also be proclaimed that the tower on these fake CGI videos remains PRISTINE for far too long a time to remind people we are dealing with the same monsters that should have been eradicated when they killed President Kennedy, and invented the pristine bullet. It too claimed to be pristine and show no interaction despite the claim that it hit some five bones in two people.And BTW, for those who still doubt that no planes hit the towers on 9/11, consider the following. You can be sure that the perpetrators– the Regime’s military and intel agencies– took many videos of what they were doing (for various reasons). Likely they took videos from their helicopters and planes flying nearby or overhead, from satellites, and from intel assets in nearby buildings, and on the ground. If ANY of them showed real planes, and real interaction physics, they would have released these by now. This, together with how numerous people have done fine work for over five years now documenting that all the released videos are bogus CGI, cements the case.
I should include that I have no doubt that the regime could have put better CGI on TV. See for example, the 1997 movie “Contact.” When the first huge worm-hole device is destroyed, one piece of it is exploded, and falls onto the rest of it. There is much INSTANTANEOUS interaction physics simulated, and it looks pretty real– even though the structure is quite elaborate, and entirely CGI. Now the regime, some four years later, and with likely vastly superior CGI capability at its intel agencies, could have put plane hit videos, on TV, that contained some, or much, interaction physics, but chose not to.
This has traditionally been the case with their most dastardly deeds. With the Kennedy Assassination, the Pearl Harbor set-up, Gulf of Tonkin non-incident, the Apollo Hoax, and other events, either at the time they happened, or some time thereafter, everything the Gov’t says is a lie, and often a physical impossibility– and this is clear to the intelligentsia. Those who can think and change can see this. But most people cannot easily think and change; and that difficulty is created and enforced by the Govt, the media, education, religion, etc. I saw Spooked recently put up an acronym for this– MITOP: Made It Transparent On Purpose.
It agrees with what I have written. From the beginning, I have cited everything from the jet’s wings blinking in and out of existence, to the words of videographer, Evan Fairbanks, when he got his video from the FBI and saw that the jet/tower interaction looked like “bad special effects,” to Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” WTC7 quote, that the PTB were telling the intelligentsia that the regime itself were the perpetrators. MITOP is meant to instill fear, helplessness, depression, schizoid behavior, and ultimately paralysis in those who can think and change, so as to try to stop them from ACTING on what they have realized. The way to counter this is to ACT.
For now please consider using these new terms for what is claimed during the planes first half “entry”/disappearance:
No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:
A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/…rld/main546355. shtml)
C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.
D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:
a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.
F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12″x36″. The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.
G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have ‘evaporated’ even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.
III.
9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:
A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of ‘hard’ instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.
Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto.
Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not ‘instrument rated’ and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly ‘visually’ under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.
The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight.
Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS” (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.
B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a “clacker” would have sounded in the cockpit. The ‘clacker’ is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.
C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.
He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].
That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.
IV.
10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.
11. One of the critical issues of the ‘impossible’ speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.
12. The ‘Dive Velocity’ VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.
13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).
14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.
15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.
Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don’t have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.
What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called ‘form and friction’ drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.
16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and parasite power.
Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don’t have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely. Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.
17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.
What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed, triples.
The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).
That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.
18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.
19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:
20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.
21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.
The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller. This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air. At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.
But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren’t designed to.
So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn’t going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power
required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.
It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.
That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.
22. To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it’s not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.
23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.
24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.
Notes: 1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts, 2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts. 3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required. I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge. _/s/ John Olsen Lear___________ John Olsen Lear 1414 N. Hollywood Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006 Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 24 day of January 2008. /s/ Connie Jones______________ Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09 Certificate #94-2650-1
Screen captures from the Michael Hezarkhani “Ghostplane” video. Yellow arrow indicates the “wingtip” and where it struck the tower.
Capture B:
Capture C:
Capture D:
Capture E:
Capture F:
Capture G:
Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion at all?
The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd.
If this was deflected debris, we should see it occurring in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in– a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.
There’s ALSO that weird explosion that occurs much lower down from the wing–away from EVERYTHING!
Interesting Discussion on the “Ghostplane” Video here.
The fact that 19 Rector Street (Greenwich Club Residences), which is the apparently missing building in the Hezerkhani (Ghostplane) video, is absent from Microsoft Virtual Earth is quite interesting.
This idea has been percolating around for a while, and I was not totally sure about it. But now I am finally convinced from this excellent video by Fred that even the freakin’ towers in the CNN “Ghostplane” video were manipulated:
[MEK Note: I do not support this particular demolition theory as there are no facts to support it while other existing facts demonstrate a professional demolition using nano thermite.]
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Permanent Top Post
This site deals primarily with the mechanism of demolition of the WTC and the likelihood of nuclear bombs being used.
See “China Syndrome at the WTC” for articles pertaining to the aftermath of the WTC nuclear demolition and the extreme heat phenomena seen at “Ground Zero”.
Just Published: Limited Edition, Nuclear 9/11 Book by The Anonymous Physicist
I have written, that after long and careful analyses, the best bet for the main factor that destroyed the WTC on 9/11/01 were numerous, small, fission bombs. Others have claimed that one (hypothetical) 4th generation, pure fusion nuclear bomb destroyed each tower. This is what the anonymous Finnish military expert wrote. And the Finn apparently based his entire 4th generation pure fusion hypothesis on the finding of tritium at the WTC on 9/13/01. Since he was the first person to publish any specific nuclear destruction scenario for 9/11, many others cite his work as being definitive, or such. (He could still be correct, though this is extremely unlikely.) And so many who state that they are proponents of the nuclear destruction hypothesis of the WTC are proponents of the pure fusion mechanism, because the Finn is; and he cited the Tritium found at the WTC on 9/13/01. Or there could be a more sinister reason for these numerous individuals to support the pure fusion scenario.
Now the Finn apparently gave overarching consideration to the Tritium found and published in the article, “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” by T.M. Semkow, et al. It was published at the 223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002. The article states that “This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.” (Note that this is the same lab that allegedly can create “super nano-composite thermite” that yields “unextinguishable fires,” and thus new laws of chemistry and physics as well as the first equivalent perpetual motion mechanism. [If only.] It’s also the same lab that is remasterminding Kennedy Assassination audio tapes. And I have some suspicions on what the “Eng” might mean.) It should be noted that this paper contains several bogus and ludicrous attempts to account for the tritium at the WTC on 9/13. Mostly they allege that the tritium came from exit signs on the planes that “crashed into the towers.” The paper also alleges that tritium was in the sightings on the guns of police officers killed that day. The first “mechanism” is obviously bogus, as there is not a single video that agrees with reality in that the “planes” are clearly just CGI broadcast on TV, and there was no credible evidence on the ground that any planes had crashed into the towers, and did so with blatantly, obvious impossible crash physics. Sources have also stated that the tritium claim on gun sightings is also bogus, if not totally, then regarding the amount.
Being a long-term expert on gov’t conspiracies and crimes, I see the whole tritium matter very deeply. The regime can and does refuse to release anything damning. So why did they release any data showing tritium at all, when they could have kept this under wraps, as I am sure FEMA is doing with WTC radiation readings? One possible answer is that it would provide a ruse for others to later claim the mythical 4th generation pure fusion bomb was used– thus obviating what was there in NYC for 6 months– the China Syndrome. And always remember, we are discussing the Lawrence Livermore Labs, designers of humanity-exterminating WMD for more than 60 years, as well as the above nefarious actions, related to the thermite hangout and JFK murder.
Now my first articles on my “many small nukes hypothesis” cited evidence for both fission and fusion at the WTC. I too ignored one important factor in these matters for a while– but I have changed that in later articles and in a larger work– but have not played this up at this blog, and wish to rectify this now. I have also written that it may be more than coincidence that a 4th generation pure fusion bomb does not allow for what we clearly had at the WTC for up to six months– the China Syndrome of great heat GENERATION from the remnants of the many fission bombs, as each used only about 1-6% of its fissile material. That is, pure fusion does not allow for the China Syndrome as any remnants of pure fusion components (such as deuterium or tritium) do not allow for this– only Uranium or Plutonium fissioning can. Note that a fission-triggered fusion bomb could still allow for the China Syndrome. Only the pure fusion scenario does not. So it is curious that the Finn immediately went with pure fusion, and not with the possibility of fission-triggered fusion. And the Finn based this on the tritium finding, and either did not know about, or chose to ignore, all the evidence of massive heat generation at the WTC for 6 months, and also the following matter.
One factor from nuclear physics has been mostly left out of this “nuclear choice.” This is TERNARY FISSION, and was included in William Tahil’s book. Unfortunately that book was shown by this researcher to be incorrect on several points. These included the “nuclear reactor” hypothesis being thoroughly unnecessary and impossible, as is his and the Finn’s claim that a single nuke destroyed each tower. (Tahil also incorrectly stated that a fission nuke uses up 100% of its fissile material, when it is only 1-6%.) I have also cited much evidence both of a preliminary sub-basement nuke timed with the explosions on top (so-called “plane hits”), and that the final destruction involved numerous small nukes. So the single nuke scenario, from the Finn and Tahil, is untenable.
Now most fission reactions of Uranium or Plutonium are binary– they yield TWO large “daughter elements” (e.g., Barium and Krypton, or Strontium and Xenon), plus 2-3 neutrons, plus energy in the form of gamma rays. But since 1959, it has been publicly known, via this article, that ternary fission yields TRITIUM, along with its THREE daughter elements, plus the excess neutrons, and energy. And thus with the numerous fission bombs that were detonated, and with the additional possible factors of redundancy and fratriciding that my articles have detailed, we can arrive at perhaps the most likely source of tritium in the rubble– the fission nukes themselves. I have seen estimates for the percentage of tritium production from ternary fission ranging from 1% down to .005%. (There is the possibility of deliberate disinformation, in some matters of nuclear physics, so one cannot often trust public nuclear physics discussions.) Because of this, and not knowing what element(s) were fissioned, nor how much of each, it is impossible to know just how much tritium could have been produced by ternary fission in the numerous micro-nukes used to destroy the WTC. But it appears to be more than would occur from non-existent planes, or gun sightings; and the proven heat generation of the China Syndrome Aftermath belies the use of a mythical 4th generation pure fusion device.
The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the “good old” pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they’re even backpackable. And in the final analysis– given ternary fission– there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. We may never be able to prove exactly what happened regarding the nuclear destruction of the WTC on 9/11, by the American regime; but we should strive to emphasize the most likely, and the most dependable factors the American regime would have used. And we must realize that the regime wanted to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, as that poisoned thousands of responders, and to a lesser extent, millions of metro NY residents.
So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner. A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream “national security” to prevent release of such data– including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.) I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.
What the nukes were mainly for, in my estimation, was to vaporize INSTANTLY, and definitively, the necessary core structure for the TOWERS’ ENSUING RAPID, APPROXIMATE, FREEFALL RATE OF COLLAPSE! The PTB apparently intended to later push the impossible “gravitational pancaking” ruse, even though it violates numerous laws of Physics, and we can see the outer structure being exploded outward, by the overpressure within. (You can compare what happens during an actual gravitational collapse by seeing this.) The PTB clearly wanted to shove a physically impossible, evidence-opposing destruction “mechanism” down the throats of the masses. They know what it does to many peoples’ psyches. It induces denial, fear, schizoid behavior, and hopelessness– all good for the coming endless wars, and destruction of the American Constitution. Putting out a physically impossible and evidence-opposing “mechanism” for WTC destruction jibes with other events perpetrated by the American regime. With the American regime’s assassination of the Peace President, John Kennedy, the “official” scenario is that the fatal head shot was fired from behind, even though Kennedy’s body is slammed violently straight back–from the shot fired, from the front, by his Secret Service “protector”/driver. The ludicrous shot from behind violates the simple Law of Conservation of Momentum. As I have written, the WTC bogus scenario entails “pristine pancaking”– violating Newton’s Laws of Motion. Similarly the JFK Assassination had (future) Senator Specter’s “pristine bullet” that smashed into 5 bones, made turns on its own, hung out for 2 seconds and looked virtually like new– and violated the Momentum Conservation Law. The PTB want to put out these impossible “mechanisms” to dumb down, shock, or paralyze the people. Most people go into denial, and do not want to think about it, because their subconciousnesses know what is really involved. Those who can think and see, and have combatted the denial, are then further confounded with other limited hangouts put out by the Gestapo Regime’s hidden intel agents posing as “leaders” of the “truth movement.” These WTC hangouts included the evidence-free inanity of DEW, and the “thermite burns forever” impossibility. Both are easily demonstrated to be physically impossible to have caused the WTC destruction, and the CSA. All the regime’s hidden assets earlier inserted at the top of the “alternative” or conspiracy internet media, were then instructed to push these hangouts and avoid mention of the nuking and the China Syndrome Aftermath.
Returning now to the fission vs. fusion issue. Blowing through the outer structure of the building with unnecessary fusion–either as the hypothetical pure fusion, or as a fission-fusion bomb– could not be risked, when pure fission micro-nukes were readily available. Fission nukes have a more “guaranteed” upper bound on their yields, and are more dependable as well, compared to either the alleged pure fusion or the fission-fusion bomb. In the final analysis, the release of the tritium data may have been a clever Intel Op to try to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, and its nuclear fission cause. If there was tritium at the WTC, its most likely source was ternary fission.
35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC
1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome) 2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water 3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero 4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction) 5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation 6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination 7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel 8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation 9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles 10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris 11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris 12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris 13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object 14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction 15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower 16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction 17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist 18) fission-nuke technology well-established 19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome 20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning) 21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud 22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA 23) High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders 24) Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire 25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro 26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps 27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface 28) Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath 29) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs 30) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs 31) Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes 32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction 33) Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test 34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers 35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris
1. Did Pasquale Buzzelli Surf Down The “Collapse”—or Do Conflicting Reports Collapse the O.C.T.?
2. Does the Revealed “Upward Wind” During “Collapse” Prove the Final “Cleaner Nuke”?
by The Anonymous Physicist
Pasquale Buzzelli is a structural engineer who was working for the Port Authority in the North Tower on 9/11. Genelle Guzman [McMillan is added now—due to subsequent marriage] was a co-worker of Buzzelli’s at that time. Both would be among only 20 alleged survivors of the “collapse” of the two towers. Curiously all 20 were in the North Tower. Buzzelli would become famous for claims that he, in effect, “surfed” down 22 floors during “collapse” as described here.
He was found ATOP the rubble pile, and taken to safety, at least three hours after the “collapse.” Guzman-McMillan, who started out with Buzzelli on the 64th floor, would become famous as the last person rescued alive from beneath the rubble, about 24 hours after the “collapse.”
However, Guzman-McMillan’s description of events leads to the collapse of credibility of Buzzelli. As archived here, Guzman-McMillan states that she was on the 13th—not 22nd—floor just before the “Collapse” began; and that Buzzelli was BELOW her. She states that Buzzelli was below her as he led a group of people (including her) down. She does not know, at that point in time, how far below her he was. So this could be but half a flight of stairs, or several flights. But Buzzelli, and his fellow claimants thus lose AT LEAST nine flights of “collapse surfing” from Guzman-McMillan’s account. Also please consider the possible implications in the differences in how they were found. Guzman-McMillan was buried BENEATH some rubble, while Buzzelli was ATOP the rubble pile. Curiously Guzman-McMillan also relates pressure from the Port Authority on its reported orders to Tower workers to stay put after the “plane hits.” The article above states, “On instructions from the Port Authority, McMillan declines to discuss why she stayed [initially].”
Guzman-McMillan “felt hot” while awaiting rescue. Reports from the 12 firemen who survived in Stairwell B also have them saying they felt heat in the Stairwell even when initially climbing up. (This fits with my articles on the early sub-basement nuke’s thermal rays that affected many people, including Felipe David.) Indeed I might say that the following report from Rick Cushman is the very first report of what I have lengthily described as the China Syndrome Aftermath. See this blog: wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com. Now Rick Cushman was a marketing manager and National Guardsman from Saugus, MA. He rushed to Ground Zero from Massachusetts. For 12 hours he searched for survivors in the rubble. “But he had not seen any — only pieces of bodies. Beneath his boots, heat billowed up through the web of steel.” Then Cushman heard Guzman-McMillan’s shouts and directed rescuers to her.
Now this article reveals numerous things. Despite the fact that there was likely a large number of people going down Stairwell B at the moment of collapse— as there were only three stairwells in each tower— people survived only at a few locations along Stairwell B. There are several possibilities, according to my many small nukes hypothesis. As previously hypothesized here, there could have been several failed or fizzled nukes. Or there is the possibility, that at certain intervals, those who were in an effective nodal region— between nukes—may have survived, at least initially.
Now Stairwell B contained 14 survivors— including 12 firefighters— who survived the tower’s final destruction. Two others— Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— were on Stairwell B at the onset of “collapse,” but were found elsewhere in the rubble pile. And four others were found in the underground Mall. (This includes the two Port Authority policemen depicted in the Oliver Stone movie.) Again it appears that the South Tower’s “collapse” curiously did not have any such survivors. Now the New York Magazine article indicates again that some of these Stairwell B surviving firemen surmised that they survived a nuclear attack: “[Captain] Jonas and his men, finally freed from their stairwell, looked around at fires and flattened buildings. They thought they were witnessing a nuclear attack.” My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC have detailed how many firefighters surmised this. Why? Firefighters are well familiar with heat from fire, but if they feel great heat on their skin and they are nowhere near a fire, they know something very different is going on! Readers of my articles, and of this blog by Spooked, and his 33 blog here can also see the involvement of the PTB, when the article states “When Buzzelli called at 3:30 everything changed, though not as she’d expected. Soon, she’d know that he’d somehow landed safely in the midst of acres of destruction, a lone soul dropped to safety on a concrete slab…”
The New York Magazine article has other quizzical matters, and should be read in its entirety. There is the matter of the 12th Floor as depicted here. “Jonas picked up a Mayday from the lieutenant of Ladder Five, who reported that he was in Stairwell B on the 12th floor. Jonas had passed him on the way down, helping a civilian. “I’m trapped and I’m hurt bad,” he said. Jonas, who was on the fourth floor, tried to climb the stairs but couldn’t ascend more than a floor, and in any case, as he’d later learn, the stairwell had no 12th floor. “I’m sorry, I can’t help you,” he radioed back.”
The highest-ranking officer on Stairwell B was Chief Richard Picciotto. He later wrote a book, as the article continues: “Picciotto’s Last Man Down became a best-seller. It would also end his friendship with Jonas—“It’s a very bad book,” says Jonas— and whatever camaraderie he shared that day with the others from Ladder Six. “We don’t speak to him,” says Komorowski. “Liar,” Butler wrote in his copy of the book.”
““It was part of my personality to take charge of a situation,” Picciotto writes. “I’d never been the type to sit idly by while someone else called the shots, and I wasn’t about to start now…Picciotto was the highest-ranking guy, but he was not the commanding officer. He was doing nothing. He was balled up in a corner,” says Jonas.”
Picciotto’s book says he was on the 7th Floor when the North Tower “collapsed.” These articles indicate that the extant height of Stairwell B, after tower destruction, was five flights. And this should be kept in mind when researching where people were at the moment destruction began, and where they ended up. It appears that each flight had two levels of standard zigzag stairs as depicted here. We must keep in mind that anyone being blasted on the stairwell, but remaining in the stairwell, would have been blasted in a straight line, and shouldn’t have been blasted more than a flight of stairs. This is different from those—like Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— who were apparently blasted OUT of the stairwell, at some point, during the tower’s destruction.
(And, of course, the stairwell above the fifth floor may have been vaporized, or otherwise destroyed.) With Guzman-McMillan ending up buried under some rubble, and Buzzelli atop the rubble. I also note that there appears to be no pictures that show the very TOP of the extant five-floor Stairwell B section. Could this be because the top contains obvious indications of the great (nuclear) heat of tower destruction? Have these photos been cropped, as many photos were in the Kennedy Assassination? I was the first to note the similarity of the remnant of Stairwell B, and the remnant of the tower from the fizzled Upshot-Knothole Ruth nuclear fission bomb test of 3/31/53. At least the bottom third of the bomb’s tower remained because the nuke had fizzled—it had a yield about 1/15th of what was expected. See here:
Note the date has a 33. The tops of the Ruth test tower and Stairwell B have some similarities as I indicated to Spooked, and as he has in his article at his blog here on 3/12/09. The tops indicate some steel has melted and twisted downward.
Finally, I cite the book, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith [not read by me]. In particular I cite this review by Sterling D. Allan, an apparent alternative energy expert. After reading that book, and Stairwell B’s survivors’ accounts, Allan reveals, “a cohesive conclusion: A POWERFUL WIND WAS GOING UP THE STAIRS AS THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING DOWN. This would seem to refute the official pancake theory of collapse in which one floor after another fails as the mass from above comes down.”
Allan includes this familiar hypothesis, “One possible explanation for these survivors, in the demolition model, is that explosives that were placed in the vicinity of this stairwell section failed to go off.” Allan however appears to only consider non-nuclear matters, but his review is dated in 2006, before my articles, and that of others, on the nuclear destruction of the WTC appeared.
But I conclude with the question—does the now-revealed UPWARD WIND, of final tower destruction, indicate a nuclear blast from the ground, or perhaps more likely from the basement? Is this upward wind another indication of the final cleaner nuke that I have written about for several years now? As I have written, this final cleaner nuke may also have been seen as the so-called “nuclear glow” that TV cameras panned AWAY FROM while purporting to show what was happening at the WTC.
So– we have seen now that “surfing the collapse” is not as the regime wishes to have it depicted. Many floors of “surfing” are missing, and ending up atop the rubble— with a huge building “collapsing” on top of you— is incredulous. Also we see that firemen’s accounts of the upward wind of final collapse fits well with my nuclear destruction scenario, but it impossible with the OCT, as there would be no wind until the pancaking floors hit that level, and that would have been a downward wind.
The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower
After the destruction of WTC1, this stairwell in the core of the building remained– three to four stories higher than the rest of the rubble pile:
Now remember the “spire” of WTC1 that remained for a few seconds during the destruction of the tower?
It was a good 70 stories high, and was part of the WTC1 core:
The spire didn’t topple over, but fell more-or-less STRAIGHT DOWN:
IF THE SPIRE MERELY COLLAPSED, FALLING STRAIGHT DOWN, THE HEAVY CORE COLUMNS SHOULD HAVE OBLITERATED THE STAIRWELL AT THE BASE OF THE CORE!
Rather– the stairwell WOULD survive if the spire was blown with bombs at the base– a few stories above the stairwell. In this way, the higher spire columns could fall to the side as the base was blasted out. Perhaps several bombs along the base of the core were used to create this result. But it seems clear that a collapse of the spire could not result in this intact stairwell. It also seems likely that this nuclear blasting along the core/spire would account for all the missing WTC1 core columns!
The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure
The Ruth shot was a fizzle. The predicted yield was 1.5 to 3 kt, while the 200 ton yield was a fraction of that. Especially embarrassing to UCRL was that only the top 100 feet of the 300 foot shot tower was vaporized (though much of the remainder was scattered across the desert). It was standard practice at that time for each test to totally erase all evidence associated with it (automatically “declassifying” the site), which Ruth failed to do.
Hard to tell how tall this tower remnant is but I would guess about 100 feet, if the cross-sections are 10 feet apart (which would fit what looks like a ladder near the base).
Compare the above pic to this pic of the WTC1 core remnant (click to enlarge): Note the wilted pieces of steel dangling down.
Note– this puts the WTC destruction into good perspective. If a 200 ton yield nuke can vaporize 100 feet of steel structure, and destroy 100 feet or more of it, you can imagine the yield nuke that would be required to vaporize the innards of the 208 foot wide WTC while leaving the outer walls more or less intact. What’s not clear is if there is a linear correlation between nuke yield and vaporization radius– I would guess it’s not perfectly linear.
A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath: ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence
NOTE: PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS DEFINITIVE SUMMARY ON THE NUKING OF THE WTC AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE!
by The Anonymous Physicist
In attempting to ascertain what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01, and the great heat and molten metal observed for up to six months afterward, one must account for ALL the phenomena involved in WTC destruction, and the aftermath– and not just one or two factors. Only nuclear bombs and the resulting China Syndrome can account for ALL phenomena observed. The overview and numerous supporting articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here: wtcdemolition.blogspot.com But, at the outset, we should realize that there is an abundance of evidence that the O.C.T. (Official Conspiracy Theory) is quite bogus. For example, sworn testimony from firemen/responders contains their witnessing of loud explosions from the onset of tower destruction. This alone destroys the OCT of gravity-driven, progressive collapse.
A brief summary of the nuclear aspects now follows.
1. First, low yield nukes (mini-nukes or micro-nukes) are a proven fact that the U.S Govt has admitted to since the 1950’s with their Davey Crocket rifle, and more recently with a physicist’s testimony to Congress. It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes– and later neutron bombs– have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such. My “many small nukes” WTC hypothesis indicates that numerous low yield nukes went off INSIDE (near the center of) the towers. They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure. This also ensured that any radiation was contained during detonation. And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.
2. MASSIVE EVIDENCE of ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES (EMP) FROM NUKES. This includes the eyewitness, sworn testimony of EMT responder, Patricia Ondrovic (and others). She reported that as WTC1 was beginning to be destroyed, she saw flickering lights in WTC6 lobby where she tried to enter, but was stopped. And just outside at that time, cars caught fire without any visible reason, and one then had its car door explode off of it; and the door hit and injured her as she began to flee the area. Exactly how EMP from nukes did all this is explained here, along with other evidence of EMP during tower destruction from nuclear bombs.
3. DUST PARTICLE SIZE WAS LESS THAN 2.5 MICRONS– & LIED ABOUT by the Gov’t’s main OCT (Official “Collapse” Theory) engineer/author. You can think of a mortar and pestle, and grinding something large into smaller and smaller pieces. It takes more and more energy input to yield smaller and smaller pieces. A nuclear bomb is known to yield particle sizes down to 10 nanometers. (1 nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter). And Govt scientists had equipment to analyze the WTC dust down to 10-nanometer size, if they wanted to, and should have. Unless they did, and have refused to release this. What they (the U.S. Geological Survey scientists) did was lump together all dust sizes less than 2.5 microns and released this data. (A micron is 1 millionth of a meter, and a thousand times larger than 1 nanometer). Nonetheless, the Govt’s main engineer/author, Z.P. Bazant, numerous times wrote papers that claimed that 10 microns was the smallest sized particles created during WTC destruction, and later collected by USGS scientists. For years he did not cite the work that showed, this. Last year he did cite a reference, and it led back to the 2.5 micron study, NOT to the 10 microns he claimed as the smallest dust particle size! So he flat out committed fraud here. He had to do this as his bogus papers claim that the gravitational potential energy (height times weight) of the towers accounted for the energy needed to create the smallest dust particle size. And there isn’t enough energy from his theory to account for 2.5 micron size dust, let alone the much smaller dust sizes that the USGS did not ascertain or release! The bogus physics and math from Bazant and others is here.
4. MELTED, HANGING SKIN WITHOUT FIRE was reported by at least 4 known WTC survivors. This includes WTC worker Felipe David, whose own words state this occurred without fire, but his story when told by another, has “fire” added. There are also two women who reported (on the “Larry King Show”) that a similar thing happened to them, and they don’t know why, because they too were not in any fire. And there is also a security guard with a similar report. The security guard and Felipe David had this happen to them in the lobby and the sub-basement area of WTC1 respectively. Outside the towers, firemen/responders also felt great heat on their skin without being near any fire DURING TOWER DESTRUCTION. Only the thermal rays of a nuclear bomb can account for this. They go out the farthest when a nuke goes off. And hanging skin was a common occurrence in Hiroshima survivors. Note that the outside firemen feeling heat on their skin (without fire near them) also disproves “DEW”, as they are NOT in the towers nor right under them either, and thus if “directed energy beams did it”, and these must be coherent, they would not diverge and cause heat far from their target! So no “DEW” was involved.
5. SUB-BASEMENT LEVEL, 50-TON STEEL PRESS & HEAVY DOOR VAPORIZED. At the same time as Felipe David’s nightmare was unfolding, and also in the sub-basement, WTC engineer Mike Pecoraro reports going up a level and seeing that a sub-basement level was in shambles and was “just gone.” Also he states a 50-ton press has also been apparently vaporized, and a 300 pound steel/concrete door has just been left shriveled up like foil. The only things that could do this are the multi-million degree temperatures, and neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb. Coupling this with the four survivors who had melted, hanging skin at this same time, we have evidence of blast, high temperatures, neutron bombardment and thermal rays– all virtual proof of nuclear bomb use.
6. HEAT GENERATION AT THE WTC FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11- -THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH (CSA) (see http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com) No heat “lingers” for weeks and months, not alleged jet fuel, not alleged thermite (which would have been used up either in minutes or hours–or during its use as an explosive). We have the documented, witnessed, and well photographed and videotaped great heat and molten metal for weeks, and indeed for up to six months underground at the WTC— until all radioactive fission fragments were carted away. No heat lingers for that long; this could only have been heat GENERATION. The evidence of great heat throughout much of the rubble pile and even higher temperatures underneath the two towers and WTC7 is massive. It included melted firemen’s boots, even dogs had to wear special boots, a mass of congealed bullets in WTC6 going off weeks later from heat, and many photos of steam emanation from the continual water hosing of the “hotspots” all around the WTC. The China Syndrome HAD TO ARISE because each of the numerous small nukes used up only 1-6% of its fissile material– which is standard for nukes. The remainder was then available as radioactive fragments, releasing great heat for a long time (until removed), as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. And it is likely that there were numerous, redundant nukes employed, and the phenomena of “fratricided” and fizzled nukes may also have occurred as these are common with nuclear detonations. These effects likely further exacerbated the China Syndrome. The radioactive fragments were somewhat dispersed throughout the rubble pile, and in greatest concentration underneath the towers and WTC7– where water and sand treatments could not readily be employed. Note that the alleged Tritium finding that the Govt released, may be a red herring to fool people to look for top-secret unknown types of nukes, which couldn’t have led to the CSA, which is what clearly occurred. The ludicrous lying (“there never was any heat during or after WTC destruction”) or the poor attempts to create new laws of chemistry and physics by alleged 9/11truthers (“super nanocomposite thermite burns forever”) only shows how desperate the Govt is to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.
7. THE MISSING PEOPLE, FURNITURE, steel & other contents of the towers. Destruction of the towers vaporized many of the nearly 3,000 people who died, as well as much furniture, steel and other building contents. The medical examiner was unable to find or utilize any strands of DNA for over 1100 people. The rubble pile from the two towers was only a couple of stories high when it should have been several times higher from a “collapse,” or even a conventional demolition. There is much missing mass from the “extraordinarily high temperatures” as fire engineering Professor Barnett declared after examining vaporized steel, that occurred during tower/WTC7 destruction. Nukes vaporize matter near their hypocenter. Thermite, thermobarics, etc. DO NOT. Contrary to what some claim, neither thermite nor thermobarics could vaporize the missing people, furniture, steel and other contents, as detailed here.
8. CLASSICAL GOV’T DISINFO METHODS ENSUED whereby their agents put out supposedly “alternative theories” involving alleged “secret, new technologies” that are either evidence-free and/or impossible. Space Beams/DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), or ludicrous “super nanocomposite thermite burns forever” theories were created by the intel agencies to cover up the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. (Thermite cools off in minutes or hours.) These “theories” desperately try to claim new phenomena or new laws of physics and chemistry–as does the 9/11 Commission’s ludicrous “findings.”
9. More now on the issue of Radiation: The #1 item above showed that the Govt has had mini-nukes, and micro-nukes for decades, and that low-radiation yielding nukes have also been around for decades as well. On the other hand, the great heat and molten metal at, and under, the WTC for up to six months after 9/11, indicates the existence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC; whereby many responders and Metro New York residents may have been exposed to some radiation from radioactive fission fragments that resulted from the use of the many micro-nukes. We have much indirect evidence of the effects of radiation poisoning among the 40,000 responders who were at “Ground Zero” in the weeks and months afterwards. There have been hundreds of reported cases of blood, lymph and thyroid cancers among responders. These types of cancers frequently arise from radiation exposure, and are much less likely (unlike lung diseases) to arise from inhalation of toxins. Also, the teeth and hair falling out reported by several responders are also standard illnesses from radiation poisoning. These responders’ doctors and lawyers are not telling these people that radiation may have caused their illnesses, because the China Syndrome Aftermath remains one of the Govt’s most closely guarded secrets. However, we can see that the Govt itself was well aware of what it had caused! Standard radiation-lowering methods were employed beginning the very next morning– 9/12/01! These included water dilution/hosing down and sand/earth covering (and subsequent removal of this sand/earth) of the rubble pile. These procedures continued for weeks and months precisely because the rubble pile, and undergound areas, were replete with radioactive fission fragments.
There is some general information on radiation sources that needs elucidation. Due to absorption and other factors, radiation levels can go down quickly– unless radioactive fragments (radionuclides) are released to the environment. Unless one is close (like Felipe David, who appears to have received thermal radiation, and not ionizing radiation)– or the radiation is very intense– enough distance/air or most materials, will stop most forms of radiation. This assumes one does not inhale or ingest radioactive particles or radionuclides. The underground WTC areas– which likely had the highest radiation yields (and also heat)– were off limits to all but a few responders. Also, as Hiroshima studies indicated, it took decades for many cancers and other illnesses to manifest. Note that a Gov’t agency, FEMA, was/is in charge of any radiation data for Ground Zero, and could easily have blocked release of any data that found radiation. The U.S. Gov’t has a long, sordid record of lying about radiation exposure to soldiers and citizens, as noted here when they nuked their own soldiers during “atomic tests”.
Honest people, not in DENIAL, must see the analogy to the Reichstag fire set by the German Nazis, in 1933, in Berlin. This was their seat of almost their entire federal gov’t. And this fire/destruction was used as an excuse to destroy their Constitution, and as an excuse for War on “terrorists,” and then all of Europe. There was one difference with the Nazis, however. They waited till the middle of the night, when there were no inhabitants in the Reichstag building! Of course, that German Gov’t did not admit they did it themselves, but that came out after they lost WWII. If U.S. Govt agencies have certain types of proof that they nuked the WTC, and thus its largest city; does any honest person think these Govt agencies would ever release this data–unless a new Gov’t came about? There is reason to believe that other crucial data such as WTC rubble pile temperature (AVIRIS, 2nd set), and WTC destruction seismic recordings were altered. This physicist hypothesizes that WTC responders AND nearby Metro New York residents and workers, that were exposed either the longest or to certain areas with the “hottest”spots face the risk of getting cancer and other immune disorders from radiation exposure in the years and decades to come. Sadly this will prove the China Syndrome Aftermath in the worst possible way. Private persons and institutions are urged to get and keep statistics on this, as the Gov’t will likely cover this up.
Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11
… as well as early WTC7 Destruction, EMP, non-impact plane flyby, and people being pushed out of a WTC tower.
By The Anonymous Physicist
Reading just a handful out of the 503 9/11 WTC initial responders’ testimonies has proven to be a real eye-opener. These firefighters’ and EMS officers’ depositions provide good corroboration for many of the things I have hypothesized at this blog, including the following: The WTC was demolished via small nuclear bombs, that pre-“collapse” basement nukes were set off in the towers, synchronous with the “plane hit” explosions above, that there likely were EMP’s (Electromagnetic Pulses from nukes), and that WTC7 underwent early explosions, and attempted early demolition.
Firefighter Edward Kennedy here states that he thought a “nuclear bomb” had demolished a tower. “We were on Liberty Street and we came out into there and it just look like something that — it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb… “
Here we learn that NYFD Lt. George DeSimone similarly thought the heat–without fire–impinging on him was Hiroshima-like:
“I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I’m either going to get burnt — and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt…”
Several hours after both tower “collapses”, and despite official regime claims of total military and civilian flight termination, he said:
“…We saw jets overhead, commercial airliner, military jets, Air Force jets, and we didn’t know what the hell was going on…”
Recall I have detailed how a nuke’s thermal rays go farthest out, well beyond its destructive blast radius. Here NYFD Chief Jerry Gumbo’s testimony is one of several I have cited, to say he felt heat far away from any actual fire. He stated:
“…At the time of the impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at the command post, which was across West Street, and West is fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street.”
I believe this is again indication of the early basement nuke concomitant with the “plane hit” explosion above.
Another firefighter who thought the WTC destruction was nuclear is NYFD Lt Richard Smiouskas, whose statement is here. He was an official NYFD photographer, and has some startling testimony, regarding other matters, as well. It appears that with his telefoto lens, he witnessed people being pushed out of tower one. He said:
“…I was photographing the fire from the roof. I had a long lens on the camera, and I had people in the windows. It looked like they were being — they weren’t actually jumping. One or two people I saw, they seemed like they were being forced out by the people behind them. There was half a dozen faces. In between the smoke you could see people…” (snip) “I guess they were all trying to get air, and this guy was actually standing in the window, standing in the frame with each hand on each frame and he kind of like got nudged out.”
In the second sentence, it looks like he just stopped himself from saying “pushed”. The last incident may even indicate the NON-jumper was trying to keep himself from being pushed out!
Lt. Smiouskas believed that a nuclear bomb went off, due to the magnitude of Earth shaking that he felt. As a tower is being destroyed he recalls:
“It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor…I’m thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I’m thinking it could have been a nuclear….”
Then he writes of seeing “glitter” through the black smoke, during tower destruction.
“Everybody started running north, and this huge volume like ten stories high billowing, pushing black smoke and like a glitter. I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the cloud of smoke.”
I do not believe this “glitter” was glass in the black smoke. Perhaps it is more likely that gamma rays from nuclear explosions which could readily traverse the black smoke, impinged on his retina. This is like the atronauts in earth orbit seeing (retinal) flashes from cosmic rays when they tried to go to a higher earth orbit, and like medical x-rays that go through you and onto a photographic plate.
But note how Lt. Smiouskas found the ground shaking was intense enough that he surmised (correctly, IMO) that a nuclear bomb went off. Now, I have been in 5.1 (Richter scale) Earthquakes, and in 2.3’s. The latter I didn’t feel at all, and the 5.1 sounds more like what Lt. Smiouskas (and I) experienced—at least a likely 4.0. I also was at the WTC six weeks after 9/11, and saw many cracked, concrete sidewalks, blocks away from the WTC, (as well as experienced my eyes burning from the hot toxic gases still emitted.) I therefore make the following assertion. It is likely that the “official” 2.1 and 2.3 Richter scale recordings on 9/11 had their spikes cut off! I have even found that NIST asked for a “re-analysis” of seismic data from one observatory before publishing their “findings.” So, just as I hypothesized about the long-delayed second AVIRIS (WTC temperature) data set, the seismic recordings were likely doctored by this regime. And this fire-fighter’s belief that the intense ground shaking was due to a “nuclear bomb” supports this hypothesis.
The interview of Dr. Michael Guttenberg, of NYFD’s Office of Medical Affairs, who may have witnessed EMP is here.
Just after the second “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse”, he noted:
“…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds…”
Questioner:
“We were told that the air was so thick with debris that radio waves weren’t able to travel.”
M.G.:
“That was after the towers came down.”
Note two things, the radios went dead—likely a sign of EMP, as I have previously described. And see how the questioner attempts to confuse the issue with a double lie. One, that this happened after a tower was destroyed, when instead, this is after the second WTC2 “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse” as Dr. Guttenberg corrects him. And two, that radio waves would have been blocked by a conventional explosion, when they wouldn’t have been. And note also that this radio blackout occurred after the second “plane hit” explosion. My previous articles contained evidence, and my hypothesis, that the WTC1 “plane hit” explosion was used as cover for a nearly concomitant basement nuclear bomb explosion that vaporized a 50 ton steel press, and a garage level, and also caused phone outage. So we learn now that electronic communications also were affected after the second “plane hit”, which may indicates that they also nuked the basement of WTC2 at that time. I hypothesized that this was done in case the planned, subsequent, intricate, top-down demolition failed.
Guttenberg also provides more eyewitness testimony for early WTC7 explosions, as he went to the loading area of WTC7.
“…We all stuffed ourselves into this hallway [near the loading dock of WTC7], pulled the door shut, and the noise just got very loud and the room filled with dust. The noise stopped, and we opened up the door, and everything was pitch black. The way we got into the loading dock was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.”
This appears to be a watered down way of saying WTC underwent internal explosions. This jives with my earlier article citing Deputy Director of the NYC Emergency Services Dept., Barry Jennings, that the WTC7 underwent attempted complete internal destruction at the same time that the first tower (and WTC 3, 4, 5, 6) were demolished. My article, on top here hypothesized that fizzled nukes was the reason WTC7 was not successfully destroyed during this early coordinated attempt, which Jennings stated destroyed much of the lobby, now corroborated by Guttenberg. The last URL also has my earlier articles on nuclear demolition of the WTC.
NYFD Lt. Robert Larocco here also noted that tower destruction seemed “nuclear” to him. He said,
“Of course the cloud was kind of like a nuclear winter thing. You’re walking through fallout.”
Near the towers, but BEFORE either tower “collapse”, he noted:
“As I started walking onto the side street – actually as I stepped onto the side street, the strangest thing I noticed was there was like three inches of snow on the ground. The snow was probably pulverized concrete, sheetrock, loose tiles, insulation, asbestos or what-have-you.”
Now this fine ash or 3 inches of snow-like “pulverized concrete” as he called it would not occur from a “plane hit” or conventional explosives. Could this fine, 3 inches of “snow” be from the early basement nukes I have written about? Like the WTC1 basement blast that vaporized a steel press, and a parking garage level that eyewitnesses said was just “gone.”
Now some DEW/OCT disinfo agents claim that the tower destruction was not loud because their hangout was not loud. During the commencement of WTC2 destruction, Lt. Larocco stated:
“The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder.” (snip) “It was the loudest noise I’ve ever heard in my life. It was in both ears. Kind of like those rockets that they launch the space shuttles with, it was like I had one going off in each ear. When I thought it was the loudest noise I ever heard, every second it was just increasing getting louder and louder and louder.”
Lt Larocco also describes very personal feelings of fear of death, and fellow firefighters “crying like babies” during and just after collapse. These revelations prove that the redactions in the published responders’ statements were not because of wanting to hide the most personal of feelings.
Lt. Larocco also stated that hours after both towers were destroyed:
“…I still really didn’t believe that the second tower was hit by a second plane.”
At this point, the interviewer, Monte Feiler, says, “Stopping the interview at 1306.” Then, “Resuming the tape at 1308 hours. Same people present.”
Now Lt. Larocco says: “
Like I said, the rumors were flying around, and they turned out to be quite factual, about the second tower getting hit. Although at the time I really didn’t believe it until I saw it later on television. The thing about the Pentagon, the plane crashing out in Pennsylvania, it was all coming into the picture that this is something major going on.”
So we see how something happened during this “time out.” Something he was told and recalling what was “on TV” apparently made him change his mind and believe in the second “plane hit.” This manipulation speaks for itself. And if there really were plane hits, would the PTB need to perform such blatent manipulations of eyewitness testimony?
Finally I note that when he was making his way out after “collapse,” Lt. Larocco recalls:
“I thought to myself this is a locked exit. That’s illegal.”
We see, as some survivors have noted, many fire escape exits were locked. Someone–who may have had a master key–apparently locked numerous exits. If such a man is ascertained, and his actions proven to be deliberate, he should be charged with mass murder.
My interpretation of EMT Frank Puma’s deposition here indicates that he may have witnessed a FLYBY, and not a “plane impact” regarding the alleged “second hit.” He said:
“…I ran down to the corner of Church and Park Place, looked up and I saw the plane shooting out of the top of the towers. That’s when I grabbed for my radio and yelled over the air, “1 Adam. A bomb just went off in the Trade Center.”…
Note that after he witnessed an apparent flyby, HE CALLED IN A BOMB, and NOT a plane impact! In fact, when you couple his statement to the interviewer, with his action of exactly what he called in, it seems clear that he believed the plane he saw bombed the WTC! And this must be considered a possibility. However, all the evidence and the ludicrous “plane-shaped” hole itself indicate shape charges, at that facade, were set off in sync with a flyby (and basement nukes).
Finally, for those who grasp the deeper conspiracies I have elucidated here, I note that Firefighter Michael Wernick here stated the number of the Fire Engine that apparently responded first to the WTC, on 9/11. Wernick said, “Engine 33 went first.” As I have written here before, “All things nuclear…”
The Crucial Differences in the Nuclear 9/11 Theories
A Call To Eliminate Nuclear 9/11 Mis- or Dis-Information & Attain Completeness and Fit all the Known Evidence
by The Anonymous Physicist
Several, differing WTC nuclear destruction scenarios have been put forth by their respective authors. While they all have nuclear explosions in common; they have key differences. These differences must be openly examined, and used to strive towards a final nuclear 911 WTC destruction scenario that fits all the evidence, and is not contraindicated by the Laws of Physics. Nuclear WTC scenarios that do not fit all the evidence, or contain false statements, or are contradicted by physical law need to be abandoned.
1. Within a year or two of 9/11/01 people began to post at physics forums that WTC destruction seemed to involve nuclear bombs.
2. By 2005, the first website appeared which contained a nuclear WTC destruction scenario by an Anonymous Finnish Military Expert. He hypothesized that one upwardly-focused, sub-basement shape-charge-like nuke was used to destroy each tower. Tower destruction, he stated, was likely done with the aid of conventional explosives as needed. The Finn also hypothesized that the single nuke was a fourth generation, fission-free thermonuclear (pure fusion) device. He cited the alleged Tritium finding by U.S. Gov’t scientists. Therefore (fusion only), there could be no China Syndrome Aftermath with this theory.
3. In 2006, William Tahil wrote a book and offered it for sale online. (It is now downloadable for free.) Tahil also claimed that one deep underground nuclear explosion per tower occurred, but that they weren’t bombs per se. Rather, he claims, there were two huge, underground, fission nuclear reactors already present, which were made to go supercritical, and explode in a nuclear fashion. Tahil wrote that a China Syndrome Aftermath resulted.
4. In 2007, this Anonymous [American] Physicist offered a detailed, nuclear WTC destruction scenario. Many small nukes were said to have been employed during tower destruction, but some conventional explosives may also have been used to allow the nukes to be small, and not vaporize the outer tower structure. After first incorporating all the “official” evidence, that included findings that supported both fission and fusion; he [I] first wrote that either fission-initiated fusion bombs or tritium-boosted fission bombs were used.
But after finding massive, irrefutable evidence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC for up to six months– until the fissioning, radioactive fragments were carted away– and noting that the China Syndrome can supposedly only occur from fissioning remnants, not fusion components, the Anonymous Physicist has stated the following. The alleged Tritium data release to the public may be a clever regime ploy (red herring) to get people to look for the mythical fourth generation nuke precisely because it is fission-free, and therefore you couldn’t have WHAT WE DID HAVE– THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH at the WTC. Since the evidence of the China Syndrome of a massive heat-generating source existed at the WTC for months afterwards, and only fission fragments could cause this heat GENERATION for so long, the bombs likely were fission bombs. The Govt then deliberately released bogus information (Tritium), as covering up the China Syndrome Aftermath was their most crucial Op-Plan after 9/11. The China Syndrome arose, and HAD TO ARISE perforce, because a fission nuke uses only 1-6% of its fissile material. The remainder is left over and will remain fissioning for a long time, as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. Also the concepts of redundant nukes, “fratricided” nukes, and fizzled nukes were detailed in my papers, and all lead to a China Syndrome Aftermath.
Furthermore, the massive disinfo efforts by the American regime, and its agents, make clear how important it was/is to cover up the nuking, and the China Syndrome Aftermath in NEW YORK CITY. As usual, disinfo agents try too hard. Their M.O. is often clear to see. The hangouts known as the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), and “DEW” blatantly lie that there was no heat during or after WTC destruction. And another hangout (thermite) has its proponent admit to the great heat for months, but must lie and claim that “thermite burns forever,” when it actually cools off in minutes or hours. The final step, in the intel agencies’ disinformation scheme–as more and more people see the truth of the nuclear destruction of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath– is to plant individuals (mostly online personalities) who will pretend to be pro-nuclear 9/11. All the while everything they write is meant to confuse, confound, and actually belittle the nuclear 9/11 hypothesis with ludicrous or irrelevant claims. They will be easy to spot; they will likely never cite my research and articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. They will cite the other theories above– but not mine– precisely because of the unchanging flaws in the others, as detailed above. So please be aware of new, allegedly nuclear 9/11 proponents who may actually try to confound the issue; and present mis-, or dis-information, or irrelevancies, or pretend it is unknowable, or doesn’t matter.
Let us now examine the first two detailed nuclear WTC destruction scenarios listed above. First, let us look at the Finnish military expert’s claims of one sub-basement, pure fusion, shape-charged-like, upwardly focused nuke per tower. This appears to be erroneous in several ways. First the observed, top-down, destruction mechanism, and the earlier, highly likely nuclear sub-basement explosion (see more below) both belie the one nuke per tower hypothesis. The Finn has stated that he is an expert on shape charges, and that the top/down scenario could have been done via nuclear shape charges in the sub-basement. But the website that has his articles says that his translator refused to translate his details of how this could have occurred. But even if theoretically possible, the details of the early likely nuclear, sub-basement explosion (see below) demonstrate that his one nuke per tower scenario is untenable. Likewise, this Anonymous Physicist, has proposed that the hunt for the pure fusion, 4th generation nuke is likely a deliberate, planted red herring precisely because this would obviate what did take place– the China Syndrome Aftermath. So I contend that the Finnish Military Expert’s hypotheses of 1. Pure fusion nuke, 2. One nuke per tower in the basement are incorrect. The Finn also says that “red mercury” could be one way to attain fusion without prerequisite fission. This is the “red mercury” scam, that I have shown here is physically impossible to cause fusion; and is a British American Regime Psyops. The Finn was given my critique of his hypotheses, by the owner of the site that has his nuclear scenario. There has been no word back from him to my knowledge, but I would still welcome this now.
Next I have written what may be the only full review of Tahil’s book here. And this should be read by all, after reading his book. Tahil deserves credit for analyzing the USGS dust/elements study, and concluding that fission likely occurred during the WTC destruction, and even afterwards with secondary fission on some of the samples. But then Tahil’s scenario entails one nuke per tower in the sub-basement again– but here each one was a fission explosion that arose from making a large, hidden fission reactor explode like a nuclear bomb with upward focusing (as with the Finn). My review makes clear that several aspects are untenable or improbable. First, a nuclear reactor “going super-critical,” and exploding like a nuclear bomb is said to be physically impossible. Then the videoed, top-bottom tower destruction itself makes the one nuke per basement unlikely. Furthermore, my articles have also cited much eyewitness testimony such as from survivor sub-basement nuke survivor, Felipe David, and WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro. Pecoraro was in a sub-basement level, and went UP a level to see that an earlier blast vaporized a 50 ton steel press and shriveled up a heavy concrete/steel door into foil-like matter. This implies a nuke went off above him, not below him, and so even if a fission reactor could be made to go off like a nuclear bomb (which is stated to be impossible), could the one reactor do this a second time after it would have had its first, chaotic nuclear explosion? So the actual destruction videos and eyewitness testimony further erode some of Tahil’s (and the Finn’s) hypotheses.
Finally, numerous crucial statements Tahil wrote are incorrect. His rationale for the massive hidden reactor hypothesis was two-fold. 1. He claims that a fission bomb uses up 100% of its fissile material, when the correct figure is only 1-6%! and 2. Massive amounts of Strontium and other elements found in the dust, he claims, could only mean that two massive fission reactors were already present. My review showed that Strontium occurs in concrete, sometimes not as a tiny component, but as a relatively large percentage, as is known for the concrete used in making the Empire State Building and the Pentagon. All this taken together make his two hidden, massive, reactors hypothesis either physically impossible (to go off as a bomb and/or to subsequently be re-used), unnecessary, or untenable. But again his work is most valuable for demonstrating the likelihood that fission occurred during WTC destruction, and that the China Syndrome resulted. I have had no communications from Tahil after my review and critique of his hypotheses. But I continue to welcome honest criticism of both my critiques of the other nuclear scenarios, and of my own hypotheses.
It is hoped that people will examine all the evidence (including survivors’ testimonies, EMP, massive heat, sound, radiation lowering methods used, photos, etc.), and the Physics I have outlined, and that are archived at these two blogs, http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com, and stop promoting misinformation or disinformation. I assert this includes the “red mercury” scam, the tritium red herring, and the latter’s implied fission-free pure fusion hangout as well as seeing how massive hidden underground reactors going off as nuclear bombs are improbable if not impossible– and don’t fit the destruction evidence, and eyewitness testimony. They are not needed when you learn the aspects of my “many small nukes” hypothesis. If you are truly interested in what was perpetrated on 9/11, please read the ENTIRETY of the two blogs that contain my archived nuclear 9/11 articles, and make up your own mind. And if you want to see just how the Official Regime “explanation” for what occurred at the WTC on 9/11/01, (and some of the “alternative” non-nuclear theories) used bogus science and committed outright fraud, there are more articles on this at this site.
To sum up, all the evidence of the actual WTC destruction, and the great heat generated there for up to six months indicates that WTC destruction was most likely caused by numerous small nuclear fission bombs (micro-nukes), not by a single basement nuke, nor by massive hidden reactors that exploded like nuclear bombs. The China Syndrome Aftermath arose, and had to arise, because the fission fragments were contained in the buildings as they were nuked, and ended up all over the rubble pile, and beneath the towers and WTC7.
It’s time to promote, or at least publicly discuss, the continual efforts made by this Anonymous [American] Physicist to examine all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath in New York City. Please promote these works both on the net and to friends, family, and neighbors. It is ABSOLUTELY THE MOST CRUCIAL ASPECT OF 911 TRUTH, TO INFORM PEOPLE THAT THE AMERICAN REGIME NUKED ITS OWN MOST POPULOUS CITY, NYC, ON 9/11. If your favorite blog or website ignores– or blocks– this most crucial aspect, either post it yourself or tell all your friends, family, etc. And carefully examine the differences in the nuclear 911 hypotheses, and eliminate the impossible, the improbable, the untenable, or what the evidence indicated is incorrect; and promote what fits all the evidence, and is physically tenable– many small fission nukes were used to destroy the WTC on 9/11/01, and the China Syndrome Aftermath resulted. And the radiation issue is also discussed here.
Please promote this, as there isn’t much time left before they pull away the wool from everyone’s eyes. It won’t be pleasant, and must be prevented. Life will not be worth living then. Remember Hiroshima. The survivors there were said to be envious of the dead. This may be what they have planned for all of us, with the American Regime being, as Rev. Martin Luther King said, “the greatest purveyor of evil in the world today.” Indeed, there is much evidence that the American regime nuked its own people at least once before 9/11/01, in the Port Chicago, California incident, as I detailed here. Thus the American regime remains the only regime that has nuked its own people, as well as others, and that fact would likely enrage the American people to act, as nothing else might.
Micro-Nukes in the WTC–Creating The China Syndrome: Important Matters of Completeness & Plausibility
by The Anonymous Physicist
My “Many Nukes” Hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11, perpetrated by the American regime, is detailed here wtcdemolition.blogspot.com. How this led to the China Syndrome is detailed here wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com.
To summarize these matters now, I have written how the towers’ destruction entailed numerous micro-nukes detonating in each tower, and furthermore much redundancy was employed to insure that sufficient numbers of these low-yield devices successfully went off as planned. Some of the redundant micro-nukes were impacted by the exploding micro-nukes, which allowed for the redundant ones’ fissile material to give rise to the China Syndrome. I also explained how some micro-nukes fizzled for various reasons–part of the reason for having so many redundant micro-nukes present. I listed several factors that could have caused this fizzling, even hypothesizing that the early explosions in the WTC7 were fizzled nukes, that were meant to destroy WTC7 but they did not properly go critical.
The reader can read how standard some of these concepts are in the nuclear world. The military and “policy” makers use the term “fratricide” for the occurrence of one nuclear warhead impacting/adversely affecting another one and preventing the latter from going nuclear. Read here, for example. Under the heading of “Nuclear targeting and fratricide,” you will find this: “Historically, analysts have assumed that only 2 nuclear warheads could be used in a short time frame against any target because of a problem called “fratricide.” Assigning multiple warheads to a target requires precise timing to prevent one incoming warhead from destroying others. Furthermore, a nuclear detonation near ground level (which is ideal for destroying hardened silos) would create a debris cloud that could destroy other warheads heading to the same target.”
Furthermore, long term storage of nuclear bombs or warheads involves another form of fratricide. This article on the many problems of long-term nuclear warhead storage, describes how nuclear warheads have “vulnerability to fratricide neutrons,” as well as being susceptible to many other problems that could make them fizzle. So you can see that I was correct in writing that impacted and/or fizzled nukes, are problems that could be expected to occur when you have a complicated scenario involving many small nukes going off in a relatively small place– especially in an enclosed space. And these matters thus could easily explain where the available fissile material to cause the China Syndrome at the WTC came from.
Now knowing of these potentially, fratricidal effects on the nukes to be used in the WTC on 9/11, the American perps– foul physicists, and monstrous military men, much like those involved in nuking their own at Port Chicago, and other innocent humans at Hiroshima and Nagasaki– did the following. 1. Emplaced many redundant nukes, in each WTC building, and at each level to be nuked. The levels where the nukes were emplaced took fratricidal effects into account, as much as possible. 2. Used (somewhat hardened) sensors that would trigger (sequentially, as needed) redundant nukes at each level that they were to be set off at. 3. Used sensors that themselves would be vaporized, if the first, planned nuke went off properly, so that the redundant ones would not go nuclear. Of course, their fissile material would then be available for the China Syndrome Aftermath. Did all this go off exactly as planned? No. As I have written, the hidden, denied, early WTC7 explosions indicate that the perps failed to properly set off the nukes in WTC7, and took five or more hours to re-do it, later in the afternoon. One possible scenario for the failed, early nuking of WTC7 could be the following. The early nukes in the lobby and basement fizzled (due to fratricidal or other effects). That is, they exploded but either did not attain any criticality (only conventional explosions worked), or else the fissile material had been “weakened” and the resultant nuclear explosion was too small for demolition of WTC7 to occur. The sensor(s) were themselves damaged (from partial explosions), and did not then trigger redundant nukes to go off, or else all redundant nukes fizzled, as Jennings (in the last article) describes several WTC7 explosions.
However even a properly functioning nuclear device going off inside a building can lead to its own China Syndrome, as follows. Let us look at the efficiency of nuclear devices historically, as I do not have access to data on the efficiency of the most current nukes. But it would likely be in the same range. The efficiency of a nuclear bomb is the percentage of its total available fissile material (such as Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239) that actually undergoes fission during the criticality stage of implosion/explosion– roughly one microsecond. The remainder is still highly radioactive and could give rise to a China Syndrome under certain conditions. Peter Vogel’s book, “The Last Wave From Port Chicago” describes on page 13-13 how the Hiroshima “A-Bomb” used only 1.14% of its contained fissile material. The Port Chicago type A-Bomb had even less efficiency– about 0.5%. More recently, 6% efficiency for updated nuclear bombs is cited here. Such a low efficiency is due to the immense difficulty of having an implosion, and then an explosion, whereby the fissile material has only one microsecond before the imploding, fissioning U-235 critical mass with its tremendous number of released neutrons and subsequent energy release (and great heat and pressure), forces the critical mass to explode outward thus terminating its criticality geometry.
What this means is that even a properly functioning, fission bomb will have 94-99% of its highly radioactive, fissile material released into the environment where it will more slowly continue to fission and decay– and release great heat. Now if a nuclear bomb goes off several thousand feet in the air, a la Hiroshima, the unfissioned U-235 will be widely dispersed and will come down over a huge area. (The heat of the Bomb would even have vaporized the unfissioned U-235, but this will later condense and come down somewhere.) But the micro-nukes–even the properly fissioning ones used inside the WTC– were, at least partially, contained during the destruction. But as the buildings were being destroyed, even vaporized, the remaining fissile material would be able to reach all around the WTC area, and some would likely reach significantly beyond as well. Some fissile material from the sub-basement nukes, would likely be trapped in the largest concentrations, to be found in the aftermath, in these basement areas. These radioactive fragments would also be inaccessible to the usual radiation-lowering mechanisms that were extensively employed beginning the very next day– water hosing, and “coating” with sand/earth.
To sum up, my “Many Nukes” and resultant China Syndrome Hypothesis, is well supported by the known concepts of nuclear warhead fratricide, and the low (0.5-6.0%) efficiency of fission bombs. Indeed all the facts involving exploding numerous micro-nukes in an enclosed (or partially enclosed) space appears to make the China Syndrome aftermath not only plausible, but inevitable!
Did Two Nuclear Reactors, not Nuclear Bombs, Destroy the WTC on 9/11?
Review of William Tahil’s Book, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”, and of his Reactor Hypothesis by The Anonymous Physicist
Tahil’s book is now downloadable for free here: http://www.nucleardemolition.com. I welcome Tahil’s comments and corrections, if any, to this review and analysis of his work, via email to Spooked, who will forward to me. Tahil was one of the very first to write and publish on the nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11. Also, other than myself, he is the only other scientist, or person, to write about the China Syndrome aftermath. As my illness prevented me from writing on 9/11 until 2007, his 2006 book was the first to correctly attribute the great heat and molten metal that existed at the WTC for months afterwards, to the China Syndrome of still-fissioning material. While I discovered that independently, he was the first to demonstrate this in public writing. He deserves much credit for this. The Finnish military expert, Tahil, and myself, are the three people who have written proposed nuclear demolition schemes. My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and my articles on the China Syndrome are here http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com. The Finn believes a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. I have stated that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. I have further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes. And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome. My article on the early attempted nuking of WTC7, which failed, is good evidence of fizzled, or sabotaged nukes. Thus there were many nukes available, whose fissile material was not employed in the destruction, and which gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis. Please read all my articles, including the one on “fratricided” nukes here.
Now Tahil is unique among the nuclear 9/11 proponents, in that he alone believes that two nuclear reactors– not nuclear bombs– were employed to demolish the two towers. While my 9/11 nuclear scenario is different from Tahil’s, and I have explained in lesser detail before why I think mine is correct, and his is incorrect, I have always stated (and still do) that his work should be read by all, as I could be wrong, and he could be right, or possibly there are elements of truth, where we may both be right. Looking at the different nuclear 9/11 scenarios, the Finn, and I, believe the evidence points to nuclear bombs. The Finn believes a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device destroyed each tower. This is based on the govt’s Tritium finding. Tahil does not mention the Tritium evidence, and goes with pure fission at the WTC. I have written several things chronologically as the evidence, and my thinking evolved. First I went with both sets of evidence, namely that either fusion (tritium) enhanced fission bombs, or a fission-triggered fusion bombs, were employed. Later I noted the way the regime has total control of all scientific data, and could block release of the most damning data. I stated that it is possible that the Tritium finding was a red herring to divert people into looking for the fission-less fusion bomb, precisely because this would stop people from realizing there was a “China Syndrome” aftermath, at the WTC– which the regime wishes to hide at all costs. (Presumably only fission can yield the China Syndrome.) So I have stated it is possible that all nukes employed on 9/11 were fission bombs, and the tritium data is spurious.
One of the nuclear 9/11 proponents, William Deagle, M.D., further lends support to my redundant nuclear bomb hypothesis with his direct knowledge of a Fort Collins U.S. Army Forensics Team member who was immediately sent in to the OKC bombing site in 1995. This man told Deagle (his physician) directly, that he and the team brought out two unexploded micro-nuclear bombs, and one unexploded C4 pineapple bomb, from the 10-story Murrah building, after its destruction. This Army man said that the nukes were emplaced by ATF and FBI personnel. He further stated that his Army team was under armed supervision by Wackenhut guards, who tested that they did not remove any radioactive evidence. We can see from this, that great redundancy (extra nuclear bomb emplacement) was employed at OKC. Remember that Murrah was only 10 stories tall, and nowhere near as wide as the towers or WTC7. Consider the total volume of the WTC towers, the 47 story WTC7, and all the other buildings, and you can see how dozens of redundant nukes may have been employed in the nuclear destruction of the entire WTC. If the matter is linear, given the relative volumes, we might even conclude that 50-100 micro-nukes were emplaced, and they gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis.
For now, let’s examine what Tahil has to say particularly on the subjects of his nuclear reactor hypothesis, and the China Syndrome aftermath. Much of Tahil’s hypothesis rests on his interpretation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dust Analysis data here. Tahil seems to view the USGS data, and all govt data/studies at face value. He does not seem to realize the possibility, or likelihood, that errors of omission, or commission, were utilized in various Gov’t studies, whereas I have highlighted this in my articles. Tahil particularly mocks those who state that the Seismic records were doctored– which includes me. I base my view on several things, including eyewitness testimony of those at Ground Zero, and a friend who lived a mile north, and who described books falling off shelves, at the moment of the first CGI “plane hit,”– or WTC1 basement (nuclear) explosion. Also we know that the Gov’t actually asked one Seismic Lab to “re-do” their calculations.
Let’s get back to the USGS dust study that Tahil uses for much of his hypothesis. I have stated that this study is heavily flawed in many ways. Some of my criticisms, I will now list:
— Did not test for (or report findings on) Plutonium.
— Did not look for anything smaller than 2.5 microns, or did not delineate this, when labs had, for years prior, equipment that would have quantified dust down to 10 nanometer size.
— Only looked at a small area, mostly within 0.5 Km from the towers, when the dust settled much further away, and
— A good deal of the dust went up in smoke! Thus the smallest particles ended up far away. See my articles again.
— Samples were taken 5-6 days later, after a rain/wind storm on day 2.
— Did not differentiate differing isotopes of a given element. (Differing isotopes have the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. Isotopes behave very differently regarding nuclear processes including radiation release, and further fissioning.)
I have highlighted the reason the regime prevented, or perhaps more likely ALTERED the data on the smallest sized dust particles. It requires far greater energy (only nukes) to create the tiniest dust particle size.
Now Tahil concentrates on the USGS dust study, and in particular its findings regarding the elements Strontium, Barium, Zinc, and several others. He uses the 12– out of 35– sample sites that yielded Strontium. He has made some very good findings regarding the near total correlation of Strontium and Barium in the dust samples. This shows a common origin, he asserts, and is likely right. This, he says virtually proves fission occurred as Strontium and Barium are two common “daughter” elements in the fissioning of Uranium. This is likely correct as well. But he also states several things that are not correct. He makes these mistakes throughout the book. He only considers the buildings’ concrete or steel as sources of the dust. This is a serious flaw. The buildings’ entire contents– from people to furniture, etc., etc.– must be considered! He also at times, assumes one particular isotope for an element, e.g. Strontium 90, and not its other four naturally occurring isotopes, and its other 15 artificially created isotopes.
On page 24, Tahil states, “These elements [Barium and Strontium] simply should not be present in building rubble or building materials in even a valid trace amount, which would be less than 10 ppm…” In succeeding pages, he elaborates that very high levels of Strontium and Barium in the dust study could only have come from the fissile Uranium in two nuclear reactors, very deep underneath the two towers. But, we shall see that Strontium, Barium, and Zinc are NOT to be unexpectedly found in the vaporized rubble, as Tahil states. Thus their source need not be from massive amounts of fissioned Uranium, as Tahil claims. There are many common, known sources of Strontium. A Strontium compound can make up as much as 10% of the mass in toothpaste for “sensitive teeth.” Strontium is a normal component of everyone’s bones and teeth. And Tahil does not take into account the total vaporization of half of the nearly 3000 human victims, and partial vaporization of the others. Other Strontium sources include pottery, color TVs, aerosol paints, drugs for osteoporosis, and other sources. However there is one source of Strontium that has overarching importance here.
Tahil ignores the fact that Strontium occurs in Limestone. And Limestone is often the major component of concrete. How much Strontium might there be in the 100,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower? Let us look at one type of limestone called oolite limestone.
Strontium in oolitic limestone can occur at up to 10,800 ppm (parts per million)! This study found a range from 230 to 10,800, with an average of 414 ppm. But is oolitic limestone used in very large structures? Some of the largest buildings ever built have indeed used oolitic limestone. This includes the Empire State Building and the Pentagon!
Then there is the issue of Barium. Wiki notes that Barium is a “getter” in vacuum tubes, is used in glassmaking, and is used in a coating for the electrodes in the ubiquitous fluorescent lamps. Furthermore, Wiki says, “Lithopone, a pigment that contains Barium Sulfate and Zinc Sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power…” Here wiki indicates that Lithopone may be commonly “used in interior paints and in some enamels.” Thus we see that if this pigment was used in the WTC, we have a Barium/Zinc linkage, without resorting to Uranium fission. But on page 30, Tahil shows that if one sample site were left out, Barium and Zinc have nearly a 100% (96%) correlation. Tahil speculates that this correlation could only be from nuclear fission, and in particular, lesser known “ternary fission.” He might be right, but you see from my Lithopene example, this one correlation could be explained without fission. The Lithopene example does not disprove fission, but it shows that any one of these correlations is not conclusive of anything. They have limitations.
Also Barium, some analysts assert, is one of the main ingredients in the ubiquitous, and notorious, Chemtrails. These trails have been seen in the skies for the last 15 years or more. As they stay up for great lengths of time, they may be nanoparticles. It’s even possible that by now, their contents have mixed with the atmosphere, and the entire Earth has been saturated with their contents. Of course, ongoing regions getting this “treatment” will have very high doses for some time. The Hair Mineral Analysis, done on people, has shown a great increase in the levels of Barium, over the last 10 years. This means that some Barium compound has gotten into people. Regarding the USGS dust samples, the relatively large percentage of Barium, in the USGS study, could even have come from the vaporized people, or from significant mixing of the WTC dust with atmospheric Barium, or from some local Chemtrail spraying within the 5-6 days of the WTC destruction, before the samples were collected. If the Barium were ubiquitous, say from the atmosphere–and its adherence to the smoke from the WTC, the WTC dust might come down with much Barium in it. Thus there may have been a significant base level of both Strontium and Barium from common, non-nuclear sources.
Zinc is also cited on page 143 when Tahil extrapolates and concludes that a massive amount of Uranium was fissioned on 9/11– from two reactors. But Zinc is also not rare, as Tahil claims. Zinc is the major metal in pennies and is in batteries, steel, paint pigments, and many other sources.
But again Tahil may be right, because I have not proven that Lithopene was used at the WTC, unless it is/was ubiquitous. Nor have I proven what the level of Strontium in the limestone in the concrete was. However, Tahil’s body of evidence, in this book, which includes several correlations of daughter products of fission, his analysis of the dust from the girders whereby Tahil concludes that elements were blasted onto the girders, and were still fissioning when collected on the girders, and all his other findings, indicate that there was fission in the WTC on 9/11/01. But the amount of fissioned Uranium is impossible to find by extrapolation of the dust, because the amounts of Strontium, Barium and Zinc may have been large, in the WTC, as I have shown above. But thanks to Tahil, we can conclude that the search for the “holy grail” of fission-free fusion (as the Finnish Military Expert has done), is likely a fruitless hangout, or red herring, and should be abandoned. The proof of the fission is in the China Syndrome, and the sum of the findings in Tahil’s book. More strongly put, be wary of any alleged Nuclear-9/11 proponents who do not proclaim the China Syndrome Aftermath of 9/11! There are only four proponents of the China Syndrome: Tahil, myself (the “Anonymous Physicist”), Spooked, and recently Deagle.
The following is the crux of Tahil’s nuclear reactor hypothesis. On pages 144-145, Tahil claims that there were massive amounts of Strontium and Zinc as radioactive fallout, and that then indicates there was a massive amount of Uranium (nearly 500 tons) that had fissioned. And then that this claim of nearly 500 tons of fissioned Uranium implies to him that only a reactor or two could have been the source of the Uranium. All this rests on the USGS dust study, and Tahil’s extrapolations of its data. Now while I think his earlier near 100% correlation of Strontium and Barium, goes a long way toward proving nuclear fission occurred on 9/11, his calculations leading to 500 tons of Uranium– and subsequent hypothesis that implies two massive reactors were sent critical is flawed. On page 144, Tahil– via extrapolation of the amounts of these elements in the USGS dust study– arrives at the estimates of 60 tons of Strontium and 100 tons of Zinc, per tower, in the fallout from the destruction of the WTC. From this, he further estimates that there must have been at least 470 tons of Uranium in each of two reactors deep underground in each tower, that was somehow sent critical, and exploded in nuclear fashion, and caused the destruction of each tower, and gave rise to the China Syndrome. While I, of course, agree with him that the HEAT GENERATION, of up to six months, at the WTC, leaves only the possibility of a China Syndrome, his assumptions and math need scrutiny.
1. I have already pointed out that the USGS is greatly flawed, and likely doctored with numerous errors of omission and commission. See above.
2. He apparently assumes all the Strontium was Strontium 90, and ignores the other isotopes of Strontium, while the USGS study did not differentiate isotopes.
3. He assumes the origin of daughter elements is Uranium, when they could have been fissioned from Plutonium, which was not tested for by the USGS–or else not published
4. He ignores non-nuclear sources for Strontium and Zinc, and assumes all Strontium and Zinc came from nuclear fission. See above where I have strongly disproved this.
So for all these reasons, we arrive at the conclusion that we cannot use the USGS data for a simple weight ratio analysis. Furthermore, Tahil compares his nuclear reactor hypothesis to only one micro-nuclear bomb per tower, and ignores the possibility/probability that
1. Many mini- or micro-nukes were used per tower
2. That the other buildings also were nuked
3. He incorrectly says that a fission nuke has all of its Uranium used up in its use. This is very curious since he cites Peter Vogel’s book, “The Last Wave From Port Chicago.” And this book is one source that describes the efficiency of a fission bomb. On page 13-13 Vogel writes that the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb used only 1.14% of its contained fissile material. More recently, 6% efficiency for updated nuclear bombs is cited here. This means that instead of 100% of the U-235 being used up when it goes critical in a bomb, only 1-6% is used up, and thus 94-99% of its U-235 is left over for the China Syndrome!
4. Tahil does not realize other possibilities that I have made original hypotheses on; namely that many redundant nukes were also likely emplaced. And some, or many, of these may have been either sabotaged or fizzled because of various reasons.
5. The actual tower destruction scenario observed, fits the use of numerous small nukes much better than a deep underground set of two massive reactors.
6. Officially physicists have claimed that a fission reactor cannot even yield a nuclear explosion. (However, we must take this with a small grain of salt. If a nuclear reactor could yield a full nuclear explosion, like a fission bomb, the PTB would never let this be known.)
So from this last list, it is clear that not one, but numerous nukes per tower could have been employed, and the scenarios I have described, could have led to a large amount of still-fissioning Uranium or Plutonium fragments, “left” (after WTC destruction) both near the surface, and deep underground.
Now we must analyze the geometry and dynamics of the WTC destruction, to see what fits better: the use of a deep underground nuclear reactor per tower, or numerous small nukes. One problem is the early sub-basement explosions that were timed to go off at the same time as the alleged “plane hits” way above. I have written extensively and cited much evidence, that these were nuclear devices that were exploded and even that EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) were yielded at those times. Tahil agrees that these explosions were nuclear. He cites an article that I have cited numerous times written by WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro. Pecoraro was below the sub-basement C level (presumably at the D level, but not described explicitly), when his colleague saw “flickering lights” (EMP?) and they ascended to the C level. He says, “There was nothing there but rubble, we’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!” Pecoraro and a co-worker then “made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone…” As they then ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they “were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. Now I have asserted, the only thing that could have done these things is neutron bombardment and/or million-degree temperatures, both from a nuke. Tahil says his nuclear reactors were well below the seven known sub-basement levels of the towers. And the reactors were sent critical at WTC destruct time. But he also says he believes the earlier “Pecoraro explosion” was nuclear.
Thus we have several problems with the nuclear reactor hypothesis:
1. How does a reactor go critical for the earlier Pecoraro basement, nuclear explosion, and still be capable of being used again–in any coherent fashion? And the destruction of the towers was very well controlled.
2. In this light, how can any reactor being melted down, and going critical, be used in such a controlled, coherent, relatively precise and symmetrical fashion, so many floors below what it is to destroy, when a reactor gone critical implies much chaos? As opposed to numerous, strategically placed small nukes.
3. How can Pecoraro have survived a nuclear explosion from a reactor below his level (and not know that that was what happened), and then go above him to two floors that were nuked? Unless small nuclear bomb(s) were utilized at those levels.
4. Now I can see how the observed deep underground flowing metal, weeks and months later, might possibly be from this deep underground reactor, but what about the hot rubble pile and its fissioning material not far from the surface?
5. What about the possibility of breaking through to the Hudson (if not directly underneath, then just a bit West of the WTC) if the reactor were so far down, and made to explode, nuclear-wise?
My “Many Nukes” hypothesis, which includes my “Many Nukes fizzled/sabotaged/impacted/fratricided” hypothesis, that I have authored– remember the Finn said only one nuke per tower, which thus has some of these same flaws– seems to fit all that happened to the WTC, on 9/11, better. Numerous redundant, fizzled or sabotaged nukes, higher up may have given rise to the large hot rubble pile. Larger nukes in the sub-basement gave rise to the flowing molten metal seen there months later. There may have been many nukes emplaced in the sub-basement that led to events that appear “reactor-like.” Why compare a reactor only to one nuke? And given that only 1-6% of a fission nuke’s fissile material is used in its explosion, and there were many nukes that did go off, this too allows for a China Syndrome at the WTC, even if there were not any redundant nukes present.
There are numerous other matters that are incorrect. On page 153, Tahil virtually states that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion when it was not. It resulted from heat from nuclear fission causing steam expansion, which caused an explosion and the China Syndrome of blasted radioactive fragments releasing great heat where they landed. Earlier in the book, he has it right, that Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, but not on page 153. Tahil apparently believes that the “Plane hits” were real, instead of the impossible CGI, they clearly are. He believes that the earlier 1993 WTC explosion was conventional, when I have highlighted the eyewitness testimony of engineer Phil Schneider who said he saw proof that it was nuclear– I guess things like Pecoraro described. (See my articles.) Tahil often cites new, or hypothesized Physics for some of the phenomena, when this is precarious at best, and makes it look like the ludicrous DEW hangout. E.g., he states that Koenig’s sphere was involved in the WTC destruction as a “neutron reflector/focuser”. After seeing the documentary on Koenig’s sphere, and its maker, and its creation, and how it was moved, and is still there in a nearby public park, I seriously doubt this speculation, if not also on Physics grounds. His website cites a sewer steam explosion in NYC, miles North of WTC, several years after 9/11, as some proof of a massive nuclear reactor underneath Manhattan. But NYC has had such stream explosions for 150 years.
Tahil seems to want to think there were massive neutron fluxes all about the WTC during or after the destruction. He states that the strangely damaged cars are proof of large neutron fluxes at those spots. But I have amply demonstrated that the evidence fits EMPs, vastly better than anything else. These are the cars whose boundaries of doors caused only part of the car to have heated up, and caught fire. In my analysis of this, I revealed how only an EMP would cause part of a car to intercept the EMP, which becomes current, and then great heat. But this is only in metal, and the boundaries (air), between car doors, prevents said current from flowing across to the other car door. See especially my analyses of EMT Ondrovic’ experience of EMP causing a car door to explode onto her, and the flickering lights in WTC6, before it was nuked. Neutron fluxes would NOT have caused this, as neutron fluxes would not show a distinction with car door boundaries, as we see with several cars! So Tahil appears to try too hard to see neutrons all about, because he wants to fit this to massive reactors under the WTC, and that area of Manhattan.
I think his analysis of his Figure 52, on Page 123, is incorrect. This is not quite like a volcano. Look at the height of the smoke at top, compared to the height of the other extant tower. It has not shot way into the sky yet. Rather it shows that the top part of WTC1 was vaporized. So this could have been from a nuke at the top to start things off. He has, or had, some connection to Alex Jones. His website had said that if you can’t reach him via email, it was NSA interference, and to contact Alex Jones. I have no problem with the NSA inference, but Alex Jones? He has been vehemently anti-nuclear-911, and anti-NPT (the planes were merely CGI). Jones would never have Tahil’s work on his site. Jones was sent in to head the 911truth movement, after the regime assassinated true conspiracy expert Bill Cooper, within two months of 9/11. Why does/did a Nuclear-9/11 proponent have an anti-nuclear-911 person be his contact?
On the other hand, numerous things Tahil says are very intelligent and revealing, even bold. First credit goes to him for his finding of near 100% correlation between Strontium and Barium, on page 26. This indicates nuclear fission occurred at the WTC, but is not proof. His ignoring the Tritium finding may ultimately prove to be both bold and wise. While others, like the Finnish military expert, considered only a pure fusion bomb, this then could not have given rise to the China Syndrome of which the HEAT GENERATION evidence is massive and conclusive. I wrote that the Tritium finding– or more correctly, its release may have been a red herring to get people to look only for nuclear devices that could not have caused the China Syndrome. So Tahil as I indicated, may be both bold and brilliant here. Tahil also reveals, on page 115, evidence of birth defects after 9/11, in NYC, that I have not seen before.
His motto on the cover is also good: Salus populi suprema lex esti or “The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.” Tahil, of course, asserts that the American regime has the opposite view. He asserts that there was massive radiation, at the WTC, and he makes the bold assertion that Manhattan should still be evacuated! If he is right, how many American cities may have reactors placed underneath them? Now I still think that if this is the goal–and it wouldn’t surprise me if you have read my “Ultimate Truths” series (anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com)–they could more easily just place nuclear bombs underneath edifices in big cities. Sadly, for reasons my readers may know, I think there is a fair possibility that this could be the case, as above-ground nukes are more easily gauged and intercepted by OTHERS. The Rockefeller owned or controlled WTC land area is far from their only land ownership in this country. Could the Rockefeller-donated United Nations land be next? In this light, and in cohesion with what I wrote above about the OKC bombing, I ask did a China Syndrome result there, if it was nuked? Deagle says his Army agent/patient said that Wackenhut guards measured and prevented anything radioactive from being removed. I trust that means that the regime’s agents removed all things radioactive. How many cancers have there been in OKC responders, or OKC residents, subsequently? How many more buildings or skyscrapers must be nuked before the People wake up?
Then Tahil’s analysis of this photo also appears to be very astute, as far as demonstrating the PTB’s desire to hide the China Syndrome. The photo is of the so-called Light Memorial. This was the extremely bright, double-blue lights, that were turned on for weeks, a few months after 9/11, from dusk to 11 P.M. Tahil surmises that this began when they finally reached the reactor remnant areas, or large areas of fissioning Uranium. And while they were doing something to it, or carting it away, its blue light of the Cherenkov radiation (from nuclear fission) would have been visible. I have written about this in regards to one photo that Steven Jones “orange-ified,” when responders were peering into something underground at the WTC. I related this to the blue light seen when nuclear fissioning elements (cored out sphere and cylindrical insert) were erroneously kept together for too long a time, during the “tickling the dragon’s tail experiments,” at Los Alamos, that killed two nuclear scientists. Tahil asserts that the reactor remnant was uncovered at that time, so they needed to do the light trick. I would say that large areas of fissioning fragments must have been uncovered, for them to do this. But need it have been a reactor, or its remnants? There could have been many nuclear bombs in the sub-basement area that led to a large area, with much fissioning going on. But perhaps this is one item of evidence where his reactor hypothesis may fit better than my many nukes hypotheses. Or could a much smaller reactor have been there, and elements of both hypotheses be true? The blue lights are strictly not proof of anything, we must remember. But this regime does almost everything it does, for a sinister reason. Another photo Tahil uniquely has (page 101) is that of a rescue dog with his responder master walking the WTC grounds. Even the dog is wearing protective boots because of the great heat there and then! Also on page 101, Tahil has a photo of the large congealed mass of bullets from WTC6. He states that 43 days after 9/11 the heat was still so intense, an injury to the face of a responder occurred when at least one of the bullets in the mass discharged. Here is more proof of this great heat weeks and months after 9/11, which the intel agents for “DEW” and the O.C.T. laughably continue to deny.
Thus I conclude this review of Tahil’s book and hypothesis with the following. Tahil deserves much credit for his statistical analysis chapter, which helps demonstrate the likelihood that nuclear fission took place on 9/11 at the WTC, and for first exposing the existence of the China Syndrome at the WTC. His hypothesis that this had to be from two massive, deep underground nuclear fission reactors that were sent critical, and exploded akin to a nuclear fission bomb, is much less compelling, and more evidence fits my “many nukes” hypothesis, with possibly one evidentiary exception. Therefore it is possible that he may still be right, at least in part. For that reason, and other things cited above, I recommend everyone who is not an intel agent, and wishes to know what might have occurred on 9/11, read his book, as well as all my articles. The case for two huge reactors that were made to undergo nuclear explosions has not been made. Neither can we completely rule out that the China Syndrome that existed at the WTC for several months after 9/11/01 was, in part, from a much smaller reactor present. I am not saying I believe this, but that it cannot be excluded. Furthermore, I can even perceive one reason why it would have been there. A breeder reactor could even have produced the fissile material for the coming nuclear bomb destruction of the WTC. Or there could have been both many micro-nukes used, and a fission reactor was also exploded with a micro-nuke at the end. I throw these ideas out for completeness. In conclusion I remain unconvinced that the evidence indicates a large nuclear fission reactor was underneath each of the towers, and suffered a nuclear explosion, as my “Many Nukes” hypothesis appears to better explain the details of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome aftermath. I welcome feedback and genuine criticism from Tahil on this review, or of my own nuclear-911 hypotheses, and also the same from any non-intel agent. As Tahil wrote, Salus populi suprema lex esti.
SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2004 POSTED BY JEFF WELLS AT 5:15 P.M.
I posted an earlier version of this last week at Democratic Underground. I’ve added a number of more entries, and links for all.
Happy coincidenting!
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we’re talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it’s still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush’s brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things – one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history’s little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush’s first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda’s Afghanistan camps, even as the group’s guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that “that person should be killed,” suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America’s military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.
That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.
That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.
That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there’s a good reason for it, quite possibly classified.
That FBI informant Randy Glass, working an undercover sting, was told by Pakistani intelligence operatives that the World Trade Center towers were coming down, and that his repeated warnings which continued until weeks before the attacks, including the mention of planes used as weapons, were ignored by federal authorities, is simply one of the many “What Ifs” of that tragic day.
That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments – including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others – of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need for a new Intelligence Czar.
That John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in July 2001 on account of security considerations had nothing to do with warnings regarding September 11, because he said so to the 9/11 Commission.
That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David Schipper’s pathetic need for attention.
That Garth Nicolson received two warnings from contacts in the intelligence community and one from a North African head of state, which included specific site, date and source of the attacks, and passed the information to the Defense Department and the National Security Council to evidently no effect, clearly amounts to nothing, since virtually nobody has ever heard of him.
That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a dubious character, notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims have since been proven true.
That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.
That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11 demonstrates only the value of being prepared.
The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.
That Goss’s congressional seat encompasses the 9/11 hijackers’ Florida base of operation, including their flight schools, is precisely the kind of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.
It’s true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what’s wrong with old colleagues catching up? And it’s true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin Laden, Osama’s brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.
That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.
Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
That George Bush’s telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.
That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer’s School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it is a small world, after all.
That Lt Col Steve Butler, Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi’s terms, was disciplined, removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote “Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is…contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain,” is the least that should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.
That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend, smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical fundamentalist Muslim can be.
That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school, just three weeks after Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just bad luck. That Hilliard was not charged shows how specious the claims for conspiracy truly are.
That Hilliard’s plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorney before Seal’s murder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.
Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain nameless involved, and no terrorists, so the windfall profit-taking was merely, as ever, coincidental.
That heightened security for the World Trade Centre was lifted immediately prior to the attacks illustrates that it always happens when you least expect it.
That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.
That none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable even though they were located in the tail sections, and that until 9/11, no solid-state recorder in a catastrophic crash had been unrecoverable, shows how there’s a first time for everything.
That Mohammed Atta left a uniform, a will, a Koran, his driver’s license and a “how to fly planes” video in his rental car at the airport means he had other things on his mind.
The mention of Israelis with links to military-intelligence having been arrested on Sept 11 videotaping and celebrating the attacks, of an Israeli espionage ring surveiling DEA and defense installations and trailing the hijackers, and of a warning of impending attacks delivered to the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the first plane hit, does not deserve a response. That the stories also appeared in publications such as Ha’aretz and Forward is a sad display of self-hatred among certain elements of the Israeli media.
That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building; another, a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings – and took many interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a hoax, was a bizarre coincidence, but no less a coincidence.
That the National Military Command Center ops director asked a rookie substitute to stand his watch at 8:30 am on Sept. 11 is nothing more than bad timing.
That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ describing what they had witnessed, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, is something no doubt that overzealous official wishes he could undo.
That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools to descend upon hours after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their federal agents are on the ball.
That a former flight school executive believes the hijackers were “double agents,” and says about Atta and associates, “Early on I gleaned that these guys had government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose,” and was visited by the FBI just four hours after the attacks to intimidate him into silence, proves he’s an unreliable witness, for the simple reason there is no conspiracy.
That Jeb Bush was on board an aircraft that removed flight school records to Washington in the middle of the night on Sept 12th demonstrates how seriously the governor takes the issue of national security.
To insinuate evil motive from the mercy flights of bin Laden family members and Saudi royals after 9/11 shows the sickness of the conspiratorial mindset.
Le Figaro’s report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that the CIA met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.
That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11.
That at the battle of Tora Bora, where bin Laden was surrounded on three sides, Special Forces received no order to advance and capture him and were forced to stand and watch as two Russian-made helicopters flew into the area where bin Laden was believed hiding, loaded up passengers and returned to Pakistan, demonstrates how confusing the modern battlefield can be.
That upon returning to Fort Bragg from Tora Bora, the same Special Operations troops who had been stood down from capturing bin Laden, suffered a unusual spree of murder/suicides, is nothing more than a series of senseless tragedies.
Reports that bin Laden is currently receiving periodic dialysis treatment in a Pakistani medical hospital are simply too incredible to be true.
That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the foresightedness of America’s emergency response.
That the anthrax was mailed to perceived liberal media and the Democratic leadership demonstrates only the perversity of the terrorist psyche.
That the anthrax attacks appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot Act shows only that appearances can be deceiving.
That the Ames-strain anthrax was found to have originated at Fort Detrick, and was beyond the capability of all but a few labs to refine, underscores the importance of allowing the investigation to continue without the distraction of absurd conspiracy theories.
That Republican guru Grover Norquist has been found to have aided financiers and supporters of Islamic terror to gain access to the Bush White House, and is a founder of the Islamic Institute, which the Treasury Department believes to be a source of funding for al Qaeda, suggests Norquist is at worst, naive, and at best, needs a wider circle of friends.
That the Department of Justice consistently chooses to see accused 9/11 plotters go free rather than permit the courtroom testimony of al Qaeda leaders in American custody looks bad, but only because we don’t have all the facts.
That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the commission didn’t find for conspiracy it’s all a non issue anyway.
That the 9/11 commission’s executive director and “gatekeeper,” Philip Zelikow, was so closely involved in the events under investigation that he testified before the the commission as part of the inquiry, shows only an apparent conflict of interest.
That commission chair Thomas Kean is, like George Bush, a Texas oil executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mafouz, suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.
That co-chair Lee Hamilton has a history as a Bush family “fixer,” including clearing Bush Sr of the claims arising from the 1980 “October Surprise”, is of no concern, since only conspiracists believe there was such a thing as an October Surprise.
That, when commenting on Edmond’s case, Daniel Ellsberg remarked that Ashcroft could go to prison for his part in a cover-up, suggests Ellsberg is giving comfort to the terrorists, and could, if he doesn’t wise up, find himself declared an enemy combatant.
I could go on. And on and on. But I trust you get the point. Which is simply this: there are no secrets, an American government would never accept civilian casualties for geostrategic gain, and conspiracies are for the weak-minded and gullible.
The “Ultimate List” of Improbabilities and Coincidences Around 9/11
The idea here is that rather than focus on “proofs” of how 9/11 was an inside job– proofs that can be endlessly debated– is to show exactly how many unlikely things we must accept if the official 9/11 account is true. Even if these various events are 50% probable (and most are much lower), together, the odds of 9/11 happening as officially described are incredibly low. Also, the goal here is to note fairly concise and seminal low probability happenings for 9/11, not to note every little odd thing. Other lists of 9/11 coincidences and oddities are here and here. (Note– I’m trying to make a good catalog here, I know this is not complete. Please let me know via email or comments if you know of other good Improbabilities and Coincidences.)
Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Official Hijacker Story, pre-9/11
[Note: The reason that all these warnings and knowledge is ignored by the 9/11 Commission is because they did not want to bring this to public attention that it might expose the role of the government in not only in creating the 9/11attacks, but specifically the government’s role in the fake creation of terrorist patsies to blame the airline hijackings. MEK]
Richard Clarke went around the Bush White House in the summer of 2001 warning people there about an upcoming terror attack, but no one really paid attention to him enough to do anything to prevent the attacks.
Dick Cheney was assigned to revise the country’s anti-terror policies, but apparently didn’t think it was important enough to do in the first nine months in office to prevent a terrorist attack.
Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Official Hijacker Story, on 9/11
Lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and Abdul-Aziz Al-Omari took an early morning flight into Boston from Portland Maine, and rented a car in Boston, increasing chances of missing their hijack flights in Boston. Many other unlikely aspects to their actions here. [Note: camera photos of the two boarding this Portland Maine flight were misrepresented by government and media as the “only” photo proof that any “terrorists” boarded any of the “hijacked” airlines. MEK]
Not one hijacker was caught by airport security for taking a boxcutter or fake bomb parts onto the planes. [Note: or of even boarding any of the “hijacked” airlines. MEK]
The hijackers, only armed with boxcutters and fake bombs (and possibly pepper spray), were improbably able to overpower flight attendants, passengers and pilots to take over four out of four planes.
An early FAA report of a gun and a gunshot victim on board one of the hijacked aircraft was apparently erroneous– improbable that the account was truly a mistake.
Elite Israeli commando Daniel Lewin was seated next to hijackers on flight 11 but apparently was unable to stop them (some reports have Lewin as the gunshot victim)(bizarre coincidence).
Improbable cell phone calls made from hijacked planes — notably Ed Felt and Tom Burnett on flight 93.
Ed Felt calls 911 dispatcher from bathroom of flight 93 and seems not to have any idea of passenger counter-attack even though is monitoring last few minutes of flight. Felt improbably knows tail # of flight 93 plane.
The highly sophisticated US air defense system was caught completely off-guard by the hijacked craft, despite having practiced for such scenarios previous to 9/11.
NORAD was actually running a live-fly hijack drill on the morning of 9/11 (bizarre “coincidence”).
Security footage purportedly from Dulles Int’l airport, showing two AA77 hijackers going through security, mysteriously fails to record time/date stamp.
Improbably, AA77 hits the only part of the Pentagon not heavily occupied.
Improbably, AA77 hits a recently renovated and reinforced part of the Pentagon.
Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Physical Events– “Crashes and Collapses”
Amateur pilots were able to control the planes at speeds far over normal operating speeds, and were able to hit their targets on three out of three real attempts.
Coincidentally and/or improbably, not one of the massive tail sections from any of the four crashed planes is recovered and no piece of any tail section is photographed– even though typically tail sections survive planes intact.
Pure coincidence that at least four people who disseminated videos of the second plane were professional video animators (Devin Clark, Luc Courchesne, Scott Myers, Naka Nathaniel)
All four planes completely disintegrated upon impact, leaving only small pieces of debris: a few engine fragments, a few landing gear pieces and a few fuselage fragments.
Mystery plane-like debris was photographed north of the WTC, but improbably there is no record of this debris in any 9/11 accounts, even though it appears to have injured a woman when it appeared.
A large engine fragment, officially from UA175, landed at the intersection of Church and Murray after transiting the south WTC tower, improbably ended up: UNDER a construction canopy, on one end (as oppsed to its side), without making any significant impact crater.
Flight 93 crash site is a relatively small hole in the ground, with no large debris in the hole or nearby.
Much of flight 93 burrowed underground, black boxes for flight 93 found up to 25 feet in the ground, however the hole is only 5-10 feet deep and has only dirt at the bottom.
Flight 93 plane burrowed underground, at the same time it exploded, simultaneously “cremating” all people on board.
Despite being hit at very different spots, both WTC towers undergo almost identical complete global “collapses”.
Both WTC towers are strong enough to absorb hits from high-speed Boeing 767s, but then, improbably, completely disintegrate a short time later from fires.
The destruction of both towers is associated with massive pyroclastic clouds reminiscent of a volcano eruption or a nuclear bomb test, which is unlikely for a simple collapse.
The destruction of both towers produces extremely fine dust; the energy needed to produce this dust cannot be accounted for by a gravitational collapse; a pure gravitational collapse is therefore highly unlikely.
WTC7 undergoes improbable symmetrical collapse, from only facade damage and limited fire.
WTC7 improbably undergoes main “collapse” at free-fall speed, as it there was no support at all inside the tower.
BBC improbably reports collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened.
Steel beams from the WTC7 rubble show evidence of extremely high temps, which is extremely unlikely to be from a normal building fire.
Not one of four flight recorders recovered from WTC rubble, despite human remains from plane supposedly being recovered from WTC.
At the Pentagon, a plane flying low strikes a lamp post, knocking it flying into a speeding cab. The post flies into the cab, through the windshield, and lodges in the backseat. The driver is not injured and is unable to move the pole himself. He requires a stranger to help him get the pole out, so he can drive away, however, after the pole is taken away, he remains on the scene for hours. The hood of the cab is strangely unscratched and undented. Later, when questioned, cab driver says he was not at the location where pictures show him to be. Photos of him next to his cab appear to show slightly different scenes.
At least 10 witnesses of the Pentagon plane report a different path than the official path.
Improbabilities and Coincidences in the 9/11 Aftermath
Improbable that initial news reports that three hijackers attended school at military bases was just a mistake.
No one can decide how much of flight 93 was buried underground though 95% of plane was supposedly recovered.
Ground Zero generates severe heat in the rubble for months, despite clean-up effort and massive quantities of water (both from rain and from fire hoses) showering the debris.
Steel from WTC was shipped on trucks under extremely high security because it was so valuable, yet it was then sold away to China.
US Senators who questioned 9/11 either lost their elections in 2004 (Dayton, Torricelli), left the Senate (Graham) or died in a plane crash (Wellstone).
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice testified before Congress that she apparently had no idea that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons to attack the US.
The Bush administration delayed and stonewalled the 9/11 commission– it is highly unlikely that this was done if there was no govt complicity.
US govt improbably continues large-scale cover-up of evidence of the attacks, such as photos, videos, pieces of debris, for years, because of “national security”.
NIST promotes highly unlikely collapse mechanism for WTC twin towers involving weakening of trusses supporting one floor failing and pulling the whole tower down; they improbably suggest that this resulted in the massive, complete, global collapse.
Report Back: CODEPINK, Veterans For Peace and Others…. Standing With Daniel Hale at Occupy Beale Drone Base! On Tuesday, July 27, Daniel’s sentencing day.Main Commute Gate at Beale Drone Base, Marysville, Shut Down for nearly 3 hours! No arrests were made. With Pink Paper Handcuffs, 13 activists with CODEPINK, Veterans For Peacefrom the Bay Area and Northern California gathered at Beale to peacefully make a symbolic “Citizen’s Arrest” of the Beale’s Commander: Col. Heather Fox: “Prosecute Col. Fox for War Crimes, NOT Daniel Hale the Whistleblower.” “FREE DANIEL HALE, Release Him From Jail!” “ARREST COL. FOX, Put Her in the Box!” WATCH These one min. Videos: Peacefully Blocking the Drone War Crimes“Free Daniel Hale, Arrest Col. Fox” by Toby Blomé
3 hour blockade at Beale Drone AFB
Successful Media Coverage: Democracy Now headlines (7/28/21@ 5:22 min.)
Fox40, KTXL (NOT Fox News!, an independent “affiliate”), Sacramento, live-streamed our protest for 2-3 hrs!
KALW Radio, live interview with Ann Wright, Today, Thurs. July 29, 10:00 am, on Daniel Hale & Anti-Drone campaign. Ann did an amazing, as usual.MUST SEE FILM: National Bird, (Available on Amazon Prime): Daniel is one of the featured drone whistleblowers!
Why Protest at Beale? Because of Daniel Hale’s leaks, published as THE DRONE PAPERS(2015), we learned about the critical role Beale played in the secret U.S. remote assassination program, as well as many other secrets of the U.S. drone terror program. To honor Daniel’s courageous whistleblowing, and protest his persecution, we felt it most appropriate to bring our protest to one of the “Bellies of the Drone Beast,”and to show a bit of courage ourselves.
On Tuesday, July 27, Daniel’s sentencing day, 13 activists peacefully vigiled for the first 1.5 hours of the morning commute at the “Wheatland gate,” holding large banners and signs, educating hundreds of military about Daniel Hale. One sign merely stated: “Daniel’s Sentencing TODAY!” Another: “Prosecute Col. Fox for War Crimes.” “FREE DANIEL HALE” was the dominant message stretched down the highway. After talking with many military police officers, it appeared the vast majority knew nothing about Daniel Hale. An informative leaflet, explaining the reasons Daniel leaked the drone documents, was distributed all day. During the last hour of the commute, 6 of us entered the Wheatland gate roadway, putting an immediate halt to the traffic, to express our extreme opposition to the prosecution of whistleblower Daniel Hale. “Prosecute the drone war criminals, not the whistleblowers!”The blockade lasted nearly 3 hrs, with Fox40 videographer (NOT Fox News) doing periodic live-streaming throughout! Beale command made NO arrests, even though the main artery into the base was halted, and during most of the blockade we stood across “the line” on military property. (Why: Covid, vs. lessening media coverage, vs. other?). We held our ground until news of Daniel’s sentencing reached us, then, using bright tempura paint, we colored the entrance road with support messages for Daniel: FREE DANIEL HALE, Stand With Daniel Hale.org, etc.
Highlights: -1.5 hrs. of vigiling during morning commute -6 activists held a 3 hr. peaceful blockade of main commute gate. -After crossing onto base property, all 6 activists gave passionate testimonies through the megaphone as to why we were there. -Activists vowed to stay until Daniel’s sentence went public: 45 mos. time: A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE! -Chico activist, Chris Nelson passed out flyers long backup of cars. 6 accepted. -Successful media coverage: see above! -Meaningful education of military thru signage, flyers, and conversation. -When military police asked: “Does Col. Heather Fox (Beale commander) know we are attempting a “citizen’s arrest” of her for the drone war crimes committed on this base?” a female officer replied, with a smile and a twinkle: “She most definitely does!” -When asked if very many people on the base know who Daniel Hale is, an MP replied: “They’re all googling his name now!” -During the long blockade, Military police delivered plastic bottle water to us, leaving it on the ground, in spite of our “allergy to plastic”….out of concern for our possible dehydration! In the afternoon, joined by Susan Pelican from Chico, three of us were able to stay for the afternoon commute traffic. When we arrived at the Doolittle Gate, the entrance road was “shut down” by Beale police cars and a CHP/Sheriff. We could see the traffic detoured to another gate, a quarter mile down the base property road. Were they anticipating another blockade? We waited for about 10 min….then decided to take our vigil to the North Beale Rd. entrance, a third Beale gate, to continue our “education of the troops” about Daniel Hale, via visual messages/banner and leafletting.
Press release and a few more photos attached below! Many Many thanks to:-DANIEL HALE, who acted on his deepest conscience, and sacrificed so much for all of us!-Gini Newell, who eagerly jumped on board to put her body on the line, at her very first Occupy Beale protest.-Eleanor Levine, Michael Kerr, Susan Witka, and Leslie Angeline who were also able and willing to join our peaceful civil resistance to drone murder and terror, and stand with Daniel Hale to oppose the atrocious remote killing off human beings.-Eleanor Levine, who helped organize and make the leaflet-Fred Bialy, who took awesome video’s and photos!-John Jerpe, who traveled all the way from Thousand Oaks-And all the other outstanding N. California activists who joined us: Catherine Hourcade, Chris Nelson, Janie Kesselman, and Susan Pelican.
Blocking the main commute entrance for 3 hours, South Beale Rd, Beale AFB
Susan Witka, San Francisco, Holding the Criminals Accountable
Anti-Drone Activists Block Beale AFB Drone Center Entrance for Hours Tuesday Attempting ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ of Base Commander as Drone Whistleblower Daniel Hale Sentenced – ‘Arrest War Criminals, Not Whistleblowers Who Expose Killer Drone War Crimes’
BEALE AFB, CA – Activists blocked traffic leading into the Beale Air Force Base Drone Operations Tuesday morning, with hundreds, maybe thousands, of vehicles backed up miles for about three hours.
Video of line of vehicles and armed military stopping demonstrators:
Activists had vowed to risk arrest while attempting a “Citizen’s Arrest” of Beale Air Force Base commander Col. Heather Fox between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. at the Beale AFB WHEATLAND GATE, South Beale Rd & Ostrom Rd, just outside Marysville, CA.
Law enforcement on and off the base refused to arrest any of the dozen demonstrators.
There will be a second protest from 3 to 5 p.m. Tuesday at the Doolittle Gate, Beale AFB: Doolittle Dr. & Hammonton-Smartville Rd.
The protest is one of many across the U.S. in support of Drone Whistleblower, Daniel Hale, who was sentenced to 45 months in prison Tuesday in a Federal Court in Virginia, for charges under the Espionage Act, for leaking classified documents to the media in 2014. Daniel faced up to a 10 year sentence.
These leaks, reported as The Drone Papers (2015) exposed critical information to the public about the U.S. drone program, including Beale Air Force Base’s integral role in the covert U.S. targeted assassination program, as well as revealing compelling facts about the high rates of civilian deaths in U.S. drone attacks.
The Beale AFB protest is organized by SF Bay Area CODEPINK and joined by Veterans For Peace members and local Northern California activists from Chico, Grass Valley and elsewhere. Participants call for the prosecution of the real war criminals.
Their pleas: “Prosecute Col. Fox for War Crimes, NOT Daniel Hale for Exposing the Crimes!” “FREE DANIEL HALE NOW!
Beale’s Col. Fox, the top in command, is ultimately responsible for all crimes executed by her subordinates at Beale Drone Base. Educational leaflets about Daniel Hale will be offered to military exiting and entering the base, home of the U.S. Global Hawk, a surveillance drone that plays an integral role in the covert U.S. Drone Assassination Program, that has killed thousands of innocent and “unintended targets.”
Background: Edward Snowden, famed NSA whistleblower currently exiled in Russia said: “Daniel Hale is one of the most consequential whistleblowers. He sacrificed everything and is an incredibly courageous person.” Hale’s leaks revealed many disturbing truths about the crimes and human rights violations committed with U.S. drones that the government had been denying and lying about for years. These leaks revealed that in Afghanistan “90% of the casualties in one 5 month period were innocents, bystanders or not the intended target,” says Snowden. “We couldn’t have established that without Daniel Hale’s voice!”
Anti-drone activists have been protesting at U.S. Drone bases across the country for over 10 years, expressing their grievances about the illegality, lack of transparency, and criminality of the covert U.S. program. Thousands of civilians and “unintended targets”, including children, have been killed. Many U.S. citizens have risked arrest and spent days and sometimes months in jail as a result. Our voices have been ignored, and top officials, including presidents, continue to mislead and lie to the public about the secret U.S. Drone program.
These same activists have organized actions across the country this last week in support of Daniel Hale. Daniel Hale’s case is an assault on the very democratic principles that this nation is supposed to stand for.
Edward Snowden said: “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.”
Under the Espionage Act, Daniel Hale was not allowed to testify as to the intent or motive to his actions in leaking military documents. And thus, his lawyers advised he accept a plea deal, because there was no possibility of a fair trial under these restrictions.
As a former intelligence analyst who helped identify and find targets to be killed by U.S. drones, Daniel states in a letter to his judge, Liam O’Grady:
“What possibly could I have done with the undeniable cruelties that I perpetuated. My conscience, once held at bay, came roaring back to life. At first I tried to ignore it…Left to decide whether to act, I only could do that which I ought to do before God and my conscience. The answer came to me that to stop the cycle of violence, I ought to sacrifice my own life and not that of another person.”
“Anti-drone peace activists have been working tirelessly on behalf of the victims of drone strikes for years, but also on behalf of all the military personnel themselves, who suffer from deep and lasting moral injury due to the violence they are asked to perpetuate,” says CODEPINK organizer, Toby Blomé.
One participant attending Tuesday’s Beale action is a member of Veterans For Peace, and participated in the secret bombing of Laos during the Vietnam war. To this day, he still suffers from deep psychic wounds from his Air Force service days decades ago.
For the past 8 years, I have protested and risked arrest at both Beale and Creech Air Force Bases. WHY?
Using Drones to terrorize and kill civilians in countries we are not at war with is a horrendous war crime! And against all International Law.
In addition: I am a 9/11 Truther. Architects and Engineers have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that World Trade Center building 7 and the twin towers were brought down by demolition explosives and not fires or plane collisions! Over 3000 Architects and Engineers have demanded a new investigation.
This and many other facts prove the government’s 9/11 attack story is completely false and 9/11 was instead an inside job by our government.
9/11 was clearly a false flag operation used to seriously weaken our constitutional rights via the Patriot Act and allow for unending unilateral wars against other nations through the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE (AUMF).
Please support and join me and others in our efforts to expose the truth and stop my country’s war crimes!
I give special thanks to the courageous whistleblowers Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden along with Journalists Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange!
Michael Kerr
.
911 Reward prove to my reasonable satisfaction that the United States Government (with Corporate Media as co-conspirators) didn’t manage and cover-up 9-11, then I will give you $100K using my home equity. Hint: nothing bout Government 9/11 story is true!
Citizen’s Investigation Team Over 10 on the ground witnesses prove no plane hit the Pentagon besides lack of plane damage. Pentagon was a partial demolition to conside with a plane flyover!
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that World Trade Center building 7 and the twin towers were brought down by demolition explosives and not fires or plane collisions! Over 3000 Architects and Engineers have demanded a new investigation.
Operation Terror Movie that takes known 9/11 facts into a movie which has been banned from corporate movie theaters, online movir services and Youtube. Just too close to the truth!
progressiveissuesblog 
