Sunday, March 21, 2010

Fumes on South Side of WTC 7 on 9/11

Alex Jones and Steven Jones Message to the USA: Fear Everything

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.

Check out these funny spoof pics of Alex Jones seen on the following website

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." 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"

"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.

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.

Thermite is Cool Stuff, But It Didn't Destroy the WTC

Thermite Is Cool Stuff, But It Didn't Destroy the WTC
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.
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.
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

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Saturday, March 6, 2010