portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article questions united states

9.11 investigation | technology

Why don't 9 11 truth clowns have even one credible source?

It's well known that 9 11 truth is a sham.
Why don't they have any credible sources? Because they're full of shit. Show us your sources or go back into your alex jones fantasy-land.

Have you got one credible source on WTC Building 7 ? 26.Feb.2012 22:44

still waiting

.

. 26.Feb.2012 22:47

.

Please don't use the Open Publishing Newswire to post short opinionated statements. What you posted is only appropriate on a message board, and this is not a message board. Come back here when you are ready to post an event announcement or a meaningful report-back of some sort. Thanks for degrading the indymedia experience for everyone else.

Have you? 26.Feb.2012 22:58

(A)

Yes, and the onus is on you to disprove the NIST claims that are supported by many other scientific institutions including Purdue University, and the NFPA. But you wont because you hare full of shit.

So now the government is a 'credible source' ? 26.Feb.2012 23:11

NIST

subsidiary agency of U.S. Department of Commerce
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce

measurements and standards (not forensic / engineering /architectural) laboratory, formerly known as NBS (National Bureau of Standards).

talk about bureaucracy!

Yep... Your a real sleuth 26.Feb.2012 23:51

(A)

Hallmark of the delusional, if someone is bad in one way everything that they ever do is an obfuscated manipulation. Look the government is a piece of shit, and it lies occasionally, but more damaging is the fact that it doesn't have to fucking lie it will tell you the truth, though often coated with rhetoric, and you either go along or get stomped on.

The government is not shitty because it lies, it's shitty because it uses violence to make people do it's bidding whether, sometimes it lies about this and sometimes not, is not the main issue. Fucking get a grip on reality truth-clown.

Yes, the NIST is a credible source so is the FDA and NASA and a lot of other scientific government agencies. So bring us a refutation from another credible source or go the fuck away!

"Refutation" of _what_ ? 27.Feb.2012 00:19

you're the one who started this thread

and now the FDA is 'credible' -

ooh-kaay..... (from the dude who has time on his hands to post .gifs of Keanu Reeves and the Pizza Man)

"government is not shitty because it lies, it's shitty because it uses violence" 27.Feb.2012 00:27

it's not even about being "shitty"

it's about what governments (all of them, ever have always both lied _and_ used violence you can't neatly dichotomize the two, Mr. Obfuscator + supporter-of-U.S.-government-policies-lies-and-violence) will do to achieve objectives, for example:

-------------
Nazi Germans posing as Poles in the Gleiwitz incident (part of the overall Operation Himmler falsifying impressions of Polish aggression towards Germany), 31 August 1939

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
-------------


-------------
Soviet Union's staged shelling (to implicate Finland) of the Russian village of Mainila, November 1939

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila
-------------


geopolitical objectives are driven by covert operations (which includes false flags). this can be traced for example through the history of American foreign policy after World War II; even in the actions aka 'proxy wars' which were part of the Cold War - i.e. containment of Communism.

look at the war in Laos. (the French had been on the ground there since 1946.) US Army special forces were first deployed there in 1959 - Operation White Star. how many American citizens had really heard of Laos or Cambodia before 1969-70 (and the US invasion in April of the latter)? Operation Barrel Roll, an interdiction and air support force over Laos began in 1964. Project 404 was a secret operation supporting the Royal Laotian Air Force after 1966, in which US airmen wore civilian clothes. for the better part of 3 decades the US conducted and funded a fleet of secret airlines to run heroin and other illegal drugs in support of those conflicts.

furthermore, the Gulf of Tonkin incident itself has been historically shown up as a complete ruse (no attack whatsoever on the night of August 4th 1964).

we are at constant war on a covert level. the CIA and other now-established institutions within the monster that D.D. Eisenhower warned us about have been cooking this stuff up for better part of 7 decades.

1962's Operation Northwoods false flag operation included plans for provoked military aircraft incidents, faked hijackings and substitute planes:

------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to
continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.
Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface
craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly
that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner
en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela.
The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross
Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday
or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a
non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact
duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary
organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the
selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The
actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be
scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point
the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go
directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have
been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original
status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight
plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international
distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban
MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the
aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO
radio[15] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has
happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that
Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international
waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from
Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to
reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in
southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights
at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles
off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live
ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at
considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this
pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No
other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at
extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The
aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new
tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would
resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The
pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot
down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts,
parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and
depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of
aircraft found.[16]

------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------


- - - - -
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag

False Flag

A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as
American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization
Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.

BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012
- - - - -


 http://www.truth-out.org/iran-and-shape-things-come/1329853237
- - - - -
False flag operations are as old as warfare itself: reflect on the
Lavon Affair or Operation Northwoods. In most parts of the world, the
people are inheritors of millennia-old cultures and they understand
that the false flag is how governments operate regardless of what
their state media tell them. But most Americans, who wear self-
righteous gullibility around their necks like a millstone and crave
simple Manichean dramas, are easy marks for the false flag.
- - - - -

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

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

" Yes, the NIST is a credible source " 27.Feb.2012 00:30

+

the Fire Protection standards -- one of NIST's primary responsibilities -- have nothing to do with the physics, engineering and architectural forensics that _caused_ the free fall collapses of 3 skyscrapers (including one that wasn't hit by an aircraft) the same day due to "weakening from fire".

Keep in mind what NIST actually is, btw -
- - - -
NIST is the federal technology agency that works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards.
- - - -

it's just the agency which sets standards for products and manufacturers. It is not an analytical or forensic agency such as is the FAA in matters of air traffic accidents. between 1901 and 1988 it was known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Their widely used Handbook 44 provides "specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices". It's merely a highly technical, precise measurements laboratory. NOT a forensic one.

Their investigation of the WTC collapses was not really centered around the *engineering* reasons or architectural forensics of the collapse itself; it was only to provide fire codes and building standards for the pre-conceived notion of 'collapse by fire' (which has never happened to a steel frame skyscraper before or since 9/11) for future building construction. Essentially, all skyscrapers built since 9/11 thanks to NIST are now 'ultra fire safe'.

but they're not free-fall-collapse-in-less-than-10-seconds safe (especially when a controlled demolition is performed).

So your [sic] can't refute them? 27.Feb.2012 01:13

I'm sorry

you didn't get the memo. The NIST reports on the WTC skyscraper collapses fail to explain how those buildings collapsed in the time that they collapsed and in the manner that they collapsed.

as soon as you have an explanation for how those steel skyscrapers (designed to withstand impacts of fully-loaded airliners, which they obviously did no matter how many videos/angles you view) collapsed in their own footprint in less than 10 seconds each, please put it here in your own words.

by the way the "refutation" (RE: buildings in NYC) is _long ago_ over and done. So stop asking about it.

What we need now is your explanation of the anthrax attacks.

The Justice Department recently disagreed with its own, and the FBI's conclusions as to who performed those attacks so soon after 9/11. as in, how the person who performed the attacks, achieved access to a secret and exclusive weaponized strain of anthrax. i.e. the anthrax didn't come from a cave in Afghanistan (country the U.S. was bombing/invading right at that time)

The steel construction of the WTC towers made free fall collapse impossible. 27.Feb.2012 05:58

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Just look at the steel construction of the towers and you will see structural steel over kill. When building towers of such magnitude engineers always take the "better safe than sorry" approach to structural strength. Without controlled demolition and if the steel on the plane impact floors were actually weakened by the impact and fire of the planes then the top part of the towers would have just fallen over leaving the remaining bottom part of the towers standing. But even with the impact and fire of the planes it is doubtful that the steel was damaged to complete failure.

The government is lying. "WMDs in Iraq!" The government is lying. "Nuclear power is safe!" The government is lying. "Pharmaceuticals are safe!" The government is lying. "We are winning in Afghanistan!" The government is lying. etc. etc.. The government is a pathological liar.

More Photos 27.Feb.2012 06:13

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Photos

Why can't one ask? 27.Feb.2012 09:48

Shaker

There are refutations of NIST. Get off your ass and look. Some of the better papers are European. There is the premise, though, that one can understand what is being posited by both NIST and those refutations. Maybe it's a waste of time bothering, huh? Would you understand the terms involved, or are still challenged by even an understanding of fire?

And since when is NIST's report any less speculation than those who believe (and have engineering principles on their side, also) in different accounting of the damage? "A", get YOUR head out of the Jones' ass (both of them) and look around. Begin where your education left off, and progress from there. I won't turn you on to some papers that may only confuse. You'll know where to begin, or won't begin at all, and will remain as you are. Which makes one wonder why you posted this at all except to be pissy.

links or it didn't happen 27.Feb.2012 11:35

..

Shaker if there really are so many peer reviewed scientific papers that refute the NIST report, then why not post links? At least cite names of institutions and publications (that are respected and peer reviewed) that have a dissenting view on the events that transpired on 911. I don't expect that you will actually link to credible sources, but it will be hilarious to see what wild ass assertion and huge leaps of logic you will come up with next.

Maybe These Anti-Truth Posts Are A Psy-op? 27.Feb.2012 12:39

blues

I have never seen such trolling or name calling in any Portland Indymedia post before!

Regardless of your other political ideas, you can decide to believe all or some amount of the official narrative or not. It is a scientific argument involving unique non-repeatable events. It is also very political also, and needs to be examined.

People who troll others and call names are either trolls or much worse. We must often agree to disagree on things, since solidarity is not conformity. They are dividing us into opposing camps for no good reason, and it could well lead to our conquest.

Below is my comment on the earlier thread, which I attempted to make in the middle of the night of Feb. 26. Although it contained no trolling or name calling, It was rejected in the "Question for anarchists: why embrace-endorse the official explanation for 9/11/01 events?" thread. Here it is:

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧

Not such a "Simple Question?"


Not everybody around here thinks of themselves as anarchist. For example, there are:

A- Anarchists

B- Socialists, Equalitists, etc.

C- Some who can't quite discern what an "anarchist" might be

I am an equalitist who can't quite tell the difference between "anarchist" and "anti-authoritarian." So maybe I am "B", and perhaps "C". Anyhow, Official Explanations are nearly always just propaganda. I would never, for example, ask if socialists should "embrace" them!

Yes, some architects believe the official line. But thousands of them do not. I do not believe it either because I saw the Twin Towers explode just like fuses with my own eyes. They miraculously turned into a fine dust, and all of this evidence was hauled away or destroyed within days. And I saw #7 come down exactly as if it was a controlled demolition. So obviously something is seriously in need of further explanation!

(This strange "isolationist" issue keeps popping up. The military and the bankers hate "isolationism"; it's bad for their useless business. I don't know if I'm "isolationist". I am for tariffs and against gratuitous wars.)

It's very wrong to say 9/11 skeptics need tin foil hats. I would never accuse people who believe the official story of living under rocks, for example.

Here are some architects, engineers, and demolition experts who believe the buildings were deliberately blown up:

Danny Jowenko, 1955-2011: How a Demolition Expert Brought Explosive Attention to 9/11 Truth
 http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/550-jowenko.html

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 http://www.ae911truth.org/

The Basic Case 28.Feb.2012 17:26

tsbi

Specifically, AE911 Truth makes these arguments:

Crucial elements of the key government study on the step-by-step events that occurred in the collapse of the WTC buildings don't stand up to analytical scrutiny. The study was undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Department of Commerce agency responsible for building and other safety codes and standards.

Airplane crash and subsequent fire aren't sufficient cause to bring down the towers, not even when combined with the presumed dislodgment of fireproofing that protected the core steel beams in the areas where the planes struck. This dislodgment, NIST firmly asserts, made the steel vulnerable to softening by fire and induced the collapse-the first ever of a steel-framed building hit by fire.

NIST never tested for explosive residues despite indications, including many eyewitness accounts from first-responders and people who escaped the buildings, that explosives and incendiaries were present. Strikingly, eight years after the event, NIST still argues "there is no hard evidence to warrant such testing" and refuses to order fairly inexpensive tests, doing so even in the face of the 2008 independent study that claimed to find traces in reputed WTC debris of the military incendiary thermite, which cuts through steel. This controversial study has been reinforced by the results published in April in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Many technical professionals call the failure to test a science research "travesty."

The collapse of the three buildings resembles two different types of controlled demolitions and not the bending or toppling of a heated building section that might result from a fire.

In support of these arguments, NIST's critics cite a large number of highly technical papers, most posted on the Web, that specifically challenge or recalculate scores of elements of the NIST case. (See chart online.) Meanwhile, NIST supporters have posted technical papers on various Web sites seeking to "debunk" NIST challengers, including accusations of "false statements" and manipulation of evidence by AE911 and Gage (see wtc7lies.googlepages.com and AE911truth.org/info). For laypersons, the takeaway is that a profound technical argument is underway, with the technical papers sitting alongside often vituperative blogging on both sides of the WTC dispute.

Following the collapses, NIST assembled a panel of more than 300 staff and external experts and spent three years and $20 million on what it calls the most exhaustive technical study ever of a building collapse. Released in 2005, the initial NIST report concluded that the towers, which NIST agrees could not be brought down by fire alone, collapsed because of a combination of factors. Crucially, this included the presumed fireproofing dislodgment. This allowed certain beams and trusses to soften sufficiently to force an inward bending of perimeter-supporting steel beams, putting so much pressure on the fire-weakened and severed center steel columns (three severed in one tower and five in another, out of 47 in each) that the buildings collapsed in the areas where the planes had struck.

NIST also stated that there was more than enough mass plus acceleration of the upper Twin Towers' floors as they fell to force a collapse of the lower structure straight down at nearly freefall speed, with each floor adding weight and force to the pressures on the floors below-a theory NIST says is supported by elaborate computer models.

NIST's report on the third collapsed building, WTC7, released in August 2008, argues that computer modeling of existing evidence also doesn't support an explosives theory. The report concludes that WTC7 was brought down by seven hours of fires combined with falling debris from the towers that weakened an entire building section, forcing the collapse of a key support column such that the building then caved in.

Aside from an article in a 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics, which debunked critiques of NIST and the explosives theory, there has been no in-depth examination in the press of both sides of this argument even after AE911 Truth began to organize and present evidence challenging the official narrative and Popular Mechanics' defense of it.

Enter Richard Gage

Within his 20-year career, Richard Gage, 53, has designed numerous fireproofed steel-framed buildings. In recent years, his work has focused on being the onsite managing architect during actual building construction.

Gage, a Reagan supporter, had a moment of clarity when he first heard alternative theories of 9/11 presented in March 2006 by Griffin. As he tells it, he was driving to a construction meeting and crossed the talk-radio political divide that day to listen to progressive Pacifica Radio's KPFA interviewing Griffin.

"What Griffin was saying is that the ends of these beams that were ejected out of the World Trade Center at 55-70 miles per hour were dripping with molten steel and they landed more than 500 feet away," Gage recounted. The station also played eyewitness interviews recorded after 9/11, including with first-responders, who described hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light that would support an explosives/incendiaries theory.
"So I began looking at the research and official report myself. The more I read, the more disturbed I got, and I realized fairly quickly what I needed to do, and that was to start Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

Before this, Gage noted, he hadn't paid heed to the technical details of the collapse. Particularly striking to him was that the eyewitness interviews had been released to the N.Y. Times by court order in August 2005-nearly four years after 9/11.

"This was information that has been hidden by New York City, and it became obvious why they hid it," Gage said. "So I began looking at the research and official report myself. The more I read, the more disturbed I got, and I realized fairly quickly what I needed to do, and that was to start Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

As its founder and executive director, the soft-spoken, gentlemanly Gage has since become something like a subversive Al Gore, delivering his disturbingly inconvenient PowerPoint presentation that challenges most of the key elements of the NIST report. (See AE911truth.org.) Somewhat obsessed with recruiting as many building professionals as possible, Gage left his job and now, supported by contributions to AE911, spends much of his time traveling from city to city presenting the core forensic case to bodies of fellow experts.

"Most all of the architects and engineers I present to are completely overwhelmed, as I was, with the forensic-based scientific facts surrounding this case," Gage said. "And all of them, virtually, sign up on our Web site to demand a new investigation by Congress." Gage said he gets similar buy-in from nonprofessional groups, including conservatives.

Gage maintains that even allowing for the chunks of fireproofing NIST argues were stripped away by airplane impact, steel framing serves as a heat conductor, actually cooling fire and equalizing the burden on any one steel section. "The steel doesn't get to the temperature that would cause it to weaken," he said. "No steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire, and we have almost 100 examples."

As for NIST's theory that once the towers' impact-area beams gave way, the mass above them would rapidly crush the lower stories, Gage argues that this premise ignores the laws of physics inherent in the resistance provided by the powerful steel structure of the lower floors-a statement that earns him major buy-in from building professionals. "No force can crush that kind of a structure at - freefall acceleration. It's ludicrous," he said. "Not only that, the videos show that 95 percent of the South Tower is being blown outside, indicating explosions. And the top of the North Tower is being reduced in volume from 15 stories to seven stories before it even starts to drop. Half of its mass is destroyed and displaced laterally in the first two seconds. Later, the rest of the mass has completely disappeared and then blown outward such that there's nothing left to drive this building down to the ground. This remaining mass cannot fall at near freefall speed and crush 80,000 tons of steel and pulverize to powder 90,000 tons of concrete and create tons of molten metal by some unknowable process."

NIST's Defense

Defending NIST's research, NIST spokesperson Michael Newman responded that the amount of fireproofing dislodged by airplane impact is a factor crucially not present in fires in other high-rise fires cited by Gage. NIST, supported by a number of independent building and explosives professionals who are critical of AE911, also stands behind its theory of the upper floors' impact. "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down. If you have 20 floors of mass suddenly released, as it goes downward it picks up more mass and more force-and, yes, you can have a building collapse in 10 seconds and, yes, it is physically possible. We believe that three years of hard scientific technical investigation based around a tremendous amount of evidence and confirmed by many physicists will give you the same conclusions."

Newman argued that while the upper stories' collapse created powerful pneumatic air pressure that blew outward substantial debris, mimicking explosions, NIST's calculations confirmed there was sufficient remaining mass to hammer down the lower floors, each failed floor adding to the descending mass.

Gage and many other "not-so-fast" scientific and professional colleagues argue that they easily found major flaws in the NIST study as well as omission of significant evidence.

Most prominently, the 47-story steel structure Building 7, never struck by a plane, collapsed anyway-from hours of fires and damage from falling debris, NIST said. Dismissing this as "nonsense for a modern steel building designed to withstand such fires and specifically designed such that no one column's failure would bring down the building," Gage and others note that a major clue that something was producing far more heat than a jet-fuel or office fire could are alleged sightings by some first-responders and later by some of the debris-removal crews of molten metal, like hot lava, some found glowing in the basements of WTC buildings up to three weeks after 9/11-far longer than jet-fuel fires could produce. (Interviews of many cleanup crewmembers by a demolition company found no evidence of molten steel sightings. Gage cites evidence to the contrary.)

NIST's answer: Any molten metal sightings, including metal seen pouring from the South Tower, were likely airplane aluminum. Newman added that NIST wasn't presented with evidence of molten steel and if some melted, this occurred after the event, in fires underground. Gage dismissed this as "impossible without a source of oxygen such as from thermate," adding that molten metal seen in NIST-cited videos isn't the color of molten aluminum.

Gage and other professionals point to other indications of explosives. Besides vast mushroom clouds of dust and debris exploding outward at the top of both towers, videos show squibs-puffs of smoke or air-shooting out of the towers above and below the crash areas. Moreover, some on-air reporters described the explosions, joining first-responders and escapees as eyewitnesses.

According to Newman, NIST determined that the squibs and mushroom clouds were caused by compressed air from the force of the collapse finding openings and blowing debris, dust, and air puffs outward in an explosive manner. (NIST critics claim this is refuted by independent technical calculations.) Eyewitness accounts of explosions, Newman added, weren't evident in 10,000 interviews NIST conducted, and a few such reports can be explained by other phenomena.

Critics of AE911 agree. Typically, the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories argues that explosive sounds likely derived from electrical and air conditioning transformers exploding, the sound of floors collapsing onto each other, or rivets popping all at once as the pressure got to them. "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets," the Journal quotes one firefighter saying.

Enter Dr. Jones and Thermite

Supporting AE911's theory is Dr. Steven E. Jones, a nuclear physicist known for his work in cold fusion. Jones said that in 2006 he was forced into early retirement from his position as a professor at Brigham Young University because of his attempts to show that powerful explosives were present in the WTC towers.

After Jones's initial analysis was criticized harshly for flaws by BYU's own building engineering department, Jones and other scientists co-authored a new critique accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Open Civil Engineering Journal that mentioned thermite as a potential culprit in the buildings' collapses.

This was followed by another peer-reviewed research paper published last April in a scientific journal. Co-authored by Jones and Associate Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University's famed Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, and by Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab manager for BYU's Transmission Electron Microscopy Lab, as well as four other researchers, the paper provided vivid microscopic photo evidence of highly flammable red-gray chips that the authors say appear to be super-thermite found in reputed WTC dust samples sent to Jones by four New Yorkers who had separately collected them shortly after 9/11.
"So, the body of evidence all ties together to support the hypotheses of a controlled demolition."

Thermite, a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide, will burn through steel. Adding silicon, magnesium, or titanium makes it thermate, also known as nano-thermite or "super-thermite," a substance with an accelerated capacity to cut through steel. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades. "Dr. Jones found the chemical signature of thermite," Gage said. "So, the body of evidence all ties together to support the hypotheses of a controlled demolition."

In an interview, Jones said microanalysis of the four samples of dust collected from various sites in Lower Manhattan revealed not only extensive presence of red-gray chips of unignited nano-thermite, but it also found significant traces of microspheres of previously molten iron that normally are the product of incendiary explosions far hotter than jet-fuel fires.

"These red chips are very unusual and very prevalent, and they test out as being consistent with a form of thermite," Jones said. "We can ignite them and they react very violently when touched off. So how do you explain their presence in the towers' dust?"

Jones noted that the U.S. Geological Survey, which did some testing on WTC dust for NIST and found the microspheres, never tested for explosives or incendiaries because NIST never ordered them. "I have been encouraging them to test early dust samples, but they haven't responded," Jones said.

Jones said he sent a letter in April 2008 to NIST about his original findings, inviting NIST to test its own dust for such chips. In public comments since, NIST has said that Jones's research is not "scientifically valid" because Jones can't prove the "chain of custody" of the dust he tested.

Other groups that support NIST's findings (debunking911.com, 911myths.com) argue that neither the samples nor Jones's tests are reliable. Jones replied simply: "They don't need my dust to test. They have plenty of dust of their own where they know the chain of custody. They just won't test it."
NIST Counters

When asked the key question about testing WTC dust for thermite, Newman replied: "So why didn't we look for explosive residues in the towers? Because there was no evidence saying to go that way. There was a lot of evidence saying look at the impact of the plane, the loss of fireproofing, the bowing of the perimeter beams, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back."

Even so, why not test debris and dust-a relatively simple operation-to silence the question of explosives or incendiaries?

Newman explained, "We did calculate the quantity of thermite that would be needed : and found there would be a tremendous amount needed in each column to get it to melt. : You would need thousands of pounds, which would make it unlikely it would be used for a controlled explosion."
"We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate."

Newman acknowledged that NIST's response that it sees "no need" to test dust for any form of thermite may not satisfy critics. And he added: "We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate. We'd rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work-in many ways pushing investigations way beyond what's gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn't have happened if they doubted our findings."

To Gage and his allies, NIST's refusal to test and its questionable conclusions derive from government-dependent employees and defense contractors fearful that evidence of explosives would be too traumatic for the public-and too risky to NIST captains answerable to political superiors. Hence, NIST's refusal to address fully scientific papers challenging nearly every element of its case, including its theory that pneumatic air pressure mimicked explosives and that tons of nano-thermite (not less-powerful thermite) would be needed.

Inevitably, of course, the gorilla in the room is what if AE911 and the Jones team are correct in their analysis? The dark notion that the hijackers wouldn't need airplanes if they could plant explosives would raise questions of who did have access and what was their motive? And how would America deal with such an investigation against the backdrop of suppositions that some officials in government were complicit? This idea is virtually unthinkable to most of the public, much less something the American political system can handle. A Democratic Congress wouldn't cut off funds for a war it opposed nor impeach a president who broke laws; how would it cope with the cataclysmic implications of new 9/11 evidence that disproved the official story? How would any president, much less "let's only look ahead" Barack Obama, confront such a nightmare?

All of which suggests that a great breakthrough from AE911's efforts isn't likely. The forces of denial, in the system and in most of our minds, are innately powerful and probably sufficient to mitigate against a reopened investigation. Despite this, Gage sees his role as provoking a better investigation.

"We and millions of other Americans are part of a grassroots movement," he said.


^^^TLDR^^^ 29.Feb.2012 15:19

(E)

So... you have no credible source then?

(E) is for English 29.Feb.2012 16:33

(language)

^


The Open Chemical Physics Journal 29.Feb.2012 16:40

ISSN: 1874-4125

[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ーC, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


Download PDF
 http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf


Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories 29.Feb.2012 16:44

Kevin Ryan

March 28, 2006

"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center."--Shankar Nair, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001


Turn on C-Span, or "Meet The Press," or any other media program presenting federal officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever hope to see an end.


The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC

Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos, we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American. If we are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how three tall buildings collapsed due to fire, all on the same day, when no such thing has ever happened before.

The Twin Towers and Why They Fell

It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4

One would expect that any explanation for the destruction of such buildings would need to be very solid as well. Four years after 9/11, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally did give us their version of "why and how" two of the buildings collapsed, but its explanation may be even less effective than the 9/11 Commission report.5 Now that the official story has been given, however, we can see just how weak and ill-defined our basis for this War on Terror has been all along. Additionally, we can track the evolution of official comments about collapse and see who was involved.

Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players

Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses."
Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.6

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8

There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of September 11th," which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into "licorice." Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories.9 They will probably come to regret it.

This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed---were sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel.

Another expert who served on NIST's advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk - clunk - clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12 This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted version of what happened.

The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why the Towers Fell," in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed. NIST's report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.13


NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.

Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18

By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21

For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed.

After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.

Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety.

For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives.

My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.

Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them.

Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.

So much has been sacrificed, and so much has been invested in this story, that we all have a need for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers, all our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where scientific results are reversed to support politically correct, pre-determined conclusions. That critical point of divergence, where our lives were turned upside down and all logic followed, has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be imagined at all.

Some of us remain hopeful that we can still achieve a critical mass awareness of the need for truth, and in doing so pull the support out from under what John McMurtry calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we should remember how we got this story and how it was propped up despite all the evidence against it. Because whatever happens next, after the smoke clears, our children may have a need to know.

NOTES

[1] Richard Heinberg, "Gtterd舂merung," Museletter, No.144, March 2004 ( http://www.museletter.com/archive/144.html).

[2] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie," 911 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005 ( http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php).

[3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.

[4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

[5] Jim Hoffman, "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century," 911Research.wtc7.net, December 8, 2005 ( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

[6] Website for Teng & Associates ( http://www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp).

[7] Website for National Directory of Expert Witnesses ( http://national-experts.com/members2/witness.asp?d_memnum=07572&d_lnum=2).

[8] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 ( http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:15:10.

[9] Sheila Barter, "How the World Trade Center Fell," BBC News, September 13, 2001 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).

[10] Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Chapter 2.

[11] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.

[12] Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men of Steel: The Story of the Family that Built the World Trade Center (New York: Crown Publishers, 2002), 365.

[13] Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002), 27.

[14] Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25.

[15] NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) ( http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195.

[16] Silverstein's statement is contained in "America Rebuilds," PBS documentary, 2002 (www.pbs.org/americarebuilds). It can be viewed (www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file ( http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3).

[17] "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John Skilling," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 124.

[18] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, 138.

[19] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.

[20] Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20.

[21] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.

[22] Kevin Ryan, "The Collapse of the WTC," 911 Visibility Project, November 11, 2004 ( http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).

[23] John Dobberstein, "Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse," South Bend Tribune, November 22, 2004 ( http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856).

[24] NIST, Final Report, 196.

[25] Comments from Underwriters Laboratories on NIST WTC report, NIST website ( http://wtc.nist.gov/comments/ULI_Ganesh_Rao_8-5-05.pdf).

[26] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 ( http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:18:50.

[27] NIST, Final Report, 197.

[28] NIST presentation on WTC7 collapse investigation, NIST website ( link to wtc.nist.gov).

[29] John McMurtry, "9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes." In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006). My present essay will also appear in this volume.


Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 29.Feb.2012 16:51

Gordon Ross

Author:
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in
both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John
Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at gordonjross _at_ yahoo.com.

Summary:
This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1
after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the
momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy
deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue
under the constraints of this paper.

Introduction:
Previous analysis of the momentum transfer in the collapse of the towers has viewed
them as being floors suspended in space and have examined the momentum transfer as a series of
elastic or inelastic collisions, which are independent of each other. This type of analysis takes the
momentum transfer out of the context given by the other effects of the collisions. This is because
this type of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only the topmost storey of the
impacted section. The reality of the situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon
several storeys in the lower section and for a valid analysis all of these momentum transfers must
be included.

If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational
acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate
that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its
mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by
Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength
within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this
analysis.

Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would
grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of
time and distance.

This force would also be felt by the columns below the storey which was first impacted.

Analysis:
The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact
would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load
these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase. We
shall firstly examine this incremental time period.

Bazant/Zhou [1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column
under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase.

1/ The elastic phase shows a linear relationship between load and deflection up to the
elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and the deflection at the elastic
limit for steel is generally 0.2% of the initial length.

2/ The shortening phase allows for the same failure load to be applied until the vertical
deformation reaches 3% at which point the column begins to form buckle points.

3/ The third phase shows a rapid decrease in the load requirement to continue
deformation, this load necessarily being less than the failure load. This phase lasts until
the total vertical deformation equals the original length. In other words the column is
bent in two.

To shorten the columns of the first impacted storey by 3%, sufficient to complete the
plastic shortening phase, a distance of about 0.111 metres, and allowing a constant speed of 8.5
metres per second, would take a minimum of 0.013 seconds.

The speed of the propagation wave through a medium is given by the general formula for
wave propagation
Velocity = Square root ( Bulk modulus / Density ),
and for structural steel is of the order of 4500 metres per second.

The propagation wave of the impact force would therefore travel a distance of 58.7 metres in a
time of 0.013 seconds. This means that during the time taken in the plastic shortening of the
impacted columns, the same force would be felt at a minimum distance of 58.7 metres, or
approximately 16 storeys, from the impact. These storeys would thus suffer an elastic deflection
in response to, and proportional to, the failure load applied at the impacted floor. These
deflections would themselves take time and allow the propagation wave to move further
downwards again affecting more storeys.

We can estimate the elastic deflection of these 16 storey columns as being in the range 0
to 7mm. The full elastic deflection of a 3.7m column, using the generally accepted figure of
0.2% of its original length is 7.4mm. The columns in the uppermost of these storeys would suffer
almost their full elastic deflection since their failure load is similar though slightly greater than
that of the first impacted storey. Those storey columns more distant from the impact would be of
a larger cross section, requiring higher loads to cause full elastic deflection. Using only half of
the maximum elastic deflection, 56mm (16 * 7 / 2), is, again, an assumption in favour of collapse
continuation.

The elastic deflection of lower storeys would increase the distance through which the
falling section would have to move in order to load the impacted column and complete its 3%
plastic shortening. The time taken, again using a constant velocity of 8.5 m/sec would increase to
about 0.02 seconds, and thus allow the propagation wave to move through and affect a further 8
storeys.

Because these columns suffer a vertical deflection, the attached floors move downwards
and they will therefore have a velocity and momentum.

Energy Losses:
A simple conservation of momentum calculation, ignoring these movements, would have,
16 falling storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec before impact, changing to 17 storeys moving at (8.5 *
(16/17)) = 8 m/sec after impact. This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further
storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds.

To estimate and illustrate the further momentum changes we can assume that the storey
which is 25 storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the 24 affected storeys will
vary linearly from the velocity of the falling section to zero.

Momentum before impact = 16 storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec
Momentum after impact = 17 storeys moving at V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec
+ 1 storey moving at 22/24*V2m/sec +... ... + 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storey
moving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5)
V2 = 16 * 8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8 metres per second.

The speed of the upper section would be reduced by the collision from 8.5 m/sec to a speed of less than 4.8 m/sec rather than the 8 m/sec derived from a momentum calculation which does not include this factor. Note also that this reduction in speed would again give more time for the propagation wave to travel downwards through the tower columns and allow that more and more storeys are so affected.

The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the
velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced.

K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec)
K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec)
Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%

This is an underestimation of the energy loss, since the deceleration would allow more
time for travel of the propagation wave and so allow more floors to be affected but even this
shows an energy absorption of some 66% of the total kinetic energy of the falling section.

Energy Balance:
Since there was only some 2.1 GJ available at the point of impact of the first collision, a
loss of 66% would reduce this figure to 714 MJ.

The kinetic energy would be augmented by potential energy released in the further downward
movement of the falling mass and if we assume that this falls through the full distance of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted floor and the elastic deflection of the lower storeys, then the
additional potential energy is
58*10* g * (0.111 + .056) = + 95MJ.

The strain energy consumed by the impacted storey columns in the elastic phase and
plastic shortening phase can be calculated using the failure load. The failure load used
throughout this analysis is derived using the mass above the impact, 58 000 tonnes, and a safety
factor of 4. Examination of the column geometry with reference to the Euler equations show that
this is an underestimation both of the failure load and the distance over which it would have to
act before failure, and this gives a gross assumption in favour of collapse continuation. A factor
of 0.029 is included to reflect the load profile over the 3% plastic shortening phase. The load
profile exhibits a linear rise from zero to failure load at 0.2% of the length, followed by a
constant failure load over the next 2.8% of the length.

Plastic strain energy:
58*10kg*4*g*3.7m*0.029= -244MJ.
A similar though slightly smaller figure would be required for the first impacting storey
in the upper falling section. Because this storey carried a lower load, 15 storeys, than the
impacted storey, 17 storeys, its designed capabilities would be proportionately smaller.

Using this knowledge an estimation can be made that the energy consumed by this storey would
be,
(244 MJ * 15 / 17) = -215MJ .

The elastic response of the lower storey columns within their elastic range would make
further demands on the energy available by absorption of energy in the form of strain energy.
This can be estimated, using a safety factor of 4, a mass of 58000 tonnes, a distance of
0.056metres, and a factor of 0.5 to reflect the load profile
58*10kg*4*g*0.056metres*0.5= -64MJ.

The downward movement of these floors in response to the impact will release additional
potential energy due to their compression and using the same deflections as above and a value
for mass proportionate to the number of storeys, this will release
58*10kg * 24/16 * g * 0.056metres / 2 = + 24 MJ.

Further energy losses are evident in an analysis of the compression of storeys within the
upper falling section. These storeys manufactured from columns with a smaller cross section
than those at the impact, would be unable to withstand the failure load present at the impact front
and would suffer plastic deformation beyond their elastic limit, but for simplicity, it is assumed
that they suffer only their full elastic deflection. This is another large assumption in favour of
collapse continuation.

The total deflection would be 15 storeys multiplied by the elastic deflection of 7.4mm,
and strain energy consumed can be estimated as,
15*7.4*10*4*58*10*g/2= -126MJ.

Movement of the storeys within the upper section will release additional potential energy
due to their compression and consequent movement. It is likely that this energy would manifest
itself as failures within the upper section, but has nevertheless been added as an energy available
for collapse continuation. The uppermost storey will move downwards by 15 times the elastic
deflection whereas the lowest will remain static, both in relation to the impact point, giving
additional potential energy as,

15*0.0074*58*10*g/2= +32MJ

A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine
dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is
necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among
other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size.
There is no typical value.

In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening [2].
It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that
the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and
subsequent and consequent fires.

The tower, using Dr. Greening's figures, contained approximately 50000 tonnes of
concrete, and the assumption is made that only 10% of this was pulverised to a size of 60
micrometres. One kilogram of concrete at this particle size will have a surface area of 67 m^2.
We can now use Dr. Greening's figure for concrete fracture energy of 100J/m^2 to show that the
energy requirement for one floor would be 50*10^6kg / 110floors * 67m^2 * 100J/m^2 * 10% =
- 304 MJ.

It may be considered unlikely that a low velocity impact would expend large energies on
pulverisation of materials, and this is more likely in later stages of the collapse. However, the
large expulsions of dust were visually evident at early stages of the collapse.

Energy Summary:
The energy balance can be summarised as

Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ
Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02
seconds after impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.

The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic
shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent
of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling
mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the
buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length
over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths.

Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about
450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse
arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even
if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic
shortening of the second storeys affected.

The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic
shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section
through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early
stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop
delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse
initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or
significantly and noticably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall
by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this
article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required
up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve
further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of
end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands
which must then be satisfied.

Assumptions and disregards :
A buckling failure is notable because of the characteristic reduction in load required to
continue failure after yield is reached, being distinct from a compressive failure where the
load to continue failure after yield is substantially greater than the yield load, and will
reach a maximum at the Ultimate Load. In the immediate time period after impact the
force applied by the falling section will manifest as such a compressive load. Euler
calculations show that columns of the dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to
buckling over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a compressive failure
mode. The load would increase to yield levels, and due to the work hardening which would
be present here but not in a buckle failure, thereafter increase towards the Ultimate Load
level and this would manifest as plastic compression or shortening, until such time as
enough length of column to satisfy the minimum length requirements of buckling, had been
exposed to the load. The tower columns when viewed individually had dimensions which
would dictate a minimum length for buckling of three or more storey heights. When the
bracing of the spandrel plates and corners of the perimeter columns, and the horizontal
and diagonal bracing is taken into regard the minimum buckling length would extend over
many storey heights. At this point the load would continue to manifest as plastic
compression or shortening, but also as a tendency to buckle the column, rather than
continue in compression failure. The energy profile would thereafter become that of a
buckle failure.The analysis would be justified in using the greater energy demand
characteristics of a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the collapse, but I
have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode has the lowest energy demand.

The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration
which would be felt by the falling mass. As an example, if we asumed that the velocity was
halved over the distance covered in this analysis the time would be extended by one third,
giving more time for the energy to dissipate to more remote points.

The analysis assumes a linear distribution in the elastic deflections and velocities of the
affected floors during calculation of the momentum transfer and elastic strain energy.
Since most of the column sections involved would have undergone almost their full elastic
deflection, this treatment underestimates the energy demands within those calculations.
Only a second iteration has been used to show the number of floors taking part in the
momentum and velocity changes of the collision. A full iteration would give about 30
storeys, and allowing that the falling mass was decelerated to half of its original velocity
would allow time for the propagation to extend loading to more than 40 storeys below the
impact. My assumptions have the affect of reducing the number of storeys which take part.
This together with the assumption that only a portion of the elastic deflection will apply
underestimates the energy requirements of this task.

The characteristic of steel to show an increase in Young's modulus in response to an impact
load is acknowledged as a further energy demand but is not quantified.

It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be
re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby
reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the
state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted
materials.

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section.
There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the
impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential
energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass
will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the
tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is
recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which
it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As
this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert
back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best
characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but
relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is
limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not
sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the
rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points.
It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those
storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section
in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further
serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability
on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed
by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies
involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of
velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.

This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this
assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been
taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the
expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to
cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates
or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing
of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain
energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this
would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

References:
[1] Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?祐imple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow
ASCE, and Yong Zhou


Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: 29.Feb.2012 16:56

A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Se en

February, 2008, Vol. 134, No. 2, pp. 125-132
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:2(125)

Crockett Grabbe1
1 Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
52242 and SeaLane Consulting, Iowa City, IA 52245-3314. E-mail: sealane _\at_ mchsi.com

Se en's paper presents what it calls a simple analysis for the dynamics of the
World Trade Center (WTC, implicitly just the South and North Towers) collapses. He
claims the "factors responsible for the onset of collapse are now well established", that:

(1) intense res created by the aircraft compromised the remaining intact columns
near the impact [those undamaged by the plane collision] to sustain the weight of the
building above them.

(2) The subsequent "near free fall" of these upper parts over just 1 story resulted in
dynamical overloading of the undamaged columns below by a "factor of over 30".
Se en then goes on to develop a propagating instability model for how the re brought
the Towers down. But these claimed factors are factually inaccurate. Furthermore,
in analyzing the model built on these factors, ideal assumptions are made that are in
disagreement with physical principles inherent in the collapses of the Towers, and yield
solutions that cannot provide answers or much insight into how the Towers fell.

While the theory of these factors responsible for the onset of collapse have been
"well-proposed" as the cause of the collapse, they have not been well-established as
factors that explain well the observations of the collapse. The theory that Se en is
improving on is the "crush-down, crush-up" theory proposed initially by Bazant and
Zhou (2002). Yet this theory does not agree very well with observations on how the
Towers fell. For example, as lm documentation of the South Tower collapse shows,
the top part of the South Tower does not even come close to "crushing up" after the
bottom part of the Tower "crushes down" to the ground.(NBC lms, 2001) In fact,
the top part started toppling and fully disintegrated into gray clouds (produced from
pulverizing concrete from areas on re) in mid-air, above the lower part of the Tower
(producing only white clouds from pulverizing concrete below where the res were),
and it did so well before the lower part came down. In addition, both of the Towers
show major horizontal forces in their collapses, forces which are fully ignored in the
"crush-down, crush-up" theory, which treats the downward gravitational force as the
only force acting in 1D analyses of the collapses and neglects all horizontal motion. The
factors responsible for the onset of collapse assumed in this "crush-down, crush-up"
theory are clearly not well-established.

Furthermore, it has been "well-established" that the factors that caused the onset
of collapse in the South Tower appear de nitely to not have been the res. The res
created from the plane impacts were not that intense just before the collapse initiation
for either Tower, and for the South Tower the res seemed close to being contained and
put out by the remen when suddenly rapidly horizontally-moving masses of material
violently broke through walls of the floors below where the res had been burning
from the plane hit. As the lm documentation shows, the collapse of the South Tower initiated 1-2 stories below the lowest floor where the res had been burning, with very
dynamic (roughly 40 mph) hurtling of white material (broken and pulverized concrete)
in the horizontal direction away from the building | material with absolutely no re
associated with it.(NBC lms, 2001) This ejection and a subsequent horizontal ejec-
tion of rapidly-moving white material at
oors just near this formed the white clouds
around the lower segment.

As presented by Grabbe (2008a), the force that ripped the South Tower apart at
one edge in the collapse was a force an order of magnitude larger in strength than
that of the force of gravity (the only force acting in Se en's model for the collapse).
There is similar evidence that the res were not the cause of the North Tower collapse,
such as the energy analysis in Ho man (2003) that calculates the amount of energy
expended in the collapse of the North Tower to be about an order of magnitude larger
than the energy that is available for gravitation collapse, the sole force in the model of
Se en. These analyses e ectively disprove what Se en refers to as a "well-established"
assumption { that gravitation was the only force involved in the collapses of the Towers.

Se en builds on Bazant and Zhou's 2002 paper (hereinafter called BZ), referring
to their work as establishing the virtually "free-falling" upper parts that initiated the
collapse, even though BZ provided no physical mechanism that can possibly allow such
free-fall. Se en states that then the subsequent gravitational "near free-fall" of the
upper parts over the height of just one story resulted in dynamical overloading of the
undamaged lower columns by 30 times their static load. But there is no evidence to
support this incredible inference that as a result of the claimed gravitational initiation
the upper parts were suddenly virtually free-falling, nor are there means by which gravitational collapse can produce such a "near free-falling" state. For "near free-falling" to happen, the contiguous solid material making up the building below these sections where the collapse initiates would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action there above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary momentum of
that lower contiguous material counters the momentum of falling parts from above,
and conservation of momentum keeps the free-fall state from being approached.

The only thing this author knows of that could create a virtual free-falling state
is massive explosions well below the res, which could e ffectively "liquefy" the lower
structure. Direct evidence for explosions, which were created by forces other than grav-
ity (such as the horizontal forces in the South Tower collapse initiation), was presented
in Grabbe (2007). Those forces are, of course, not present in Se en's model.

Se en completely ignores conservation of momentum in all his uses of the word
"free-fall". He has mathematically converted the problem from one of analyzing New-
ton's equations of motion to an instability analysis of the column as a whole, in order to
improve on the the story-coupling limitations of the BZ analysis. However, one cannot
ignore conservation of energy and momentum, and the implications of these conserva-
tion laws is that the free-fall cavalierly referred to cannot happen in the gravitational
collapse of the Towers analyzed in Se en's model.(Grabbe, 2008b) He e ectively avoids
the problems of the conservation laws in his analysis, but they not gone away, and pre-
vent achievement of the virtual free fall he asserts.

Se en correctly identi es one of the several inadequacies of the BZ analysis, saying
"However, the link to progressive collapse is improperly asserted by claiming that, be-
cause each story locally collapses in an unstable manner, successive stories are bound to
fail sequentially." In fact, there is no reason a gravitational collapse could not stop, at
least temporarily, upon hitting adequately-sturdy structure in the story below. Se en
tries to correct that inadequacy in BZ analysis by analyzing whether this is a prop-
agating instability. However, like BZ, he uses a grossly inadequate 1D model of the
Towers. The Towers cannot be analyzed as 1D sticks (i.e. 1500 ft "telephone poles").

This grossly ignores the horizontal extensions of the Towers, and completely misses
the internal structure that would be a major resistance to such instabilities { indeed,
also a major resistance to anything anything approaching free-fall. The Towers were
well-constructed over 44,000 ft2 horizontally for this stability, and all of that is ignored
in the simple 1D model that Se en analyzes.

Se en states that "Each story is assumed to compress homogeneously such that the
overall 'wake' above the crush-front and below the initiation site has a larger, uniform
density." On the contrary, the early stages of the fall of the South Tower were very
non-uniform over these other 2 dimensions, making this 1D model fully inaccurate.

Using this oversimplied 1D model of the Towers, Se en calculates the conditions for
the instability in Eq (21) as the maximum value the variable he de nes as p (non-
dimensionalized variable proportional to what he calls the "steady-state propagation
pressure" P) can be to still "assure collapse" of the building. Furthermore, if p is
suciently smaller than unity in his model it can apparently achieve the speedy col-
lapse observed for the Towers. Clearly his determination of what p is for the Towers
is no good because of invalid assumptions used, including in particular the major over-
simpli cations from his 1D model.

His statement on that "More realistically, if there is a column fracture, p is much
less than unity" shows this 1D assumption is clearly wrong because it ignores impor-
tant aspects of the 3D behavior of the Towers. There are actually about 286 columns,
5

and they are designed to deal with fractures in individual columns by redistributing
the load to unfractured columns. Yet a 1D model must assume it is only 1 column.
One could try to translate his 1D analysis into the assumed uniform behavior of all
286 columns, but in fact these 286 columns are engineered not to act uniformly? Fur-
thermore, Se en models the columns as being damaged by re, but re damage itself
de nitely cannot be uniform over these other 2 dimensions. There is no sensible way
to make this translation, and the model is grossly unrealistic for the real WTC Towers.
Se en ends the calculation correctly pointing out some of the limits of his model.

Stating "Many simpli cations have been made in this analysis for the sake of trans-
parency," he mention some of these simpli cations. However, he fails to describe one
of the most crucial oversimpli cations of his model: the analysis of the Towers as 1D
objects. Such a treatment grossly oversimpli ed the very inhomogeneous nature of
re throughout the 286 columns spread over 44,000 ft2 in those 3D Towers, leading
to erroneous conclusions. One cannot correctly analyze the stability of a complex 3D
structure in a simpli ed 1D analysis. Horizontal forces, complex building structure over
the other 2 dimensions, and inhomogeneities of the forces of destruction over these 2
dimensions are essential considerations in any correct analysis.

On the positive side, Se en's analysis of the 1D model might be viewed as a useful
initial analysis for building collapses from re that to lowest order t the model he
uses, possibly helping to identify important questions that need to be addressed in a
more complex 3D followup (e.g. why has no other high-rise in any industrial nation
ever collapsed from re?). However, when this model and its analysis are applied as
an e ort to explain the WTC collapses, claiming this is what caused the collapses,
it is decidely wrong, o ering little in answers or insight how the WTC buildings fell.

His 1D model and analysis is inadequate because it ignores fundamental 3D aspects
of the stability of the Towers, it disagrees with known physical principles such as the
conservation of energy, momentum, and mass { conservation laws that show that the
collapsing WTC Towers could not reach the virtual free-fall states observed by the
gravitational force as claimed, and it substantially disagrees with several observations
of how the Towers collapsed.

References
Bazant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y. (2002), "Why did the World Trade Center collapse?{Simple
analyis," J. Eng. Mech., 128(1), 2-6.

Grabbe, C.L. (2007), "Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread
Impact Damage," J. 911 Stud., 14(8), 1-7, online at:
 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf\

Grabbe, C.L. (2008a) "Analysis of the Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade
Center" American Physical Society's April Meeting, online at:
 http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR08/Event/84051
 http://www.sealane.org/writings/PhysSTFall.html

Grabbe, C.L. (2008b), "Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum," J. 911 Stud.
Jan. 29 Letter, online at:
 http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf

Ho man, J., "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for
the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,"
7 October 16, 2003, online at:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html

NBC lm of South Tower collapse on 9/11/01, online at:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html


Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST 29.Feb.2012 17:02

16

via Electronic Mail:  wtc@nist.gov
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

September 15, 2008

Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman,

I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the "Report"). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html ).

At the outset, we would like to call attention to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report. Why, then, were members of the public only given three weeks in which to comment? Moreover, NIST lists ten authors and dozens of contracted and employed staff, which over the three year investigation would yield somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 man-hours of labor. How did NIST expect members of the public to match or even come close to NIST's labor expenditure in three weeks? This first reason alone was enough to warrant a significant extension in the deadline for public comment.

Second, in NIST's "Questions and Answers" page (  http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html ), NIST has attempted to refute many of the points that members of our group and others have made regarding the WTC 7 destruction. However, NIST did not provide any references to sections of the Report that support its alleged refutations. How is a member of the public, then, able to verify NIST's refutation without reading through the entire 1000+ page Report? Our comments are directed to many of the areas addressed in the "Questions and Answers" page, and without citations directly to the Report itself, it was extremely difficult and time consuming for us see whether our main criticisms of the NIST theory of collapse have been adequately addressed in the Report. This is especially true in light of the fact that this latest draft Report is the third different story NIST has come up with.

Your response to our request was dismissive, based primarily on your belief that a six-week comment period on the 10,000 page report NIST issued for the Twin Towers was reasonable. You also saw no problem with NIST's failure to provide any references in its Questions and Answers page to the 1000 page Report itself, apparently satisfied with NIST committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. As things stand right now, your position in this matter can be seen as nothing less than a deliberate attempt to hamstring the public's ability to review and comment on NIST's work in this extremely important area of research.

Nevertheless, we have been able to spend some time reading and analyzing the report, and have already found numerous problems that severely undermine its veracity and usefulness. Our comments on the Report are detailed below. Note that we declined NIST's invitation to comment only on the summary report, NCSTAR 1A. These comments are all regarding the more detailed NCSTAR 1-9 document. Of course, once NCSTAR 1-9 is revised according to these comments, the summary report NCSTAR 1A will need to be revised as well.

Based on our comments below, it is readily apparent that the NIST collapse explanation relies solely on extremely suspect computer models. Furthermore, at each juncture where NIST was given the opportunity to input data into each subsequent model, NIST has chosen to use those inputs which would cause the highest temperatures and the most amount of structural damage. Therefore, the submitters of these comments hereby call on NIST to publicly release its models and modeling data so that members of the scientific community can test whether other, more reasonable, assumptions will also result in global collapse of the structure. After all, a scientific hypothesis cannot be widely accepted unless it is repeatable by others.

Chapter 9: Fire Simulations

Contradictions between Floor 12 Fire Simulations and Other Evidence

Figure 9-11 from NCSTAR 1-9 (page 383) depicts the upper layer air temperatures on the 12th floor fire simulation. As can be seen therein, significant fires are present across at least half of the north face of the building at 5:00pm.

This part of the fire simulation presents two problems. First, it contradicts an earlier report issued by NIST regarding the fires on floor 12. Second, it contradicts NIST's own photographic evidence of the fire activity on floor 12.

COMMENT: Appendix L to NIST's June 2004 "Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center" contains NIST's "Interim Report on WTC 7". (See  http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) On page L-26 of this interim report, NIST states that "Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time."

REASON FOR COMMENT: The contrast between NIST's prior assertion that floor 12 was "burned out" by 4:45pm, and NIST's current computer model, that shows a raging inferno at 5:00pm, could not be more apparent. This discrepancy calls into question the veracity of the Report.

SUGGESTED REVISION: This discrepancy must be acknowledged and explained in the Report. Furthermore, the photographic or other visual evidence NIST relied upon for its statement in Appendix L that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm must be included in the final version of its report.

COMMENT: To support NIST's assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an "unknown source" (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of "at least 10 minutes," using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the "unknown source" photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph's time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

COMMENT: The following graphic is excerpted from Figure 9-11, and purports to describe the state of the fires on the 12th floor of WTC 7 at 5:00pm:
Photobucket

As can be seen, this graphic depicts raging fires across at least half of the north face of the building. However, when compared with Figure 5-152, which only shows a small fire in the extreme northwest corner, clearly the computer model is not representative of reality.

REASON FOR COMMENT: It appears that NIST's computer fire simulations are not representative at all of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST needs to describe why (assuming Figure 5-152 accurately describes the floor 12 fires at about 5:00pm) the computer models show significant fires across at least half of the north side of the building at 5:00pm. NIST should clearly explain why its fire simulation models of the 12th floor should be accepted by the public as an accurate representation of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

Separately submitted by Chris Sarns and Richard Gage is a graphic that compares NIST's computer model fire data for floor 12 with actual pictures of the fires in WTC 7. It is attached hereto as Exhibit A. They present a more realistic depiction of what a computer model for the floor 12 fires should look like if it were to agree with the available visual evidence. NIST should take this into consideration when they are re-running their computer models based on these public comments, and revise their Report to use computer models that are more representative of reality, which would look more like the depictions contained therein.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floors 11 and 12

COMMENT: This comment relates to NIST's assumptions regarding combustible fuel loading for the 11th and 12th floors. In NCSTAR 1-9, at p. 375 (para. 1, sent. 7-9) NIST states:

NIST assumed that the combustible mass of furniture was about the same in an office as in a cubicle. Since the loading of other combustibles was reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors (Chapter 3), NIST assumed that the total combustible mass in an office was double that of a cubicle. Thus, the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32kg/m2.

However, Chapter 3 tells us that, contrary to NIST's assertions in Chapter 9, the loading of other combustibles was not reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors. On page 55 (para. 6, sent. 1) of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission occupied the 11th and 12th floors and the north side of the 13th floor. On page 56 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST further reports that American Express occupied the southwest sector of the 13th floor. On the same page, NIST reports that the "combustible load in the offices was described as high by interviewed American Express managers." (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 56, para. 4, sent. 3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: Recall that American Express occupied only the southwest sector of the 13th floor. How, then can NIST credibly claim that the combustible load on the entirety of the 11th and 12 floors, both occupied solely by the SEC, was reported to have been high? Were American Express managers given regular access to the SEC offices, such that they would be qualified to comment on the combustible fuel load there? Moreover, are American Express managers qualified to give an opinion on the quantity of combustible fuel load as compared to offices in the Twin Towers?

SUGGESTED REVISION: Clearly American Express personnel are competent to provide information only on the state of the American Express offices, which were confined to the southwest sector of the 13th floor. NIST must provide real support for its assertion that the combustible load on the 11th and 12th floors was high in order to merit any increase in estimated average combustible fuel load on these floors. If it cannot provide such support, it should re-run its computer models with the lower combustible fuel load on these floors and report those results to the scientific community and the American public.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floor 13

COMMENT: This comment is regarding NIST's treatment of the combustible fuel load of the 13th floor. On page 375 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 8, 9) NIST states as follows: "The density of combustibles on the 13th floor was varied and not well known. The average value [for the 13th floor] was assumed to be the same as the 12th floor." Here again, the only reported description of the combustible load on the 13th floor was from American Express managers, who were competent to comment only on the southwest sector of the 13th floor. In Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-9, page 57 (para. 2, sent. 2, 3) NIST reports that in the SEC occupied sections of northern perimeter of the 13th floor were "a hearing room and multiple testimony rooms facing it. There were additional testimony rooms on the northern portion of the east and west sides of the floor, and a storage room at the northwest corner."

Importantly, NIST reports that the "testimony rooms were sparsely furnished, with just a table and a few chairs." (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 57, para. 2, sent. 4) Furthermore, an examination of the schematic diagram of floor 13 (Figure 3-8, p. 57) reveals that the hearing room appears similar to a court room. Court rooms are also sparsely furnished, with a few tables and chairs. Finally, it is doubtful that there was any appreciable level of additional combustibles present in these testimony and hearing rooms.

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST has apparently greatly overestimated the fuel loading on the 13th floor.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must justify its use of the higher combustible fuel load on the 13th floor in Chapter 9 of the Report with more than just bare assertions. NIST clearly had more information available to it regarding the layout and make up of floor 13, as reported in Chapter 3, than it lets on in Chapter 9. This discrepancy must be reconciled.

Combustible Load Sensitivity Tests

COMMENT: NIST claims that it did sensitivity tests to determine whether these exorbitant combustible fuel loads adversely affected the outcome of its simulations. However, the fact that NIST even performed the sensitivity tests brings up the question of why NIST went to the trouble of increasing the fuel load in the first place if it would have a negligible effect on the simulation. That point aside, Chapter 9 contains statements that directly contradict the results of these alleged sensitivity tests.

On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, "[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation]." NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)

In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 "showed little effect on the rate of fire progression." (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST's contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST should explain here exactly what the differences in the fire progression rate were in each case and let the public judge whether the effect was "little". More important, however, is the direct contradiction between NIST's statement that the "spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on lower floors due to the higher fuel load" (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 3) with its statement that decreasing the fuel load to a value equal to that of the lower floors "showed little effect on the fire rate of progression." (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 6, sent. 1-3) Surely NIST can see this direct contradiction. On page 381, it is claimed that higher fuel load slows down the fire spread rate. On page 382, it is claimed that a lower fuel load will not speed up the rate of fire progression. This contradiction must be reconciled.

Fire Simulations for Floors 11 and 13

NIST used the data generated by its 12th floor fire simulation for floors 11 and 13. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, 3) The 13th floor simulation used the 12th floor data delayed by one-half hour because visual evidence indicated that the 13th floor fire followed the 12th floor fire. (Id., para. 3, sent. 5) The 11th floor simulation used the 12th floor fire data delayed by 1 hour, although the visual evidence indicated that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, sent. 5)

COMMENT: Our first comment in this regard simply notes the discrepancy between the visual evidence that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours, yet in its fire simulations for the 11th floor, it was only delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.0 hour.

REASON FOR COMMENT: This represents yet another discrepancy in the Report that needs to be rectified.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain why the visual evidence was not relied upon for inputs on the 11th floor, when it was relied upon for inputs on the 13th floor. The computer models should be re-run with the 11th floor fire delayed by 1.5 hours, not 1.0 hour, and the results reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our second comment concerns both the 11th and 13th floor fires. As we demonstrated above, the 12th floor fire simulation is not representative of reality, and likely grossly overestimates the fires that were present there. By using its grossly overestimated 12th floor fire data on both the 11th and 13th floors, it has magnified this error three-fold.

REASON FOR COMMENT: By magnifying an obvious error by three times, the results of all of NIST's subsequent computer models are again called into question.

SUGGESTED REVISION: The computer models should be re-run for the 12th floor using more realistic fire scenarios, and if NIST can still justify using the 12th floor data on the 11th and 13th floors, it should use that more realistic data on both floors. The results should then be reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our third comment concerns the propagation of error through NIST's approach to using a purely computer model driven approach. On page 382 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1-3, sent. last) NIST acknowledges that its computer models for the fires on floors 11 and 13 "could have led to a mild overestimate of the heating on the north side of the floor."

REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: In order to assure public confidence in the document, NIST must explain how such an error in overestimating the heating would propagate itself throughout all of NIST's subsequent computer models, and how such propagation of error will affect the reliability of the ultimate results. The Report should be revised to include such a propagation of error analysis.

Chapter 11: Structural Analysis of Initial Failure Event

Section 11.4 - Structural Response to Case B and Case C Fires

COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.

On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that "comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h." However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.

Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.

REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST's use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST's black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?

SUGGESTED REVISION: The final report must be revised to correct this error. If Case A and Case C structural responses were never used with the LS-DYNA model, the models should be re-run and the results reported to the scientific community and the American people. This is especially true in light of the fact that the 3.5 h Case B structural response did not result in global building collapse in the LS-DYNA model.

Chapter 12: WTC Global Collapse Analysis

Section 12.5.3 - Collapse Time

COMMENT: This comment concerns NIST's estimation of the time it took for the WTC 7 structure to fall. Specifically, this concerns NIST's comparison to the actual descent time with a hypothetical free-fall time. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 595; NCSTAR 1A, p. 40-41) Basically, NIST took two data points, and assumed a constant acceleration throughout the collapse. (Id.) The first data point was allegedly taken at the time the top of the parapet wall on the roofline of the north face began descending. The second data point was allegedly taken at the time the roofline was no longer visible in Camera 3. NIST claims that the time it takes for the building to fall this distance, 242 feet, is 5.4 seconds, plus or minus 0.1 seconds. No graphical or visual support is given for this time estimate.

REASON FOR COMMENT: Members of this group have conducted an independent analysis of the Camera 3 footage and come to an entirely different conclusion regarding the collapse time. Our analysis was done on a frame-by-frame basis using a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second. As shown in the figure below, our analysis concludes that it takes 3.87 seconds for the top of the roofline to descend out of view of Camera 3. This time matches almost exactly the free-fall time.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must revise its Report to show the exact frames it used from Camera 3 in determining the time it took for the roofline to fall out of view. 5.4 seconds appears to be a gross overestimate. The frames we used in our collapse analysis are shown below (times "t + X seconds" reference the times given in NIST's Appendix L, Table L-1) along with a graphical analysis of how we determined which frame represented the onset of global collapse:

Members of this group have used the Physics Toolkit computer software to plot Velocity vs. Collapse Time using discrete data points gathered during the entire collapse from the view NIST calls Camera 2. This plot is reproduced below and provides a much more detailed look at the dynamics of the WTC 7 collapse than is provided by NIST's two-data-point analysis. Also included in the graph is a linear regression for approximately 2.6 seconds of the collapse that appears to have a constant acceleration. As can be seen, the slope (acceleration) during this portion of the collapse was approximately constant at about 9.8 m/s/s, or acceleration due to gravity with little to no resistance below. The r-squared value for this linear regression analysis was 0.9931 - a very good fit. This clearly demonstrates that NIST is being extremely misleading in reporting to the public that the structure did not descend at free-fall speed, especially given the implications of this documented feature of WTC 7's destruction.

Chapter 8: Initiating Event Hypothesis

Inconsistencies Between Report and NIST Technical Presentation Slides

COMMENT: On page 353 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 9) NIST states that "Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b)." Slide 33 of Dr. Sunder's August 26, 2008 technical presentation states that "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." (  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf )

REASON FOR COMMENT: There seems to be an inconsistency in what NIST is telling the public. In the Report it seems as if the floor system collapses, which drags the girder off its seat to the east. In Dr. Sunder's presentation, the floor beams appear to remain rigid and push the girder off its seat to the west. These conflicting statements make it difficult for the public to determine which story NIST actually believes.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must reconcile the difference between its public presentation and the substance of the Report.

"Perfectly Fixed" Exterior Columns and Rigid Floor Beams

COMMENT: On page 350 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 2) the exterior columns and column 44 were modeled as "perfectly fixed" at a number of locations during the finite element analysis of the northeast corner of the building. This computer model was purporting to demonstrate that thermal expansion could cause the girder to disconnect from Column 79. Obviously, if the floor beams were to elongate due to thermal expansion, it would expand in both axial directions. This, in turn, would put pressure on whatever was connected to each end of the expanded beam.

REASON FOR COMMENT: To the extent "perfectly fixing" the exterior columns and column 44 caused the computer model to neglect the pressure put on the exterior columns due to thermal expansion, the computer model does not represent reality. The exterior columns should have been allowed to bow outward in response to this pressure. It is also unclear whether the floor beams were allowed to sag as they heated in the computer model. In NIST's report on the Twin Towers, the main reason given for global collapse initiation was sagging floor beams. If NIST did not allow the floor beams to sag in its WTC 7 model, then it did not allow any of the thermal expansion to express itself as sagging rather than pressure on the connections. Even the Cardington tests cited by NIST showed that floor beams to sag when they are heated.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must more clearly explain how the thermal expansion of the floor beams in both axial directions was accounted for in the computer models. If "perfectly fixing" the exterior columns caused all of the thermal expansion to occur in one direction, the computer models needs to be modified to comport with reality, and allow outward bowing of the external columns. Also, if the floor beams and girders were not allowed to sag as they heated, there is a fundamental disconnect between the WTC 7 computer models and the WTC 1 and 2 computer models. The computer models should be re-run with appropriate revisions made to the floor beam properties, which allow them to sag as they heat.

Temperatures Applied to Beams and Girders

COMMENT: In Figure 8-25 on p.352 of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST applies temperatures of 600ーC and 500ーC to the floor beams and girders, respectively, over a period of about 2.6 seconds. Putting aside for a moment the fact that applying that much heat over a 2.6 second time interval could not possibly approximate the reality of the fires at WTC 7, other problems still remain. For example, these extreme temperatures were applied uniformly for all nodes of the beams and girders. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 351)

REASON FOR COMMENT: On page 452 of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST only reports that some "sections" of the floor beams exceeded 600ーC. Nowhere does NIST indicate that the computer models show uniform temperatures of 600ーC for floor beams and virtually no information is given for temperatures of girders. Again, these temperatures are applied uniformly over an extremely small amount of time, which is not representative of an actual fire.

SUGGESTED REVISION: Run the computer models for the northeast section of floors again using realistic temperatures and realistic application times. Report the results accordingly.

Only High Explosives Considered in Hypothetical Blast Event

COMMENT: In its analysis of "hypothetical blast scenarios" that might have lead to the collapse of WTC 7, NIST only considers blast events using RDX, an extremely high explosive. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 355, last sentence) NIST goes on to argue that because no loud sounds were heard, and because no window breakage was observed, that RDX was not used to bring down WTC 7.

REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: However, as documented by Kevin Ryan at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf ) many scientists working for and associated with NIST have experience with nanoenergetic compounds, or nanothermites, that have the potential to be used for building demolitions. And because nanothermites are primarily high-temperature incendiaries rather than explosives, they could cause damage to steel structures without producing the sound and destruction levels associated with RDX. Because NIST personnel have intimate experience with these materials, NIST should revise its report to specifically analyze whether such nanoenergetic materials could have been used as a component in a "hypothetical blast scenario" at WTC 7.

Furthermore, the National Fire Protection Association Manual for fire and explosion investigations, in Section 921, very clearly indicates that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated by NIST. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 "High Order Damage" - "High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise." WTC 7 clearly met this definition. Therefore NIST should have investigated more thoroughly the possibility that explosive were used. Specifically, the use of "exotic accelerants" should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 - "Exotic Accelerants," three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation into the possible use of "exotic accelerants," specifically as stated in the guideline, "Thermite mixtures." NIST should comply with NFPA Section 921 and test the debris from WTC 7 for thermite residues and report the results to the scientific community.

Omissions from the NIST Report

Foreknowledge of Collapse

NIST omitted from the Report information relating to foreknowledge by several groups of people that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

What we mean by foreknowledge is a quality of detail and a strength of conviction that allow us to say, in light of the building's collapse at approximately 5:21 p.m., that they knew in advance that it was coming down.

Such knowledge is highly significant in light of the facts that (a) no steel framed skyscraper in history (indeed, NIST says, "no tall building" in history) had ever before collapsed from fire alone; and (b) the collapse, according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and unpredictable factors, which did not come together in such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.

In any situation where someone demonstrates foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event, the possibility must be considered that the knowledge derived from those who had control over the event. In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.

NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC's collapse by implying:

(a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse.

From NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.16:

"The emergency responders quickly recognized that WTC 7 had been damaged by the collapse of WTC 1...

As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that there was no water coming out of the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse..."

(b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse, passing on this assessment to others (Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, Aug. 25, 2008)

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and led a few of them (about seven) to worry that the building might collapse, but the great majority (approximately 50) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on what they perceived but on what they were told. (See Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories", Journal of 9/11 Studies, June 11, 2008) Moreover, while it is apparently also true that an engineer communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain the evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.

Below are seven reasons why the above NIST explanations of foreknowledge are inadequate. One example is given to illustrate each of the seven reasons. More details can be found in the paper by Graeme MacQueen titled "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf ).

1. Certainty
To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing; but to be certain that it will collapse is another. Detailed study of the accounts of the FDNY shows that over half of those who received warnings of WTC 7's collapse (where degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that it was coming down. (The figures are: 31 out of 58. See "Waiting for Seven".)

2. Early announcement
If someone was observing the fires in WTC 7 and was able to determine, in the last few moments of the building's existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing; but to receive warnings of the building's collapse well before this set of circumstances was in place raises far more suspicions. Yet a detailed study of the FDNY reports show that of the 33 cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance and in six cases warnings were apparently received four of more hours in advance. (See "Waiting for Seven.") In other words, long, long before the unique set of circumstances had come together to cause the building's collapse, the collapse was being spoken of widely.

3. Precision
If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they would not have been precise. No building had come down from these causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be." (See "Waiting for Seven.") Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "You were still there?"
A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?"
A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there." (See "Waiting for Seven.")

4. New information
If the collapse warnings derived from worries and concerns expressed early in the day by engineers and firefighters, why would the collapse of WTC 7 have been reported by CNN (one hour and 10 minutes in advance) and BBC (23 minutes in advance) as breaking news based on just received information? CNN anchor Aaron Brown said "We are getting information now." CNN anchor Judy Woodruff: "We're hearing for the first time" (See Appendix.) BBC anchor: "We've got some news just coming in".

5. Premature announcement
CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely announced its actual collapse.

CNN's Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: "We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing..."
BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: "the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed."
No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to these announcers.

6. Continuity
The BBC continued to announce that WTC 7 had collapsed, even when the building could be seen standing directly behind reporter Jane Standley, for about 17 minutes until the story was pulled abruptly.

When CNN personnel realized they had made an error in their early announcement, they could simply have corrected it. They could, at the very least, have withdrawn their attention from WTC 7 and stopped covering it since it was obviously still standing. Instead, CNN continued to keep WTC 7 in the forefront of its coverage over the hour and ten minutes preceding its collapse, repeatedly warning that it was going to come down and keeping the image of the building in front of the viewer until it had actually collapsed. (See Appendix.)

7. Progression
According to NIST's study, WTC 7's fires had been reduced from ten floors, soon after the collapse of WTC 1, to essentially two floors as the collapse time approached. This was a building in which the fires were actually dying down. Why, then, did CNN show awareness of the building's approaching doom, and why did it revise its captions accordingly, from "may collapse" to "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then to "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse). (Appendix)

Any one of these seven factors would be enough to make us consider the possibility of foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. Taken together, they make an unanswerable case.

As further support, below we have provided a timeline of events based on CNN's coverage of Building 7. The times in the left-hand column are within 30 seconds of actual time.

The NIST Report should be revised to include a detailed analysis of all of the reports of specific foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7. NIST's Lead Investigator, Dr. Sunder, when challenged with reports like this during radio interviews recently has stated that NIST's investigation was not a criminal investigation, but instead is a technical one. However, this position belies the fact that NIST did opine in the Report that the controlled demolition hypothesis was unlikely because NIST didn't believe that the explosives could be placed without being detected. Such an opinion is not a technical opinion, but an operational one that goes more to logistically how a criminal could have committed the crime than technically how it was done. Clearly NIST could consider the many reports of foreknowledge and note the impossibility of such specific and detailed foreknowledge. The Report should be revised accordingly.

FEMA Building Performance Study - Appendix C

The NIST WTC 7 Report does not attempt to explain the "severe high-temperature corrosion attack" on apparently the only piece of WTC 7 steel which was tested, as documented in Appendix C, "Limited Metallurgical Examination" of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Performance Study, which can be found at the link below on the NIST website.

 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

The detailed further study deemed necessary by FEMA was - as far as we know - never done, and the observed "intergranular melting" of the steel can not be explained within the framework of the present NIST hypothesis. Why would NIST ignore the recommendations made by FEMA investigators for additional research of the unexplained material behavior?

In a taped interview Worcester Polytechnic Institute Fire Engineering professor Dr. Jonathan Barnett, one of the authors of the 13 page report in Appendix C, made the comment that normal investigative protocol was not followed in the case of the WTC 7 collapse. He says that the steel from WTC 7 was not photographed, examined, and cataloged before being removed. The comments he makes are at the 3:00 minute mark in the below linked video.

 link to www.911podcasts.com

It is reported that WTC 7 was fully evacuated long before its collapse and that there were no fatalities or missing persons involved with its demise. The photos in the figures below show the collapsed WTC 7 to have its debris field confined to within a short distance of its footprint.

In addition to showing the relatively tight confinement of the debris field of WTC 7, the photo in Figure 2 also shows that debris from WTC 6 and WTC 5 was contained within their footprints or very nearby.

The FEMA report debris field map for the Twin Towers, below in Figure 3, shows that only a small percentage of the debris from WTC 1 made it the 350 feet to WTC 7's location. The lighter areas on the map represent low debris density and the darker areas high debris density.
Photobucket

The seeming separation of the WTC 7 debris field from those of the other buildings, and the fact there were no missing persons or fatalities involved with its collapse, make it hard to accept the History Channel program narrator's comment, in the video above, that the mingling of the steel from the different buildings, and the need for search and rescue, were the reasons for the removal of the WTC 7 steel, before it could be properly photographed, examined, and cataloged, at the collapse site.

Even if the WTC 7 steel was moved, without being examined and cataloged at the site of the collapse, an additional question arises as to why it wasn't recovered and stored for later testing, evaluation, and a systematic forensic analysis. This is especially pertinent in light of the FEMA recommendation that additional research was needed due to the strange findings in their very limited metallurgical examination.

In the August 2008 NIST draft Report on WTC 7 there is no mention of testing of any recovered steel from the collapsed remains of the building. In sections where the properties of the steel need to be discussed reference is curiously made to WTC steel samples, not specifically those of WTC 7. This can be understood if one is aware that in an earlier draft of the WTC 7 report NIST made the stark admission that "No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels".

Since the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 suffers from a lack of physical evidence to support its findings, it should go into some level of detail on: why normal investigatory protocol was not followed, why none of the steel was recovered, and whether any laws were violated in not doing so. If there are questions as to the legality of the removal and lack of recovery for investigatory purposes, NIST should recommend that an investigation be commenced to determine who was involved with the decision to remove the steel and why NIST did not receive any of it for its investigation.

There are also several seemingly contradictory issues between the FEMA Building Performance Study Appendix C and the NIST WTC 7 Report, for which no explanations have been provided, and they are:


NIST states "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" while FEMA section C.2 shows that at least one piece of WTC 7 steel was tested, with the results being alarming, considering the highly unusual formation of a liquid eutectic, intergranular melting, and erosion. Features not seen before, by the experienced investigators, in steel subject to common office fires.

FEMA section C.3 Summary for Sample 1 states that the steel was heated to around 1,000ー C. (1,800ー F.), which is much hotter than the steel temperatures NIST is claiming to have caused the collapse, and seemingly far outside the ability of office fires to heat the steel. Additionally, this section states that steel liquefied at these temperatures, due to the formation of the eutectic, which would dramatically lower the usual 2750ー F melting point temperature of the steel.

FEMA Section C.6 Suggestions for Future Research states "It is also possible that the intergranular melting, eutectic formation, and erosion phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."


Why hasn't the "future research" been done, and the results from it published, especially when FEMA itself suggested that this melting and erosion may have started "prior to collapse"? NIST was charged with investigating the conditions that led to the collapse of WTC 7, and clearly something that possibly occurred prior to collapse and "accelerated the weakening of the steel structure" is something NIST should have investigated. NIST should revise the Report accordingly after it has performed the needed metallurgical analysis.

These public comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report are being submitted by the following individuals:

James R. Gourley, Esq.
Chemical Engineer
International Center for 9/11 Studies
jrpatent _at_ gmail_dot_com

Tony Szamboti
Mechanical Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage
AIA Architect
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Steven Jones
Ph.D. Physicist
S&J Scientific Co.

Kevin Ryan
Chemist
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Niels Harrit
Ph.D. Chemistry
University of Copenhagen

Ron Brookman
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Chris Sarns
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Kamal Obeid, SE PE
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scott Grainger, PE
Forensic Engineer
Civil Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge
Logistical Systems Consulting

Bob Fischer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Justin Keogh
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Gregg Roberts
gregg _at_ wtc7_dot_net

Open Letter to Purdue President France Crdova 29.Feb.2012 17:08

Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.

Dear President Crdova,

Congratulations on your recent appointment at Purdue University. As a long time citizen of the state of Indiana, I welcome you to what I know to be an outstanding institution of higher learning. At the same time, I hope to help you see an immediate opportunity to make a great positive difference in the lives of the people of our state and, in fact, a great difference in the lives of people everywhere. Through your appointment you have been given this opportunity to speak out and denounce what can be called, at best, criminally negligent science on the part of a small segment of the Purdue faculty.

Last month, a few Purdue professors, along with some students, presented a short animation ostensibly related to the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC). Surprisingly the University then announced this animation in a news release, as if it represented a scientifically accurate simulation of the impact of a Boeing 767 into the WTC's north tower.[1] Unfortunately, this short video clip is far from a scientifically-based production, as it actually contradicts several of the government's own, much more intensive studies, and shamefully fails to capture some of the most basic aspects of the related events. To make things worse, Purdue University paradoxically implies that this brief animation provides support for the overworked fire-induced collapse hypothesis. By simultaneously contradicting and voicing support for the official story, Purdue has helped to promote the Bush Administration's fraudulent 9/11 Wars, and instantly earned a notorious place in modern history.

In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area.[2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation.

Apart from that small inadvertent success, these Purdue professors show that they do not understand even the simplest aspects of the WTC events, let alone the latest government story in support of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Professors Irfanoglu and Hoffman described the details of their project in a paper entitled "An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1″, published on the Purdue University website.[3] In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during "the impact of American Airlines Flight 77″. Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This obvious example of the simple errors made throughout this project is an embarrassment, without a doubt. But errors do not become grave mistakes unless they go uncorrected. In this case, however, it appears that we are witnessing gross negligence at a minimum, as later in the same paper the authors make things worse by stating that the animation actually reflects the "impact of Flight AA71″. If the authors can't even get these basic details right, in several attempts, why should people expect that the animation produced has any relevance to reality? More importantly, did anyone at Purdue review this paper at all before putting the University's reputation on the line in major media reports around the world?

There is no question that, if any review or oversight did occur for this project, it did not involve anyone who had any familiarity with the US government's previous WTC investigations. This fact is evident when one reads the abstract of this paper, which states "a core collapse mechanism could be initiated if the core column temperatures were elevated to about 700 C." Considering that "core collapse" may be the one and only theory we have not yet seen from the scientists supporting the Bush Administration's WTC story, it is a wonder that so few noticed the discrepancy. In fact, the latest in a long string of false explanations given in support of the fire-based hypothesis begins with the failure of perimeter columns, not core columns, as the former were pulled inward by sagging floors.[4]

There are many more significant differences between the latest official story for "collapse" of the WTC towers, as given by NIST, and this poor animation put out by a misdirected and unsupervised group at Purdue. Here are a few more examples.

キ NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged by aircraft impact, and this was in their "more severe" case. Purdue now says that 52 core columns were "destroyed or heavily damaged" over a height six floors (see Irfanoglu and Hoffman, table 1). First note that there was a total of 47 core columns in the building. Even if several of these were "destroyed" at multiple levels, Purdue is now asking us to accept a level of damage that is far greater than years of government research could support.

キ NIST reported that the damage done to the south face of WTC 1 was limited to one dislodged panel, encompassing three exterior columns (329,330 and 331), caused by whatever small amount of debris passed through and exited the far side of the building. Purdue's team now wants us to believe that 12 exterior columns were severed on the south face of WTC 1.[5]

キ NIST told us that the center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it struck WTC 1. But this new animation shows the center tank to be completely full. Additional comments from the animation's creators indicate they have no idea how much jet fuel was available inside the building, or how this fuel played a part in the destruction.

I could go on describing the stupefying failure of this new Purdue animation, and how it contradicts the reports it pretends to support. But I ask you to review this project yourself, and consider asking for clarification from the authors.

You might start with Purdue's Mete Sozen, a long time leader of official investigations for terrorist acts, and a mainstay of "expert" testimony for those supporting Bush's war of terror. Professor Sozen also happens to be the chairman of a US Department of Defense program, which puts him among the least likely people to objectively judge the scientific basis for the origins of this war. But my guess is that Mete Sozen is more than just a simple war profiteer, and may have more sinister personal reasons for promoting the Bush Administration's genocide for oil program.

In any case, it is disturbing that a respected academic institution like Purdue would offer what is essentially a half-baked video game as another explanation for the most important events of the 21st century. It is just as disturbing, although less surprising, that major media sources would uncritically repeat ridiculous assertions by the animation's creators as if they were statements of fact. For example the Associated Press and the New York Times quoted Purdue Computer Science professor Christoph Hoffman when he said "One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures" and "This is something that wasn't originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time." In these articles the reader can't tell if it is the reporters, or just the professors, who are hopelessly confused.[6] Not only were the WTC buildings fully fireproofed, that fireproofing had been dramatically upgraded in the two years prior to 9/11.

President Crdova, I ask you to consider Purdue's part in the propagation of false stories behind 9/11 and the devastating damage they are doing to our country and the victims of the 9/11 Wars. As a physicist you must understand that the near free-fall "collapse" of three tall buildings, of which only two were struck by airliners, is the most improbable, and yet politically convenient, series of events that the world has ever seen. Now that we have witnessed multiple false official explanations for these events, many scientists are waking to, and are willing to stand against, this fraud in order to save our country and end these wars of aggression.[7] As the leader of a university that has been thrust into the center of this critical national discussion, you should lead this effort.

If you can spare one hour of your time to better understand these issues, I would be happy to make a detailed presentation to you and any members of your staff.

Sincerely,

Kevin R. Ryan
kncryan_at_msn_dot_com
Co-editor, Journal of 9/11 Studies  http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[1] Steve Tally, Purdue University News Service, Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack, June 12, 2007,  http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

[2] NIST's WTC report NCSTAR 1-6A, Passive Fire Protection, Appendix C,  http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf

[3] A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1, J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007,  http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/WTC-1_EP.pdf

[4] NIST's collapse initiation sequence can be found in their report NCSTAR1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, Principal findings, p 175,  link to wtc.nist.gov

[5] Voicu Popescu, Paul Rosen, Christoph Hoffmann, Ayhan Irfanoglu, 9/11 Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Phase 4 Preview: Post-processed simulations rendered using 3Dsmax, still image called "Debris Exiting"  http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/img276-0.jpg

[6] The Indianapolis Star ran the AP article by Steve Herman on June 21, 2007, with the title Purdue researchers simulate 9/11 attacks,  link to www.indystar.com...

[7] There are several groups of scientists actively seeking the truth behind the events of 9/11. Groups I recommend include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose member list can be found here:  link to stj911.com


So Bassically You Have No Credible Sources 29.Feb.2012 21:56

k... still nothing from you

Really, no need to parade your uncredible sources around and make yourself look more foolish, just give up or post a credible source.

NIST aka U.S. government = 100% " credible " 01.Mar.2012 00:23

.

.

" It's well known that 9 11 truth is a sham " 01.Mar.2012 00:32

?

what is

" 9 11 truth "

?

only by -- first -- defining that term, can you characterize it as a "sham" (or anything else)

furthermore, "it's well known" is a fallacious and baseless point of 'argument'... you need to provide credible sources for such a statement.

" Show us your sources " 01.Mar.2012 00:33

show us _ yours _ , and btw

who the ***k are you?

" Why don't _they_ have any credible sources? Because _they_'re full of shit. " 01.Mar.2012 00:34

?

who

are

" they "


?

author: (A) = sham 01.Mar.2012 00:35

.

.

" 9 11 truth clowns " 01.Mar.2012 00:36

??

what is a

" 9 11 truth clown "

?

" credible source " 01.Mar.2012 00:37

define that - and after you're done

what was this thread about, again ?

The Case of World Trade Center 1 01.Mar.2012 00:45

Evidence based research

The Case of WTC1

NIST's KEY OBSERVABLES: NIST MEASUREMENT AND MAPPING OF EARLY MOVEMENT AND THE COLLAPSE INITIATION SEQUENCE

The NIST lists its key observations of the early movement of WTC1 and WTC2 within NCSTAR 1-6 and 1-6D.

NCSTAR 1-6 is linked here
NCSTAR 1-6D is linked here


All descriptions of early movement of WTC1 within NCSTAR 1-6D are quoted below. The descriptions of early movement of WTC2 are also listed so as to compare how the NIST understands the early movement of each tower in relation to the other.

It is clear from the quotes that the NIST considered WTC1 to lean and move in a very similar way to WTC2, tilting about the same amount as the columns fail throughout the building before the upper portion begins to fall vertically.

..............

WTC1: "First exterior sign of collapse was at floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity." -xliv

Comparison with the description of WTC2: "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before building section fell." - page xliv


According to the NIST, WTC1 rotated as much to the south before falling vertically as WTC2 tilted to the east. Every description and comparison with WTC2 within the NIST reports makes the same claim as can be easily seen in the collected body of quotes.
........................


WTC1: "The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see figure E-11), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns." - page liv

(fig E-11 is the same as fig 5-8 shown below)

Comparison to description of WTC2: "The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south (observed at about 7 to 8 degrees to the east and about 3 or 4 degrees to the south, Fig. E-16) as column instability progressed from the east wall to the adjacent south and north walls." -page lviii
......................


WTC1: "First exterior sign of collapse was at floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity." - p 312

Comparison with the description of WTC2:

"tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before building section fell." - page 319

...................


" The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south (observed at 8 degrees, table 5-2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see fig 5-8) resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued." - p 314

Figure 5-8 is shown below.

[imga] http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/ballou.jpg[/imga]

Comparison with the description of WTC2:

"The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south (observed at about 3 to 4 degrees to the east and about 7 to 8 degrees to the south, Fig. 5-16) as column instability progressed from the east wall to the adjacent north and south walls. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued." -page 321

..............


All references to the early movement of WTC1 during collapse initiation from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 are listed below.

.................

WTC1: "The WTC 1 building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the south as the structural collapse initiated, as shown in Fig. E-6. A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downward." -page liv

comparison to the WTC2 description:

"The building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the east and south as the structural collapse initiated as shown in fig. E-8. There was approximately a 3 to 4 degree tilt to the south and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east prior to significant downward movement of the upper section". - page liv
.........................


WTC1: "The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face0 to the south (at least about 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls." - page lxviii

comparison to the WTC2 description:

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled east face) to the east (about 7 to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 to 4 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls. The building section above the impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees." -page lxix
.........................................


WTC1: "A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards." - page lxxv

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

"Estimates made from photographs indicate that there was approximately a 3 degree to 4 degree tilt to the south and a 7 degree to 8 degree tilt to the east, prior to significant downward movement of the upper portion of the building" -lxxvi
................................


WTC1: "A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards." - page 155

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

"Estimates from photographs indicated that there was approximately a 3 to 4 degree tilt to the south and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east prior to significant downward movement of the upper building section." - page 167

...
.................


"Rotation of the building section above the impact and fire zone to at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically." -page 156

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

"Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically." - page 169

...
......................................


WTC1: "Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity." -page 298

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

"Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees to the east occurred before the building section began to fall vertically." - page 306

'''''''''''''''''''

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls" -page 300

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled east face) to the east (about 7 to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 to 4 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls." - page 308 and again on page 309
....................


"The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south at least about 8 degrees as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along adjacent east and west walls, as shown in Fig. 9-13." - page 304

Comparison to the WTC2 description:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

The only descriptions of WTC1 early movement provided by the NIST are in NCSTAR 1-6, and NCSTAR 1-6D and are quoted here.

As anyone can verify from the comparison of the NIST WTC1 and WTC2 tilt descriptions in NCSTAR 1-6 and 1-6D, the NIST represents the tilt over which all columns originally fail as about 7 degrees to the east for WTC2 and about 8 degrees to the south for WTC1.

.........................
.........................

INDEPENDENT MAPPING AND MEASUREMENTS OF WTC1 BUILDING MOVEMENT THROUGH THE COLLAPSE INITIATION SEQUENCE BACK TO THE EARLIEST DETECTABLE MOVEMENT

The collective visual record of the WTC1 collapse is examined directly and independently of all other sources, groups or individuals. The movement of the structure during the initial column failure sequence is mapped and traced back to the earliest point of detectable movement from multiple angles. Features of the initial failure sequence, including

1) Deformations
2) Ejections and overpressurization leading into the collapse initiation sequence
3) Collapse initiation motion and deformity traced back to the earliest detectable motion
4) Failure sequence of all visible perimeter walls

are mapped, documented and compared to NIST observations and measurements. All claims are verifiableand all methods reproducible.

DEFORMATIONS:

Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter

EARLIEST OVERPRESSURIZATION:

Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse

Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse

Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side

88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection


EARLIEST DETECTABLE MOVEMENT:

Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse

Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse

Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling

Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves

Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling

PERIMETER WALL MOVEMENT:

Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval

South Wall Motion

North Wall Motion

West Wall Motion

There is no need to speculate about these events since they are directly observable and captured in video and photographs, and therefore verifiable.

It is interesting to ask how many of these distinct observable features were spotted and noted in the NIST report on the WTC1 collapse. Of all the observations and measurements listed, only the fire flair-up from the east side of the building 3 seconds before collapse is mentioned within the NIST reports.

.............

DETERMINATION OF TILT OVER WHICH ALL COLUMNS INITIALLY FAIL USING THE VISUAL RECORD

The columns fail from south to north and from east to west so the clearly visible NW corner would be the last columns to fail. The moment of failure is shown:

By synchronizing the video from the northeast, north, northwest and west views, one can determine the moment the northwest corner fails by visual inspection. It can be easily verified that the northwest corner had already failed in the frames shown below:

A MORE PRECISE DETERMINATION OF TILT ANGLE

Anyone can determine tilt angles from various perspectives over which all columns fail by using a simple 4 step process:

1) Verify the west face fails from south to north:

2) Verify the north face fails from east to west:

3) Determine precise moment of failure of the northwest corner:

4) Measure tilt of antenna and other normally vertical features of the deforming structure from multiple angles at that moment

Steps 1 and 2 allow anyone to verify that the northwest corner is the last set of columns to fail. The precise moment of failure of the northwest corner can be determined by using the high resolution Sauret video and tracking the movement of the northwest corner:

The velocity curve in black allows the determination of the moment of failure of the NW corner with remarkable precision. One would naturally look at the point in which the velocity makes the initial sharp, downward transition. Both visual inspection and object tracking allow anyone to spot the moments of failure of the NW corner.

By synchronizing videos from other perspectives with the Sauret video from the north, tilt angles can be determined from each perspective.

VISUAL EVIDENCE CITED WITHIN THE NIST REPORTS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS

The following sequences of images from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 show the entirety of the visual evidence the NIST presents to support the claim that the building tilted 8 degrees as column failures propagated from south to north.



In the following sequence all columns had failed before the second and third photographs were taken even though the NIST misrepresents the failures as occurring during the sequence shown:

...............................................

Likewise, all columns had failed by the time the 2 photos below were taken:

...............................

Once again, all columns had clearly failed by the time the second and third photographs were taken:

...............................

Once again, all columns had completely failed by the time the second photo was taken:

............................

In the next case all columns had completely failed before all 3 photographs were taken

COMPARISON OF NIST DESCRIPTION OF EARLY MOVEMENT WITH THE VISUAL RECORD


EARLIEST DETECTABLE MOVEMENT

In order to discover the sequence in which columns failed, one could trace early movement of various points on the building back to the point in which movement is undetectable. This was done by independent researchers and the results are displayed at the 2 links below. Interestingly, the NIST didn't detect this earliest movement beginning about 10 seconds before the visible collapse. There is no mention or recognition of the earliest motion detectable in the antenna and the northwest corner within the NIST reports.

Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse

Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse

This movement from 9.5 seconds before the visual collapse are the earliest sign of collapse initiation, not the 98th floor failure 9.5 seconds later as the NIST claims. Motion can be traced back to determine the earliest moment of detectable motion. The NIST did not do this.


EARLIEST OVERPRESSURIZATION

Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side

The NIST claims the first signs of collapse initiation were from ejections along the 98th floor. The first visible ejections were actually from the 95th floor.

Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse

...

Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse

...

88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection

...






MOVEMENT OVER WHICH ALL COLUMNS FAIL

Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling

The NIST clearly states repeatedly that there was at least an 8 degrees of tilt caused by the failure of the south wall as columns failed from south to north. But all core and perimeter columns had failed before any vertical component tilted 1 degree. Their entire collapse initiation scenario is based on this false assumption; that both WTC1 and WTC2 tilted about the same magnitude during the initial column failure sequence.


Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval

This observable and measurable fact should have alerted the NIST that their description of the initial tilt angle was wildly incorrect. Both the north and west walls are visible during the collapse initiation sequence.

Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves

The NIST claims that the south wall failed first and redistributed the load to the core and adjacent east and west walls. But points traced on the antenna and the NE, NW and near the SW corner reveal concave deformity along the roofline, not convex deformity or the whole upper portion tilting as a "rigid block" as the NIST claims.




.....................


THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REVIEWED


The final step K in the NIST methodology as stated in the executive summary is to:

"Determine the probable collapse sequence for each tower. A probable collapse sequence for each tower was determined. The collapse sequences were evaluated against key observables."


In the case of WTC1 the key observables concerning the earliest detectable movement, the earliest signs of overpressurization and the the movement over the collapse initiation column failure sequence were all misrepresented within the report. If the movement over the collapse sequence is grossly misrepresented within the reports, how can the NIST evaluate their collapse sequence against the behavior of the tower itself?




What is the Scientific Method? Wikilink here


The most salient points from the link are reviewed:


1) Must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Needless to say, the observations and measurements must be accurate.

2) Consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

In the case of the NIST reports, the collapse initiation sequences are the hypotheses. The hypotheses are tested by comparing them with what was observed and measured. If measurables and observables do not match the hypothesis, one modifies the hypothesis.

Instead, the NIST effectively modified the observables and measurables to match the hypothesis. As proposed in part 1 of these essays, the most fundamental constraint of a physical theory is that it conforms itself to all observables and measurables. Careful, accurate observation and measurement are the anchors which limits a model of a physical event to realistic constraints.

3) Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.

They need to be verifiable by others so that faith is not required to confirm claims.

4) Expectation of full disclosure is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. This allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Under careful scrutiny by independent researchers, every key observable which the NIST claims occurred during the collapse initiation sequence was found to be verifiably untrue.

.................


CONCLUSIONS concerning WTC1


Within the NIST reports on WTC1, observable, measurable evidence was basically fabricated into a form which superficially appears to agree with the NIST collapse initiation model.

The NIST grossly misrepresented observables during collapse initiation. They grossly misrepresented the movement through the initial column failure sequence. They failed to detect the earliest movement, which was the antenna and the NW corner pulling in, both signs of core failure. The NIST incorrectly identified earliest ejections as from floor 98. In short, every representation of the initial movement of WTC1 within the reports is verifiably incorrect.


Now that these errors are documented, the chance that the NIST will modify their hypothesis of how and why WTC1 collapsed is virtually nil.

.............


HOW DID GROSS MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF WTC1 FAILURE GO UNNOTICED BY SO MANY PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS SINCE 2005?

This may be one of the biggest mysteries about the reports; how few people seemed to notice the gaping contradiction between the visual record and authoritative claims of early WTC1 movement.

As of this date there is no written record of any independent professional or academic group or individual that spotted the gross contradictions between the visual record and the official description and measurements of the initial failure. There is nothing within any engineering study available that seemed to notice the extreme errors in the results.


The actual early movement during the initial column failure sequence as recorded within the visual record was basically replaced by fabricated set of observations and measurements. Early movement as recorded in video reveals movement and failure sequence quite different from anything described within official literature.





There is no accurate technical history of the collapse initiation or collapse progression of WTC1. There is no accurate history or explanation of what happened to WTC1 at all. WTC1 early movement remains a mystery to this day, no official or academic body having measured and mapped its movements or behavior in a remotely accurate way.



In the case of WTC1, a model of collapse initiation was presented that could not at all explain the observables and measurables of early movement. The mistake was not noticed because the NIST reported early movement that was grossly incorrect, and then claimed that the model presented matched all observables.


Most striking is that neither the NIST engineers nor any academic body that supported the final report seemed to notice. Even today, any group or individual can chart early movement of the building, compare with the NIST description of early movement and notice the gaping difference between the NIST description and reality.

The net result is quite interesting in that the case of WTC1 serves as a prime example of how vulnerable people can be to false certainty and groupthink.

WTC 1 COLLAPSE INITIATION MOTION FALSIFIED LINKED HERE



WTC1 serves as verifiable proof that observables and measurables can be grossly misreported in order to match a conceptual model with very few people noticing. One decade after the collapses and over 5 years after the final NIST reports were published, one has an excellent opportunity to look back at how the misreported early movement of WTC1`was received by the general public.


If WTC1 early motion was described correctly within the NIST reports, a fundamental technical question would be, "How did the WTC1 core collectively fail considering the earliest antenna motion became detectable only 10 seconds before the core completely gave?"


This question was never posed or addressed because early motion was described in such a grossly mistaken way that WTC1 was imagined to fail through the south wall with considerable tilt as columns gave from south to north. And 5 years later, there is ample proof which shows that very, very few engineers were able to tell the difference or spot the gross error in the reports.

The multiple indications of collective core failure would have been recognized from a careful study of the visual record and early building movement. Yet it still goes unrecognized today.

Created on 02/02/2012 07:14 PM by admin
Updated on 02/03/2012 12:11 AM by admin


NIST's Evasion 01.Mar.2012 00:48

9-11 Review

NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) was given a budget of tens of millions of dollars to study the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Yet it avoided that charge in any meaningful sense. Its final report admits that it didn't even attempt to model the collapses.

The first critique to thoroughly expose NIST's evasion of its task of investigating the collapses was provided by Sami Yli-Karjanmaa on July 14, 2005. The following excerpt includes more that half of the brief critique.
e x c e r p t
title: NIST and the WTC: 'Science' at the Service of an Empire
authors: Sami Yli-Karjanmaa

The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to "[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." [3] These questions are not answered for simple reasons:

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.

Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out "[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse." [5]

...

In other words, "Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn't have time to do that. And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?"

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 コC are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any above 250 コC." [9]

NIST's collapse creed, repeated eleven times with identical wording (and once with a slightly different one) in the report of project 6 dealing with the collapse sequences, is this:

" The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." [10]

In other words: "Once the top started coming down, it was so heavy that the damaged columns could not stop it. Neither could the undamaged columns of dozens of floors do that, it seems. But we didn't need to model that for we've all seen that down it came."

Thorough, open, independent?

References:
[1]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/semerjian_remarks_62305.htm
[2]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm
[3]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf (75 kB), p.3
[4]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf (1.4 MB), p. lxii
[5] Ibid., p. lxiv
[6]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6DDraft.pdf (19.4 MB), p. 5
[7] Ibid., p. 169
[8] Ibid., p. 371
[9]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (52 kB), p. xli
[10]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf (17.5 MB)
site: www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/ page: www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/nistcomm.htm

Later, Jim Hoffman wrote a critique of NIST's report, which, although far more detailed than Yli-Karjanmaa's, makes essentially the same central point.
e x c e r p t
title: Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
authors: Jim Hoffman

To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.
site: 911research.wtc7.net page: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

Hoffman's critique points out that NIST's Report, while avoiding even claiming to model the collapses, implies but does not show that it modeled the onsets of the collapses. The Report's section entitled Results of Global Analysis" describes the tops of the Towers first tilting and then moving downward as intact blocks, but there are no images in the Report of its computer models showing this behavior. The New Civil Engineer (NCE), an engineering trade journal based in the United Kingdom, published an article highlighting NIST's failure to publish visualizations of its alleged analysis of "collapse initiation."
e x c e r p t
title: WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization
authors: Dave Parker
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation

WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. "NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost," he said.

University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers "would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST."

NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.

But it said it would 'consider' developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. "By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated," he said.

"The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn't mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far."
site: www.nceplus.co.uk page: georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/professor-jones-is-right-government.html
NIST's WTC7 Report

Seven years after the attack, NIST issued it's Final Report on WTC7. In 2006 point man Shyam Sunder had told a New York Magazine reporter in 2006 that "We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7". 1 Now, in a press conference to wrap up their multi-year "investigation", Sunder emphasized how "comformatable" they were with their new theory -- a theory that is breathtakingly innovative in distancing itself from facts. Cast aside are the diesel fuel, which had been the key ingredient of collapse explanations since 2001, and the severe structural damaged that NIST's earlier reports made so much of. All of that could be forgotten along with the expeditiously destroyed steel with NIST's new "elegant" theory, in which a single beam, heated by fires, broke loose of its connections and took the whole skyscraper down with it. No need to investigate further, according to Sunder, because their results are "incredibly conclusive". And certainly no need to test for explosives because such testing, according to multiple statements of NIST "would not necessarily have been conclusive".
e x c e r p t
title: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
authors: Kevin Ryan

After years of talking about diesel fuel fires and damage from the towers being the causes of the near free-fall collapse of WTC 7, and then acting as if they just couldn't get a handle on it, NIST now has a new "obvious" story. The new story is based on a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion whereby fully insulated steel beams are exposed to temperatures of 600 コC in only 32 minutes. Believe it or not, NIST actually says this happened in only a few seconds (NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-2, p 353).

This extreme temperature, which did not weaken the beams at all, as would have happened in WTC 1 or WTC 2, broke all the shear studs, seat bolts and clip bolts on all the beams of the east wall of WTC 7. The beams then expanded linearly, pushing the girder between column 79 and column 44 by a maximum of 2.2 inches, causing that critical girder to buckle and fall away from columns 79 and 44.

We have seen that this "initial local failure" is not realistic. This is because the fire times could not possibly have caused the high steel temperatures cited, the steel would not have remained rigid if those temperatures had been reached, and the very slight thermal expansion would not have been great enough to cause the extensive girder damage imagined by NIST.

From that tenuous position, we are led to believe that the one fallen girder caused one column to buckle and that meant the total destruction of this 47-story building in a matter of seconds.

But who could have predicted all of this? NIST admits that this is a rare phenomenon that it had to work hard to prove.

"Failure of a floor beam in fire is a rare event, and, indeed, there have been many building fires that have not resulted in even local failures of the floor system. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire." NCSTAR 1-9, p 330

What geniuses knew that this new phenomenon of the thermal expansion of several floor beams in unison would cause this one hair-trigger girder to bring the entire building down several hours before it actually occurred?

And if you believe all that...

NIST topped off this most ridiculous of explanations with a truly bizarre consideration of a "hypothetical blast event."

First, NIST asks us to assume that it wasn't a planned demolition. We are led to believe that no one would have placed explosive charges around the entire building to cause what appears to everyone who sees it as a completely symmetrical and purely vertical near free-fall implosion.

On the contrary, NIST says that if WTC 7 was to have been a demolished, it would have to begin with an assumption that most of their new story is correct. That is, anybody wanting to bring the building down in a demolition event would have obviously placed one gigantic bomb under that one all important column -- column 79.

Therefore, let's play along with this dishonest pretense and see what NIST says that would do.

A "Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse." NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii

Essentially, NIST is saying that WTC 7 was not a demolition because a big boom would make a big sound. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the culmination of seven years of Bush Science.


Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular 01.Mar.2012 00:54

Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 1

Written by Adam Taylor
Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:41

Introduction

A decade has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and many people feel that we have still not had a real investigation into what really happened that day. Many believe that the investigations into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) were either fraudulent or incomplete, and have joined the 1600+ architects and engineers at AE911Truth in calling for a real, independent investigation into the attacks. However, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media in defense of the NIST reports ever since its book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To the Facts, was published in 2006.

For the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, PM put out a second version of its book, which was updated in an attempt to dismiss new findings that corroborate the controlled demolition hypothesis. The main sections of the book that were revised are on the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7.

This report demonstrates that PM has still not adequately explained the numerous anomalies surrounding the collapse of these three buildings that prove they were destroyed with explosives.

(Quotes from Popular Mechanics' book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2
The introduction to PM's chapter on the collapse of the Twin Towers briefly discusses the main theory put forward by members of the 9/11 Truth movement regarding the Towers' destruction: "The buildings were brought down intentionally溶ot by hijacked airplanes, but by government-planted bombs or a controlled demolition" (pg. 28). PM then goes on to give a few examples of people promoting this theory. One of the people they cite is a Danish writer named Henrik Melvang, who, according to PM, "markets his book and video claiming the Apollo moon landings were a hoax" (pg. 28). This is obviously an attempt on PM's part to portray those who question the collapse of the Towers as conspiracy theorists who have irrational beliefs. PM also cites Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor during President George Bush's first term, as someone who believes that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.

We must ask ourselves why PM would choose to cite these people as examples of those who question the collapse of the Towers. Why didn't they cite anyone with experience in the fields of engineering and building construction? According to PM, it's because the 9/11 Truth movement doesn't have any technical credentials. In their 2011 book, they state that:

Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. (pg. 28-29)

This statement is by far one of the most remarkable passages in PM's book. One need only look at what most consider the lead organization in the 9/11truth community, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to see that there are currently over 1600 professional architects and engineers with backgrounds in engineering, architecture and building construction who question the destruction of the three WTC high-rise buildings. How can PM possibly have omitted over a thousand experts who agree that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down with explosives? In PM's entire 216 page book, there is not a single mention made of AE911Truth or its founder, architect Richard Gage, AIA.

Popular Mechanics did a poor job of updating their book, leaving in claims from their 2006 version (excerpt shown above) that no leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement have backgrounds in engineering. They completely ignore the hundreds of engineers at AE911Truth who have examined the WTC evidence and are demanding a real investigation.

When one looks back at their 2006 book, we can see that this exact same statement appears on the exact same pages.

This fact shows how PM has decided to structure their new book: i.e., update it only where it benefits them. As we will see, this tactic is used more than once in PM's grossly flawed book.

The debate over the airplane crash at the Empire State Building is irrelevant because the design of the Twin Towers was far more robust than that of older high-rises

1.1 The Empire State Building Accident
PM discusses the incident in 1945 where a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the side of the Empire state building. They claim that "some conspiracy theorists point to [this incident] as proof that commercial planes hitting the World Trade Center could not bring down the towers" (pg. 29). To counter this assertion, PM discusses the construction of the Towers compared to the construction of the Empire State Building and how the Towers' structures "were in some ways more fragile" (pg. 30). They also quote structural engineer Jon Magnusson as saying that "These structures look massive, but they're mostly air. They are air, punctuated with thin layers of concrete and steel" (pg. 30). While it is true that the Towers were mostly empty space by volume, this is true of any large skyscraper. The idea that the Towers were in some way less structurally sound than the Empire State Building is contradicted by a variety of technical sources, including this telegram written by Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, which was the architectural firm that designed the Twin Towers:

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.i

It is quite apparent that the Towers were extremely well built, and may have been even more structurally sound than the Empire State Building. Even those supporting the official conspiracy theory praise the buildings' structural integrity as designed, such as Thomas Eager:

"The towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft... the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft... This ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising." - Eagar and Musso, JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11

PM next quotes WTC assistant structural engineer Leslie Robertson as stating that the Towers were only designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, but did not take into consideration the fires that would be produced by the jet fuel.

After 9/11, Robertson stated, "I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause" (pg. 31).

However, someone evidently did consider that problem, and that someone was John Skilling, the original WTC lead engineer. When interviewed in 1993, Skilling told the Seattle Times that:

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side... Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there."ii

Although PM mentions John Skilling briefly in their book, they make no mention of this statement. Apparently, PM felt no need to quote the lead WTC engineer on his views about the structural stability of the Towers.

Although the B-25 bomber is not a very good comparison to the planes that hit the Towers, the evidence strongly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to the plane impacts and the ensuing fires. PM quotes a few sources who stated after 9/11 that the Towers were doomed once the planes impacted the buildings, but virtually every engineering source that was quoted before 9/11 says the opposite.iii

1.2 Widespread Damage
The next section of PM's book deals mainly with the damage to the lobby floors of the Towers and how many in the 9/11 Truth movement have asserted that this is evidence of explosives being planted in the buildings. The argument PM puts forward is that the jet fuel from the planes traveled down through the elevator shafts and caused explosions that damaged the lobby.
The walls and trees in the lobby of one of the Twin Towers show no evidence of being burned by a jet fuel fireball, which Popular Mechanics claims was the cause of an earlier explosion

Although viewpoints differ in the 9/11 Truth movementiv regarding the cause of these explosions, some features of the lobby damage indicate that they were not due to a fireball explosion from the jet fuel. For example, the white marble walls show no signs of being exposed to fire, and the plants next to the blown out windows show no signs of burning either.

And at least one explosives expert has stated that he does not believe the damage was caused by the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, based on the appearance of the lobby.v Whether or not the lobby damage is indicative of explosives, however, is essentially irrelevant to the discussion of the Towers' demolitions, as the collapse sequence started above the plane impact zone, not at the lower levels. The lobby damage is not necessary to prove the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, as there are far more obvious indicators of demolition that will be discussed later in this report. The fact that PM claims that the jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts is actually more damaging to their case, as it shows that not all of the fuel from the planes contributed to the fires that allegedly brought the Towers down.vi

This section of PM's book also discusses the testimony of firefighter Louie Cacchioli, one of over one hundred first responders who said that there were bombs in the WTC. PM counters this by asserting that members of the 9/11 Truth movement have taken his quotes out of context. Though Caccholi himself does not believe explosives were placed in the buildings, the numerous quotes from firefighters and first responders strongly indicate that explosives were placed in the buildings.vii

In Part 2 of this monthly series, Taylor will refute the false explanations that Popular Mechanics has provided for the molten metal that was discovered at Ground Zero. Look for Part 2 in the March edition of the Blueprint newsletter.

i Quoted from: City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, pg. 134-136

ii Quoted from: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times
 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

iii For more information on the pre-9/11 claims about the Towers' strength, see:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

iv The following links provide arguments against the lobby damage being caused by explosives:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/basementbomb.html

 http://911review.com/errors/wtc/preimpact.html

 http://911review.com/errors/wtc/basementbombs.html

 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/wtc.html#rodriguez

 link to 911research.wtc7.net

v The following link provides arguments against the lobby damage being caused by a jet fuel fireball:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtEw4GA_hOg#t=11m24s

vi This paper provides detailed measurements for how much fuel actually remained on the impact floors, and shows that the amount in either Tower was actually quite small in relation to each Tower, much less a single floor:
 http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf

vi iSee:  http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf


8 years after 9/11 building trades professionals still have questions 01.Mar.2012 01:01

LA metroactive

Eight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit

By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie

JUST A FEW YEARS ago Ed Munyak, a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, seemed like a lonely, out-there figure, a sometimes-target because of his outspoken position on the events of Sept. 11, 2001. These days, hundreds of other building trade professionals have joined him in challenging the official narrative about the collapse of three buildings at New York's World Trade Center (WTC) on that fateful, traumatic day.

Munyak, of Los Altos Hills, is a mechanical and fire engineer whose job is to review building plans to ensure they comply with the California Building and Fire Code. In 2007, after speaking out on his own for a few years, Munyak signed on with a then-fledging organization called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911 Truth), founded by Bay Area architect Richard Gage.

Today, far from being isolated, Munyak now counts as allies 804 professional architects and building engineers from around the country. Collectively, they have joined Munyak's call for an independent technical investigation of the causes of the WTC buildings collapse. In doing so, they reject the federal government's conclusions that two airplanes alone brought the buildings down謡ithout the aid of pre-planted explosives.

Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves預nd will get友BI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis."

Munyak and his professional allies insist that they are not conspiracy theorists, and they refuse to speculate on the "why" or "who" of 9/11. Munyak described their basic position in an interview with Metro.

"Buildings do not fail from fire related causes in the way that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 failed. Steel frame or composite steel buildings, modern high-rise buildings葉hey just do not collapse catastrophically like that. It's impossible.

"Only if you sever columns in some other way will those buildings collapse. It takes too much energy, and that energy was not there even with adding in all that jet fuel. It defies all engineering analysis and theory that those buildings collapsed in that manner. It just doesn't make any sense."

Apparently reinforcing this position, a team of three scientists working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark reported in April that analysis of dust that they say was gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive "super thermite," used by the military.

The re-investigation movement received attention this week after it percolated into the high ranks of the Obama administration.

The President's green jobs advisor, Van Jones, resigned on Sept. 5 amidst a controversy over his statements about Republicans and his endorsement of a 2004 statement by the group 9/11 Truth.org, when he was head of an Oakland non-profit organization.

The letter, signed by more than 100 official-version doubters, called for "immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the [Bush] administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

DESCRIPTION

BLOWN THEORY: 9/11 Truthers point to photographs and videotape as evidence that explosives were used to destroy the twin towers.
Patriotic Duty

San Jose architect Thomas Lyman Chamberlain, another member of AE911 Truth, calls the official account of the 9/11 events "a fraud."

"In light of the human life and liberties being taken based on that fraud," Lyman wrote on the AE911.org site, building industry professionals "have a patriotic duty to invoke their credentials on behalf of the victims and the integrity of our nation."

Chemical engineer T. Mark Hightower of San Jose, a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, agrees. "It is clear that the buildings had help to bring them down," he says.

AE911 Truth has grown rapidly, igniting a struggling grassroots movement of hundreds of other "9/11 Truth" organizations, and spearheading a growing assault on the official story. In recent years, other single-profession 9/11 Truth groups have launched or gained momentum, including those comprised of airline pilots, firefighters, veterans, medical professionals, scholars, lawyers, religious leaders and former government employees.

Also individually calling for a new inquiry are two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.

Activists around the country attribute AE911's professional credibility and its unwavering focus on the WTC as the fuel that has galvanized the movement. David Ray Griffin, the retired Santa Barbara philosophy professor and theologian who is perhaps the leading intellectual force within the Truth groups謡ith seven 9/11 books to his credit, including The New Pearl Harbor溶otes that it "is possible many of these organizations wouldn't even have formed without AE911 first being there."

"AE911 represents the biggest boost yet to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement," Griffin says. "It is clear there are far more architects and engineers who have spoken out against the official story than have publicly supported it."

DESCRIPTION

FALLOUT: The government's theory about what destroyed WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, does not satisfy members of AE911 Truth.

Building a Case

The local members of AE911 Truth and their allies elsewhere make these arguments:

Cru cial elements of the key government study on the step-by-step events that occurred in the collapse of the WTC buildings don't stand up to analytical scrutiny. The study was undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Commerce Department agency responsible for building and other safety codes and standards.

An airplane crash and subsequent fire aren't sufficient cause to bring down the towers, not even when combined with the presumed dislodging of fireproofing that protected the core steel beams in the areas in which the two planes struck. (This dislodging, NIST asserts, made the steel vulnerable to softening by fire and brought on the collapse葉he first ever of a steel-framed building hit by fire.)

NIST never tested for explosive residues despite evidence, including many eyewitness accounts from first responders and people who escaped the buildings, that explosives and incendiaries were present.

The collapse of the three buildings resembles two different types of controlled demolitions, and not the bending or toppling of a heated building section that might result from a fire.

Following the collapses, NIST assembled a panel of more than 300 staff and external experts and spent three years and $20 million on what it claims is the most exhaustive technical study ever of a building collapse.

Released in 2005, the initial NIST report concluded that the twin towers, which NIST agrees could not normally be brought down by fire alone, collapsed because of a combination of factors, most crucially the dislodging of fireproofing by the planes' impacts. This allowed certain beams to soften sufficiently to force an inward bending of perimeter-supporting steel beams, putting so much pressure on the fire-weakened預nd in some cases severed幼enter steel columns (three severed in one tower and five in another out of 47 in each) that they collapsed in the areas where the planes had struck.

NIST also stated that there was more than enough "mass plus acceleration" of the upper stories of the twin towers as they fell to force a collapse of the lower structure straight down at nearly free fall speed, with each floor adding its weight and the force of its fall to the pressures on the floors below預 theory it argues is supported by elaborate computer models.

NIST's report on the third building to collapse, WTC7, released in August 2008, argues that mass computer modeling of existing evidence also fails to support an explosives theory. The report concludes that WTC7 was brought down by seven hours of fires combined with falling debris from the towers that weakened an entire building section and forced the collapse of a key support column, allowing the building to cave in on itself.

(The NIST towers report should not be confused with the 9/11 Commission Report, which came out a year earlier with a wildly inaccurate technical analysis that not even NIST accepts.)

Poll numbers reflect varying levels of disbelief of the official narrative. The Zogby poll in 2004 found that half of New Yorkers thought that U.S. officials knew the terrorist plot was going to unfold and consciously failed to act. The New York Times and CBS News commissioned an Angus Reid Global Monitor poll in 2006 and found that 80 percent of Americans thought President Bush was at least hiding something regarding 9/11.

In 2006, Popular Mechanics magazine published a study debunking critiques of NIST, most notably the assertion that explosives brought down the Trade Center buildings. All this was before engineers, scientists and architects began to organize and present evidence challenging both the official narrative and Popular Mechanics' defense of that narrative.

Puzzling Evidence

Within his 20-year career, Richard Gage counts among his accomplishments the design of numerous fireproofed steel-framed buildings. In an interview with Metro, Gage, 53, a lifelong Republican, described having a moment of clarity when he first heard alternative theories of 9/11 presented in March 2006 by David Ray Griffin. As he tells it, he was driving to a construction meeting and crossed the talk radio political divide that day to listen to progressive Pacifica Radio's KPFA interviewing Griffin.

"What Griffin was saying is that the ends of these beams that were being ejected out of the World Trade Center at 55 mph were dripping with molten steel, and they landed more than 500 feet away," Gage recounts. The station also played interviews recorded after 9/11, including with firefighters who described hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light that would support an explosives/incendiaries theory.

Before this, Gage notes, he hadn't paid heed to the technical details of the collapse or questioned the official story. Particularly striking to Gage was the fact that the taped eyewitness interviews had only in August 2005 been released to The New York Times by the city of New York by court order溶early four years after 9/11.

"This was information that has been hidden by the city of New York, and it became obvious the reason why they hid it," Gage said. "So I began looking at it myself. The more I read, the more disturbed I got, and I realized fairly quickly what I needed to do, and that was to start Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth."

As founder and executive director, the soft-spoken Gage has since become something like a subversive Al Gore, delivering a disturbingly inconvenient PowerPoint presentation that he maintains dissects most of the key elements of the NIST report. Somewhat obsessed with recruiting as many building professionals as possible, Gage left his job and spends most of his time traveling from city to city presenting the core forensic case to bodies of fellow experts and to any groups that will listen.

"Most all of the architects and engineers that I present to, once they see the graphic evidence, they are completely overwhelmed, as I was, with the forensic-based scientific facts surrounding this case," Gage says. He gets similar buy-in from nonprofessional groups of all political stripes.

Like Munyak, Gage cites the fact that steel framing serves as a heat conductor, actually cooling fires and equalizing the burden on any one steel section. "The steel doesn't get to the temperature that would cause it to weaken," he says. "No steel-framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, and we have almost 100 examples."

As for NIST's theory that once the towers' impact-area beams gave way, the mass above them would rapidly crush the lower stories, Gage argues that the premise ignores the laws of physics.

"No force can crush that kind of a structure at near freefall speed. It's ludicrous," he says. "Not only that, the videos show that 95 percent of the south tower is being blown outside, indicating explosions. And the top of the north tower is being reduced from 15 stories to seven stories before it even starts to drop. Half of its mass is destroyed in the first two seconds.

"The remaining mass cannot fall at near freefall speed and crush 80,000 tons of steel and pulverize to powder 90,000 tons of concrete and create tons of molten metal by some unknowable process."

Defending the NIST research, spokesman Michael Newman says the agency's computer models were highly reliable in their crucial assessment of the amount of fireproofing dislodged預 factor not present in fires in other steel buildings cited by Gage.

NIST, supported by a number of independent building and explosives professionals who are critical of AE911, also stands behind its theory that the impact of the upper floors crushed the lower ones.

"Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," Newsman says. "If you have 20 floors of mass suddenly released, as it goes downward it picks up more mass and more force預nd, yes, you can have a building collapse in 10 seconds, and yes, it is physically possible.

"We believe that three years of hard scientific technical investigation based around a tremendous amount of evidence and confirmed by many physicists will give you the same conclusions."

Newman adds that while the force of the collapse created air pressure that blew debris outward, mimicking what Gates argues are explosions but which NIST says were not, there was more than enough mass still descending straight down to hammer the lower floors into collapsing one by one, each failed floor then adding to the descending mass.

However unquestioningly the public, media and government may have accepted NIST's conclusions ("I saw the planes hit the buildings; what else could have brought them down?" is a common refrain), Gage and his "not-so-fast" colleagues argue that they easily found flaws and ignored evidence in the study.

Most prominently, the 47-story steel structure Building 7 was never struck by a fire-proof dislodging plane but collapsed anyway.

Dust to Dust

Moreover, according to Gage and others, a major clue that something in the twin towers was producing far more heat than could a jet fuel fire (and reached far more of the steel structure than the areas around the jet fuel fires) is the alleged sightings by some first-responders and later by some of the debris-removal crews, of molten metal, like hot lava, some found to be glowing in the basements of WTC buildings up to three weeks after 9/11庸ar longer, they say, than jet fuel sources could produce. (Interviews of many cleanup-crew members by a demolition company found no evidence of molten steel sightings. Gage cites evidence to the contrary.)

Newman says NIST believes that any molten metal sightings, including metal seen pouring from the south tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane. Moreover, he says, NIST was not presented with evidence of molten steel, and if some melted, this occurred after the event, in fires underground, and was not a contributing factor to the fall of the building. Gage dismisses this as "impossible without a source of oxygen such as thermate," adding that molten metal seen in NIST-cited videos isn't the color of molten aluminum.

The 9/11 Truthers also respond that most of the steel evidence was carted away rapidly and recycled in China before it could be examined to prove either melting or NIST's key theory of dislodged fireproofing, and consider this "destruction of evidence."

Supporting AE911's theory is Dr. Steven E. Jones, a nuclear physicist known for his work in cold fusion. Jones says he was forced into early retirement from his position as a professor at Brigham Young University because of his work attempting to show that powerful explosives were present in the WTC towers.

After Jones initial analysis was harshly criticized for flaws by BYU's own building engineering department, Jones and other scientists co-authored a new critique accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed New Civil Engineering Journal that mentioned thermite as a potential culprit in the building collapses. This was followed by a research paper published last April.

Co-authored by Jones and associate professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University's famed Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, and by Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab manager for BYU's Transmission Electron Microscopy lab, as well as four other researchers, the paper provided vivid microscopic photo evidence of highly flammable red-gray chips that the authors say appear to be super thermite found in four different reputed WTC dust samples sent to Jones by suspicious New Yorkers who had collected them shortly after 9/11.

Thermite, a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide, is known to burn through steel. Adding either silicon, magnesium or titanium to the mixture makes it thermate or "super thermite," a substance with an accelerated capacity to cut through steel. According to Gage, "the military uses it to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter."

"Dr. Jones found the chemical signature of thermite," Gage says. "So, the evidence all ties together to support the hypotheses of a controlled demolition."

In an interview with Metro, Jones said his and his colleagues' microanalysis of the four different samples of dust collected from various sites in lower Manhattan revealed not only extensive presence of red-gray chips of unignited thermite, it also found significant traces of microspheres of previously molten iron that are normally the product of incendiary explosions far hotter than jet fuel fires.

"What strikes me as odd," Jones said, "is that these red chips we found are so striking, and yet no one has reported their presence before. These red chips are very unusual and very prevalent, and they test out as being consistent with a form of thermite. We can ignite them, and they react very violently when touched off. So how do you explain their presence in the towers' dust?

"USGS [the U.S Geological Survey, which did some testing on WTC dust for NIST] has a lame explanation for not looking for this. I have been encouraging them to test early dust samples, but they haven't responded."

Jones said he sent a letter in April 2008 to NIST about his findings, inviting it to test its own dust for such chips. In public comments since, NIST has dismissed his research as not scientifically valid, because Jones can't prove the "chain of custody" of the dust he tested. Other groups, notably contributors to AE911.info, which supports the NIST findings, argue that neither the samples nor Jones tests are reliable.

Jones simply says: "They don't need my dust to test. They have plenty of dust of their own where they know the chain of custody. They just won't test it."

Mushroom Clouds

Gage, Jones and other critics cite other official evidence possibly pointing to explosives including the fact that iron-rich microspheres were found in tests by USGS and RJ Lee Labs.

Says Gage, "In the twin towers, it's very explosive. You can see the explosions in all the videos, and what's happening is the explosions are creating this incredible dust cloud. The dust clouds are forming immediately. In the dust from the WTC, you have millions of these tiny, perfectly spherical microspheres of iron. Now, where did they come from?

"The only way they could have been formed is to have molten iron and then a series of explosions whose incredible force atomizes, if you will, the molten iron."

Dr. Jones notes that a USGS scientist told him the microspheres might have come from the cleanup process, when crews were cutting steel. "Problem is that we have samples from long before the cleanup began," he says.

Gage and other Truthers point to other indications of explosives. Besides vast mushroom clouds of dust and debris exploding outward at the top of both towers, videos show squibs that appear to be many small explosions. Moreover, like some first responders and escapees, in some cases live on-air broadcasts reporters joined in describing the explosions.

According to Newman, NIST studies showed that the apparent explosions and squibs were actually compressed air from the force of the collapse finding openings and blowing debris and dust outward in an explosive manner.

Eyewitness accounts of explosions, he says, weren't evident in 10,000 interviews NIST conducted, and a few such reports were readily explained by other phenomena.

"No one gave us any evidence that there was any kind of explosive," Newman says. Nor did NIST find evidence of a "severe high-temperature corrosion attack," he says, noting that sulfur and manganese were heavily present in building materials and that any corrosion might have occurred in the debris pile after the buildings' collapse, due to the conditions there.

AE911 critics support NIST with an argument that explosive sounds likely derived from electrical and air-conditioning transformers exploding, the sound of floors collapsing onto each other, or rivets popping all at once as the pressure got to them. "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets," the online Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories quotes one firefighter saying.

"So why didn't we look for explosive residues in the towers?" Newman asks rhetorically. "Because there was no evidence saying go that way. There was a lot of evidence saying look at the impact of the plane, the loss of fire-proofing, the bowing of the perimeter beams, which was the final straw that broke the camel's back."

Even so, why not test debris預 relatively simple operation葉o put the question fully behind and silence critics? Newman says NIST did calculate the quantity of thermite that would be needed預nd found that it would require a tremendous amount in each column to get it to melt.

Newman acknowledges that NIST's response that it sees "no need" to test dust for any form of thermite won't satisfy critics, and adds: "We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence, but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate.

"We'd rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work擁n many ways pushing investigations way beyond what's gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn't have happened if they doubted our findings."

Gage and his allies say that Newman is one among a group of government-dependent employees fearful that evidence of explosives would be too traumatic for the public to handle預nd probably too risky to their political superiors.

Notably, however, unlike with, say, Environmental Protection Agency research on WTC toxins, no whistleblowers have emerged to lend credence to that theory. Not one NIST scientist or technician has protested the findings or leaked an accusation that the NIST report was influenced by political pressure.

Ed Munyak, who is more nuanced than Gage in his critique of NIST, concedes that the NIST report actually provides some evidence supporting alternative theories of the WTC collapse. Munyak argues that top-down influence shows up in the overall presentation of the report to the public and its final conclusions, not in all its details provided by working technicians and scientists.

"There is some very good information in the NIST report if you really look at it and analyze it, as I've done, that makes the case that something else happened," Munyak says. "The report [conclusion] says there was one structural failure and after that happened, collapse was inevitable. Which just is not the case. I'm saying that's the falsehood of the NIST political leaders, not so much the people who do the research."

"The fact is that the collapses don't resemble any fire-induced behavior of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not investigate that? It's all very suspicious and that's why an independent investigation is needed so we can all learn from this."


The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case? 01.Mar.2012 01:08

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let's examine the case against "the truthers" presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let's define who "the truthers" are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart's content. There are a large number of "9/11 conspiracy theorists".

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.

When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings' destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.

When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings' destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement's critics? Ted Rall says: "Everything I've read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.)  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton's laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: "I gotta tell you, I've just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically." She goes down hill from here.  http://barnhardt.biz/

Amazing, isn't she? Physics professors have "zero knowledge of rudimentary physics."

Internationally recognized logicians have "a general inability to think logically." People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are "self-loathing." If you doubt the government's account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers "pancaked because Dick Cheney's agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges."
 link to www.counterpunch.org

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts "conspiracy kooks," Alex then damns them for not putting forward "a scenario of the alleged conspiracy."

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers "pancaked." This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney "tells me that 'there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon's heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.'"

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn's other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing "the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly." This is what Soifer, who "had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction" wrote to Alex: "The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow." This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don't hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for 01.Mar.2012 01:13

Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. "I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way," he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST's investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, "In every investigation I've taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report."

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST's failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. "And that building was not hit by anything," noted Dr. Quintiere. "It's more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!"

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST's failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7's collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST's repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. "I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all."

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, "I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply."

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST's conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. "If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the 'conspiracy theories' that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it's one of the floors falling down."

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. "It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place."

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students' research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. "I suggest that there's an equally justifiable theory and that's the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different," he said.

Dr. Quintiere's presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on "The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps", at which he stated:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire 01.Mar.2012 01:27

Dr. Frank Legge

>


Point Being 9 11 Truth Has No Credible Sources? 01.Mar.2012 02:16

...

So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are.

" Point Being 9 11 Truth Has No Credible Sources? " 01.Mar.2012 07:53

blah blah blah

" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "
" So nothing yet? K, please keep throwing your unscientific trash onto this page because it just proves how far gone you really are. "

. 01.Mar.2012 08:47

.

Please don't use the Open Publishing Newswire to post short opinionated statements. What you posted is only appropriate on a message board, and this is not a message board. Come back here when you are ready to post an event announcement or a meaningful report-back of some sort. Thanks for degrading the indymedia experience for everyone else.

Re:The Open Chemical Physics Journal 01.Mar.2012 19:37

scam

Replying to this post:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/02/414093.shtml#397471
That paper was published through a vanity press. If they had real research they wouldn't have needed to use a vanity press. they also go outed here when some upstanding citizens called Bentham's bluff:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPyM8sDFCoQ

It's all horseshit anyway. If there was a controlled demolition they would have used RDX not some compound no one has heard of or tested.

Truthers lose again.

" some compound no one has heard of or tested " 01.Mar.2012 20:02

uh huh

Nano-thermite aka "super-thermite" also known as metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) are metal/metal oxide explosives in fine powder form,

and have been developed since the 1990s for military applications. " no one has heard " of it, though ..................................


" paper was published through a vanity press "

-- it was still peer reviewed many academics publish work that is not accepted by journals or book publishers, if it's a non-institutional publication.

" If there was a controlled demolition "

-- what on Earth are you suggesting ??



" they would have used RDX not some compound no one has heard of or tested "

How the hell would you even know what RDX is: ex-military? work with demo contractor?






then again, what do you expect from someone posting to PDX IMC under the handle 'scam'

scam to uh huh 01.Mar.2012 22:29

asif

"then again, what do you expect from someone posting to PDX IMC under the handle 'scam' "

You must be new around here if you've never seen the title or author fields used as part of the comment.

"-- it was still peer reviewed many academics publish work that is not accepted by journals or book publishers, if it's a non-institutional publication. "

If you're saying it was peer reviewed elsewhere, links. Bentham was CRAP. Speaking of which watch the video.

"-- what on Earth are you suggesting ?? "

I'm not suggesting; I'm telling you: there is no proof thermite, thermate or termites was used in a controlled demolition to bring the towers down. Go stand in a corner.

"How the hell would you even know what RDX is: ex-military? work with demo contractor? "

Have higher brain functions? Am able to search with Google? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?

Lmao

Duh 02.Mar.2012 01:37

***k you

" You must be new around here if you've never seen the title "

See above

" If you're saying it was peer reviewed elsewhere "

Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer reviewed journal.


" Bentham "

?????????????? Shove it up your orifice.


" I'm not suggesting "

You're just a dumb ***k.


" am able to search with Google? "

out of mom's basement, natch

I work in the mining business (part of which is blasting of rock).

The only "truth" about 9/11 is that we were all LIED TO ABOUT 9/11. 08.Mar.2012 19:43

GAIA V *~~~<3

*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3

CREATE PEACE ON EARTH using wisdom and our *OWN INTELLIGENCE*.
"Ideas Are Bulletproof". - V for Vendetta

Use CRITICAL THINKING for insight, ideas, innovation, and ingenuity to find 'solutions' to the problems facing us ALL Worldwide. Think Globally<<+>>Act Locally. Think *CRITICAL MASS* never losing sight of the 'Big Picture' which is total Earth Justice and Liberation. Create a brighter future of ***Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards All*** and let this 'expanded consciousness' and expanded WorldView be the 'catalyst' for 'creative action'. Seek truth in 'all areas of inquiry'. Respect Diversity of Tactics. If people truly realized the extent to which the Earth is suffering they wouldn't hesitate for a second to do this. Because of the tyranny wreaked upon the planet by the "Masters of War" and because of willful ignorance, intolerance, and inaction> Mother Earth is being continually violated and killed... but it doesn't have to be this way. *OPEN MINDS* can change eVerything. 'Creative-Healing-Thoughts' and ACTIONS can Change the World. Together We Can *Heal the Earth*.


All you need to do is take a "time out" and look at the 'mountains of evidence' that points in the direction of MONUMENTAL LIES that were sold $$$ to us with the corporate mainstream media's total and full complicity by being the 'mouthpiece' needed to manipulate, indoctrinate, *BOMBARD and DRILL* into the public's consciousness the 'necessity to go to war' based on the supposed need for VENGEANCE. It was total coercion; war was FORCED on us through the use of a never ending barrage of corporatized 'lies and war propaganda'. Through LIES... Corporatized/Industrialized War was marketed and "sold" to us AS A (TOXIC) DEADLY AND HARMFUL PRODUCT TO BE CONSUMED BY US... and we were ALL "sold down the river" at the expense to all of us worldwide and all for the benefit of the 'rich' who thrive off of others 'intentionally caused' misfortune, hardships, and despair.
War is a 'commercialized product' that is forced on us ALL against our will. $$$ War is always seen as a way in which the 'rich' can make money and "profit at the expense of the poor". $$$


But, as history has always taught us time and time again--- TRUTH IS ALWAYS THE FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR.

+<>+<>>>> "THE TRUTH CANNOT BE TOLD... IT MUST BE REALIZED". <<<<>+<>+

+>>>JUSTICE NOT VENGEANCE<<<+


NO JUSTICE > NO PEACE

Without JUSTICE... all we will ever have is 'Never-Ending-War' because that is what FUELS the "system" we live in. The "system" is fueled by injustice, lies, war, hypocrisy and BETRAYAL. And it is always at the "expense" of people who are considered "expendable"/"disposable"... "resources to be used for "consumption" to keep the 'Fires of War Burning' and to keep 'Fueling the War Machine'. People are used as "sacrifices"/"fuel for war"/"cannon fodder". It's sick and disgusting. Not to mention the multitudes of innocent people (ONE MILLION plus?) SACRIFICED FOR WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE NAME OF HEGEMONY AND IMPERIALISM. MOSTLY CIVILIANS--- WOMEN AND CHILDREN. IT IS UP TO US TO *BE THEIR VOICE*. It's up to all of us to help be the VOICE for the dead, missing, tortured, disappeared, injured the incalculable and in many cases UNTOLD STORIES of the casualties and "collateral murder" caused by War/Lies (both of which go hand-in-hand). Man-made "hell on earth" can be helped 'put an end to and STOPPED' if people would only find the courage/voice to speak out and DEFEND those on the receiving end of war atrocities that started 'based on lies' and that are committed in 'all of our names' by so-called "Leaders"/deceivers/war criminals whose agenda is always about unending "war for profit" (war profiteering/war privatization through the use of corporate war contractors and the use of corporate war mercenaries e.g. (BLACKWATER INC.) - (also known by alias name "Xe" Inc. (See Xe: Corporate Shadow Mercenary Army and for more information read book by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill on the subject for insight). $$$$$

<>>>> Truth is Always the First Casualty of War. <<<<>

So-called "profit" is always at the expense of the 'sacrifice of the innocent'. $$$$$$$$$$

Historically speaking... the war "system"/war "campaigns"/war "politics" have always been "rigged against us". True Democracy is an "illusion" domiNation takes many forms within the Police State. We are all enslaved by a Globalized CORPORATOCRACY (elections are 'bought and paid for'). (Definition: Democracy is literally "rule by the people")>>> we are ruled by the 'Bankster Gangsters' and by the transnational 'Corporations'. We are all slaves to the money and are forced to be 'Wage Slaves'. $$$

"Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it." Howard Zinn


Rich Man's War -- Poor Man's Blood. $$$$$$$$$$


<><><> Resistance Against Corporatocracy<><><> RESIST Corporatist Fascism/RESIST Empire<><><>

***Power Corrupts Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely***

"In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of an external menace. This involves the development to a high degree of the nation-hero, nation-villain ideology and the arousing of the population to a sense of sacrifice. Once these exist, we have gone a long way on the path to war." - John Foster Dulles

***Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 James Corbett interviews Michel Chossudovsky - September 1, 2011 (Reality has been turned 'upside-down'... the lies have become the "truth"... and the truth has become the "lie".)  http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/09/commemorating-10th-anniversary-911

(*Flashback*) 9/11 Coincidences (PNAC - Lies of Empire, War Corporatism, Oil Control)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4

War is a Crime. It's up to all of us to use our ***OWN INTELLIGENCE***/critical thinking and see through the WAR RUSE. Use your VOICE and speak out against the 'Architects & Engineers of War'. Use 'Our Own Global Intelligence' because we are all connected to the Earth and are all 'One with Nature'. We are all intuitively/consciously connected to the planet and are all innately connected to the pulse (Heartbeat of the Earth*~~<3 because our own hearts are beating in unison with that of the planet*~~<3 we need only take the time to listen and realize our connectivity to Mother Earth*~~~<3). It is then that we will come to the *REALIZATION that it is up to all of us to DEFEND HER* from those whose agenda is to CREATE man-made war/man-made "hell on earth" that is FORCED upon so many innocent people around the World.

"The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby, former CIA director
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)
"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting "intelligence" justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapon capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target audience of its lies." - Ralph McGehee
"Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world -- particularly the Third World -- since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite--owned media." - Ralph McGehee [Former CIA analyst & Author] CIABASE; The Crisis of Democracy Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA
>>>*{{{so-called Central "Intelligence" Agency}}}*<<<

John Perkins Interview: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (whistleblower now speaks against injustice... perhaps guilty conscience from mistakes of the past?... here he speaks out about the CORPORATOCRACY that rules the land and dominates/enslaves the Earth - $$$)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ITC5IL2Mw

It is up to all of us to help CREATE PEACE ON EARTH. We can help do so by using our Voice, defending others whose lives are being threatened and who are 'under the boot of tyranny'. By our collective attention/intentions it is within OUR POWER to DEFEND the planet against those whose actions are criminal and violate the 'well-being' of OUR LIVING PLANET> the so-called "World Leaders"/deceivers/Masters of War. The crimes committed against Mother Earth are UNJUST and abominable. OUR Earth is being killed and it is up to us all to ACT on her behalf.
***WE ARE HER VOICE***.

"We believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death." - Albert Einstein

(*FLASHBACK*) The American War Machine - Joe Rogan (War is a racket... the 'business of war as usual' is the status quo domination/enslavement by the War-System)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU&feature=player_embedded
"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth; I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene Victor Debs
"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." - Isaac Asimov

"When Fascism Comes to America, it will be Wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross." Sinclair Lewis
Early Warning Signs of Fascism>  http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/076.html

War Industry - War System - War Economy "buy design". $$$$$

The Road to Revolution: 99% Uprising  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32H_yNNg5mo&feature=player_embedded

"The Truth Cannot Be Told... It Must Be Realized". <<<>>> "Truth Is Within."
*~~~CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY~~~* )>{}<(
Minds are like the wings of a Butterfly; they work best when they are open. *~~~<3

Gimme Shelter Rolling Stones The lyrics of the song speak of seeking shelter from a coming storm, painting a picture of devastation and social apocalypse (caused by 'WarMongers'/'Masters of War' and by 'Mountains of Ignorance' and never ending War/Lies) while also talking of the ***Power of Love to Fight Against Mountains of Ignorance and Intolerance*** ~~~~~<3
Gimme Shelter - The Rolling Stones - War Protest (Not One More DOLLAR $$$... Not One More DEATH!)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB4CDGNK9dE
*~~~<3 (Put LOVE, RESPECT & COMPASSION and GOODWILL TOWARDS ALL FIRST what is done to 'Others' is done to ourselves. The LOVE ENERGY we put out into the World comes back around and *Circles and Heals the Earth*. CARE about the welfare of 'OTHERS'... RESPECT THEIR LIVES, RIGHTS, JUSTICE, EQUALITY... by doing so... WE WILL CREATE PEACE ON EARTH. The Choice is Ours. We have FREEWILL... it's up to us all to do the right thing.) *~~~<3
We All Shine On Like the Moon and the Stars and the Sun (Beautiful People)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaZx_t9dpUM&feature
*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The pioneers of a warless world are the young men and women who refuse military service." - Albert Einstein

"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." - Smedley Butler
"War is a racket" > Cover-up of Forces Behind War  http://www.wanttoknow.info/warcoverup
"Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible." - A. Philip Randolph
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Cost of War>$$$  http://costofwar.com/en/
(FLASHBACK) Cost of War> In terms of Lives Lost> A Perspective View (although I am not a fan of Ron Paul... also I am not a fan of Alex Jones for that matter, for various reasons.)  http://netctr.com/iraqdead.html
More US Soldiers Die in Vain - By Ray McGovern - August 7, 2011  http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/07/more-us-soldiers-die-in-vain/

"Beyond a doubt, truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness." - Leonardo Da Vinci

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein


+<>+<>>>> "THE TRUTH CANNOT BE TOLD... IT MUST BE REALIZED". <<<<>+<>+


"All Warfare is based on Deception." - Sun Tzu (Art of War)
"In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus - Greek writer/poet (525 BC - 456 BC)


***>(((Reclaim/Decolonize/Resistance Against Empire)))<***

We're Number One! (Morality and Integrity in the so-called "modern"/"advanced"/"progressive"/"evolved" World-View Age)  http://www.skeptic.ca/Number_One.htm
*Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee* - Dee Brown essential reading for critical thinking and making connections to our present war situation... should be required reading in every high school, as well as should be read by all adults. Perhaps if it was> History wouldn't be repeating itself again and again with ongoing military war campaigns/occupations that are both illegal and immoral that sacrifice countless innocent people. Truth is Always the First Casualty of War. Warfare is always based on never ending lies & betrayal. Read This Book - Knowledge Is Power. Truth is the most powerful "resource" of all (more powerful a 'resource' than Oil or Land).  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/76401.Bury_My_Heart_at_Wounded_Knee
Rethink History... Rethink what it means to be "free" and at what 'expense'/true COST.

This shit has got to go... (Jacque Fresco, John Pilger)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKeGRSct0zk

With "culture industry"... entertainment is a function of the political economy. Oppressive Corporatocracy Govt. = Oppressive "entertainment"... America = #1?
CONSOLIDATED - AMERICA NUMBER ONE  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgW_wQp744&feature=related

"THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED." Gil Scott-Heron
The Revolution is the Evolution of the Mind. ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ We have the power of Metamorphosis/Transformation. Think 'BUTTERFLY EFFECT'. Consciousness creates 'Reality'.
Minds are like the wings of a Butterfly; they work best when they are open. *~~~<3

"A man is but the product of his thoughts... what he thinks, he becomes." Mohandas Gandhi

"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." - Isaac Asimov
"THERE'S NO FLAG BIG ENOUGH TO COVER UP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE". It's healthy to question the true meaning of the words "nationalism and patriotism" in the scheme of the 'big picture' *WorldView* with respect for the recognition of our connection to our fellow Sisters and Brothers around the World.

"History is fiction agreed upon." - Voltaire
"History is a pack of lies we play on the dead." - Voltaire
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Studying history is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes. Those who forget history and the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana (Law of Repetitive Consequences)


NEVER FORGET HISTORY OR THE LIES OF EMPIRE THAT ARE TOLD TO UPHOLD IT.

It is time for HERstory to be told (GAIA the Living Planet)--- one which will work towards 'countering the lies' and will help towards Healing Mother Earth and will help to create a truly "life-affirming", "life-sustaining" different paradigm for existence on the planet. A way of life that doesn't CREATE WARS/DEATH... 'BASED ON A FOUNDATION OF LIES'.

The time is NOW if we ever wish to TEAR DOWN THE OLD/OBSOLETE/DESTRUCTIVE to the Earth system that is continually creating new wars... this at the time when true CLIMATE JUSTICE needs to be put at the forefront as the most relevant issue with the need for the implementation of ***Clean Natural Alternative Renewable Energy Resources*** that won't kill the Earth. No more wars for OIL/resources based on lies to try to sustain a dying system... that is destroying the planet. All for so-called "profit" for the rich $$$ the Earth is being "systematically sacrificed".

"Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war"... and live in peace, because we have no other choice. - Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Renounce War> No more Resource Wars

Focus on exposing truth in *All Areas of Inquiry*.

*>>>For A Historical Perspective <-> Eye-Opening Realization<<<* Oil, Smoke & Mirrors  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzJhlvtDms
(*Flashback*) The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror  http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-oil-factor/

It's time to see beyond the Lies, Myths, and Illusion/Distractions used to 'Sustain War'.

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think." - Emma Goldman
"The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. The most violent element in society is ignorance." - Emma Goldman

~*<>*~<>>>>An End to Mountains of Intolerance An End to Mountains of Ignorance<<<<>~*<>*~

Truth-About-It-Parenti.flv  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw2RwS5eHrs&feature=related


The "system" that creates and wages wars for "profit" (Based on LIES) is in essence waging war against ALL OF US by forcing us all to struggle on by 'running in circles on the wheel' chasing dollar signs $$$ trying to make ends meet and in effect turning us all into WAGE SLAVES. It's time to be the "change" and *Reverse the SPIRAL* away from the WarSystem and towards PEACE.

"Nothing destroys culture, art or the simple privilege of having time to think... quicker than a war." - Brian Jones - Rolling Stones (R.I.P.)

Bankster Gangster State - Michael Parenti  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5YVVo7ToHo
Studying Untold History that went unreported by the corporate mainstream media "news" oftentimes Helps People with Understanding the CRIMINAL NATURE OF THE STATE.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." - Martin Luther King Jr.

(***Flashback - 1993 Seminar***... Never Forget History Lest It Repeat) The Gangster Nature of the State - Michael Parenti (Part 1 of 6)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZJ5g8JppyQ&feature=related

Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty in the World - By Michael Parenti - 02/17/07  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17102.htm

Peter Dale Scott speaks out about 'looking deeper' for explanations into understanding the 'reality of history' *Deep History*... Deep Events... Deep Politics... Deep State  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZR72PPUO0&feature=related
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." 優ick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
Prof. Peter Dale Scott - Cheney on 9/11  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmu5daHO7ZQ&feature=related

Drugs and the Economy - Peter Dale Scott on Economics 101 (possible connections between 'Drug Money', Wall Street & War)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvhiK0reDwE&

Thirdworldization of America  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Thirdworldization_America/Thirdworldization_Amer.html

>>>Don't Turn a Blind Eye<<< ~>~

"MURDEROUS WARS ON the POOR THERE, BRING INJUSTICE & POVERTY HOME HERE". Martin Luther King Jr.

"Poor and working people in this country are sent to kill poor and working people in 'Other' countries... and make the rich richer. And, without racism soldiers would realize that they have more in common with the Iraqi people than they do with the BILLIONAIRES who send us to war." - Mike Prysner
AMAZING SPEECH BY WAR VETERAN (Mike Prysner - Winter Soldier testimony)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8
Peace = Love
Peace = Equality
War = Hate
War = Racism
Don't Turn a Blind Eye. > An 'Eye for an Eye' makes the whole World blind and creates 'Rivers of Blood'. > Without Justice there is No Peace. >>>Justice Not Vengeance<<<

"The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings." - Albert Schweitzer
"There's no flag big enough to cover up the killing of innocent people".

WE AS A NATION ARE DISCOURAGED FROM DISCUSSING THE TRUE CAUSES OF WAR OR WHAT 'LIES AT THE ROOT' OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE CORPORATE WARS FOR OIL/RESOURCES. WE AS A NATION CANNOT DISCUSS THE TRUE "NATURE" OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OR THE LIES THAT HOLD IT TOGETHER. WE AS A NATION ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO QUESTION THE "GAME OF POLITICS" AND ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHERS THAT IT IS A "RIGGED GAME" AND THAT THEIR "CHESSBOARD" IS PLANET EARTH> WHICH THROUGH THE 'ACTIONS OF THOSE IN POSITIONS OF POWER' ARE MINDLESSLY DESTROYING *OUR ONLY HOME*. PEOPLE WHOSE ACTIONS ATTEMPT TO TRY TO PREVENT "THEM" FROM DOING THIS AND TRY TO DEFEND THE EARTH ARE SCAPEGOATED, VILLIFIED, DEMONIZED AND ARE PORTRAYED IN THE 'CORPORATE MEDIA' AS THE VILLAINS WHEN IT IS THE OPPOSITE THAT IS TRUE. WE LIVE IN A BACKWARDS, UPSIDE-DOWN WORLD WHERE LIES ARE TOLD AND THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR. IT'S TIME TO TRULY SEE ***THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS... DOWN THE RABBIT-HOLE***.

*~~*Reverse the SPIRAL*~~* away from the WarSystem and towards PEACE ON EARTH.

See Through the 'smoke & mirrors' / the 'dog & pony show' of so-called democratic "elections" (fraud & illusion) to keep the masses subservient and not asking questions until the next big corporately programmed and funded "show/spectacle" for mass consumption. Politics are all a corporate "for profit game" of money/greed/deception $$$. Together we can take back our power which has been stolen from us. Fear is used as a weapon/tool for power & control> together in solidarity we have the power to 'let go of fear' and intimidation and find courage and strength in Unity and Freewill.
PSYWAR - documentary trailer> (FREE YOUR MIND)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48rvEPeY1LY&feature=player_embedded

The 'powers that be' know that if you can control the media>the stories... then you can control the world. Change the values to focus on the Earth (Justice for All) Worldwide. No more *Social Engineering* with war propaganda/mass 'public mind' manipulation/war dogma indoctrination which causes people to accept war injustice.
By "Changing the Story" we can take back *OUR POWER*. We do not have to listen to and believe in their lies any longer. We do not have to be their slaves. We have FREE-WILL.


(Originally published in July 2004, this essay remains more relevant now than ever before.) We the People versus a Government of, by and for the United Corporations of America  http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2004/07/we-people-versus-government-of-by-and.html

(*Flashback* - 11/08/04) - S/election time is upon us once again) American Resistance - Valid Outrage ::: Manuel Valenzuela  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7244.htm
History Repeats Itself. Never ending war it is oxymoronic and destructive on a monumental scale. WAR CRIMINALS must be held accountable for crimes of the past (& present) so we are able to move forward in a positive way. No more "sweeping things under the rug" and pretending things didn't happen. It's time we question "progress" and what it truly means to evolve. The only way to evolve is to face the truth about things.
(*<Flashback>* February 16, 2006) ***(There is great value and power in reflecting on the past to make sense of the present situation by doing so it will help create a brighter future. There is always "hope".) The following article is very insightful and reflects the toxic "war culture" we are all exposed to and helps explain things a lot. There is a direct link between war and racism/xenophobia/jingoism/hate in the process that>Fuels War. Defy the 'Masters of War'/WarSystem by working towards exposing the murderous war criminals. *** Land of the Puppet People - Manipulate the American citizenry into a warmongering escapade (corporate robot "programming") - by Manuel Valenzuela >>>  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1984

Ignorance/Apathy/Denial is dangerous. It's time to stop being unquestioning 'followers of blind patriotism/nationalism'... following 'War Puppets' and 'blindly waving flags' without asking serious questions about how we arrived at this point in time in the first place. It's time to stop following the puppeteers in control of the WarSystem because the path they lead us down is a dangerous one that definitely doesn't put the Earth First... let alone the lives of countless innocent people> life in general is always forsaken by those who seek 'profit in war'.

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think." - Emma Goldman
"The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. The most violent element in society is ignorance." - Emma Goldman

Question the mechanisms-(inner workings) of the WarSystem/war machine and recognize its COVErt (un)Nature> 'Depths of the Deception'.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy The War Against the Third World  http://addictedtowar.com/dorrel.html
 http://addictedtowar.com/message.html

"Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world -- particularly the Third World -- since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite--owned media." - Ralph McGehee [Former CIA analyst & Author] CIABASE; The Crisis of Democracy Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA

Return of the Death Squads - Iraq's hidden news - John Pilger - May 4th, 2006  http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/return-of-the-death-squads-iraqs-hidden-news
QUESTION MORE> (School that trains "terrorists") Inside the dark legacy of the US 'School of Assassins'  http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-military-school-americas/
Never be afraid to Question so-called "Authority" Always.
School of the Americas Watch (from FierceLight - When Spirit Meets Action)  http://www.fiercelight.org/explore/journey/usa-georgia-fort-benning

"History is fiction agreed upon." - Voltaire
"History is a pack of lies we play on the dead." - Voltaire
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire

>>>Don't Turn a Blind Eye<<< ~>~ <>> Without Justice there is No Peace <<>

FIERCE LIGHT WARRIOR (don't just react... CREATE)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gps4DWuGynI&feature=related
My tears have watered my heart and the seeds of resistance grow... I choose to be free! Resistance is eVerything.

"Above all, always be capable of feeling most deeply any injustice committed against anyone in the world. That is the most beautiful quality in a revolutionary."
Che Guevara's last words to his children in a farewell letter


Reality is what WE choose to CREATE> eVerything is connected.
The WarSystem uses FEAR as a weapon. It instills fear in people as a means of 'control & domination' as a means to create 'chaos/war'. As a means to 'divide & conquer' by breaking down solidarity among people who should be defending each other on a Worldwide basis to better enable people to work together globally to help them to make a difference in finding solutions to the multiple interconnecting issues/problems facing OUR PLANET. We are not an 'island unto ourselves'. We need to defend ALL PEOPLE affected by the horrors inflicted upon them... 'globally speaking'. What is done to others is done to ourselves.
"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth; I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene Victor Debs

"When we show our respect for other living things, they respond with respect for us." - Arapaho Proverb

Critical Thinking is essential in a WorldView reality/mentality created on a 'foundation of corporately controlled lies & deception'.

See the 'Big Picture' beyond the current "popular belief systems"... it's good to 'open minds' and see beyond the *popular traditional value corporate CULTure indoctriNATION*. Beyond the "current"/flow of thought that is imposed it's good to 'go against the flow' and use critical thinking and independent free-thought... free from WarDogma/Myths/Illusion/Distractions. It's important to see through the Lies & Betrayal and *Never Forget History* so it will not be repeated.

Emphasis must be placed on the necessity to disarm the 'war mentality' and encourage others of the importance of using critical thinking, making connections in the 'pursuit of peace', and using *Truth in All Areas Of Inquiry* as our 'weapon/tool of choice' to combat and expose the negative 'war-forces' that are against Nature and the Earth (expose the 'war-forces' that stand against a future planet capable of sustaining Life and Peace).

Empirically speaking throughout history Empires are always built upon a 'foundation of war, lies and conquest'... domiNation and subjugation through indoctriNation of WarDogma and War Propaganda.

Historically speaking this country was built upon a 'foundation of lies'. This country was built upon a history/foundation of both slavery/racism as well as 'upon a foundation of genocide'. It is built upon a foundation of 'oppression and exploitation'. People are dominated/controlled through a 'foundation of indoctrinated FEAR'> (whether that be through the fear created from the perpetuation and proliferation of racism/xenophobia/jingoism/intolerance/hate... which in turn *FUELS WAR*). Now with the subsequent resulting *War Economy*... we are all forced to 'Live in Fear' because of the troubled times that have been MANUFACTURED for us by our so-called "Leaders"/deceivers... we are forced to live in fear of joblessness, fear of not having enough money to survive, fear of houselessness/homelessness> this has all been "buy design" by our "glorious leaders" and so-called "representatives" whom we are suppose to TRUST (??? even though they betray us always). It has been done to us ALL in the attempt to make us powerless to the "system"/Police State which attempts to subjugate us all.

War criminals of the past needed to be held accountable for their crimes which created war to do otherwise means war criminality will continue to go unchecked because there was NO JUSTICE and no consequences for their actions (because of this it will just 'snowball' and get even worse because of NO ACCOUNTABILITY for past war crimes- e.g. 9/11). The status quo is just perpetuated and the 'war flames are fanned by blatant injustice'. There is no "progress" or "moving forward" in a positive direction if horrendous war crimes of the past are just dismissed as "irrelevant". >>>Without True Justice there will never be Peace on Earth<<<. Things will just continue with the war industry of "business of war as usual" no questions asked. As long as people are corporately influenced to just keep their 'blinders on' and their 'heads in the sand'. And as long as people are wrongly led down the path of "ignorance is bliss" the truth is that widespread ignorance is just another factor that helps to contribute and fuel violence towards others around the planet and 'fuels the mentality' that it is alright to disregard the multitude of violations committed against our Earth (environmental, human rights, animal rights). The toxic War Industry does not discriminate> it kills all.

We are kept distracted by the illusion of the left/right paradigm of "politics" and are led to believe we live in a "democracy" when in reality it is a 'Corporatocracy'/'Plutocracy' created by the 'rich' and for the benefit of the 'rich'. *We the People* are being left out in the cold. They really couldn't care less about us or *OUR WELL-BEING*.
War/Domination "Power & Control" through the 'Creation of Chaos' and through the 'Creation of Fear'.
We are all "in the cage" > potential TORTURE victims> sacrifices for EXPERIMENTATION. The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein and Alfonso Cuaron  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSF0e6oO_tw
***Flashback *** War based on lies for "profit" (war privatization/profiteering - unmasking the war agenda and corporate rule - the mask and disguise of the so-called "war on terror") - war is *Shocking & Awful*. Unmask the >>>CORPORATOCRACY/PLUTOCRACY<<< whose agenda it is to create wars and "profit from wars" and the global disasters/devastation that man-made war creates.
(Remember History so it doesn't Repeat) Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine -The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Unmasked Moments- revealing the fa軋de and seeing through the "SPECTACLE" UNMASK THE "IDIOLOGY" OF THE SYSTEM AND SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS SEE THE REAL AGENDA)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNzcJImX4Ew

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it." Howard Zinn

Without Justice there is No Peace. >>>Justice Not Vengeance<<<
***Truth, Justice & Freedom for ALL Worldwide***
***Exposing War Crimes Is Not A Crime***

"People should not be afraid of their governments {Corporate State/Police State}. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V > ((( \/ is for Voice! )))

Recipe for a Revolution > (the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 Could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention? Yes... unless we use our *VOICE* as our weapon/tool of choice.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tztze52dZss
Tyranny and Permanent War - Stephen Lendman  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28455

"If you live in an ostensible democracy and the same policies are carried through as the different parties alternate in power, then you know that you're not living in a democracy but a tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Fight Internet Censorship (SOPA)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ngmhqoVxU4
The War-System uses FEAR as a weapon. It instills fear in people as a means of 'control & domination'.
Advocate Free Speech to 'Change the System'.
"Law Professors' Letter on SOPA," Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 15, 2011  https://www.eff.org/document/law-professors-letter-sopa

<<<>*>*Keep Being The Media*<*<>>>
Asking questions is a good thing> it is "hopefully" how we learn about "true history" and evolve and make "true progress" in a positive direction away from war/hate/division/intolerance/ignorance/apathy/denial. BREAK FREE from *-{Corporate Thought Control}-*. Prevent Corporate Control>>> *<>~~~HISTORY REVISIONISM~~~<>*

INSPIRE to proVoke thought and proVoke FREEDOM. Another World is Possible. 覧&#61664; True Freedom! Forever! \/
Inspire to Liberate Earth from the domination and enslavement by the toxic "war-mentality"/oppression/exploitation 覧&#61664; Toxic "WarSystem".

>+<>^<>^<>~~~* All persons need to work together to create a just and harmonious GLOBAL society, not just when their own rights or liberties are threatened. Respect Diversity Worldwide. Think globally<>Act locally. *~~~<>^<>^<>+<

"The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings." - Albert Schweitzer

The Unearthing: An Awakening Has Arrived With Truth Comes Awakening ::: Manuel Valenzuela (Demand Justice & Accountability)  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17475.htm

Liberate the consciousness of the planet from "backwards" war mentality... by helping others to awaken to new possibilities with regard to the direction the collective 'independently thinking' radical mass consciousness can guide the Earth> by allowing the CREATION of a planetary archetype where Earth Justice (worldwide Justice for ALL) reigns supreme and ultimately World Peace will follow.

+<>>>True R/evolution<<<>+

No More Lies, Betrayals, Injustice and Hypocrisy. >>>R/evolution of Earth Consciousness NOW<<<

There is no substitute to 'thinking independently and for oneself' by being 'resourceful and using logic and insight gained from critical thinking' free from the constraints and limitations of corporate control (independent media is truly a valuable resource in a land seemingly void of independent critical analysis of events that shape *Our World/Our Future*). The future is created from the information we have access to. *Freedom of Thought* is the key to unlocking the door that leads to finding 'sustainable solutions' for a positive life affirming future free from lies & war. Focus on exposing truth in *ALL areas of inquiry* not just 9/11. >>> Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance, Denial, & Rationalization :::: TruthMove >>>  http://www.truthmove.org/content/cognitive-dissonance/


There is a lot that gets *Lost Down the Memory-Hole*.
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation溶ot one based on 'confession' extracted by torture謡e will never know what happened on 9/11. David Ray Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth."
9/11: The Myth and the Reality - by David Ray Griffin  http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982
As is always the case throughout history Truth is always the first casualty of war.

David Ray Griffin on 9/11 & the war in Afghanistan - Why Corporate Mercenaries are Hired for the War Industry - 2009 (Part 1)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQV9eG0zlrY&feature=related
"Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible." - A. Philip Randolph
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

David Ray Griffin on 9/11 & the war in Afghanistan - Scientific Evidence - 2009 (Part 6)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDRY3Hh2ps&feature=related

***See> Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical - Pt.1 of 9 - Dr. David Ray Griffin <(((EMPIRE being the key word)))>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M


9/11 Physics, Science, and Experiments  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QWvkAgyIY4&feature

(Flashback) 911 - NIST : A New Standard of Deception - Kevin Ryan (BU$H SCIENCE/LIES)- NIST's WTC report was a product of the bu$h administration- In an open letter from 60 prominent scientists including 20 Nobel Laureates they said the bu$h administration had been "deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals" they found a serious pattern of manipulation in the undermining of science in the "official 9/11 story/narrative/version" of events sold to the public- 99.7% of steel EVIDENCE DESTROYED despite outraged cries from the public and fire experts- there seems to be a *repeated cycle of destroying evidence* (think Osama bin Laden's alleged "burial at sea" with regard to upholding the so-called "official 9/11 story" continually sold to us by the so-called "authorities" for the purpose of "selling and profiting from war" $$$)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkwqWxS-bUA&feature=related
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQXewxnhZJs&feature=related
9/11 TRUTH: Kevin Ryan Exposes Access for Demolition Crews to WTC Buildings (interesting 'food-for-thought' information on L. Paul Bremer @ 1 minute 30 seconds)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_j3Kj0Tlec&feature=related
9/11 Connect the Dots Ep. 1 (Part 1 of 2) (Scientific & Physics Evidence Matters - So do human lives "sacrificed" for war/lies)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE

Qui Bono Who Benefits from War? $$$ Power Corrupts Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Hold all war criminals accountable and demand True Justice.

>>>***Exposing War Crimes Is Not A Crime***<<<


Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? - A whistleblower claims that over the past two decades, the agency has destroyed records of thousands of investigations, whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals. - by Matt Taibbi - August 17, 2011  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/17-6

Whistleblowers expose COVErt Actions by Banks and Financial Institutions and the part they played (Crimes) in the financial crisis/War Economy we are all experiencing NOW.
9/11 and the SEC? EXOPERMACULTURE - by Ann Kreilkamp  http://exopermaculture.com/2011/06/03/911-and-the-sec/


The money making "marketing" and *INDUSTRY* of the creation/perpetuation of the premeditated and self-fulfilling NARRATIVE/STORYLINE of the so-called "War on Terror" and the continuation of *FUELING FEAR* to cause the public to demand protection from the fear caused by the continually concocted storyline of the "need for people to live in fear" because of the 'ever present danger and always changing' so-called "terrorist du jour" (IS A LIE). The objective is to fuel and perpetuate an *obsolete dying system* that needs to be abolished because the system of Empire/capitalism/globalization/militarization is a TOXIC system that MUST CHANGE for the sake of the planet because it is "unsustainable" and is literally CONSUMING the Earth. The INDUSTRY OF WAR... "business of war" is a business for "PROFIT" $$$ perpetuating war, division, hatred, fear. All at the true cost/expense of Mother Earth. It all acts to jeopardize and thwart TRUE CLIMATE JUSTICE because it has acted to 'divert attention' away from the realities of man-made climate change and has 'acted to derail' the *Power We The People* have (ingenuity/innoVation) to find solutions to the planetary crisis we are all facing together with the reality of man-made global warming. The "War on Terror"/War for OIL was the antithesis of what Mother Earth/people/environment/animals/ecosystems/eVerything... the total opposite of what was needed to be FOCUSED ON TO CREATE A "LIFE-SUSTAINING" PLANET CAPABLE OF PEACE.

Fear-mongering rhetoric("War on Christmas")> for maximum effect of pushing/forcing their tactic/agenda for 'power & control' by the so-called "authorities" who don't have our best interests in mind (things are the opposite/reverse... in the 'land of illusion' we are all enslaved by). See through the manipulation/lies/illusion and see it for what it really and truly is... a means for domination/social control.
The FBI Successfully Thwarts Its Own Terrorist Plot - by Glenn Greenwald  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/28-4

The FBI Goes Rogue - - August 30, 2011  http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/30/the-fbi-goes-rogue/
9-11 and When the CIA Became an Even 'Greater' Killing Machine  link to article.wn.com

Identification of so-called "Enemies"/"Villains"/"Scapegoats" as a Unifying Cause. Several years ago, Portland withdrew from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Late last year, the FBI ran a provocation operation in Portland Now Portland is back in the JTTF.

JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) - Green is the New Red - Creating so-called "Scapegoats"/"Villains"/"Enemies" to fuel the system. (See through the LIES/fa軋de/mask/illusion)  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/tag/jttf/
The WarSystem uses FEAR as a weapon. It instills fear in people as a means of 'control & domination'. Be a Voice against 'suppression of free speech' and help to be a Voice for activists working to end animal cruelty and the destruction of our natural environment. People who defend and protect the Earth/environment/animals/ecosystems of the planet are TRUE HEROES IN MY EYES. There is more to life than seeing everything (LIFE itself) as a potential "commodity"/"resource" to be marketed/sold, consumed, oppressed and exploited for so-called "profit" $$$ at the *True Cost* and expense/sacrifice of our living planet EARTH.
Advocate Free Speech to 'Change the System'.
>>> ***Activism Is Not Terrorism*** <<<

Fabricating Terror - By Paul Craig Roberts  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26954.htm
Break the 'chains of oppression/exploitation'... break the 'chains of backwards thinking mentality' (Mountains of Ignorance)... break the 'chains that enslaVe the planet' and cause history to be repeated through a *cycle of hate* that repeats mistakes of the past. Use the power of independent critical thinking to 'see reality for what it truly is' and to 'create a different reality'>Free from the WarSystem. Another World is Possible. Free your mind from 'fear & hate' and Free the World.


>><><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><><<

~*<>*~<>>>>An End to Mountains of Intolerance An End to Mountains of Ignorance<<<<>~*<>*~

>><><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><>><<><><><<


Rethink "sustainability". Put nature and the Earth before money & false "profit" $$$ - Focus on NATURE and the cost of Empire. 'Resistance' against Imperialism is natural. Rethink the meaning of the word "profit" and who/what is "sacrificed" in its pursuit. Rethink the "system of profit" $$$ and what it really means in the big-picture/scheme of things. The so-called 'system' grinds us all up and CONSUMES the planet. The system is for 'greed & profit' $$$ and is at the ***True Cost and Expense of the Earth*** and its well being. Inspire to Liberate Earth from the domination and enslavement by the "war-mentality"/oppression/exploitation> Toxic "WarSystem".

Focus on the importance of ***Independent Free Flow SPIRAL of Thought Energy*** which will lead to the development of new ideas/innovation/ingenuity. Focus on Natural Alternative Renewable Energy Resources> No More Blood as Fuel for War >>> Oil & Empire. We need to stop being slaves to the system. Focus on alternatives to oil for real and lasting "sustainable" change. Let NATURE be our guide for R/evolution and a brighter future free from war.

"Ideas Are Bulletproof". - V for Vendetta

No more 'resource wars' based on lies & illusion the ruse of war was always for the agenda of disaster capitalism. The 'war on terror' was always the war for OIL/resources and profit $$$. No more greed and selfishness. The 'system' is insane and is destroying the planet. The definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting different results the entire system has to change because it is unsustainable. Change the system and create a livable future for ALL.

"The state has, in Order to Control Us, introduced Division Into Our Thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection." - Butler Shaffer
'Order out of Chaos'... 'Divide & Conquer'.

"The tragedy of our day is the CLIMATE OF FEAR in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to the FREEDOM OF THE MIND, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-communism." - Adlai Stevenson, 1952 v V \/ ***> TODAY... IT'S THE CLOAK OF ANTI-TERRORISM. ***> \/ is for \/oice!

>>> ***Activism Is Not Terrorism*** <<< Defending Mother Earth from being killed is a Good thing.

WE the People of the World are the majority and it's time for us all to UNITE in solidarity and *Reclaim the Planet* from false "World Leaders"/deceivers whose primary goals/agenda is to 'control & dominate' not only the planet but also all of our lives... eVerything. The source of the so-called "global elite's power" is through the governance of and by deception, manipulation and lies and by the creation of fear, division, war and chaos which LEADS TO HATE... in order to keep people in a false sense of disassociation and disconnection from Mother Earth so people are robbed of their true inherently *NATURAL POWER* which is to protect the planet because it is our natural course of action (when reacting to the very REAL global threat apparent from never ending global war and environmental devastation caused by the LIES of the so-called "global-power-elite"). Being we are truly All a Part of Nature (we have just been forever lied to and deceived and MISLED into thinking we are not of nature and separate from the Earth). ***WE ARE ALL NATURE AND WE ARE POWER***.

We are ALL "Butterflies" with the power for creating 'cause & effect' with our actions. )>{}<( The power is within us ALL to 'Change the Spiral' of the 'collective-path' we are on. )>{}<( Think *BUTTERFLY EFFECT* to create solutions to the problems facing us all. We are all an integral part of nature and we are all in this thing called 'Life' together. )>{}<( ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~

*OUR POWER IS OUR CONNECTION TO THE EARTH* this is where we get our 'inspiration and realization' that it is our job to act and defend her against aggressors whose war actions/violent behavior is set on violating and destroying the Earth which is all of ours to protect... it is *ALL OF OUR MISSION TO CREATE A REALISTIC AND TRULY SUSTAINABLE FUTURE*. The toxic WarSystem is completely "unsustainable" and is completely obsolete. Those in "positions of power"/so-called "world leaders"/deceiver's only way of controlling global populations is through a "spinning of false stories-false narratives through the corporate media" through coercion and through manipulating "popular opinion" they intentionally cause a misconstrued perception in the general public's WorldView by intentionally denying people access to true & honest information and by denying people access to knowledge of the 'truth of events' that take place in the World (both locally & globally)... we are denied knowledge that we are all an integral part of the World and are ALL active participants and contributors too with regard to how the Earth evolves.

NO MORE LIES, BETRAYAL, HYPOCRISY from so-called world "leaders"/deceivers.
eVerything is connected~~~<> Remember History so mistakes of the past don't repeat.

*~~~INTEGRITY IS EVERYTHING~~~*

"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free." - Valerie (V for Vendetta)


By the "authorities"/so-called "Official World Leaders" COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY they force their 'planned disinformation'/explanation of events and history on us and completely keep us misinformed about facts we need to be made aware of. They *Censor the Truth and Full Disclosure* from us (We the People)... of the full reality/truth of the World which we are all a part of but "they" continue to keep their COVErt secrets from us. An informed citizenry is capable of 'Creating a Different Reality' and capable of finding solutions to the problems we are all faced with in life (but we continue to be lied to). If we have 'access to information' Another World is Possible with us being at the helm instead of the way it is now with 'those whose disingenuous actions aim to control us and our destiny' (this is a major CRIME and major INJUSTICE against humanity) through their never-ending assault on us by continuous lies, betrayal and hypocrisy told to us about the World in which we live in order to shape and manipulate our "worldview" for their 'own benefit'. Through their 'lies and deception' they create our reality for us; it's time for us to collectively say "Enough!"> Because I, like so many others, do not like what I see... the "reality"/system they have purposely created for us ALL to be enslaved by. The future is in OUR HANDS... not theirs.

Power to the People Always because 'WE have the numbers'. We just need to reach ***Critical Mass 100th Monkey***. With 'REALIZATION' things will get better.


>>> Positive *Change Activists* Are Not Terrorists <<<
We want a sustainable World of peace and justice through truth not a future of war, corporatist fascism, and environmental devastation caused by lies. All people are created equal and deserve equal rights, justice and freedom; freedom to live and love FREE FROM FEAR. Together we stand, divided we fall. Integrity is everything. We are all ONE No More 'Divide & Conquer'. We are all 'one', we are all connected; with recognition & respect for diversity of all life on the planet.

No Justice -> No Peace
No Tolerance for Blind Hatred & Intolerance of "OTHERS" who are "DIFFERENT"> Let go of 'fear' and Free the Earth *~~Celebrate and Respect Diversity of Life*~~~<3

"Either war is obsolete or men are. If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference." ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

(FLASHBACK) *CHANGE THE STORY* DAVID KORTEN - "THE GREAT TURNING: FROM EMPIRE TO EARTH COMMUNITY" (Break from the "Corporate Culture War Trance")  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33JC0lZ2xgA

LOVE> Imagination + Action Transforms Our World *~~~<3

It's up to ALL of us to speak out on behalf of ALL of Our Sisters and Brothers Around the World. The Worldwide Community (All Inclusive). We owe it to them to ***CARE***. ONE - U2  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWdG8NoFXY0
Remember History Always so we can perhaps one day... end the atrocities that result from the 'vicious cycle of hate, lies & war'.

"When the power of Love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." Jimi Hendrix
Realization = Transformation ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~

We are All Energy and We are All a Force of Nature> we need to Act like it. Within us All is the Power to Defend Mother Earth. Love is Our Resistance. *~~~<3
*>*>*>* New Social Justice Organization---Video 'About - BECAUSE WE MUST' You people INSPIRE me and many *>*Others*<*)  http://vimeo.com/32704589
"There comes a time when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King Jr.
SILENCE = COMPLICITY

A different REALITY can be created... one that focuses on Healing the Earth. This can only happen through the CREATION OF PEACE. Seeking truth and understanding is important... as is the emphasis for the importance of being *Compassionate* for the life and death struggles so many people are FORCED to endure as a direct result of being dominated by a "system fueled by war" that we are ALL ultimately enslaved by unless we work together to *Tear It Down*.


Equal Rights and Justice for ALL (Worldwide). All people are created EQUAL and all deserve EQUAL RIGHTS. No more "tolerance" for blind intolerance/hate.
No More Hypocrisy>>>Earth Justice Now.
Shine the Light on Injustice and Inequality and CREATE a Liberated Earth.

IMAGINE and FOCUS on LIBERATION for ALL WORLDWIDE. If you can dream it... then it can become REALITY. Be a Catalyst for a 'Revolution of Consciousness and Creative Thought' for the purpose of finding positive solutions to the planetary energy crisis that will lead to true Earth Justice/Climate Justice and true "sustainability" and ultimately to the Realization of Earth Liberation and Peace.
~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~
Minds are like the wings of a Butterfly; they work best when they are open. *~~~<3
We are All INFINITE ENERGY (powered by 'creative thought' 'creative action').
*~~~CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY~~~*
"No problem can be solved by the same state of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"Ideas Are Bulletproof". - V for Vendetta


*~~~ONE EARTH - ONE LOVE - ONE PEACE~~~*

"The People's Voice, which has since gone and disappeared NOW stands courageously reborn and has sworn to conquer the evil and corrupt, who promote greed and the violent SUPPRESSION of FREE WILL." V for Vendetta


"During Times of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act." - George Orwell

"All truth passes through three stages: firstly it is ridiculed, secondly, it is violently opposed, and thirdly, it is accepted as self-evident." - Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

"Those who make PEACEFUL REVOLUTION impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically... Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education." - Martin Luther King Jr.


"People should not be afraid of their governments {Corporate State/Police State}. Governments should be afraid of their people." V > ((( \/ is for Voice! )))

\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/+\/ <><> 100th Monkey Theory <><> "A Meeting of the Minds."

***Radical R/evolution of Consciousness*** is the key to finding our way through this mess and to ultimately creating a World of Peace through JUSTICE which is the only real way to live on the planet in a truly "sustainable" way. Focus on ***Natural Alternative Renewable Energy Resources***. No more being 'slaves to the system' and 'slaves to oil wars'. It's up to all of us to speak out against the 'war ruse' and break the cycle of lies/the chains of injustice that enslave us ALL. No Justice, No Peace.

Respect> Diversity of Tactics in the struggle/Resistance against Empire... defiance against the WarSystem that is killing the Earth. It's good to rethink things from time to time and *brainstorm* with the purpose of finding new strategies to combat against Police State repression/oppression and 'corporatized political despotism'. RESISTANCE against the 'forces that are destroying the planet'.


The focus needs to be on realizing clean natural alternative renewable energy resources are already in existence but much of the time are being SUPPRESSED from public consciousness so that so-called "profit" can continue to be made at *ALL OF OUR EXPENSE* by the few at the expense/sacrifice of the entire Earth (oxymoronic).
FREEWILL> Critical Thinking> Independent Thought> Freedom of Thought> is what the World desperately needs NOW more than anything else to find Global SOLUTIONS. Free thinking skills will Lead the Way to eVentual FREE ENERGY which will in turn ultimately have the lasting effect of helping in the creation of a truly FREE EARTH.

Focus on exposing the truth in *ALL Areas of Inquiry* for the sake of Mother Earth and all life herein.

"The resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance." - Bertrand Russell
"The world shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anais Nin
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, create a new model that makes the old model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller

+++*~~~CREATE NEW +FREE+ ENERGY SOURCES~~~*+++
It's time to FLOW with the Unified Field Theory~~~* Flower of LIFE *~~~<3

(((This documentary should be FREE and not motivated by "profit drive" $$$... if it's not made to be free... it's HYPOCRISY and is INFORMATION SUPPRESSION.)))(((Hate Proctor & Gamble Corporate Crimes))) ***Thrive Movie Preview - Free Energy***  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nvqWuGWSD4

Practical Guide to Free-Energy Devices - Patrick J. Kelly  http://free-energy-info.co.uk/

Free Energy Generator and OverUnity - John Searl and the Searl Effect Generator  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPPBkhjp1fY&feature=player_embedded
"There is nothing impossible except that the State Of Your Mind makes it so." - Professor John Searl

Tesla - The Race to Zero Point Free Energy ~~~* (with Jeane Manning, author of "The Coming Energy Revolution" also Eugene Mallove, late Editor of "Infinite Energy Magazine" and founder of the non-profit New Energy Foundation and the late Dr. Brian O'Leary, co-author of "Miracle in the Void: The New Energy Revolution" from 1998)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKWPht3fU-o

Free Energy - Pentagon Conspiracy to Cover up  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRsQZx6zWA&feature=player_embedded

Panacea's Free Energy Suppression production (Part 1, Segment 1 of 53)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTKL6BgfDj4
Practical Guide to Free-Energy Devices - Patrick J. Kelly  http://free-energy-info.co.uk/

"During Times of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act." - George Orwell
"Those who make PEACEFUL REVOLUTION impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

*~~~ONE EARTH - ONE LOVE SPIRAL - ONE PEACE~~~*
Think Rainbow Dreams of Peace and Manifest a New Reality ~*~ Change the direction of the ***ENERGY SPIRAL*** from 'Fear & Chaos/War' to 'Compassion & Peace' *~~~<3. This can only be done through the unified collective efforts/ACTIONS aimed towards the CREATION of *Earth Justice & Liberation*. We are 'ALL the ones we've been waiting for'. We have FREEWILL to change the war-template/existing paradigm in solidarity We Have the Power to lead the World towards PEACE.

Change the WorldView. Change the MindSet. Change the 'template' for how we collectively SEE "REALITY" and We Can Change the World. Another World Is Possible with the Focus on Truth in ALL AREAS OF INQUIRY> the power of creation is within us ALL and it starts with a dream and is ***POWERED BY THE ENERGY OF OUR COLLECTIVE IMAGINATIONS***. DREAMS BECOME 'REALITY'. Once we Free Our Minds to New Possibilities We Will Be Contributing to Help Free/Liberate the Earth. This will happen through the creation of 'True Earth Justice'.
We just need to CHANGE THE CORPORATIZED 'NARRATIVE/STORY' which historically has always been 'based on Lies, dogma, and propaganda' for the sole purpose of "profit" (lack of genuine *soul purpose* for the benefit of the entire Earth). By taking back the controlled 'NARRATIVE/STORY' of "reality" we will be able to *TAKE BACK OUR POWER*.

)>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<( )>{}<(
A More Positive Story - Elisabet Sahtouris  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUGwInuvcg
METAPHORmosis ~*  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzU3H7E0DO8&feature
Being Fearless as We Face the Future Elisabet Sahtouris  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elisabet-sahtouris/being-fearless-as-we-face_b_28229.html
"This is decidedly a most exciting time to be alive. We have more information than any previous generations and it is high time to question the past and present to become more intelligent and wise about the future." "Almost everything in our world from its money system, politics and economics to education, health care and social relations has been defined by now as unsustainable. Hear the beauty in that word unsustainable because it means 'Can NOT last; MUST be changed!' We have to reinvent our human world; there is no other choice! It has been wisely said: "We are the first generation that gets to decide whether we are the last!" "Someone(s) will have to reinvent the money system, the economic system, the political systems, the education systems, and so on." - Elisabet Sahtouris
In a holarchy, order emerges from the bottom up >>>(from the GRASSROOTS LEVEL)<<<. Elisabet Sahtouris describes the organizing principle for holarchy as negotiated self-interest. Cells in the body are each out for themselves, making sure they "harvest a yield" (oxygen and nutrients) to survive. But cells must negotiate with neighboring cells for nutrients or their host won't survive. Mutation can cause cells to lose the ability to negotiate with their neighbors幼ancer cells that pursue self-interest at the expense of the host. Using this metaphor, our CURRENT BANKING SYSTEM RESEMBLES CANCER耀elf-interest displacing negotiation with other agents in the economy, threatening the entire "organism." Negotiating is an act of faith, dependent on trust. Trust relationships are important between businesses and their customers, as well as among citizens, organizations, and businesses in a functioning community.

"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet." - Carl Sagan

~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~<>~*~

The Systems of 'Power & Control' vs. the unfolding R/evolution of ***FREEWILL LIBERATION***.
Another World is Possible. 覧&#61664; True Freedom! Forever! \/

"RELEASED ENERGIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE FREE ASSOCIATION OF LIBERATED INDIVIDUALS." Emma Goldman

Food -for -Thought> The Individual, Society and the State - Emma Goldman - August 01, 2004  http://www.patrickcrusade.org/pdf_files/Box05THE%20INDIVIDUALbyEmmaGoldman03-15-10.pdf
"The rejuvenation of mankind needs the inspiration and energizing force of
an ideal. Such an ideal I see in Anarchism. To be sure, not in the popular
misrepresentations of Anarchism spread by the worshippers of the State
and authority. I mean the philosophy of a new social order based on the released energies of the individual and the free association of
liberated individuals. Of all social theories Anarchism alone steadfastly proclaims that society exists for man, not man for society. The sole legitimate purpose of society is to serve the needs and advance the aspiration of the individual. Only by doing so can it justify its existence and be an aid to progress and culture.

No intelligent student will deny the importance of the economic
factor in the social growth and development of mankind. But only narrow
and willful dogmatism can persist in remaining blind to the important
role played by an idea as conceived by the imagination and aspirations
of the individual." 覧 Emma Goldman

"Ideas Are Bulletproof". V for Vendetta

"The free expression of the hopes and aspirations of a people is the greatest and only safety in a sane society." Emma Goldman
"Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian." Emma Goldman

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti
"If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem." J. Krishnamurti
Radical Revolution - J. Krishnamurti (From Zeitgeist Addendum) We are all ONE No More 'Divide & Conquer'- "transcend" beyond dogma and transform)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywe2o4pVdSU

"They must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." Gerald Massey

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

"The Truth Cannot Be Told... It Must Be Realized".
The Three Stages of TRUTH 1. Ridicule 2. Violent Opposition 3. Acceptance
Focus on exposing the truth in *ALL Areas of Inquiry* for the sake of Mother Earth and all life herein.

"The world shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." Anais Nin

There is No Fate the future/Destiny is what *WE Choose to CREATE*. We have FREEWILL always. R/evolution is in OUR HANDS.
><>/|\<>>>>CREATIVE ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAT WORDS<<<<>/|\<>< *TAKE BACK AND LIBERATE THE LAND*. RECLAIM THE LAND FROM THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CAPITALISM/CONSUMERISM/COMMERCIALISM/MILITARISM THAT IS DESTROYING/BULLDOZING/GRINDING UP EVERYTHING IN ITS PATH (ALL LIFE). $$$> *CREATE A FREE EARTH*. DON'T LOSE FAITH BECAUSE ***OUR DAY WILL COME*** (NEVER LOSE HOPE OR STOP BELIEVING). New Squatted Park In Santa Cruz Gets Bulldozed  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2011/12/412820.shtml?discuss

"The Truth Cannot Be Told... It Must Be Realized". <<<>>> "Truth Is Within."
*~~~CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY~~~*
Minds are like the wings of a Butterfly; they work best when they are open. *~~~<3
~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~ ~~~ )>{}<( ~~~

Walking on Wasted Land ->-> *CHANGE THE SPIRAL*.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjAMD3qAVbY
Calm the people
Tell them life's better than a hundred years ago

Feed them with hope in a war of OIL
Against all but don't let them know

How can I show you the path to a land
That blossoms in your inside
Frees you from all your compulsion and fears
To discover the beauty of your life

How far can we go?
How far can we go?

Walking on wasted land
But we have to go on
Walking on wasted land
But the show must go on

The news is ok
The system is working, let's watch a tv show

War is a game
Our life's a balance sheet
Your money tells you what's right and wrong

Cutting the truth into shreds and completing
A puzzle where no one's to blame
Living for our desires and needs
But nobody's winning this game

How far can we go?
How far can we go?

Walking on wasted land
But we have to go on
Walking on wasted land
But the "show" must go on... (or... must it?)
~ Lyrics to "WASTED LAND" - RPWL

It's time to be the "change" and ***Reverse the SPIRAL*** away from the WarDogma/WarSystem and towards PEACE ON EARTH.

The unlimited and infinite >>>*Creative Energy within the FREEWILL Freedom of Thought Spiral*<<< is the key to unlocking the door that leads to finding 'sustainable solutions' for a positive life affirming future free from lies & war (Peace). Focus on truth in *ALL areas of inquiry*.
*~~~ONE EARTH - ONE LOVE SPIRAL - ONE PEACE~~~*<3
***WE ARE ALL AN INFINITE ENERGY SPIRAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND CREATIVITY AND TOGETHER OUR UNIVERSAL POTENTIAL KNOWS NO BOUNDS ONCE WE LET GO OF FEAR AND LET LOVE RULE.*** WE are ALL the R/evolution we've been waiting for.

"What I give form to in daylight is only one per cent of what I have seen in darkness." - M. C. Escher, conceptual artist, (1898-1972)

The Artists Create the Stories> Art Imitates Life> by the same token Life Imitates Art. It's time to stop listening to the "corporate storytellers" and start listening to the independent voices/minds focused on the *Pursuit of Peace*. Everyone has a story and everyone has something to contribute that can help to guide us towards the path to Peace. Within everyone is a piece of the puzzle. Answers and solutions to the problems facing the Earth come from the 'grassroots level'. Through *INTEGRITY* and by *SPEAKING OUR TRUTH* WE ARE THE STORYTELLERS AND WE ARE WEAVING THE BEGINNINGS OF A DIFFERENT REALITY. ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE> ONE WHICH IS CREATED ON A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY FOR ALL WORLDWIDE. The MYTHS/ILLUSIONS OF THE PAST have LED US INTO A *WAR AGAINST OUR EARTH REALITY/MENTALITY* by the 'Systems of Power & Control' who continue to seek to create the WarSystem even though it is CONSUMING THE PLANET. The Time for the ***CREATION of a PEACE ON EARTH REALITY is NOW*** and it is up to ALL OF US TO DISMANTLE THE WAR MACHINE/SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS OBSOLETE AND IS *TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND NOT LIFE-AFFIRMING* IT CAUSES DEATH ON SO MANY DIFFERENT FRONTS/LEVELS. The WarSystem not only creates death to Mother Earth but also creates global suffering/struggle to all Earth's inhabitants. The WarSystem is a Crime-(ECOCIDE) against Nature/Environment/Connected-Global-Ecosystems/Humans/Animals/All of Us Worldwide. It's time we recognize 'oneness' while still RESPECTING DIVERSITY OF LIFE GLOBALLY.

Artists can tell a story that enable people to realize the truth about the reality of the World they live in and can help people to coexist in Peace by helping people to achieve insight & understanding by *Seeing through the Eyes of Others*. Artistic symbolism and imagery has an amazing 'transformative power' for positive change by opening eyes/hearts/minds. Study, Learn, and Remember History so mistakes of the past are Never Repeated. Create a Future based on Love, Compassion... Truth and Understanding.

'We the People' should be the storytellers/*reality makers*... not the "corporate media" because historically speaking the "news" and "information" they have FED US in the past has led to war... it has been controlled by the forces of power that have a vested interest "profiting from war" in selling the "war justification story" which was fed to the public as "truth" they sold us out and sold us down the "river of blood" that resulted from the war that followed... the war that was 'forced upon us all'. We the People can be the <(Butterfly- Cause & Effect)> in the pursuit of Peace by speaking 'Truth to Power' as opposed to the (Problem-Reaction-Solution) that was forced on us by the Masters of War/"powers that be" that create wars by causing fear, chaos, disaster and turmoil as a means to obtain their war agenda/hegemonic pursuits.

Empire's never ending Lies, Betrayals & Hypocrisy have created a fictitious ("His-story" that is separate from *True Mother Earth's Story*).
~~~ )>{}<( ~~~
By "Changing the Story" we can take back *OUR POWER*. We do not have to listen to and believe in their lies any longer. We do not have to be their slaves. We have FREE-WILL.


"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth; I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene Victor Debs
*Keep Being the Media* and keep going down the 'rabbit hole' (spiral). Questioning the 'world around us' with a view to UNDERSTANDING is how we expand our minds, gain insight & perspective and expand our WorldView.

Eco Warrior Spiritual Warrior (What the World Needs Now is Love)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_jNpTN1v9s&feature=related

"The Earth does not belong to man; Man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." "We are a part of the Earth and it is part of us." ~ Chief Seattle
"When the Earth is sick, the animals will begin to disappear, when that happens, The Warriors of the Rainbow will come to save them." ~ Chief Seattle
*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3
War destroys the Earth and ALL LIFE. Celebrate/Respect/Protect the DIVERSITY of All Life. It's up to all of us to CARE. We are all Warriors of the Rainbow*~<3 (make the connection) Biodiversity Crisis  http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
"When we show our respect for other living things, they respond with respect for us." - Arapaho Proverb
*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3

My hope for the future is that people will become focused on being more 'Earth-centered' and 'Earth-Connected'.
(It's time to RETHINK and put things into perspective) The true Villains of the Earth are the Masters of the War-System because they threaten the future of the planet.
>>>Don't Turn a Blind Eye<<< > See and Respect Mother Earth with Eyes Wide Open <勇ARTH JUSTICE = PEACE

<>+<<<<<>>>>>+<> It's HER LIFE - (GAIA柚other Earth*~<3) The GAIA Hypothesis, most simply expressed is that: "The Earth is Alive" and that our planet functions as a single organism (Respect Biodiversity - Earth is a group of interdependent organisms and environmental systems that function as a single, self-regulating organism). {*~+~*} (*Advocate Rights For Everyone* no exceptions or exclusions humans and animals alike deserve rights & justice. NO MORE HATE and no more 'divide & conquer' by toxic and wrongly ill-conceived so-called "Superiority Complex" over the *FREEWILL OF OTHERS*. There is a 'Unity of Oppression' that is linked and connected Worldwide and we can see it clearly if we just *~*Open Our Eyes/Hearts~<3/Minds*~* and take a "time out" to Re-Think our WorldView> it's beyond time to smash the systems of 'power & control'. NO MORE DOMINATION. Suppressing and prohibiting the rights, justice and freedom/freewill of others is TOXIC and HATEFUL to the planet.) <> RESPECT DIVERSITY OF LIFE GLOBALLY. <> LOVE EARTH*~~~<3  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czi09cOOgXU&feature=fvwrel
+++++>>> HATE KILLS <<<+++++

"Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein

*~~~Help Create Balance in the Web of Life~~~*

Put Nature and Mother Earth before money, war & FALSE "PROFIT" $$$ > which comes at the true cost and expense of the planet. Earth is alive and is both spiritual & sacred> it is up to all of us to help Defend her against her violators/aggressors who seek to destroy her through the creation of war, chaos, hate, strife, turmoil, and DIVISION.

Inspire transformation ~ another World is possible. *~~<3
*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3
"The Truth Cannot Be Told... It Must Be Realized". <<<>>> "Truth Is Within."
)>{}<( *~~~CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY~~~* )>{}<(
Minds are like the wings of a Butterfly; they work best when they are open. *~~~<3


The War-System is a crime against Nature and causes "terror" with its deceitfully so-called "evolving", new and ongoing 'programs for war'. War is counter-evolutionary and if it continues *we will all be forced/made to be obsolete*. The so-called "global power elite"/"powers that be" globalists are capable of causing (creating) environmental terror on a massive scale >>>ECOCIDE<<< and are the definition of the word "terrorists". Look no further than the planetary havoc and global chaos they created with the 'system' that creates 'never ending war' for the agenda of war profiteering/privatization/militarization/greed/globalization/corporatist fascism $$$. Purposefully caused man-made global strife so "war profits" can be made from the ensuing chaos and disaster (war agenda). Never ending man-made global warring in the age of man-made global warming> no thought/care/remorse/conscience by the so-called "powers that be"/Master Architects of War... they have no concern about the ensuing Climate Change/Climate Chaos which is a direct result of the status quo (THEY CAPITALIZE ON DISASTER) - to them it's "war business as usual".

Universal deception and "Manufactured Reality" is not tolerable. Truth is Always the First Casualty of War. It's time to tear down the 'Wall of Lies'. When we uphold the lies we uphold the 'system' that surrounds the lies... the system that 'feeds on the lies' the lies that create and attempt to legitimize/justify the WarSystem. Another World Is Possible. (*Flashback* - domination/control/"superiority"-Masters of Space) Arsenal of Hypocrisy (part 1)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILB9DaMRt4

EVOLVE---> Beyond the War Industry/System - - - Unity for Justice and World Peace.
LET GO OF FEAR, free your mind and set the World Free.
WE ARE ENERGY~~~* CREATE a NEW REALITY~~~* Inspire to Create a radical 'Revolution of Consciousness' with the focus on truth in 'all areas of inquiry'.

The so-called "global power elite" THRIVE on the ambition of global conquest & domination with no concern for the inevitable resulting mass death of innocent lives (collateral murder-acceptable losses for the War Machine). It all ties into the 'Runaway Train Disaster Capitalism' scenario with the motive of keeping people distracted and in constant fear so the so-called "global power elite" can continue to "gain monetarily" $$$ from war and from the suffering of others. Causing misery and war atrocities is "profitable" for the "Masters of War". Compassion does not "factor in" or exist within the minds of those whose intentions are focused solely on continuing down the blood stained path of "profit driven war", greed, Imperialism & hegemonic destruction. Demand justice for the 'sacrifice of the planet'. The rape/murder of Mother Earth can no longer be ignored or denied and apathy towards the CRIME of >>>ECOCIDE<<< should no longer be "tolerated". Ignorance is not bliss... it is just dangerous and contributes to putting the life of the planet in peril and dooms countless innocent people (and animals) around the World to a life of horrible suffering and misery... sentencing them ultimately to death. Killing the planet is a CRIME and it is up to all of us to demand Earth Justice for the 'rivers of blood' created by the 'masters of war'. In the 'system we are all enslaved by' we are all potential *sacrifices* to "Fuel the WarSystem".

"Whoever controls the past controls the future." - George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

We need to stop being slaves to the system. Focus on alternative ideas/energy for real and lasting "sustainable" change. Let nature be our guide for R/evolution and a brighter future free from war.

One Struggle>>> One Fight>>> One Voice>>> One Love>>> One Earth>>> One Peace

"The State is the altar of political freedom and, like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice." - Emma Goldman
"(O)ur rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention our own." - Gore Vidal from his 2002 book, "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace"


"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"There comes a time when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." - Martin Luther King Jr.


"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha


"We have been too kind to those who are destroying the planet. We have been inexcusably, unforgivably, insanely kind." - Derrick Jensen


No more "corporatist fascism system" of Lies, Betrayal & Hypocrisy> WAR (against the Earth/Nature/Environment/Humans/Animals/ALL OF US> is a *HATE CRIME*. Dissent against the WarSystem that is destroying the planet is a NATURAL REACTION/SANE REACTION against an 'insane system' whose destructive actions are a 'CRIME AGAINST NATURE'.



Put Nature and Mother Earth first before money & FALSE PROFIT $$$ at the TRUE COST and 'expense of the planet and all of us'.


"The only way to deal with an unfree (unjust) world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus


Shine the Light on Injustice and Liberate the Earth. Inspire 'freedom of thought' and inspire Transformation.

The mission is a radical transformation and *R/evolution of Consciousness* with the focus being on an expanded WorldView (by seeking/exposing truth in ALL areas of inquiry) with the focus being to help Heal Mother Earth from those whose agenda it is to violate Her through war, lies, toxicity which act against (Nature/Environment/Ecosystems/All Earth's Creatures including Us)> the war against the planet is All Inclusive> eVerything is connected. Total Earth Justice and Liberation for All... NOW.

>One Struggle One Fight ~~~Resistance and Liberation Always~~~!

We receive our ENERGY from our combined LOVE for Mother Earth and the power generated from our 'collective solidarity' for the never-ending pursuit of planetary JUSTICE FOR ALL out of Care and Compassion for the suffering of "Others" who are labeled "Different". We are powered by the infinite resource of our FREEWILL and by the 'unlimited energy spiral' it is capable of 'creating'. The degree to which the so-called "World Management Team" gets away with murder on OUR PLANET is in direct proportion to which we do not trust ourselves to be creative. The future is in OUR HANDS... not "theirs". ***Power to the People Always***.

*~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3 *~~~<3

"The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved." - Emma Goldman

Love is Our Resistance*~~~<3

Total Worldwide Earth Justice and Liberation NOW.
Another World Is Possible.



*~Solidarity & Peace*~~~<3



~~~ )>{}<( ~~~
Strength through Solidarity for Worldwide Earth Justice & True Liberation.~Free~
Strength through Solidarity for Worldwide Earth Justice & True Liberation.~Free~
Rich Man痴 War> Poor Man痴 Blood for Oil. > POWER TO THE PEOPLE ALWAYS.
Rich Man痴 War> Poor Man痴 Blood for Oil. > POWER TO THE PEOPLE ALWAYS.
Another World is Possible. > True Freedom!  Forever!
Another World is Possible. > True Freedom! Forever!