Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

[Dennis Leahy]

Article Title: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

By: by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer)

Source: Veterans Today : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/



There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The Vancouver Hearings (http://www.911vancouverhearings.com) have established, the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all. Here I am going to summarize the evidence for each and explain why the most defensible and difficult to falsify are those that posit the use of sophisticated arrangements of micro and mini-nukes, which, of course, is not a technique that would have been available to Osama bin Laden and his hearty band of 19 Islamic fanatics, which the government has peddled to the public with a straight face and which has been supported by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The NIST, alas, has been carrying the burden for the Bush/Cheney administration, which, together with its friends in the Mossad, appear to have been the principals responsible for 9/11.
The theories to be discussed include (h1) the collapse theory, (h2) the nanothermite theory, (h3) the DEW theory, and (h4), the nuke theory, which should be distinguished by its own subtheories, including (h4a) the 150kt subbasement theory (associated with Dimitri Khalezov) and the (h4b) mini and mico-nuke theory (associated with The Anonymous Physicist, Dr. William Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and Don Fox, among others), which appears by far the most promising.


Excellent article honing down to the plausible and using the real evidence. (There is a tidbit in the article that I think needs to be highlighted, but I'll wait to see if anyone mentions it - to see if the info impacts you the same way as it did me.)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

What I noticed was that the article did its best to ridicule "hypothesis (h3), the use of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons)" -- Judy Wood's work.

I did not bother to read the rest of the article, after observing how it handled that hypothesis.

[Dennis Leahy]

What I noticed was that the article did its best to ridicule "hypothesis (h3), the use of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons)" -- Judy Wood's work.

I did not bother to read the rest of the article, after observing how it handled that hypothesis.Hi Paul,

Why is that? Assume for a minute that she is indeed a disinfo agent, either a hired gun (I actually doubt that) or a disinfo agent by virtue of muddying the water with a theory that does not fit the elemental (USGS gathered and tested) dust evidence. Evidence she refuses to address, but retains the right to espouse a theory that does not fit the evidence. Why does she get to remain at the table after refusing to address the elemental assay? At what point after her refusal do you drop the kid gloves and admit that she doesn't address the evidence because it doesn't fit her theory?

I could make up a theory about an invisible dragon, summoned via occult ritual, that was used to bring down the towers. Can you prove me wrong? I could even say my dragon's power is alchemical, so any elements left in the dust that indicate nuclear events are really just dragon breath changing steel into uranium, thorium, and strotium. So there, I covered that base. Is my theory in contention? Do I get to stay at the table if I write a compelling book, and provide a website to establish my authority?

I see 360° debris exploded outwards from the center of the building, from the top down sequentially - just exactly what I would expect to see if there were multiple instances of bombs in the center of the building.

In a sci-fi movie, a DEW beam could be directed from any direction and yet inexplicably yield a non-directional reaction to the beam. Are we just going to concede this point to Judy Wood? Has Judy Wood postulated that the DE Weapons were arranged in a 360° array around the towers, which might somehow explain the 360° dispersal pattern of ejected material? There is no linearity to the explosions. They are circular and explode outward. I only had high school physics, but I think that a "directed" weapon coming from one direction would produce an ejection pathway in the opposite direction - like JFK's head going "back and to the left" after being hit from the front right.I would also expect to see some force exerting on the outside and pushing inward. If we are just going to say that Judy Wood gets to have a weapon that is directed from one location, but that does not push any material in, and when it causes the explosions to occur, the explosions occur in the center of the building and explode outward equally right back at the force vector of the weapon as every other trajectory... well, I believe to do that we have to skip past physics and get to magic.


It seems to me that Judy Wood was invited to explain how her (truly interesting, even amazing) idea of a DEW could fit with the additional evidence, as gathered and assayed by the USGS. Her theory simply could not stand up to the forensic evidence, she could not offer any explanation to further her ideas, then, (from my understanding) attacked other theories. I don't think we should be surprised that other researchers found this tactic less than useful.

Finally, this isn't some Japanese Zen ceremony where the good researchers have an obligation to allow the not-so-good researchers to save face. These aren't diplomats, they are researchers, quite human researchers who have given more than most of us will ever know to dedicate themselves to finding the truth. When one's theories get burned, egos are involved, and there may be some scorched Earth.

Judy Wood is responsible for coining the word "dustification", and (according to Clare Kuehn) provided some real insights that other investigators followed-up on. She can either take a bow for the good work that she did, be an honest scientist and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously. Or, she can come back with an attack. If she does, and it is hollow (and still refuses to discuss and incorporate all the forensic evidence), she will not be remembered as helping to solve the "how" of 9/11 but rather for her ego.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Her theory simply could not stand up to the forensic evidence
I am aware of no evidence that she does not account for.

I am aware of substantial amounts of evidence, from Judy Wood's book, that others do not account for.

I doubt we will come to a meeting of minds here however.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


These aren't diplomats, they are researchers,
The snow job done on Judy Wood's work in the article you presented us in the opening post was not the expression of a fair minded researcher, but rather the ridicule of someone who has already made up their mind. By your defense of that, it seems that you have made up your mind too, as have I.

Apparently our minds did not end up in the same place.

[Referee]

I am also on board with Dr. Judy Wood and John Lear DEW's with inter-dimensional technology

[Dennis Leahy]

Aw, Paul, I don't wanna buy her book! :lol: It's true. Her "directed" weapon (directed means it has direction, a force vector) makes no sense to me at all because the videos clearly do not show any force coming from any direction - except from the center of the inside of the building. Tell me you believe there was a DEW in the center of the building, one about every 10 floors, and I would have to take another look at the theory. Do you have a specific piece of video footage that you think best illustrates the DEW?

Did she really cover the 2 important points I brought up? (1. She explains the USGS sample assay? plus, 2. explains how a force vector can result in 360° explosions that vector back toward the source and away from the source with the same apparent force in all 360° vectors)? That second one defies physics.

I will agree with the possibility that her theory is correct if all the evidence points to a DEW as the most likely or only possible explanation. I only say I have seen nothing so far that make me believe in her (at this point mythical, and invisible) DEW or my invisible dragon. Can you say that the the h4b hypothesis is not substantiated?

Referee, dammit, if you get inter-dimensional technology, I get my invisible dragon! :~)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

"directed energy weapon" may be a misleading term ... it's not like the microwave weapons that the military has shown publicly, that can heat your skin on the surface and have you screaming in pain with no permanent damage. It's not a "ray gun". The affects won't look like the target got hit with a directed beam of energy coming from the emitter.

When viewing Hutchinson's videos replicating the affects on a very small scale, one cannot tell from looking at the warped and lifted target what direction the energy came from. The target just starts acting really weirdly. His videos don't show sufficient energy to "dustify" materials on a substantial and rapid scale however.

What I take from Judy Wood's evidence is that immense energy was projected onto lower Manhattan, more focused on several of the WTC buildings (not just the two towers), but with spill over elsewhere, included on toasted cars the better part of a mile away. In the main focus of the energy, the towers de-molecularized, disassociated at fine particular level, very rapidly.

Yes, it defies conventional physics.

I recommend Judy Wood's Where Did The Towers Go? (http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/) book.

As to the USGS sample ... what did it show, and how reliable was the chain of custody of that evidence (keeping in mind that we both vigorously agree that portions of the United States government are not reliable parties to this investigation.)

===

P.S. -- And there may have been, most likely was, other destructive means used, such as other bombs, for more limited affects, fireworks, assured destruction of "high value targets", and general confusion. So seeing the specific affect of a more conventional weapon doesn't exclude the use of an esoteric energy weapon. Rather the use of esoteric energy weapons is demonstrated by a substantial body of evidence (see that book!) that have no other explanation.

[meat suit]

great discussion Dennis and Paul!

Dennis, not having investigated any of the 'theories' in great detail myself, what comes to mind immediately is:
an egg in a microwave situation.... theres no bomb going off in the egg either, yet it blows up in all directions...

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Looked like a combination of a high tech satellite weapon (dustification), thermite (bright spots on videos, photos of cut steel), and planted explosives (parts being forced away from the building, reports from firemen and custodian) to me.

I would be surprised if a explosive weapon powerful enough to cause dustification would leave buildings a few yards distant with little damage.

How would one explain the damage to cars, some blocks away, with the neutron bomb theory? It might be explained by instability of a satellite based weapon being ""sighted in" on the target.

Do I have this backwards or not? I thought neutron bombs are designed to kill people while leaving buildings intact?

I'll bet that almost everyone (no shills) here will agree that the total destruction was not caused by a passenger aircraft.

[araucaria]

Clearly not enough people have read Judy Wood's book here. There is a whole chapter on the toasted cars.
The controlled demolition hypothesis is thrown out almost from the start on the basis of the seismic readings and the preserved state of the 'bathtub' in the basement, which would have been smashed by falling debris, flooding the whole area.

She also covers things like all the 'jumpers': 'it was raining people' - but if people aren't going to read the book, I haven't got time to summarize it for them.

[Rex]

"...and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously."

I just finished reading her book. If mini-neutron bombs can explain all the facts and observations she's made, so be it. Seems like a stretch to me.

[araucaria]

"...and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously."

I just finished reading her book. If mini-neutron bombs can explain all the facts and observations she's made, so be it. Seems like a stretch to me.

And then there would be no need to ignore/ridicule her. A nice clean job could be done simply be gently setting it all out.

[Dennis Leahy]

Clearly not enough people have read Judy Wood's book here. There is a whole chapter on the toasted cars.
The controlled demolition hypothesis is thrown out almost from the start on the basis of the seismic readings and the preserved state of the 'bathtub' in the basement, which would have been smashed by falling debris, flooding the whole area.

She also covers things like all the 'jumpers': 'it was raining people' - but if people aren't going to read the book, I haven't got time to summarize it for them.
The book, "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11", is $45. I have listened to/watched all the 'free' videos featuring Judy Wood, so I'm not completely in the dark about her hypothesis. I have no money or ego invested in any one person or their theories. I want the truth, but I am not willing to buy a $45 book from an author that has not touched me with something compelling in all the interviews I have seen.

Not that the motivation of making money (or not) is declarative of who is correct (or not), but... forty five dollars? All of Jeff Prager's research was done without asking anyone for a dime.

There is a literary mechanism for plot alteration known as deus ex machina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina) and that is exactly what Judy Wood's ideas sound like to me. She declares that a device exists that can account for every piece of evidence, with conviction (in fact, on her website, she states, "My own research is not speculation.") With no known variant of the weapon she is describing, she is free (like a video game producer) to imbue the weapon with exactly the powers necessary to do the job on 911. She points to John Hucheson's work (anti-gravity with verbal hints of free energy) as physical proof that her Directed Energy Weapon exists.

For the record, we do know that "directed" energy weapons are real. Sound energy can be used, microwave energy can be used - you know, a heat gun in my home shop uses invisible (infra-red?) energy, and I direct it at whatever I want to heat up. I'm sure there was info in the papers stolen from Tesla to create a directed energy weapon too. So, I'm not saying it is an impossibility - just a high implausibility, no physical evidence that such a device exists, no physical hint that is could even work from as far away as a satellite platform, no physical hint of such a machine or even of its location if Earth-based, and fails Occam's Razor test miserably. Why would I believe it?

Since Judy Wood's DEW device is speculative, she is able to work backwards from all of the evidence, and declare that this weapon has precisely the ability to do every aspect of this job, probably be satellite-based (conveniently, because no physical evidence of the machine itself it shows up in any crime scene footage), and not only match the physical evidence, but actually is so powerful and so quick to destabilize and disintegrate matter that it was able to take out about 10 floors per second. Her DEW created sequential, timed explosions - mimicking outrageously powerful "conventional" explosives fitting the profile of mini-nukes, and left behind elemental residue fitting the profile of mini-nukes. How can I possibly argue with that? It is, in fact, impossible to argue with a speculation-based weapon that is defined by reverse-engineering a crime scene.

Please don't be pissed off at me for questioning the discernment of going along with such a far-fetched story.

You cannot prove my invisible dragon theory is wrong. I am going to write a book and a screenplay: Invisible Dragon's Breath: Evidence of Ancient Archonic Dragon's Breath Technology on 9/11. If you do not buy my book, I will declare that your 911 research is incomplete and that you already have your mind closed to the truth. I am certain one of the Zionist film moguls in Hollywood will buy the screenplay and make a blockbuster movie from it (further exonerating the Zionist-directed Mossad from any role in 911)


Looked like a combination of a high tech satellite weapon (dustification), thermite ...

I would be surprised if a explosive weapon powerful enough to cause dustification would leave buildings a few yards distant with little damage.

... I thought neutron bombs are designed to kill people while leaving buildings intact?...The dust samples handled by Steven Jones, a nuclear expert who will not entertain the notion that a nuclear event should even be investigated or evidence tested for in the samples, provided samples of dust containing red chips found to be nanothermite. According to Jeff Prager, the dozens of samples collected by the USGS team (ostensibly looking for asbestos, who happened to have done a routine, full elemental analysis of the dust, and made numerous photomicrographs) found no red chips. No nanothermite residue. Hmmmmmmm...

Paul has spoken about layers of deception in the 911 events, and though that was a completely different context, it certainly does appear that "evidence" depends on who handled the "evidence." Chain-of-custody issues creating layers of deception.

As per the article, neutron bombs exploded high enough in the air will kill life forms (radiation sphere) and leave buildings. Not so if one gets up close and personal to the detonation sphere.

This may be my mind oversimplifying this aspect, but if you think of fireworks displays, there is a sphere of energy from the explosion. With trial and error, experience, and care, a pyrotechnics expert can pre-determine how big the sphere will be. Extrapolating from that: giant nuke, giant sphere; regular sized nuke, regular sized sphere; tiny nuke, tiny sphere. In each case, within that sphere, we have matter disintegration.

Is some of the "evidence" deliberate disinformation, and are some of the players deliberate disinformation specialists? I think so. This was the biggest, most important black-ops even in history (that I know of.) There are pre-planned false leads, rabbit holes that go nowhere, and due to the (deliberate) complexity and mystery, sincere people following their gut instincts go in multiple directions for answers. I'm not even sure if waterboarding Lucky Larry would yield the truth, as the truth is highly compartmentalized in a black-ops operation.

Cheers to all of those sincere souls that have fought for the truth and provided the best scientific, forensic research in their power. My dinner table is set for Jeff Prager, Jim Fetzer, and Dennis Cimino. Your guest list may be different.

I just linked to an article that may be of interest to others. I'm not going to argue this - in fact, I can't. Since I have no way to compare and contrast the evidence with any actual or known capabilities of Judy Wood's (I believe "mythical", but let's say "speculative) device, we enter an endless loop of opinion. I think I'll stay away from any more 911 discussions unless and until the citizens rise up and take control of the government. It really makes no difference (in terms of indictments, convictions, and sentences) what any of us or the researchers say or do. We currently have no power to go after the perpetrators anyway.

Over and out,

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

The book, "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11", is $45. I have listened to/watched all the 'free' videos featuring Judy Wood, so I'm not completely in the dark about her hypothesis. I have no money or ego invested in any one person or their theories. I want the truth, but I am not willing to buy a $45 book from an author that has not touched me with something compelling in all the interviews I have seen.
A reasonable decision on your part.

I would just point out that the book is 540 large format pages with a great many color photographs and quality production. So the price is appropriate for the publication cost.

[araucaria]

Sorry Dennis, I'm not pissed off, but I fear I've pissed you off.:o

I understand your argument about the price of books etc. and agree. But as I said, I don't have the time to summarize it. Maybe someone else does.

Judy Woods definitely does not work back from a pet magic bullet theory, in fact she makes a great point of working forward, from the actual evidence: her conclusion is very much a conclusion.

I'd just like to add one other point for today of all days: Woods has a chapter on Hurricane Erin, a storm as big if not bigger than Katrina, which peaked on the morning of 9/11 just as it came closest to NYC, before veering off to the northeast. National Weather Service in Miami 9/11 5am EDT: "Erin remains a significant hurricane".

Strange that no one seems to have been warned about this at the time, especially compared with the media coverage of the last week.

http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-study-by-former-professor-examines-hurricane-erin-on-9-11-01.html

[Calz]

I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).

I watched her movie several times and poured over the images on her website prior to when she was able to publish. Actually I was shocked "they" allowed it to go to print.

I don't have the scientific mind that many here do ... but it really really made sense to me. As Paul suggests ... there was likely a number of things used to put it off and not simply directed energy.

IMHO (which can easily be dismissed as a mind-neutron bombed ... )

:tinfoil3:

[araucaria]

A couple of quick questions:

1. What is this sample Judy Woods has not taken into account. Does it have proper traceability? I can imagine someone wanting to set her up with a fake sample.

2. In the case of mini nukes, who, when and how?

[ThePythonicCow]

I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).
Actually I had come to those same conclusions myself, before purchasing her book, just as you had.

9/11 has been one of the topics of interest to me for some time, and I sometimes purchase books or website subscriptions both as a gesture of support, as well as to get further useful information.

[TargeT]

I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).
Actually I had come to those same conclusions myself, before purchasing her book, just as you had.

9/11 has been one of the topics of interest to me for some time, and I sometimes purchase books or website subscriptions both as a gesture of support, as well as to get further useful information.

one of the few "powers" we have left,.. voting with our dollars...

I am concious of what I spend money on, as it is indeed a "vote", I made sure and spent money on both the "atlas shrugged" movies just to support the story; don't forget the power you use every day!

[bram]

I must admit I haven't read the book(s), but without wanting to piss anybody off, what's the point of discussing 'how' it was done? The bigger issue by far is 'why' it was done, and with th.e changes to the stranglehold of power we have seen in the last 11 years this must be pretty clear to everyone

[ThePythonicCow]

I must admit I haven't read the book(s), but without wanting to piss anybody off, what's the point of discussing 'how' it was done?
For some of us, such as myself, the "physical how" was the pry bar that opened the door.

For several years after 9/11, I was a full supporter of George W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's War on Terror. I was employed by a company whose largest customers included US military, intelligence and NASA. I had a nice house in the suburbs of Silicon Valley, California.

But I'm pretty good in my amateur understanding of physics and such, and I began to realize that the twin towers did not go down as we were told. I'm now an unemployed forum admin on an "alternative" web site, living in a trailer in North Texas, and still trying to figure all this crap out :).

We each have our gateways, depending on what we notice first.

If time, mass, distance, acceleration, force and energy equations aren't your gig ... that's cool.

[Calz]

I must admit I haven't read the book(s), but without wanting to piss anybody off, what's the point of discussing 'how' it was done?

For some of us, such as myself, the "physical how" was the pry bar that opened the door.



Actually I found her lack of interest in "who" or "why" to lend credence (at least initially ... after you look with an open mind the images themselves tell the story).

She took several aspects of the "official storyline" and completely dismantled them by making it clear what is, or is not possible. Looking at Hutchinson's work supplements hers. From a psychological standpoint alone it was fascinating to see how many people initially (and many are still there) blindly followed the "official explanation".

Toasted cars ... fire dept walking around calmly in theortically molten steel in rubber boots ... etc etc etc.

OMG ... it's right here in Popular Mechanics so it *MUST* be true!!!

:doh:

[Tangri]

Article Title: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

By: by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer)

Source: Veterans Today : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/



There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The Vancouver Hearings (http://www.911vancouverhearings.com) have established, the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all. Here I am going to summarize the evidence for each and explain why the most defensible and difficult to falsify are those that posit the use of sophisticated arrangements of micro and mini-nukes, which, of course, is not a technique that would have been available to Osama bin Laden and his hearty band of 19 Islamic fanatics, which the government has peddled to the public with a straight face and which has been supported by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The NIST, alas, has been carrying the burden for the Bush/Cheney administration, which, together with its friends in the Mossad, appear to have been the principals responsible for 9/11.
The theories to be discussed include (h1) the collapse theory, (h2) the nanothermite theory, (h3) the DEW theory, and (h4), the nuke theory, which should be distinguished by its own subtheories, including (h4a) the 150kt subbasement theory (associated with Dimitri Khalezov) and the (h4b) mini and mico-nuke theory (associated with The Anonymous Physicist, Dr. William Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and Don Fox, among others), which appears by far the most promising.


Excellent article honing down to the plausible and using the real evidence. (There is a tidbit in the article that I think needs to be highlighted, but I'll wait to see if anyone mentions it - to see if the info impacts you the same way as it did me.)

Dennis

In my humble opinion N -bomb does not effect to the structures but living creatures. It designed for purpose of booty(looting).
And residue radiation limited but steady for long period.
The neutron bomb was originally conceived by the U.S. military as a weapon that could stop massed Soviet armored divisions from overrunning allied nations without destroying the infrastructure of the allied nation.the weapon must now be detonated at such a close proximity to the tank that the nuclear explosion's blast would now be equally effective at incapacitating it and its crew
Love and Hope

[Kristin]

I understand your argument about the price of books etc. and agree. But as I said, I don't have the time to summarize it. Maybe someone else does.

Hello!

The book, "Where did the Towers Go?" is an exceptional forensics quality text book. The printing of such a book in the US would cost $120 per book. Dr. Wood had to have the printing done in China, as it is cheapest to do there without loss of quality. All said, she is basically selling the book at cost. Dennis, I would encourage you to make the investment. I understand that it is a lot for a book, however, it has A LOT OF EVIDENCE that is painstakingly diagramed, explained, and shown in full colour glossy pictorials in order to demonstrate completely the full aspects of evidence based observation and to create the space for anyone to make those observations for themselves. Anything less would not be able to demonstrate fully the wide diaspora of information. She is a credit to her profession and a credit to this search for truth beyond anything that I have seen or read prior. This is where she shines as a researcher with a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering, Masters in Engineering mechanics, and a Doctorate in Materials Engineering Science. You may not like her interviews or her lectures but I promise you will not be let down with this book.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[araucaria]

Yes, the cost of printing the 500 high quality photos needed for her analysis probably has a lot to do with the paper quality needed to produce them.

She hardly mentions DEW until page 475/500 and has nothing at all to say about who or why. Here conclusion is a list of 43 questions that need answering, some of which she hasn't even had time to address. The Hutchison effect is only given as one possible explanation for things like I beams that are curled in two instead of bending in a sine wave when overloaded, or wheatchex rolled up like a carpet in a direction where no force could have been exerted, or parts of cars burning up amid reams of paper that remains white, or one surviving file cabinet rolled up in a basketball and containing intact $20 bills. Etc etc.

[modwiz]

The molten steel rivers weeks (months?) after the towers went down coupled with the kinds of illnesses/cancers showing up in those who were at the site as responders and clean-up crews does lend considerable credence to nuclear energy being involved, IMO.

My second choice is the Dragon theory.

The above said, it is who, that matters to me. Why seems obvious. At least for the first few floors down the rabbit hole.

[Kristin]

The molten steel rivers weeks (months?) after the towers went down coupled with the kinds of illnesses/cancers showing up in those who were at the site as responders and clean-up crews does lend considerable credence to nuclear energy being involved, IMO.

My second choice is the Dragon theory.

The above said, it is who, that matters to me. Why seems obvious. At least for the first few floors down the rabbit hole.

Here's some intel on concrete dust and cancer: Harry J. Beaulieu, PhD, CIH, CSP
"It is well documented that once air borne, the silica-dust (inherent in concrete) is hazardous to all that may accidentally breathe it
For years commercial concrete bags have carried the Federal warnings about breathing concrete dust and OSHA has been deeply involved in regulating use and developing safety guidelines for its use.
Virtually every contractor and professional working with concrete knows that it poses some specific health dangers, but the benefit of this irreplaceable material precludes any possible prohibition of its use. Those of using concrete for residential or commercial purposes know we are suppose to avoid breathing the dust, but caution alone of course does not eliminate the reality of the concern.
Professionals involved in commercial concrete work, whether that is for foundation and slab installation or the surfacing and finishing of concrete, know that more needs to be done to improve safety for concrete workers as well as consumers.
As the awareness and demand for finished concrete grows, professionals in this field are facing the reality that what they do; the grinding and polishing of concrete for dying, resurfacing and sealing, generates the release of large amounts of silica-bearing dust in the air. The resurfacing process exposes workers and others to a very real and potential danger. Breathing the silica dust can result in several forms of respiratory ailments that ultimately can develop into untreatable, chronic conditions including silicosis and lung cancer. It is therefore incumbent on these businesses, contractors and workers to establish truly best practice guidelines for controlling exposure to the silica dust, to eliminate or greatly reduce the potential risk of injury and illness.
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) strictly regulates operations that release silica dust into the air (such as concrete grinding, shown in Photo 1) and certainly the pressures of Federal enforcement serve as an incentives to improve worker safety. However, as the new polishing industry begins to mature it must establish and implement new and better methodologies and techniques to ultimately turn these historically hazardous tasks into environmentally responsible processes that are safe for contractors, their workers and clients in order to advance the concrete finishing industry to the status it deserves.. "

From the Heart,
Kristin

[meat suit]

interesting....
qK2NT-udlGc

[Kristin]

The same oxidized iron "balls" and residuals have also been found in crop circles... did nano thermite also create them? LOL, I've listened to this video and it is actually a HUGE smear piece which states things that Judy Wood has never said. Fascinating. I wonder how thermite also creates no pile of rubble or seismic evidence... hmmm... I'm very unimpressed with the video. But it SOUNDS convincing, now doesn't it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Hervé]

There is another aspect of this event that's not addressed and that is a "why" having to do with the "how."

That particular "why" has to do with the holding of a gun to the head of heads of nations with a "See what we can do!?"

It's the same "why" that was used to supposedly end WW II in blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had been ready for months prior to capitulate, surrender, whatever... but their bombs weren't quite ready yet... and these bombs were the guns held to the heads of Russia and China with a "You better behave now and do what you are told to do!"

The "Earthquake Machine" is another one of these guns held in the face of many nations of which we have only heard of japan being the target of (see Fulford's Camelot interview).


Just adding my few cents to the pot...

[Flash]

Guys Guys Guys,

What about having had both used. The mini nuke for the basement and some columns (the cement/steel stuff holding the building up-no taste for dictionary tonight). This would have allowed an in depth destruction where an energy weapon could not reach, and the energy weapon to dustify everything and also, at the same time, get rid of any trace of mini nuke usage.

This would make sense and would be justify for making sure the basement is destroyed and explain the loss of the gold that was supposedly there for example.

[Kristin]

Guys Guys Guys,

What about having had both used. The mini nuke for the basement and some columns (the cement/steel stuff holding the building up-no taste for dictionary tonight). This would have allowed an in depth destruction where an energy weapon could not reach, and the energy weapon to dustify everything and also, at the same time, get rid of any trace of mini nuke usage.

This would make sense and would be justify for making sure the basement is destroyed and explain the loss of the gold that was supposedly there for example.

Thanks Flash, I had thought about that... but since there was no major damage in the basement or evidence of a nuclear device (nuclear radiation), I dropped the thought. It seems that thermite is a great way to drop the issue of another possibility, like a new weapon. The opinions are strong on the issue. I used to be a big proponent of the thermite theory but still couldn't justify many other things that it did not explain. I hope you get a chance to read the Book that Judy wrote one day... it's not just a text filled with pretty pictures, believe me!
From the Heart,
Kristin

[Flash]

Interesting:


Neutron bombs are purposely designed with explosive yields lower than other nuclear weapons.[citation needed] Since neutrons are absorbed by air,[citation needed] even a high-yield neutron bomb is not able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range and so would theoretically have no destructive advantage over a normal hydrogen bomb. However, the intense pulse of high-energy neutrons that is generated is intended as the principal killing mechanism, not the fallout, heat or blast. Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range,[20] the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects

...As an anti-ballistic missile weapon, an ER warhead was developed for the Sprint missile system as part of the Safeguard Program to protect United States cities and missile silos from incoming Soviet warheads by damaging their electronic components with the intense neutron flux.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

considerable destruction through blast and heat, damaging electronic componenets with intense neutron flux, this would make sense that both were used.

three lettres agencies must be ringing tonight with all those explosive terms. :p

[Kristin]

Yes, but they are used to create high yields of radiation to kill people... not buildings. There was not that type of radiation present at ground zero.

LOL, yes we are always on the radar here!

A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear bomb that has a shell as well as several other parts made of chromium or nickel and uses tritium as its primary explosive that thankfully only has a half life or I think 12 years. These materials are used because it only allows wide spread proliferation of the neutrons during the explosion.

Basically its used to throw heavy bombardments of neutrons at a target primarily ones that are armored and might survive any other type of attack. The ionized neutrons go right through the armor and cause massive amounts of radioactive damage to anything inside thats biological i.e. Humans, Its not necessarily an instant kill type bomb, rather dependent on were you are when it goes off it might be a rather slow (very horrible) death.

Yes a wave of highly ionized neutrons that will react with another molecules nucleus causing mass cell apoptosis and general genetic mutation leading major organ failure and death.

[norman]

Molten steel, 1 month later !

None of us have the briefings into that kind of thing and we must work with what we can reasonably assume we have a level pegging knowledge about. On that basis, I agree with Kerry Cassidy, in that we should go with witness testimony first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BdqX87KcQ4&feature=plcp

[Kristin]

The molten steel is interesting. For instance, this very hot steel would not have been able to have been lifted by hydraulic machinery as it would have been too hot for the machinery to handle, yet it was in fact removed by these machines and without damaging the machines or the people around it. This is not possible if the metal was molten... however, it was glowing and it was dripping... but it was not that hot. How can this be? Well, Hutchinson's experiments have these qualities and effects of this type are observed when looking at plasma effects as well. This includes plasma flames... which do not effect paper, like in a microwave. You can boil and burn your food in a microwave, yet the plate remains paper.

[Ron Mauer Sr]

The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

[gooty64]

The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

Right on the money, rmauser.
Someone(s) blew those buildings WTC 1&2 to smithereens with some very advanced technology.
It seems like the conversations are getting mired down in the "unknown advanced technology" and whatever cocktail of "unknown advanced technology" that the TPTWTB used to obliterate the tall buildings on 911.

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

[meat suit]

The same oxidized iron "balls" and residuals have also been found in crop circles... did nano thermite also create them? LOL, I've listened to this video and it is actually a HUGE smear piece which states things that Judy Wood has never said. Fascinating. I wonder how thermite also creates no pile of rubble or seismic evidence... hmmm... I'm very unimpressed with the video. But it SOUNDS convincing, now doesn't it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

would that be 'manmade' or 'ET' made cropcircles?
how would that metal get into the field in the first place to be then melted there?

[gooty64]

WTC 1&2 nuclear Destruction, visual evidence for your eyes to see.

D7FNGWsjj_Y

[ThePythonicCow]

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.


WTC 1&2 nuclear Destruction, visual evidence for your eyes to see.
I thought you just said you were more interested in the who/why than the how :).

Posts discussing the who or why, with useful information or insightful observations can be ... useful or insightful.

But responding to posts discussing the how, with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:

I recommend Judy Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" as the best available book on how the WTC towers and other buildings were destroyed on 9/11.
The cover-up continues.

[Kristin]

The same oxidized iron "balls" and residuals have also been found in crop circles... did nano thermite also create them? LOL, I've listened to this video and it is actually a HUGE smear piece which states things that Judy Wood has never said. Fascinating. I wonder how thermite also creates no pile of rubble or seismic evidence... hmmm... I'm very unimpressed with the video. But it SOUNDS convincing, now doesn't it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

would that be 'manmade' or 'ET' made cropcircles?
how would that metal get into the field in the first place to be then melted there?

Good questions, unfortunately I haven't found the answers. It's one heck of a mystery. However, with Microwave/Tesla/Hutchinson technology, these things could have melted there and not burned the plants... it's one heck of a mystery.

From the Heart,
Kristin

¤=[Post Update]=¤



The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

Right on the money, rmauser.
Someone(s) blew those buildings WTC 1&2 to smithereens with some very advanced technology.
It seems like the conversations are getting mired down in the "unknown advanced technology" and whatever cocktail of "unknown advanced technology" that the TPTWTB used to obliterate the tall buildings on 911.

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

The "HOW" is going to tell us a lot about the "WHO" IMO.
From the Heart,
Kristin

[gooty64]

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.


WTC 1&2 nuclear Destruction, visual evidence for your eyes to see.
I thought you just said you were more interested in the who/why than the how :).

Posts discussing the who or why, with useful information or insightful observations can be ... useful or insightful.

But responding to posts discussing the how, with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:

I recommend Judy Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" as the best available book on how the WTC towers and other buildings were destroyed on 9/11.
The cover-up continues.


The video tells me what I need to know about the how. Meaning fancy cocktail of advanced nuclear technology, this is obvious to me when I watch that short video I posted. So I thought I would share that video so that we can move the conversation beyond the how, -to the why and who.

[Dennis Leahy]

...with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:
My complaint would be that a thread about mini-nukes gets overrun with Judy Wood Supporters and becomes "The Judy Wood Show."

I don't know why we can't have one thread about Judy Wood's ideas (which I guess she says are not "theories" on how it was done, just a list of anomalies that she believes can only be explained by DEW/Hutchinson effect), one thread about nanothermite, one thread about mini-nukes [that was what this one was supposed to be], and maybe one more about the magical invisible dragon theory.

I really feel like I got shouted down and was not able to have a discussion that revolved around mini-nukes. Maybe in that "other" thread, where Judy Wood's ideas are the topic of conversation, someone could paraphrase 5 of the most important things in the $45 book that I have decided not to buy. And maybe someone could PM me and let me know when it is safe to come back to this thread and discuss mini-nukes without having to wade through The Judy Wood Show.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

My complaint would be that a thread about mini-nukes gets overrun with Judy Wood Supporters and becomes "The Judy Wood Show."

Good point :).

[Hervé]

The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

Right on the money, rmauser.
Someone(s) blew those buildings WTC 1&2 to smithereens with some very advanced technology.
It seems like the conversations are getting mired down in the "unknown advanced technology" and whatever cocktail of "unknown advanced technology" that the TPTWTB used to obliterate the tall buildings on 911.

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

I guess the two of you royally by-passed my post # 30 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51480-Mini-Neutron-Bombs-A-Major-Piece-of-the-9-11-Puzzle&p=592858&viewfull=1#post592858) above... :)

All the other "reasons" are incidentals as in that saying " "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." whether it be the buildings insurance scam, short-selling airlines shares or make gold magically disappear along with the evidence for where $2.3 trillion of defense budget disappeared. All the while the only airplanes allow to fly were the ones whisking away the Bin Laden family and friends out of the country.

When I look at videos of these tower falling, I can't help but think of a volcanic eruption with a "nuée ardente" coming down the volcano flanks. I have only seen a volcano producing such an amount of "ash" or "volcanic dust" from... molten rocks.

The only difference with a volcanic eruption is that the "ash" column is gas-and-heat propelled high up in the atmosphere, hence the "propelling agent" wasn't directed upward but just came down to fill the streets.

When you compare the min-nuke bombing in Oklahoma city which left half the building standing with the NYC towers falling down... something is definitely different.

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc, are all decoys to endlessly keep researcher going down labyrinth paths which don't have an exit and fighting each other.

A few more of my cents in the pot :)

[ThePythonicCow]

the evidence for where $1.2 trillion of defense budget disappeared.

That was $2.3 trillion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc) :).

[gooty64]

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc,

I had not considered the termite element to 9/11.
It is plausible that in 40 years time that termites may have weakened the structures enough that the jet fuel alone and the diligent work of a gazillion termites over 4 decades could have been enough to bring down the towers without any fancy cocktail of nuclear weaponry.

:rolleyes::madgrin::becky:

[Flash]

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc,

I had not considered the termite element to 9/11.
It is plausible that in 40 years time that termites may have weakened the structures enough that the jet fuel alone and the diligent work of a gazillion termites over 4 decades could have been enough to bring down the towers without any fancy cocktail of nuclear weaponry.

Gooty54, termites here does not refers to the bugs. And no, it would be impossible for the bug to destroy a steel and cement 80 something floors building.

Termites here refers to thermites which is a military grade explosive.

[gooty64]

Flosh, it's Gooty64! Thanks,
oh? thermites
thanks for setting me straight;)

[Dennis Leahy]

I think there should be a thread discussing ALL possibilities/plausibilities for the method(s) of the 9/11 building destruction (and murders of building occupants.) That is different from a thread discussing one specific theory. This thread was supposed to be about discussing the evidence of and nuances in the mini-neutron bombs theory of destruction of the #1 and #2 WTC towers.

An analogy: Imagine that you started a thread about hempcrete. Immediately, several members posted their opinion that dirt packed in used tires is better than hempcrete, and took over the thread. Maybe dirt packed in tires is better than hempcrete, but your thread was about exploring the nuances of hempcrete, not about a comparison of eco-ideas for building walls.

I don't think that boundary is too tight, and would invite and welcome a new, separate thread discussing a comparison of eco-ideas for building walls (as well as a thread discussing the nuances of dirt/tire wall construction.) At the same time, I would remind thread participants to allow each thread to have its intended scope.

This thread, titled Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle is about the theory that mini-neutron bombs were used on 9/11. I do realize that the article author himself brought up and dismissed Judy Woods ideas, and realize that would/will/did create an emotional response that fostered a desire to defend Judy Wood and her ideas. A new thread titled Mini-nukes versus DEW: the Evidence would have been an excellent way to respond.

This thread was also not really an invitation to switch from the HOW to the who or why aspects, regardless what each individual thinks is the most important question. Who and why are important aspects (and deserve their own thread.) The "why" seems pretty obvious to most serious researchers now, even if complex (PNAC imperialist thrust, removal of freedoms/rights from citizens, ushering in surveillance/intelligence state, destruction of evidence in Pentagon theft of $2.3 trillion, destruction of evidence of Enron and other SEC investigations held in Bldg 7, theft of gold from beneath towers, implementation of high-level fear factor for citizen manipulation, birth of phony but permanent 'war on terror'... did I miss any?) So yes, by all means, there should be other threads about who did 9/11 and why, but that was not what this thread was supposed to be about.

Dennis

[Flash]

Flosh, it's Gooty64! Thanks,
oh? thermites
thanks for setting me straight;)

Sorry to have inadvertendly made you lose 10 points. This was a typo mistake (I type 100 words/minute + and 5 is beside 6) not from not knowing, however, I wonder what your name means or refers to.

OK, I am off topic, sorry OP.

[Kristin]

Hey Dennis, I do understand what you are feeling. I'm going by the title: "Re: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle"

Now, I'm just trying to look at evidence. That being the case, I do not think that Mini-Neutron Bombs are a major piece of the 911 puzzle. It could fit but only if you take away evidence to support the idea. A big contemplation for me is what Neutron Bombs actually do compared to what actually happened. I can not just toss out the rest of the evidence to support one theory. I'm trying to look at ALL the evidence first. I find that to be the most logical way to look at any subject before a theory is formed and postulated upon.

If there is disagreement, that's OK. I can agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the neutron bomb theory working with all the evidence to date. Thanks for your understanding. That being the case, well I feel we can talk about this without censoring the evidence.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Kristin,

That is a pretty harsh conclusion - "censoring the evidence." I hope you really don't feel that I want to censor the evidence. Please start a Juy Wood thread, or add to one. Show the evidence. Convince me. So far, I have been told to buy a $45 book that (evidently) points out, in images, correlations between Hutchison's work and some 9/11 physical tower evidence. I seriously want you to convince me that Judy is correct, but in either a thread about Judy Wood, or a thread about directed energy weapons used on 9/11, or a thread that is the overview "compare and contrast" ALL theories of HOW the buildings were taken out and dropped at near free-fall speed.

I will tell you this: I have already given a very specific piece of video evidence that no piece of twisted rubble of mixed composition is going to overcome: the tower explosions. Floor-by-floor, debris exploding outward in a 360° spray pattern, indicating a force vector coming from the middle of the building and aiming outward. This is NOT an egg in a microwave. There was no liquid to expand in the steel to make it explode.

There is also a big misconception that a neutron bomb only sends out neutrons as it explodes. It IS a type of nuclear bomb, and if you want to kill people and save structures, you blow them up high in the atmosphere, where the explosive energy and shock wave do not take out buildings, but where the radiating neutrons do reach the life forms. Put that same bomb in the middle of a skyscraper and you're not going to end up saving a building. From wiki:
Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects. Do you know exactly what materials the military and black-ops boys have tested, instead of chromium or nickel, as the shell of a neutron bomb, and what the effects would be? What if they used neodymium or samarium cobalt to modify or direct magnetic field energy?

Do you know for sure what the residue from a close-proximity neutron bomb looks like? Is is possible/probable that it would scramble objects at the molecular level and end up with some of the same anomalies as Hutchison's observed anomalies?

Run a video of the towers being demolished. Run it full-screen and keep the mouse poised over the pause button. Stop and start rapidly. You'll see unmistakable explosions, exploding outwards, outwards from any and every camera angle. Occam's Razor says the force vectors observed are not from the exterior but are from the interior of the building and are unleashed floor-by-floor (or groups of floors) as a top-down, sequenced, controlled demolition. The few instances I have seen of solid objects being acted upon by outside energy didn't look anything like an internal explosion, and in each case (at least in slow motion) you can see the object getting wobbly before there is gross movement.

99% of US citizens, even those who know 9/11 was a false flag, are not going to buy a $45 book to explain the towers' destruction on 9/11, so if there really is compelling evidence (that you can paraphrase and not be sued by Judy Wood), please make a thread of it. I promise I will look at it, and I bet others will too.

Dennis

[Kristin]

LOL, no offense Dennis... really... however I will buy you the book for Christmas just PM me your address... then we'll talk.. OK?

From the Heart,
Kristin

PS... I already have a thread on this. Please feel free to join in.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50505-Judy-Wood-s-Take-on-911-Highly-Recommended

[ThePythonicCow]

Floor-by-floor, debris exploding outward in a 360° spray pattern, indicating a force vector coming from the middle of the building and aiming outward. This is NOT an egg in a microwave. There was no liquid to expand in the steel to make it explode.
There was not liquid to expand, like an egg.

There was concrete and steel to expand, when it was converted to very fine dust, very rapidly. Immense energy was required, rapidly. I've no doubt but that some unconventional source of energy was used.

Making big rocks into little rocks is hard work. Making them into talcum powder is much harder work. Doing it to a million tons of concrete and steel in 20 seconds (10+10) ... that's something special. A million tons of talcum powder takes up more space than a million tons of concrete and steel.

[Kristin]

Hey Dennis, my offer is genuine and from the heart. I sincerely hope that you consider accepting it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

LOL, no offense Dennis... really... however I will buy you the book for Christmas just PM me your address... then we'll talk.. OK?

From the Heart,
Kristin

PS... I already have a thread on this. Please feel free to join in.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50505-Judy-Wood-s-Take-on-911-Highly-Recommended


Hey Dennis, my offer is genuine and from the heart. I sincerely hope that you consider accepting it.

From the Heart,
Kristin
Hi Kristin,

You're a sweetheart, but I am going to decline your generous offer. Whomever has any information that can help clear up ANY aspect of the 9/11 event owes it to every being on planet Earth to provide that information freely to everyone.

Does anyone here know Judy Wood? If so, ask her to publish her book, in PDF form, on the Internet and make it available to everyone for free.

Dennis

[Kristin]

Forget about Judy for a moment then... here's one for you to chew on.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard August 8, 2006 c-2006 www.implosionworld.com
PURPOSE
"The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar supplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York on September 11, 2001 through examination of known facts as they relate to scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis conducted by experts in the field of explosive demolition, as well as the first with observations and commentary from personnel directly responsible for the removal of debris from Ground Zero."

This one is free Dennis... and just a click away! To wet your appetite:

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

"This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protecservices.com), Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden.
Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.
Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:

1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording ground vibration throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

2. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.

3. Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida, 4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec’s two-hour video was to archive the unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.

4. Because building implosions are often promoted as live news events, Protec’s offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our company’s archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any
possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers.
Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

A final note: Before releasing this report, we reviewed every paragraph and tried to simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible. Our thinking is the more people who understand this analysis, the more benefit it might provide. It is given that each of the points below could (and likely will) be extrapolated upon in far greater detail by others, however the intent here is to offer our comments as succinctly and cohesively as possible."

From the Heart,
Kristin

19637

Now if you can explain how steal "POOFS" into dust in mid air... I'm listening.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFP9lj32EvM

[Dennis Leahy]

Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19637&d=1355592615)


Now if you can explain how steal "POOFS" into dust in mid air... I'm listening.

{videos}

Hi Kristin,

I have seen that article before. It is astoundingly awful. Wall-to-wall misinformation/disinformation. Complete disassociation from physics and written in an air of snobby superiority/unassailable authority.

For some reason, it appears to be 'locked' and I cannot copy sections of it, as I usually can with a pdf file. Appears to me to be written by the same guy (or his ilk) that wrote for Popular Mechanics. Because buildings are normally exploded down from the bottom first, this could not be explosives? What audience is this written for, 6th graders?

I'm amazed you'd link that article.

As for the videos, and the steel going "poof", just exactly why should we believe an unknown "death ray" can do that, but a neutron bomb cannot? It appears to me that the invisible dragon breath or DEW or neutron bomb destroyed (dis-integrated) much of the steel, and nearly completely destroyed the steel we see in the videos, leaving a brittle/crystalline framework that then fell apart. You and I do not know whether a 4th or 5th generation neutron bomb could (and did) do exactly that. As to whether a theoretical DEW or a theoretical invisible dragon could do that, who knows...but why jump into theoretical devices when neutron bombs are known to exist, and the collected dust samples analyzed for elements has the signature of neutron bombs?

Plus, in spite of Paul's observation, the video footage, shown in slow motion, shows a force vector with a central building "epicenter" exploding outwards 360° - it is very easily explained by having bombs in the center of the building, not so easy to explain if a weapon (of ANY sort) is directed at the building from outside. Even an energy weapon that excites the molecular structure of substances and makes them explode would show some directionality - a force vector. Otherwise, you not only have a mystery weapon with an energy ray, you also have a weapon that perfectly mimics bombs force vectors. Would that square the improbability? Add the fact of mimicking neutron bomb elements in the dust, and that would at least take the improbability to yet another power factor. Occam left the building a long time ago.

Love ya, sister, I just don't like the info you're (sincerely) presenting. :~)

Dennis

[Kristin]

While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z_ny5GxkZM

Why is the floor polisher in frame 3:40 starting to smoke?

[Kristin]

Dennis I can copy and paste the article for you in full if you like... But we can all see it just by clicking on the link. I disagree with your thoughts on it though. Perhaps this is a clear case of having to disagree and agreeing to do so. These guys are the experts, I think their opinion holds a lot of wieght. However, I am open to viewing your evidence that you suggest here:

Dennis - "but why jump into theoretical devices when neutron bombs are known to exist, and the collected dust samples analyzed for elements has the signature of neutron bombs?"

Please do send me the evidence so that I can see the analysis and check out this data. It sounds very interesting.

I am curious as to where the data was collected, by whom, what process was used for analysis and what are the comparable elements in other test results used as standards. Also... can other elements create the same results without having mini nukes present? thanks!

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z_ny5GxkZM

Why is the floor polisher in frame 3:40 starting to smoke?
I don't know. I don't think mini-nukes were the only things used. Jeff Prager seems to think there is no evidence for thermitic compounds in the dust collected and analyzed for elements by the USGS. But the evidence (testimony of first responders of "molten steel, running in channels, like a foundry", and the video evidence showing the same) make me believe that some nanothermite was used (probably to cut strategic columns, so they could keep the size of the blast from each mini-nuke relatively tiny.)

We see fire in cars. Also, at 4:09 to 4:19, we see a small fire. Is this the result of hot or flaming debris coming down from the tops of the buildings, and lighting paper? If so, couldn't the paper have also been burning very near some car gas tanks?

We see a small explosion, starting around 6:29 which I don't think was nanothermite, mini-nuke, or a DEW.

If the explosions that went off in the sub-basement areas before the plane/no plane apparent impact would have been either nuclear or DEW, I would expect all the humans close by to be dead. William Rodriguez is not.

I see several types of bombs and cutter charges being used.

Dennis

[Kristin]

I think that fire is the cause for the window blowing out... There is a fire on the floors in that area of the building. I've seen lots of explosions on windows during fire to release pressure.

Here is an interesting point:there is a lot of testimony from the firemen that their air tanks were blowing up. Is it not possible that the explosive sounds heard could have been something else besides a bomb? If air tanks were blowing up, which is unusual enough (very odd) then what else may be under pressure that could blow up? Water tanks are on every floor... that's a thought.

Cars are not that easy to set on fire. You need to really work at it to get one going. In a lot of the 911 photos, it appears that cars of certain makes have the same damage. It is as though the materials that the cars are made out of is the decisive factor in if they were damaged, or if they were damaged at all. This is interesting and does kind of make the idea of random paper flying about catching things on fire seem like an odd idea. i will say that there was A LOT of paper, but I can't seem to find ANY pictures of paper on fire. Can you?

Find any links yet to the Mini nuke evidence?

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Kristin]

I'm curious as well as to how the Mini Nukes could have achieved free fall speed in the building... you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that mini nukes dustify and that they left radiation? I know that people can come down with cancer from inhaling concrete dust as well. What are the supportive types of cancer that are caused by mini nukes? How long does the radiation last, when is it safe to live in the area? You should be able to test the radiation levels right now, where is all the evidence to support this?

[Ron Mauer Sr]

I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

[Dennis Leahy]

I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.
Hi Ron,

Yes, that is EXTREMELY important. We may never know, the why, unless there is a confession, but the imperialist thrust into the Middle East and North Africa (PNAC plan), and the beginning of the most brilliant scam ever perpetrated (the phony - and permanent - "war on terror"), and massively accelerated loss of rights/freedoms seem obvious. Some pieces of the "who" are available (people like Lucky Larry Siverstein's $6 billion payoff) and the Bush Clan rising back to power, we should have a list of names (should have had before Bin Ladin's name was ever mentioned) that profited in stock transactions (short selling), and the specific names of Odeon (sp?) employee that gave the pager alert to his buddies, and the specific names of the "dancing Israeli's"/Mossad agents... that should be at least a list of who knew in advance, and the follow-up would get to "who" told them in advance... and "who" told them...

But, those are tough questions (and really deserve a thread of their own.)

I don't think "how" is a distraction at all, and my reasoning is that at least 1/2 of US citizens think it was 19 Islamic extremists, and do NOT believe it was an event that had to have been pre-planned and the buildings rigged far in advance of the event. That serves as an extremely important wake up call. Too many in the US are still snoring.

Dennis

¤=[Post Update]=¤


I think that fire is the cause for the window blowing out... There is a fire on the floors in that area of the building. I've seen lots of explosions on windows during fire to release pressure.

Here is an interesting point:there is a lot of testimony from the firemen that their air tanks were blowing up. Is it not possible that the explosive sounds heard could have been something else besides a bomb? If air tanks were blowing up, which is unusual enough (very odd) then what else may be under pressure that could blow up? Water tanks are on every floor... that's a thought.

Cars are not that easy to set on fire. You need to really work at it to get one going. In a lot of the 911 photos, it appears that cars of certain makes have the same damage. It is as though the materials that the cars are made out of is the decisive factor in if they were damaged, or if they were damaged at all. This is interesting and does kind of make the idea of random paper flying about catching things on fire seem like an odd idea. i will say that there was A LOT of paper, but I can't seem to find ANY pictures of paper on fire. Can you?

Find any links yet to the Mini nuke evidence?

From the Heart,
Kristin


I'm curious as well as to how the Mini Nukes could have achieved free fall speed in the building... you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that mini nukes dustify and that they left radiation? I know that people can come down with cancer from inhaling concrete dust as well. What are the supportive types of cancer that are caused by mini nukes? How long does the radiation last, when is it safe to live in the area? You should be able to test the radiation levels right now, where is all the evidence to support this?

Hi Kristin,

Did you ever read the Jeff Prager e-books on this?

Dennis

[Referee]

I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

Have you seen this video yet? It goes into detail about the reasons for the attack.

Xu8sZqQTQWY

[Kristin]

The issue that I have with your friend's research is that it relies on heat. I agree with a lot of what he does say though, but not the mini nukes. His theory depends on that it must have been hot in order for there to be vaporized soil and glass measured from the rooftops some 30 days after. That type of assumed heat required is what leads him to to believe that it must be nuclear. But it isn't.

Water is not boiling. People are not frying on site like turkeys. The hydraulic equipment is functioning perfectly as it is lifting seemingly MOLTON metals from the ground. This is NOT POSSIBLE.

The lifting equipment would break down, melt, blow up, and discontinue to function if such heat was there. The people would not be able to work there. The steam would have been a massive cloud (remember that the basin was submerged in water) hanging over Manhattan for months. The water would have been boiling hot. It was not.

However, so what we have here is a cold fire and not a hot one. How is that possible? Well, plasma flames but is cool... that may be something to look into. I think we need to look at things that burn cool, not to assume that what burns is always hot.

Evidence of particles of glass and soil still lingering in the air are signs of a reaction still happening, yes. But that may not be a hot one. I need proof that it was as hot as they say it was... so far I have not come across that proof.

Also, the dust itself is indeed cancerous without having to go through a nuclear reaction to be so. It is already toxic. People where not burned by the dust, covered in it, but not burned. Thousands of people were covered in it. The trees were perfect. There was tons of paper everywhere... none of it was ruined. Why?

[ThePythonicCow]

Plus, in spite of Paul's observation, the video footage, shown in slow motion, shows a force vector with a central building "epicenter" exploding outwards 360° - it is very easily explained by having bombs in the center of the building, not so easy to explain if a weapon (of ANY sort) is directed at the building from outside.
I agree that some of the material is "exploding" (moving damn fast) outward. I see that too in both the video and still images, as well as some of the after affects, such as steel girders smashed really hard into adjacent buildings.

If I stated some observation to the contrary in the last few years, then I'm being inconsistent or I wrote confusion (both have doubtlessly happened at times, and will happen again, as I don't plan on dying anytime soon.)

I would suppose (guessing here) that an egg could explode in an ordinary microwave oven, even as the shell remained cool, calm and collected, right up to the instant that the pressure from the rapid conversion of the egg's interior from liquid to gas pushed the shell outward explosively. This might be so if the microwaves didn't happen to affect the shell much, even as they generated much thermal energy in the interior, and if the heating of the egg yolk was fast enough that there was not sufficient time for much thermal energy to conduct from the egg yolk to the egg shell.

Now if so, the above egg analogy is a rather poor one for me to use, because the WTC towers didn't have some -different- (eggshell like) exterior material. Imagine instead that one could somehow (Jedi mind trick?) hold that egg-shaped interior of such an egg in your microwave without the normal shell containing it, and then turned on the microwave. The egg would perhaps still explode ... with material moving outward rapidly as if a bomb went off inside it.

The point of the previous paragraph is that I can't tell where the energy was initially created, nor by what means it was delivered, simply by knowing that the resulting explosions occurred deep in the towers. I can only tell where the energy was converted to explosively rapid movement of matter. In this case, a substantial portion of that conversion surely took place, as you observe, deep inside the towers.

[KiwiElf]

"When you eliminate the impossible,.."

I'm sure you all know the rest of it... :) The problem is, (with many conspiracy theories - only one cause is often presented as THE cause) - do we really know what's impossible?

Any combination of conventional explosives, high-tech relatively unknown explosives - "ie, secret stuff" ;), mini-nukes, Tesla derived-weaponry, holograms & hidden (cloaked) "other vehicles" could still be involved to varying degrees.

[ThePythonicCow]

I am going to decline your generous offer. Whomever has any information that can help clear up ANY aspect of the 9/11 event owes it to every being on planet Earth to provide that information freely to everyone.
So may I conclude from this that you do not allow any "sold for money" books in your house that have vital information that should be, but is not, freely provided to every human (at least those with a pdf reader)?

If so, I must commend you on your purity of action, word and deed. I am reminded of Richard Stallman's principled rejection of closed source software.

(I'm teasing a bit ... forgive me.)

A fair bit of Judy Wood's material is available on her website http://drjudywood.com/, though not all of it and not as well presented or organized.

[ThePythonicCow]

Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19637&d=1355592615)
Hi Kristin,

I have seen that article before. It is astoundingly awful. Wall-to-wall misinformation/disinformation. Complete disassociation from physics and written in an air of snobby superiority/unassailable authority.

For some reason, it appears to be 'locked' and I cannot copy sections of it, as I usually can with a pdf file.
So far as I can recall, I had not previously seen that article, "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint", by Brent Blanchard (of Protec).

Reading it just now, I found it to be a professionally written position paper written to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC buildings was not a conventional controlled demolition (that much I actually agree with, though not quite from the same perspective.)

However it seemed so deeply embedded in the web of lies surrounding 9/11 that I would not cite it even if it seemed to support some particular position I was taking. I have no confidence that anything written in that paper is truthful, though where convenient, the paper is adept at marshaling bits of the truth when they support the paper's conclusions.

I too am surprised Kristin linked that article :).

(And yes, I too found that it was Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected against ordinary copying and pasting out of its text.)

[ThePythonicCow]

While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?
I just saw 2 or 3 cars burning, in and amongst cars in ordinary condition. The cars that were burning seemed to be close to the ground beneath the towers, if I recall my landmarks from that area correctly. Perhaps some falling debris from the initial "airplane" collisions (or simulated explosions thereof) hit those cars in some way to cause a gas tank or gas line leak?

The smoke from the floor polisher at 3:40 was minimal enough that I could not conclude much of anything from it.

[Kristin]

Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19637&d=1355592615)
Hi Kristin,

I have seen that article before. It is astoundingly awful. Wall-to-wall misinformation/disinformation. Complete disassociation from physics and written in an air of snobby superiority/unassailable authority.

For some reason, it appears to be 'locked' and I cannot copy sections of it, as I usually can with a pdf file.
So far as I can recall, I had not previously seen that article, "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint", by Brent Blanchard (of Protec).

Reading it just now, I found it to be a professionally written position paper written to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC buildings was not a conventional controlled demolition (that much I actually agree with, though not quite from the same perspective.)

However it seemed so deeply embedded in the web of lies surrounding 9/11 that I would not cite it even if it seemed to support some particular position I was taking. I have no confidence that anything written in that paper is truthful, though where convenient, the paper is adept at marshaling bits of the truth when they support the paper's conclusions.

I too am surprised Kristin linked that article :).

(And yes, I too found that it was Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected against ordinary copying and pasting out of its text.)

I agree that it has elements of truth and elements swayed by perspective... so far most of the reports have had both. But I do not think that the article was written as a dis info piece. The lack of seismic activity during the collapse is also backed up in other works as well. One of the things that I find interesting about the building is that it was constructed with an outer shell as the support with the inner construction as extra support. So in some ways Paul, it really is like the egg that you described earlier...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Discrete. Localized. Remember those two words as you watch (in full screen, if possible) slow motion video of the South Tower being "disassembled."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXauBwnvFWk

Only in ultra-sow-motion can you appreciate that what we see near the face of the building are individual, (discrete), explosions - each in a localized area. Look at about 2:30 to about 2:50. The explosions are localized.

Ya know, to be blunt, this is a good case for some sort of "conventional" explosives being detonated behind the face. The explosions are so localized and so discrete, it appears not to be coming from the center of the building (which would have made whole floor/floors appear to go at once.)

We know that something unconventional took all the concrete and a large percentage of the steel and disintegrated it into particles measured in microns (and sub-microns.) The unconventional had to have come from the central core, because the central core is, to a great degree, missing from the rubble. Like the smoke and mirrors (and trap doors) of the magician, it appears that charges (MANY charges) are disassembling the structure behind the face [the magician's trap door], and then the dust cloud [magician's smoke] from that hides [as does a magician's mirror] the immensely powerful yet somewhat constrained mini-nuke charges going off at the central core that made dense solids into particles.

From the evidence, I'd say the mini-nuke charges are directional (mostly out, in a 2-dimensional 360° fan like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, some energy going up, and very little to none going down.) Thus, chunks of the face loosened by the conventional charges and already falling below the floor being disintegrated with neutrons are spared from the "dustification" - (and we do see chunks of the face did make it to the ground.)

By not allowing the energy to go down (or maybe a better way to say it is that the mini-nukes were "shaped charges", directing energy to go mostly outward radially - not spherically - would also account for the lack of much seismic activity. We mustn't get caught in the trap of comparing the seismic data of a conventional nuclear bomb, exploding spherically (3D), shockwave going down, with mini-neutron bombs designed to explode radially (2D), constrained shockwave going out.

By the way, the central core was 4 inch thick steel at the base, and tapered up from there (If I remember correctly, it was 1/2" thick near the top, but maybe that should be 1/4" thick. The "thinnest" steel - if you can call any of it thin - would have been above the "jet crash sites". So, when we are watching the middle third of the tower being disintegrated, we are probably watching at least 1 inch thick steel blasted to particles.) These were immensely strong columns tied together with more steel - a matrix or lattice. There is nothing "egg-like" about this.

Neutrons do massive damage flying through dense objects, and can pass through low density objects. This is consistent with all the concrete (and much of the steel) pulverized and the paper floating down.

And do not discount the explosions that happened PRIOR to the towers coming down, and explosions (including cutter charges near the base) that were probably going off hidden by the smoke and mirrors of the "collapse." ALL eyes and cameras were pointed on the kinetic "collapse", just as the magician knew it would, allowing larger explosions to take place near the base. These may have shot out at cars like a flame thrower as the rubble came down from above and compressed and directed the heat out through doorways and empty windows. No need for dragon's breath or DEW to light cars on fire.

Dennis

[gooty64]

I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.


I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

[ThePythonicCow]

Only in ultra-slow-motion can you appreciate that what we see near the face of the building are individual, (discrete), explosions - each in a localized area. Look at about 2:30 to about 2:50. The explosions are localized.
Nice video.

I was intrigued by comparing two frames at say 0:02 and 0:37 (any of the 20 or 30 frames in each of those two intervals will do.)

Use the top of the church spire between the towers as a reference. Look at WTC 2 (the one on the left, that will fail first). The floors (near floor 80) of the claimed impact of AA Flight 175 are about even with the church top.

Between 0:02 and 0:37, the building above those impact floors is practically removed from existence as an identifiable structure, while the building below that floor seems to be still structurally present (though smoking massively from those blasts you note.) At 0:37, glance over at WTC 1, still standing, to remind oneself just how much building (WTC above floor 80) has gone, in what was in real life I suppose just 2 or 3 seconds.

Poof. One god awful poof. Thirty floors of monster building poofified in perhaps 3 seconds, mostly hidden by the smoke works around floor 80. The heavier portions of that smoke then proceed to fall with gravitational acceleration, hiding whatever did the big poof on the lower 80 floors, at free fall speed, in the next 6 or 7 seconds.

I nominate "poofified" as a new word for WTC research, following in the tradition of Judy Wood's "dustified".

With the main destruction hidden behind by both the smoke and whatever remained of the outer walls, we do not really have a good visual record of the dominant poofication method used. As you note, the explosions you see near floor 80, near the start of this sequence, may bear about as much significance to the dominant mechanism of poofication used as the flicker of the magicians kerchief bears to the real mechanism of his magic act.

[ThePythonicCow]

I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.
And pray tell what has? :)

Actually, it made some "progress". I was a die hard raghead hating, Bush loving, Limbaugh idol 11 years ago. So that's one person who moved off the dime, in part by asking how.

If you read Joseph P. Farrell much, you will notice that he considers the technology and physics to be a major element in understanding our human condition, history and potential.

[gripreaper]

I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.
And pray tell what has? :)

Actually, it made some "progress". I was a die hard raghead hating, Bush loving, Limbaugh idol 11 years ago. So that's one person who moved off the dime, in part by asking how.

I second this. 9-11 being proposed as an "inside job" by a colleague of mine, started me down the rabbit hole and re-catalyzed my "current" awakening. I say current because I was a hard core hippie against the corporatocracy back in my twenties, but that was really just to get laid. Now, my research is to uncover the truth and understand how to use energy to manifest the new paradigm.

If we keep asking the questions as to how, then maybe the who will emerge eventually. The "who" is the largest, most defended, and well kept secret on the planet.

[Dennis Leahy]

I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.


I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

Allow me to offer a bit more on my reasoning for investigating "how" it was done (but still encourage others to start different threads about "who" and "why.")

Consent of the Governed
There is still a pervasive myth that Osama bin Ladin and 19 fundamentalist Islamic terrorist/hijackers planned and executed 9/11. So, who cares? Half the population of the US are ignorant idiots, lost in cognitive dissonance or sound asheep. They watch Dancing With the Stars, or professional sports, or fast cars driving in circles, eat poison-infused nutritionally bankrupt GMO food washed down with flavored fluoride water, argue over the least-worst candidates from the duopoly every 2 or 4 years, and unquestionably believe everything the talking "news" heads on the intellect-vacuum box tell them. Who cares? They don't affect our lives, right?

Well, they do affect our lives. Their ignorance and fear is why my little town has hundreds of new Homeland Security video cameras installed all over town - "looking for terrorists" - while there are innumerable better ways to spend the money that would be helpful. Their ignorance and fear is why there is a Department of Homeland Security and FEMA camps. Their ignorance is why there are teams of blueshirts and scanners and X-ray machines for humans in airports. Their ignorance and fear is why the US can get away with secret black prisons, detainment without due process, officially sanctioned torture, and hellfire missiles shot from drones at Middle Eastern and North African civilians. Their ignorance and fear is why the police forces across the US (echoed in many places in the world) are now equipped and dressed as military. Their ignorance and fear is why there is so little public outcry at the US spending literally more money on military than the next ten largest nations combined! Their ignorance and fear is why there is a "war on terror." Their ignorance and fear is why the US gets away with the imperialist destruction and takeover of nations and the murder of millions of innocents.

I'll add that "how" leads to "who" did NOT do it. And, if it is generally accepted public knowledge that Islamic terrorists did not do it, (because the "how" proves they could not have done it) the governed will not give consent.

Dennis

[Kristin]

I'll tell you one thing we do agree on Dennis... a great deal of energy had to be used to make the towers disappear, a great deal. That being said:

1) The official story is a lie.
2) Means were used to destroy the buildings that are not common knowledge (special black programs).
3) Those that did this have capabilities that are a direct threat to humanity as a whole.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I endorse this thread.

DEW = plausible as anything.
But where? How?
Same as took out that flight out of NY?

Inducing current into fuel cell wiring -- turning steel to molten iron!
Anything is possible with the right math!

[KiwiElf]

Phil Schneider discussed this technology at his many lectures way back in the late 90's - before he was killed. Number of threads on Avalon, videos transcripts etc.

[ThePythonicCow]

Their ignorance and fear is why my little town has hundreds of new Homeland Security video cameras installed all over town - "looking for terrorists"
Well, at least that much makes good sense to me, Dennis.

We all know that Duluth, Minnesota is a hot bed of dangerous terrorism :).

[frozen alchemy]

Sorry for my late arrival and addition to this thread; I don't get over to this forum much.

The 'how' of 9-11 has been a bit of an obsession of mine since I saw it in real time. At the moment I saw the towers disintegrate, my initial thought like everyone else was 'NO WAY, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!' followed immediately by 'nuclear weapons?' followed again by 'Nah...they wouldn't.' What followed was over 1000 hours of scouring through everything I could get my hands on, which it turns out is a lot of material if you have plenty of time on your hands. I listened to the FAA recordings when they were released 'get those blips off my screen!!!', 'is this real or is this a drill?'; the fire and police recordings; I eventually bought a book published by one of the only two photographers allowed at the scene during the initial days and weeks of the cleanup of the pile; I scoured every inch of them, thinking I would find something that no one else had and thus, the smoking gun.

Turns out, it's not what you see, it's what you don't see that's the first clue. In any version of a pancake-guys with box cutters collapse, there should have been included in that pile of mess thousands of desks, computers, phones, printers, room dividers, chairs, toilets, water fountains and coke machines. There wasn't any of that, and in fact there's a very telling interview with a very tired first responder probably less than a week into the 'rescue' stating that, 'you don't find anything; there's not a desk or a chair; I found one piece of a telephone keypad about (a few inches across); everything's turned to dust'.

Now in any sort of 'normal' collapse, all that stuff would have been there, albeit crushed and disfigured. The only filing cabinet found was in a sub-basement, and it was warped as if it had been exposed to extreme heat. There's also the massive U-shaped beam that's curved back on itself without even a trace of a crack. It was exposed to foundry-style heat in the space of ten seconds flat... it's melted like a piece of taffy.

Now add in the massive sustained heat in the basement for four months after the collapse, even with millions of gallons of water poured on it, (keep in mind that after a nuclear weapon is detonated, there's a LOT of leftover fissionable material that continues to react and let off heat for months afterwards and no amount of water will affect it) and the fact that immediately after the collapse a special 'heat absorbing' foam called Pyrocool was ordered in 10s of thousands of gallons and poured on the ground; this foam also absorbs radiation... still the rescuer's boots were melting and there was a strange blue smoke rising from the pile until December and January, visible even from space. The surface of the pile was walkable, barely, and it was possible to bring in heavy equipment and start moving beams to clear the scene, but 30 to 40 feet below in the sub-basements, they had the equivalent of a small China syndrome. It's possible that this accounts for Khalezov's 'melted bedrock' pictures once all the debris was cleared out, or maybe he's right and there was a 15 kiloton nuke in the basement; I just don't buy his description of how the whole building would have disintegrated from the bottom up except for the very top, which then fell down onto the now-molecularly disintegrated 3/4 of the bottom of the building. It doesn't fit the video evidence.

Now, to U.S atomic weapons programs; after 'Tsar Bomba', the largest nuke ever exploded was tested by the Russians, the trail as to research gets a little cold (heh). Turns out they started making the satanic things smaller and smaller. There are now, and have been for a very long while, nukes of any desired yield and radiation signature, including very little and short duration radiation, of tiny size. We're talking an apple, a lunch bag, a potted plant size. An 'I'm here to upgrade your secretary's computer' size. All the talk about 'how could they have wired the buildings?' is a nonsequitur. They didn't need to wire the buildings. A small nuke with enough yield to molecularly disintegrate, say two floors of the building and barely make an impression a half block away, set on every other floor and controlled remotely was how they did it. There may have been cutting charges of thermite used on the large basement beams early on to help the process along but they were not used for the entire building. This is where the Truth Movement is deluded... the ratio of thermite to building mass would have been almost 1:1. You would have had to bring in as much thermite as the building was heavy... not doable. Residual thermite in the basement causing all that heat? No way, it cuts through steel, doesn't explode it, and the reaction cools rapidly. Oddly, most of the Truth Movement refuses to consider nukes which makes me think they're either unable to think outside of their own boxes, or just think if there's no 'normal' mushroom cloud, and nobody reported radiation signatures, it couldn't have been nukes. They also may be disinfo agents, even unwittingly. Actually, an enhanced radiation signature was reported within days of the attack; it was waved off as residual radiation from smoke alarms in the buildings, and even finding that report took me weeks of digging.

Judy Woods' research, although she's wrong about the DEW weapons (if she's right, we have Star Wars style beam stations out in space that can take out anywhere on the planet and frankly, I don't think so) gives big clues otherwise. The toasted cars is a biggie; also the people who barely escaped the dust cloud, which was very hot and of high velocity, dense enough to pick them up and throw them down the street; and the lady who reported that car doors were popping off their hinges and car engines were bursting into flames as she ran by, not their gas tanks, but their engines... It's an EMP effect. No other known weapon accounts for this. The non-burning paper everywhere supports the hypothesis, it would have been unaffected from the blasts once clear of the buildings. As to Judy's other hypotheses, she loses me when she states that the people falling from the building, flailing their arms and legs as they fell were 'trying to tell her something'; some mime of 'it's DEW weapons' or something. She really goes off the deep end, there.

Take a look at the photos of the buildings in mid-collapse. The concrete floor panels, the outside structural beams and office contents are being turned to dust as the residual moisture in the concrete instantaneously boils and expands, a tremendous amount of energy required for this. The aluminum cladding is being blown straight outwards. And the heavy steel inner core beams are the blacker smoke rising upwards, as they are molecularly disintegrated. (There's your mushroom cloud, although it doesn't look like what we've come to expect).

New York City was nuked.

A few other ramblings: in the above video posted by Kristin, I don't think the floor polishing machine is smoking, only that there's dust being caught up by the wind there; as Dennis stated the few cars already burning were probably hit by debris. The reason they could pour all those millions of gallons of water on the pile and not create a steam bath (although it was incredibly hot) was that the bottom of the 'bathtub' was open to the Hudson River.

Another point that I find fascinating; If you watch the archived live video by the Big 3 networks that day, at the moment of impact of the second plane, all three blink out for a second or slightly more at the same time; they were all relaying news helicopter footage at the time. This has been variously described as a 'take-over' by TPTB inserting their hologram of a plane incoming, but I think it may have been another EMP surge. The footage may have been getting forwarded to one of the WTC buildings themselves, or a nearby building in NY and from there to the newscasts and news anchors; and it's possible that a nuke was inadvertently or purposefully set off at the moment of plane impact. At first I thought it might have simply been an electrical outage in their newsfeed, but I doubt it would have recovered so fast if that was it. It may also have simply been a glitch caused by their several second delay in live newscasts so they don't broadcast something they don't want to.

[ThePythonicCow]

Imagine getting in your time machine with a fully functioning Apache attack helicopter and crew, and going back 100 years, to attack and destroy some famous landmark wooden building. Then make a second trip in your time machine, back just 90 years, to observe that people are debating whether it was a flying sail boat or a mechanical bird, or one of those crazy Wright brothers mechanized kites that destroyed that building. The commonly available understanding of what technology was possible 90 or 100 years ago simply could not have described an Apache helicopter with any technical accuracy.

I think that is in part the problem we are facing with explaining how the WTC towers were taken down. The technology used, even the underlying fundamental physics needed to understand that technology, is simply not available in the public domain at this time, on this planet. So we left debating whether it was nukes or directed energy weapons, when neither is a particularly good explanation, all things considered. Black ops physics and the technology based on it is "something else" altogether.

[Flash]

Sincerely Frozen Alchemy, the most comprehensive and viable explanation I have seen to date. Thank you.

[ThePythonicCow]

The reason they could pour all those millions of gallons of water on the pile and not create a steam bath (although it was incredibly hot) was that the bottom of the 'bathtub' was open to the Hudson River. But the bottom of the bathtub is below the level of the river ...?

[Hervé]

...

:rant:


Why do the people who start threads on 9-11 keep missing the obvious?

1) It was planned long in advance (if only to co-ordinate the military to hold an interdisciplinary drill on that specific date);

2) Accordingly, anyone in the loop banked on it from the Deutsche Bank, Bush family, Silverstein, DOD (2.3 trillion $$ budget hole paper trail... gone), PATRIOT act, etc... as in "Never let a good crisis go to waste;"

3) Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

And that one is the OBVIOUS: Huge media coverage -- hammered world wide -- of 3 buildings turned into volcanic ashes in a matter of minutes.

THREE buildings and their contents turned into volcanic ash in front of the entire world's eyes!

To say the least, that's no ordinary weapon!

Any precedent scenario?

WW II wasn't ended until they were ready to explode their atomic bombs over Japan... that plunged the entire planet into a cold war and a nuclear arm race which separated the world into two blocks and their "satellite" slave countries for "protection" otherwise known as "racket."

Then the "earthquake machine" put Japan finance ministers under a gun held to their heads for them to follow Rockefeller's whims... or else... Haiti was another warning to the world's non-compliant leaders (Clinton's relief funds website for Haiti was put up a few days before the Haiti quake... ooopppsss... have Haitians ever seen the color of these funds?)

Then 9-11 and the OBVIOUS use of a non-ordinary weapon for the world to see... if that's not a message to world leaders similar to the nuclear bombing of Japan but, this time, in the hands of "terrorists," that is: "anywhere, anytime;" I don't know what is!

Anyway, that's my "WHY!"

... and the "how" is still under more wraps than "Project Manhattan" ever was... hummmfff... Project Manhattan... Manhattan... project...

[frozen alchemy]

The reason they could pour all those millions of gallons of water on the pile and not create a steam bath (although it was incredibly hot) was that the bottom of the 'bathtub' was open to the Hudson River. But the bottom of the bathtub is below the level of the river ...?

As I understand it, the water they were pouring on it, and the intermittent large amount of rain, ran out and down (or they would have flooded all of Manhattan); I can only conclude they were just slightly enough above sea level to allow drainage. There well may be pumps in the sewer system keeping things going in the right direction.

[ThePythonicCow]

As I understand it, the water they were pouring on it, and the intermittent large amount of rain, ran out and down (or they would have flooded all of Manhattan); I can only conclude they were just slightly enough above sea level to allow drainage. There well may be pumps in the sewer system keeping things going in the right direction.
The essential reason for the bathtub was to keep the Hudson river water out of the World Trade Center basement, which definitely extends below river level (which is the same as sea level there.)

So yes, pumps or some such were required if water was pumped in faster than it would evaporate.

[ThePythonicCow]

For a while, another thread known as Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60058-Mystery-Solved-The-WTC-was-Nuked-on-9-11?) was merged into this present thread, but now it is again its own separate thread. I merged the threads as the other thread started out on the same topic and perspective as this thread, but the other thread took on a life of its own. So I have just now reversed that merge.