Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Comment from Lucy
Lucy
===============
my comment:
Interesting. Muertos (comment) contradicts Dr. Babs with the same propaganda that deceived this nation, his own information being incorrect. Barbara Olsen's cellphone records show she NEVER made the cellphone calls her husband claimed she did.
AND: Osama Bin Laden NEVER admitted to committing 9/11. Even the FBI doesn't have a warrant out for him, saying they "don't have enough evidence." He did say he was glad, though, I think. Maybe we should look a bit closer to home, like Israel's Mossad, or PNAC ("new Pearl Harbor"), or big oil -- Unocal has wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan for many years, and testified to such in front of a congressional committee in 1998, but said it wasn't possible unless ONE government was in power there... and 'voila"! Hamed Karzai, former UNOCAL executive, was put in the presidency. How serendipitous! (fat chance)
And, yes, the WTC DID turn to dust... as did almost 3,000 bodies, computers, CEMENT, furniture, etc. And left molten steel burning in the basement for, what?, 100 days? Not to mention people escaping BEFORE THE COLLAPSE saw a lobby already blown up when they got there, and heard other explosions going off, as did firefighters.
Pentagon: A bunch of so-called 'hijackers', who couldn't fly a Cessna, made a 180 degree turn, poking a 757 into a 16'wide hole? No wreckage on the lawn (engines, wings), no fusilage removed from the Pentagon, no airline passenger bodies (while dead and injured Pentagon employees were recovered) and NO VIDEO. That, in itself, is preposterous. THINK, THINK, THINK.
Shanksville: No plane "crash" creates a crater in the earth and covers itself over along with the wreckage, as the world was told. IN FACT, the wreckage was strewn over 5 miles. This is NOT a crash. (Even Lockerbee dumped a fusilage on the ground.)
And, please, someone tell me how folks were making cell phone calls at 20,000 ft, and 500 miles per hour in 2001! One can't even do that in 2010... and we ALL lose calls going past a building or a small hill or mountain. This story is patently ridiculous.
WTC7: Please tell me how the NYFD was able to set charges (between the time WTC1 & 2 came down and 5:30 pm - while floors burned) for a controlled explosion to "PULL" WTC7, which came down at gravity speed). This type of demolition takes weeks to set up in normal circumstances?? The erroneously described 'collapse' of WTC7 wasn't even MENTIONED by the 9/11 Commission.
And there's so much more! Not to mention that some of those named as 'hijackers' are still alive, as claimed by themselves or their families... on of whom did take flight training in Texas, but is now a commercial pilot for a Syrian airline. HELLO!
And I'd love to talk to the person that found Mohammad Atta's passport in a foot of concrete powder three blocks from the WTC the next day! How it survived this so-called 'inferno' is beyond me!
===============
my comment:
Interesting. Muertos (comment) contradicts Dr. Babs with the same propaganda that deceived this nation, his own information being incorrect. Barbara Olsen's cellphone records show she NEVER made the cellphone calls her husband claimed she did.
AND: Osama Bin Laden NEVER admitted to committing 9/11. Even the FBI doesn't have a warrant out for him, saying they "don't have enough evidence." He did say he was glad, though, I think. Maybe we should look a bit closer to home, like Israel's Mossad, or PNAC ("new Pearl Harbor"), or big oil -- Unocal has wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan for many years, and testified to such in front of a congressional committee in 1998, but said it wasn't possible unless ONE government was in power there... and 'voila"! Hamed Karzai, former UNOCAL executive, was put in the presidency. How serendipitous! (fat chance)
And, yes, the WTC DID turn to dust... as did almost 3,000 bodies, computers, CEMENT, furniture, etc. And left molten steel burning in the basement for, what?, 100 days? Not to mention people escaping BEFORE THE COLLAPSE saw a lobby already blown up when they got there, and heard other explosions going off, as did firefighters.
Pentagon: A bunch of so-called 'hijackers', who couldn't fly a Cessna, made a 180 degree turn, poking a 757 into a 16'wide hole? No wreckage on the lawn (engines, wings), no fusilage removed from the Pentagon, no airline passenger bodies (while dead and injured Pentagon employees were recovered) and NO VIDEO. That, in itself, is preposterous. THINK, THINK, THINK.
Shanksville: No plane "crash" creates a crater in the earth and covers itself over along with the wreckage, as the world was told. IN FACT, the wreckage was strewn over 5 miles. This is NOT a crash. (Even Lockerbee dumped a fusilage on the ground.)
And, please, someone tell me how folks were making cell phone calls at 20,000 ft, and 500 miles per hour in 2001! One can't even do that in 2010... and we ALL lose calls going past a building or a small hill or mountain. This story is patently ridiculous.
WTC7: Please tell me how the NYFD was able to set charges (between the time WTC1 & 2 came down and 5:30 pm - while floors burned) for a controlled explosion to "PULL" WTC7, which came down at gravity speed). This type of demolition takes weeks to set up in normal circumstances?? The erroneously described 'collapse' of WTC7 wasn't even MENTIONED by the 9/11 Commission.
And there's so much more! Not to mention that some of those named as 'hijackers' are still alive, as claimed by themselves or their families... on of whom did take flight training in Texas, but is now a commercial pilot for a Syrian airline. HELLO!
And I'd love to talk to the person that found Mohammad Atta's passport in a foot of concrete powder three blocks from the WTC the next day! How it survived this so-called 'inferno' is beyond me!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
To Understand 9/11, You Must Go Back and Make Sure You Know Some Stuff First
Outline:
1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.
1. Introduction
9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.
As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?
Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.
These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.
9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com
2. The Nature of Matter
I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.
Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.
The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!
The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.
Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.
3. Physical movement
Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.
Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.
For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
4. Chemical reactions
Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.
5. Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.
6. Human psychology
Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.
Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.
Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.
But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.
7. Conclusion
Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?
1. Introduction - Why we need to know some stuff first before we can understand 9/11.
2. Nature of matter - How the World Trade Center (WTC) was destroyed.
3. Physical movement - How we know that no hijackings occurred on 9/11.
4. Chemical reactions - How we know that thermite did not destroy the WTC.
5. Nikola Tesla - The person discovered the technology used to destroy the WTC.
6. Human psychology - Why it is so difficult to explain 9/11 to people.
7. Conclusion - Why this is the most important subject on the planet.
1. Introduction
9/11 was a complicated crime. Nothing is going to change that. Most of us saw some things on TV that day that we had never seen before, so we didn't know what to think about it. Those who lived in the area of Ground Zero then witnessed long weeks and months of the aftermath. 9/11 didn't end on September 11, 2001, because Ground Zero kept fuming heavily for many weeks and months.
As an experienced laboratory scientist, I recognized when I had seen something unusual. So unusual, in fact, that I didn't know what it was. No scientist knows everything, but every scientist knows how to go about finding out answers to scientific questions, and I couldn't figure out what it was. What kind of weapon, exactly, can turn a building into dust and then continue to fume for months?
Right away I knew some things. I knew I was in a particular position to investigate 9/11, because not only did I live in lower Manhattan, but because I'm that type of person. I already knew that FOX News lies. I already knew about the deep corruption in our Corporatocracy we have in the US. I was already outside the mainstream.
These three things situated me in a unique position to discover the weapon used to destroy the WTC. First, I am a trained scientist. Second, I am outside the mainstream. Third, I was living in the vicinity of Ground Zero during the aftermath and became an unwilling witness and ultimately a victim of the attacks. Part of the World Trade Center is in my body right now, because I breathed all those fumes. I deserve to know what caused them, and nobody can convince me that airplanes and jet fuel was what I was smelling.
9/11 wasn't about me. I was and am a relatively unknown person. In fact, I knew that in all likelihood I was not going to be the one who discovered the weapon. But here's the deal: I know what a correct answer looks like, and I knew I could recognize the correct answer if it were ever told to me. The correct answer would account for the damage seen on 9/11 and the near-constant fuming from Ground Zero for months after. I am proud to say that in 2005, I found the person who discovered the weapon. Her name is Judy Wood. You can go check out her website at http://drjudywood.com
2. The Nature of Matter
I'm going to keep this section simple. Matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of a very tiny nucleus (protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud. Molecules of a solid are very tightly packed in a relatively rigid formation. Molecules of a liquid are closely packed, but free to move around. Molecules of a gas are widely dispersed and bounce all around.
Explosives work in one way: a chemical reaction changes a solid into a gas, releasing energy in the form of heat and a physical blast wave that comes from the rapidly expanding gas. The hot gas continues to expand outwards in all directions until the pressure and temperature are in equilibrium with the environment.
The WTC was not brought down by explosives. We know this for two main reasons. First, the expanding dust cloud did not behave as if it were a gas. Instead, it behaved as if it were a colloidal suspension, and the dust bits fell to the ground. An explosive reaction (solid into gas) results in an approximately spherical-shaped expansion, which was not evident on 9/11. Instead, the dust poofed outwards and then fell to the ground like if you popped a balloon full of powder. POOF!
The second reason we know the WTC was not brought down by explosives is the fact that the dust cloud rolled over people and they survived. We know the temperature of the expanding dust cloud was not hot enough to kill or injure the folks on the street, therefore we know the dust cloud was not a result of an explosive.
Okay, so if not explosives, then what? Here's the answer: The molecules that made up the WTC were vibrated apart by electrical energy. That's it. Why did the buildings continue to fume for months after? Because the process is not self quenching. They had to remove the remains of the buildings before the fuming stopped at Ground Zero. The fuming that came from Ground Zero for months was the continuing molecular dissociation of the building materials. When they took away the last bits of the building, the fuming stopped, or almost stopped.
3. Physical movement
Part of the attacks of 9/11 was the cover story, so we need to understand a bit about the cover story. That whole thing about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers? Never happened. That whole thing about planes crashing into the World Trade Center? Never happened.
Momentum is conserved during every collision. That means that videos of a plane crashing into a building will show at least some pieces of the plane bouncing backwards in exactly the opposite direction. What we saw instead was the entire plane gliding smoothly into the building with no apparent damage, followed by explosions and stuff shooting out the other sides of the building. There wasn't any part of the plane that bounced off the south face of WTC 2, the supposed site of impact, which means there wasn't an impact.
For several years, people have claimed that all the videos were faked, that news editors and cameramen from all these different places altered their videos in exactly the same way. This is neither likely nor logical. What happened was that a 3-dimensional image of the plane was projected into the sky, and video cameras caught footage of this mysterious object passing into the WTC without damage. I'm not proving that no planes were hijacked on 9/11, I'm just telling you that none were. You can prove it to yourself by looking at the slow motion replay of the "plane crash". You won't find any bits of plane debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2.
4. Chemical reactions
Getting quickly to the point, Steven Jones has been misleading us with his thermite theory. Thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive, which means it generates heat but not expansion of gas. People didn't die from the expanding dust cloud, therefore no type of incendiary could have been the cause of the destruction of the WTC. The only two people I'm willing to debate on this are Steven Jones himself or Niels Harrit, the primary author on that travesty of a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust." Too many people have fallen in love with the thermite theory, despite its deep inadequacy as an explanation for 9/11.
5. Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla discovered a way to transmit electrical energy through the atmosphere, and even likely gave a demonstration of this technology, which resulted in the Tugunska disaster. Previously, he had caused a huge explosion with his experiments and had to relocate from Colorado to Long Island. He died penniless in Manhattan. There is so much about Tesla available for your own research, that I will say only one more thing. John Hutchison has been using electrical equipment to replicate Tesla's work since the late 1970's. You should check out his research, too.
6. Human psychology
Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11. We all have emotional "flash bulb memories" from that day, and the perpetrators of this crime took advantage of this by providing a cover story during that time. The hijacking story was the cover story, and this was cemented into our brains during a time of trauma.
Imagine if we had seen the buildings go POOF without the planes? We would have known right away that something very suspicious was afoot and start to search for enemies. The perpetrators provided us with the enemies almost immediately, so that instinct was squelched. We were bamboozled into thinking that a plane crash could take down a steel building, and we were bamboozled into believing that Osama bin Laden and 19 young Arabs committed the crime.
Secret technology was used. What were we supposed to "Never Forget"? Something almost none of us knew about at the time, and most of us still don't know about? Doesn't make sense to "Never Forget" something you never knew. And if you were like me, you didn't know what really happened on 9/11.
But that doesn't mean I'm wrong now. This isn't 2001. This is 2010. Almost nine long years have elapsed since the attacks of September 11, and we know more now than we did then.
7. Conclusion
Tesla was working on technology that could improve the lives of everyone on the planet. He knew that it could be used to destroy, and it was used to destroy the WTC. This was a terrible event, but we can turn it around. We can together continue to investigate this new technology, maybe even find out who used it against us and bring them to justice, but even more. We can use this energy to make our lives better, as Tesla originally intended. We can use a little bit of electrical energy to generate a large amount of physical energy, and we can transmit this energy to any location on the Earth. Pretty powerful and exciting, isn't it?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Why we shouldn't trust the newsbroadcasts of 9/11
Why not? Because it was advanced technology, the witnesses and newsbroadcasters did not have the words to describe the phenomena.
Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of
Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).
Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.
Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.
The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.
These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.
Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of
Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).
Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.
Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.
The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.
These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What Types of Projected Image Technology Are Already Commonly Known?
Image projected onto a building at night.
Moving image projected on the Arch of Triumph in Paris. (still image)
Image of some shadows.
Image projected onto a person.
I have made the claim in the past that what was seen in the sky on 9/11 was not an airplane, rather that it was a projected image of an airplane.
What technological hurdles must be overcome to project a moving image into the daytime sky?
All the examples below are light being projected onto an object in dark conditions. EXCEPT the shadow image has light being SUBTRACTED to create the image. The daytime sky has so much light, and the sky on 9/11 appeared to be clear and cloudless. What could be going on here?
Brainstorming: What if, instead of reflecting light to form an object, in the daytime sky you need to absorb light in a certain way to form an image? What if, instead of light rays being reflected off objects (as in the four examples below), light is being absorbed in a pattern that is determined by a pattern of disturbance in the air, generated by a computer and localized using GPS devices?
Neither of these things are particularly likely to be true. I just made them up. Point is that I, as a non-expert in video projection technology, can at least imagine a technology that can project an image in the daytime sky. Not knowing the particular technology that might have been used doesn't mean that I can't recognize the effect of using such a technology.
If you tried to simulate a plane crashing into a building and failed to account for the fact that a plane crash would slow the plane and generate debris, what you would get is the sort of videos that are claimed to be showing WTC 2 being hit by a plane. Those videos do not show debris where debris should be (namely, at the exterior south face of WTC 2).
Those videos are consistent with a moving projected image of a plane where they forgot to add the plane crash. The plane just slipped on through into the building.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc+2nd+hit&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35&fr2=tab-web&vid=0001595930321
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Alex Jones and Steven Jones Message to the USA: Fear Everything
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=alex+jones+steven+jones&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
Just look how many links connect Alex Jones and Steven Jones! Alex provides a perfect venue for Steven. Steven's story about 9/11 is super-scary.
Steven Jones' Scary Story:
Arab Islamic militants hijacked airplanes and crashed them into various targets on 9/11. Our defenses failed to intercept the attacks because the US government was also behind the attacks! The US Government sponsored the hijackings. Also, the US government allowed thermite bombs to be placed in WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and part of Deustche Bank (aka Banker's Trust). The US government is covering up their own involvement in the crimes of 9/11 and after, and these people are coming for you and your guns.
Fear everyone. Fear us. Fear them. Everyone is out to get us! Run with your guns!
A More Likely Story:
A small group of people purchased a new electric weapon, and hired a tiny crew to operate the machine. This machine destroyed the WTC. Nobody understood what happened until Dr. Judy Wood figured it out. http://drjudywood.com
Check out these funny spoof pics of Alex Jones seen on the following website
http://fallofalexjones.com/
For all the evil, scary stuff that Alex Jones knows about, why is his only remedy to listen to him more often and buy his swag?
You don't need a blackbelt. You can sit behind your computer and fight every battle.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Strange Smell of Ground Zero After 9/11
"She said the smell from the trade center residue came and went. When it was overcast, it was stronger, she added. 'It was not quite a fire smell. It was something extra. How can I describe it? It made your lips tingle.' "
The above quote is from a New York Times article titled, "The Scent - 20 Days Later, an Invisible Reminder Lingers." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/nyregion/01SMEL.html?pagewanted=1 The thing this article got wrong is the "invisible" part because you could see the fumes coming from Ground Zero. They weren't invisible.
The thing the article got right was the difficulty people had describing the smell. Smells are unique. We don't have a descriptive vocabulary for smells like we do for sights. Let's pretend you see something that you don't understand. At the very least, you might be able to describe the color, size and shape. How do you describe a smell that you've never smelled before?
What would you say if, months after the attacks, the smell was as strong as ever?
From "Health News: Odors Conjure Up Awful 9/11 Memories"
http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx?prid=513682&type=1
"Odors have a strong impact on memory and emotions," says Dr. Alan Hirsch, neurological director of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. "When we look at different times in our history, we find different odors tend to induce flashbacks" in people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In the case of the World Trade Center, the point was not to induce frightening flashbacks but to somehow use the odors to aid the recovery process. Dalton and two of her staff members gained access to the cleanup site to collect odors. Preti then did the analysis of the samples. "It was my job to try to identify what they were and, once we identified them, we can reconstitute them."
A scientist who studies smells could not identify the smells. Question: Doesn't this mean that it was a weird smell? Isn't this the definition of a weird smell? If a smell professor can't identify it, it's a strange thing, indeed.
The above quote is from a New York Times article titled, "The Scent - 20 Days Later, an Invisible Reminder Lingers." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/nyregion/01SMEL.html?pagewanted=1 The thing this article got wrong is the "invisible" part because you could see the fumes coming from Ground Zero. They weren't invisible.
The thing the article got right was the difficulty people had describing the smell. Smells are unique. We don't have a descriptive vocabulary for smells like we do for sights. Let's pretend you see something that you don't understand. At the very least, you might be able to describe the color, size and shape. How do you describe a smell that you've never smelled before?
What would you say if, months after the attacks, the smell was as strong as ever?
From "Health News: Odors Conjure Up Awful 9/11 Memories"
http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx?prid=513682&type=1
"Odors have a strong impact on memory and emotions," says Dr. Alan Hirsch, neurological director of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. "When we look at different times in our history, we find different odors tend to induce flashbacks" in people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In the case of the World Trade Center, the point was not to induce frightening flashbacks but to somehow use the odors to aid the recovery process. Dalton and two of her staff members gained access to the cleanup site to collect odors. Preti then did the analysis of the samples. "It was my job to try to identify what they were and, once we identified them, we can reconstitute them."
A scientist who studies smells could not identify the smells. Question: Doesn't this mean that it was a weird smell? Isn't this the definition of a weird smell? If a smell professor can't identify it, it's a strange thing, indeed.
Two Colors of "Smoke" After 9/11/2001
The late Peter Jennings gives a report, but never mentions the two different colors of smoke in the background.
Satellite images of Ground Zero after 9/11/2001 show exactly what the Peter Jennings image shows: two colors of smoke.
One of the things you learn in high school chemistry is that particular chemical reactions have a defined color. Two different colors of "smoke" indicates two separate processes. Perhaps one of the processes was an actual fire, the dark smoke. Perhaps the other process was the dustification process. Also, look in the satellite image. The two colors of smoke move in different directions! This points again to the conclusion that two different processes were ongoing at Ground Zero after 9/11.
A Little Considered Fact About the 9/11 "Planes"
This is a long essay that has a lot of truth in it, but the author doesn't take what I see as the logical next step: that there were no hijacked airplanes at all on 9/11. He pretty much stays with the fact that the airplanes have not been properly identified, which is a good point all by itself and which does not contradict the no plane theory in any way.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/19/a-little-known-fact-about-the-911-planes/
However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/19/a-little-known-fact-about-the-911-planes/
However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.
The WTC Did Not Collapse on 9/11 (It turned to dust and THEN collapsed, big difference)
The WTC Did Not Collapse on 9/11 (It turned to dust and THEN collapsed, big difference)
I am a person who is, in fact, claiming that WTC 3,4,5 and 6 did not collapse. Additionally, I continue to claim that WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse. To repeat, I say that none of the buildings collapsed.
This is my logic: "Collapse" means "fall downward and inward". I think we can agree on this definition. The buildings, in this sense, did not collapse, although the tiny pieces of the building did fall to the ground after they were created. Larger pieces also fell to the ground as they were dissolving. But to me, in my honest opinion, to say that the WTC buildings collapsed is ignoring something huge.
The Huge Thing:
The buildings turned almost completely into dust before they collapsed. When people make the claim that the buildings collapsed, I want to ask them, "What happened to the buildings right before they 'collapsed'?" because it seems to me that nobody seems to recognize that the building turned into dust before it started heading downward.
Even WTC 7. There are several pictures of WTC 7 fuming hard during the daytime after WTC 1 and 2 were gone. These fumes are steel being dissolved out of the building.
All of the WTC buildings were dissolved while standing, and then the dust fell to the ground. This is not a collapse, to me. This is kind of like saying JFK died from blood loss but not mentioning the fact that somebody shot him. Yeah, he died because of blood loss, but nobody doubts that the blood loss was caused by a bullet wound. Nobody claims JFK was knifed to death.
That is the current state of affairs in the 9/11 Truth biz. You have all these people claiming that JFK was knifed to death and that the Secret Service was behind it all. Well, the conclusion might be true. The Secret Service might have been behind it all. But to insist that JFK died from a knife wound just makes you sound stupid, and therefore nobody is likely to believe you even if you come to the correct conclusion.
The pernicious thing about thermite and "bombs in the building" theories is two-fold. One, they didn't happen and too much energy in the 9/11 Truth biz is being spent on defending thermite, investigating thermite, talking about thermite. It's a waste of time for all these people who might otherwise be investigating in other areas closer to the truth. The second thing is that when and if the public attention is EVER brought to the subject of a 9/11 investigation and people investigate thermite and find it to be incompatible with the facts, then we will have lost them forever.
If you all go forward with this thermite biz, we might lose the big game forever. So it's kind of important to me.
Additional thoughts.
WTC 7 did not fall from debris. Diesel fuel cannot account for the destruction of WTC 7, which is why Kerrey might have had to retract it. Scientists were puzzled by the forensics of the steel because they didn't see damage that they could attach to any particular process in their working memory and professional experience. It's a juicy point. Scientists who study steel are puzzled. You should be wondering why these folks who regularly study steel are puzzled. It raises the bar on what could have destroyed the steel. The Harrit et al. article on "Active Thermitic Material" was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The only reason the authors keep harping about it being "peer-reviewed" is because a scandal came out where their publishing company Bentham journals (look it up) was caught accepting for publication a journal article written by a computer. Their strategy to combat this "outing" that the Harrit article was caught up in this scandal was the decision to constantly refer to this article as having been "peer reviewed."
The reason this is true is quite obvious. There have been many, many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of 9/11, and these folks don't run around crowing about the victory of getting a peer-reviewed article published. It's not a big deal. It's expected that articles are peer-reviewed, so it doesn't need to be said.
I am a person who is, in fact, claiming that WTC 3,4,5 and 6 did not collapse. Additionally, I continue to claim that WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse. To repeat, I say that none of the buildings collapsed.
This is my logic: "Collapse" means "fall downward and inward". I think we can agree on this definition. The buildings, in this sense, did not collapse, although the tiny pieces of the building did fall to the ground after they were created. Larger pieces also fell to the ground as they were dissolving. But to me, in my honest opinion, to say that the WTC buildings collapsed is ignoring something huge.
The Huge Thing:
The buildings turned almost completely into dust before they collapsed. When people make the claim that the buildings collapsed, I want to ask them, "What happened to the buildings right before they 'collapsed'?" because it seems to me that nobody seems to recognize that the building turned into dust before it started heading downward.
Even WTC 7. There are several pictures of WTC 7 fuming hard during the daytime after WTC 1 and 2 were gone. These fumes are steel being dissolved out of the building.
All of the WTC buildings were dissolved while standing, and then the dust fell to the ground. This is not a collapse, to me. This is kind of like saying JFK died from blood loss but not mentioning the fact that somebody shot him. Yeah, he died because of blood loss, but nobody doubts that the blood loss was caused by a bullet wound. Nobody claims JFK was knifed to death.
That is the current state of affairs in the 9/11 Truth biz. You have all these people claiming that JFK was knifed to death and that the Secret Service was behind it all. Well, the conclusion might be true. The Secret Service might have been behind it all. But to insist that JFK died from a knife wound just makes you sound stupid, and therefore nobody is likely to believe you even if you come to the correct conclusion.
The pernicious thing about thermite and "bombs in the building" theories is two-fold. One, they didn't happen and too much energy in the 9/11 Truth biz is being spent on defending thermite, investigating thermite, talking about thermite. It's a waste of time for all these people who might otherwise be investigating in other areas closer to the truth. The second thing is that when and if the public attention is EVER brought to the subject of a 9/11 investigation and people investigate thermite and find it to be incompatible with the facts, then we will have lost them forever.
If you all go forward with this thermite biz, we might lose the big game forever. So it's kind of important to me.
Additional thoughts.
WTC 7 did not fall from debris. Diesel fuel cannot account for the destruction of WTC 7, which is why Kerrey might have had to retract it. Scientists were puzzled by the forensics of the steel because they didn't see damage that they could attach to any particular process in their working memory and professional experience. It's a juicy point. Scientists who study steel are puzzled. You should be wondering why these folks who regularly study steel are puzzled. It raises the bar on what could have destroyed the steel. The Harrit et al. article on "Active Thermitic Material" was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The only reason the authors keep harping about it being "peer-reviewed" is because a scandal came out where their publishing company Bentham journals (look it up) was caught accepting for publication a journal article written by a computer. Their strategy to combat this "outing" that the Harrit article was caught up in this scandal was the decision to constantly refer to this article as having been "peer reviewed."
The reason this is true is quite obvious. There have been many, many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of 9/11, and these folks don't run around crowing about the victory of getting a peer-reviewed article published. It's not a big deal. It's expected that articles are peer-reviewed, so it doesn't need to be said.
Thermite is Cool Stuff, But It Didn't Destroy the WTC
Thermite Is Cool Stuff, But It Didn't Destroy the WTC
Share
Today at 11:31am | Edit Note | Delete
What is thermite?
What is nano-thermite?
What does thermite do?
What is the thermite reaction?
What are the thermite reaction products?
Did we see any of the thermite reaction products when the WTC was being destroyed?
Wikipedia is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.
Question: Did we see short bursts of extremely high temperatures during the destruction of the WTC?
No. People survived the dust cloud, therefore it was not the result of high heat.
Question: Did we see these bursts focused on a very small area?
No. The destruction was spread throughout the entire buildings.
Question: Did these bursts last a short period of time?
No. You could smell the building fumes months and perhaps years later. No thermite reaction takes years to proceed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
Quote: The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.
Question: Is there any record of massive amounts of eye damage from people nearby who witnessed the destruction first hand?
None that I know about. Do you?
Quote: Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.
Question: Were sparks, hot slag, droplet or flames seen in credible amounts during the moments of destruction of the WTC buildings?
Not really. If you look at the entire buildings as they were destroyed, you don't see any sparks, hot slag or droplets. You see white powder. That isn't sparks. There is one tiny video showing some orange sparks, but not really when you look at the large pictures. If an excessive amount of thermite were used to destroy the WTC, then you'd expect an excessive amount of thermite products to be released. This means orange sparks, and you could see none or almost none of this going on.
Quote: Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.
Question:Does increased energy release rate mean increased total energy produced?
No. The total amount of energy released is exactly the same with a given amount of thermite. The very finely ground nature of nano-thermite only allows the reaction to proceed to conclusion at a faster rate, not produce more heat.
Share
Today at 11:31am | Edit Note | Delete
What is thermite?
What is nano-thermite?
What does thermite do?
What is the thermite reaction?
What are the thermite reaction products?
Did we see any of the thermite reaction products when the WTC was being destroyed?
Wikipedia is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.
Question: Did we see short bursts of extremely high temperatures during the destruction of the WTC?
No. People survived the dust cloud, therefore it was not the result of high heat.
Question: Did we see these bursts focused on a very small area?
No. The destruction was spread throughout the entire buildings.
Question: Did these bursts last a short period of time?
No. You could smell the building fumes months and perhaps years later. No thermite reaction takes years to proceed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
Quote: The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.
Question: Is there any record of massive amounts of eye damage from people nearby who witnessed the destruction first hand?
None that I know about. Do you?
Quote: Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.
Question: Were sparks, hot slag, droplet or flames seen in credible amounts during the moments of destruction of the WTC buildings?
Not really. If you look at the entire buildings as they were destroyed, you don't see any sparks, hot slag or droplets. You see white powder. That isn't sparks. There is one tiny video showing some orange sparks, but not really when you look at the large pictures. If an excessive amount of thermite were used to destroy the WTC, then you'd expect an excessive amount of thermite products to be released. This means orange sparks, and you could see none or almost none of this going on.
Quote: Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.
Question:Does increased energy release rate mean increased total energy produced?
No. The total amount of energy released is exactly the same with a given amount of thermite. The very finely ground nature of nano-thermite only allows the reaction to proceed to conclusion at a faster rate, not produce more heat.
Monday, March 15, 2010
What's this about James Fetzer being a perp?
What's going on with Fetzer is that, either he is a meddler and a complete wreck of a 9/11 researcher, or he's a perp. I choose to hope that he is actually just a mess, because that means he can change.
What Fetzer has been doing is stirring the controversies around 9/11 instead of getting to the heart of the matter and supporting real research. The thing about thermite is completely bogus. Thermite doesn't do what Steven Jones and Niels Harrit says thermite does. It's just fact. It's a scary thing that these people could persist in such ridiculous efforts to support the thermite theory when it is not true.
Thermite turns into hot molten orange globs of steel, but the buildings turned to white powder. Don't tell me thermite doesn't cause everything to look white because it looks orange.
One of the things I learned in high school was that chemical reactions have a particular color, and I made it through 5 years of graduate level biochemistry to get my doctorate, so I'm not easily confused on something like this.
I saw the one video of orange stuff coming out one window of the WTC. I'm not unaware of this video. But I also saw many videos of the entire building turning into white powder and zero globs of orange molten metal.
Also, if thermite caused the WTC to disappear, then the dust cloud would have been hot and it wasn't hot. People I know survived the dust cloud.
Anyone who claims to be a scientist and supports the thermite theory at the same time is either a bad scientist or a perpetrator. This includes Steven Jones and James Fetzer.
Kind regards and please ask more questions,
Tracy Postert, PhD
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)