Thursday, 25 January 2007

Immortal Technique

Immortal Technique

"Never mind the morality, give me the money."


Coffinman

Fighting super-criminals- Exposing their crimes

Okay, I like some of this guy's music.
The Fourth branch is real good:



He highlights bigotry, and genicide, and the brainwashing of people by the corporate media....
But then I had a problem.
Because he sings about hateful Arabs with box-cutters taking over planes and crashing them into buildings.
And the fact is that the whole scenario of planes hitting the towers and the towers turning completely and instantly to dust as a result is utterly impossible.
And the fact is also that all of the video footage of the planes is totally fake, cartoons vanishing straight into buildings.
The psy-op of September 11 was presented to the World by the corporate media.
And the fact is, that this guy tells us not to "let the corporate news tell lies to our children", yet he is there assisting them with the "evil Arab" psy-op.
So I wrote to him and gave him some links to verify what I said, just in case he's too busy in the studio to research.
No answer.
3 times.
So I sent him this:

"Immortal, I know you won't answer, but I wanted you to get this question from me, I may post it on my website:

Since you tell us all in "the fourth branch" not to let the corporate media tell lies to our children, and since you sing in "cause of death" about hateful Muslims prepared to die to destroy our way of life using box cutters to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, and since any fool knows that the only planes that went into any buildings that day were the cartoons presented by the corporate media, does that then make you a "bitch nigga"?


Coffinman."


He never responded.

http://www.myspace.com/immortaltechnique


Wednesday, 10 January 2007

Lawrence and Broughs

Nothing political in this one, just a piece of motorcycling folk-lore.
(Notwithstanding that this guy knowingly sold the Arabs out for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel, he admitted so.)
Was he murdered because of what he knew?
what about the mysterious car?.

Lawrence's race with an aeroplane

This is a quote from T. E. Shaw (Lawrence) in his book, The Mint, about his years in the RAF after he returned from Arabia. He joined under another name and his fellow recruits did not know who he was.



THE ROAD


The extravagance in which my surplus emotion expressed itself lay on the road. So long as roads were tarred blue and straight; not hedged; and empty and dry, so long I was rich.

Nightly I’d run up from the hangar, upon the last stroke of work, spurring my tired feet to be nimble. The very movement refreshed them, after the daylong restraint of service.

In five minutes my bed would be down, ready for the night: in four more I was in breeches and puttees, pulling on my gauntlets as I walked over to my bike, which lived in a garage hut, opposite. Its tyres never wanted air, its engine had a habit of starting at second kick: a good habit, for only by frantic plunges upon the starting pedal could my puny weight force the engine over the seven atmospheres of its compression.

Boanerges’ first glad roar at being alive again nightly jarred the huts of Cadet College into life. ‘There he goes, the noisy bugger,’ someone would say enviously in every flight. It is part of an airman’s profession to be knowing with engines: and a thoroughbred engine is our undying satisfaction. The camp wore the virtue of my Brough like a flower in its cap. Tonight Tug and Dusty came to the step of our but to see me off. ‘Running down to Smoke, perhaps?’ jeered Dusty; hitting at my regular game of London and back for tea on fine Wednesday afternoons.

Boa is a top-gear machine, as sweet in that as most single cylinders in middle. I chug lordly past the guardroom and through the speed limit at no more than sixteen. Round the bend, past the farm, and the way straightens. Now for it. The engine’s final development is fiftytwo horsepower. A miracle that all this docile strength waits behind one tiny lever for the pleasure of my hand.


Another bend: and I have the honour of one of England’s straightest and fastest roads. The burble of my exhaust unwound like a long cord behind me. Soon my speed snapped it, and I heard only the cry of the wind which my battering head split and fended aside. The cry rose with my speed to a shriek: while the air’s coldness streamed like two jets of iced water into my dissolving eyes. I screwed them to slits, and focused my sight two hundred yards ahead of me on the empty mosaic of the tar’s gravelled undulations.

Like arrows the tiny flies pricked my cheeks: and sometimes a heavier body, some housefly or beetle, would crash into face or lips like a spent bullet. A glance at the speedometer: seventy eight. Boanerges is warming up. I pull the throttle right open, on the top of the slope, and we swoop flying across the dip, and updown updown the switchback beyond: the weighty machine launching itself like a projectile with a whirr of wheels into the air at the takeoff of each rise, to land lurchingly with such a snatch of the driving chain as jerks my spine like a rictus.

Once we so fled across the evening light, with the yellow sun on my left, when a huge shadow roared just overhead. A Bristol Fighter, from Whitewash Villas, our neighbour aerodrome, was banking sharply round. I checked speed an instant to wave: and the slipstream of my impetus snapped my arm and elbow astern, like a raised flail. The pilot pointed down the road towards Lincoln. I sat hard in the saddle, folded back my ears and went away after him, like a dog after a hare. Quickly we drew abreast, as the impulse of his dive to my level exhausted itself.

The next mile of road was rough. I braced my feet into the rests, thrust with my arms, and clenched my knees on the tank till its rubber grips goggled under my thighs. Over the first pot hole Boanerges screamed in surprise, its mudguard bottoming with a yawp upon the tyre. Through the plunges of the next ten seconds I clung on, wedging my gloved hand in the throttle lever so that no bump should close it and spoil our speed. Then the bicycle wrenched sideways into three long ruts: it swayed dizzily, wagging its tail for thirty awful yards. Out came the clutch, the engine raced freely: Boa checked and straightened his head with a shake, as a Brough should.

The bad ground was passed and on the new road our flight became birdlike. My head was blown out with air so that my ears had failed and we seemed to whirl soundlessly between the sungilt stubble fields. I dared, on a rise, to slow imperceptibly and glance sideways into the sky. There the Bif was, two hundred yards and more back. Play with the fellow? Why not? I slowed to ninety: signalled with my hand for him to overtake. Slowed ten more: sat up. Over he rattled. His passenger, a helmeted and goggled grin, hung out of the cockpit to pass me the ‘Up yer’ RAF randy greeting.

They were hoping I was a flash in the pan, giving them best. Open went my throttle again. Boa crept level, fifty feet below: held them: sailed ahead into the clean and lonely country. An approaching car pulled nearly into its ditch at the sight of our race. The Bif was zooming among the trees and telegraph poles, with my scurrying spot only eighty yards ahead. I gained though, gained steadily: was perhaps five miles an hour the faster. Down went my left hand to give the engine two extra dollops of oil, for fear that something was running hot: but an overhead Jap twin, supertuned like this one, would carry on to the moon and back, unfaltering.

We drew near the settlement. A long mile before the first houses I closed down and coasted to the crossroads by the hospital. Bif caught up, banked, climbed and turned for home, waving to me as long as he was in sight. Fourteen miles from camp, we are, here: and fifteen minutes since I left Tug and Dusty at the hut door.

I let in the clutch again, and eased Boanerges down the hill, along the tramlines through the dirty streets and uphill to the aloof cathedral, where it stood in frigid perfection above the cowering close. No message of mercy in Lincoln. Our God is a jealous God: and man’s very best offering will fall disdain fully short of worthiness, in the sight of Saint Hugh and his angels.

Remigius, earthy old Remigius, looks with more charity on me and Boanerges. I stabled the steel magnificence of strength and speed at his west door and went in: to find the organist practising something slow and rhythmical, like a multiplication table in notes, on the organ. The fretted, unsatisfying and unsatisfied lacework of choir screen and spandrels drank in the main sound. Its surplus spilled thoughtfully into my ears.

By then my belly had forgotten its lunch, my eyes smarted and streamed. Out again, to sluice my head under the White Hart’s yard pump. A cup of real chocolate and a muffin at the teashop: and Boa and I took the Newark road for the last hour of daylight. He ambles at forty-five and when roaring his utmost, surpasses the hundred. A skittish motorbike with a touch of blood in it is better than all the riding animals on earth, because of its logical extension of our faculties, and the hint, the provocation, to excess conferred by its honeyed untiring smoothness.

Because Boa loves me, he gives me five more miles of speed than a stranger would get from him.
At Nottingham I added sausages from my wholesaler to the bacon which I’d bought at Lincoln: bacon so nicely sliced that each rasher meant a penny. The solid pannier bags behind the saddle took all this and at my next stop (a farm) took also a felt hammocked box of fifteen eggs. Home by Sleaford, our squalid, purse-proud, local village. Its butcher had six penn’orth of dripping ready for me. For months have I been making my evening round a marketing, twice a week, riding a hundred miles for the joy of it and picking up the best food cheapest, over half the country side.






Letters from Lawrence of Arabia

TO GEORGE BROUGH

27.9.26 Cranwell

Dear Mr. Brough,

I'm very much in your debt for four years solid pleasure. Would the enclosed be any use to you? I don't want to sign it Ross, since that only makes the newspapers sit up & take notice: whereas they have already made beasts of themselves over the 'Lawrence' name, & can keep it, so far as I'm concerned.

I don't mind your showing it to people ( or sticking it up on your stand, if that is a practice at Olympia) but I'd rather you did not print it in a newspaper till after December 15, when I'll have gone abroad. This is supposing it's of use, as a chit. What I really meant it for is best thanks, for a hundred thousand very jolly miles.

Yours ever

J. H. Ross.
The letter above, number 288, is quoted from Letters of T. E. Lawrence, which notes:
"Lawrence no doubt signed as Ross so as to prevent any chance of the name T. E. Shaw appearing in the testimonial. But he continued to use the name Ross occasionally long after he had changed to Shaw by deed poll."

The following was enclosed with the letter above:

TO GEORGE BROUGH

27.9.26

Dear Mr. Brough,

Yesterday I completed 100000 miles, since 1922, on five successive Brough Superiors, and I'm going abroad very soon, so that I think I must make an end, and thank you for the road-pleasure I have got out of them. In 1922, I found George I (your old Mark I) the best thing I'd ridden, but George V (the 1922 SS100) is incomparably better. In 1925 and 1926 (George IV & V) I have not had an involuntary stop, & so have not been able to test your spares service, on which I drew so heavily in 1922 and 1923. Your present machines are as fast and reliable as express trains, and the greatest fun in the world to drive: - and I say this after twenty years experience of cycles and cars.
They are very expensive to buy, but light in upkeep (50-65 m.p.g. of petrol, 4000 m.p.g. oil, 5000-6000 miles per outer cover, in my case) and in the four years I have made only one insurance claim (for less than £5) which is a testimony to the safety of your controls & designs. The S.S.100 holds the road extraordinarily. It's my great game on a really pot-holed road to open up to 70 m.p.h. or so and feel the machine gallop: and though only a touring machine it will do 90 m.p.h at full throttle.
I'm not a speed merchant, but ride fairly far in the day (occasionally 700 miles, often 500) and at a fair average, for the machine's speed in the open lets one crawl through the towns, & still average 40-42 miles in the hour. The riding position & the slow powerful turn-over of the engine at speeds of 50 odd give one a very restful feeling.
There, it is no good telling you all you knew before I did: they are the jolliest things on wheels. Yours very sincerely

T E LAWRENCE

New Years Eve 1930

I feel inclined to send a postcard to Sandwich [an address of Lady Astor's], explaining how much I enjoyed Cliveden and what an excellent ride back I had (including a race across the Plain with a sports Bentley: well, not so much a race as a procession for the Bent, which did only 88. I wished I had a peeress or two on my flapper bracket!)

Lady Astor, first British woman Member of Parliament, was a famous socialite of the day, extremely rich and influential. She frequently graced the flapper seat of his motorcycle.

Lawrence called all his Brough Superior motorcycles Boa - short for Boanerges, the sons of thunder.
They were numbered George I through George VII. George VIII was awaiting delivery, having already had the stainless steel petrol tank and other special parts from its predecessor fitted, when Lawrence shuffled off.

The novelist Henry Williamson, quoted in A Touch of Genius, says in a 1962 interview:
'Finally he turned up one Sunday, coming right across Dartmoor from Plymouth to North Devon, where I lived, on his ten horse power 100 mile an hour Brough Superior nickel-plated motor cycle ....'

One must really read the whole of the passage, quoted in part above, to get a sense of how impressed people were by the man. Lawrence turned down many laurels and appointments, among them an honorary Doctorate of Laws by St Andrew's University in 1930, and an offer of the Secretaryship of the Bank of England. On the 7th of May 1935, Lady Astor wrote to him: 'I believe when the Government reorganizes, you will be asked to reorganize the defence forces.' Again, he declined.

Seigried Sasoon says, also in a 1962 interview:
'He was almost like a too high powered motor bicycle, almost over-powered .... To call him a charlatan as some people have done is a wicked representation of the worst possible kind. Everything I know of his character belies it. He was absolutely true mettle all through.'

He was almost expelled from the Air Force in 1929 when as a lowly aircraftsman he was seen talking, apparently on equal terms, with the Italian Air Marshal, General Balbo.

"Put in a good word for Boanerges, my Brough bike. I had five of them in four years, and rode 100,000 miles on them, making only two insurance claims (for superficial damage to machine after skids), and hurting nobody. The greatest pleasure of my recent life has been speed on the road. The bike would do 100 m.p.h. but I'm not a racing man. It was my satisfaction to purr along gently between 60 and 70 m.p.h. and drink in the air and the general view. I lose detail at even moderate speeds, but gain comprehension. When I used to cross Salisbury Plain at 50 or so, I'd feel the earth moulding herself under me. It was me piling up this hill, hollowing this valley, stretching out this level place: almost the earth came alive, heaving and tossing on each side like a sea. That's a thing the slow coach will never feel. It is the reward of Speed. I could write for hours on the lustfulness of moving swiftly."

-T. E. Lawrence to his Biographers Robert Graves and Liddell Hart, (edited by Robert Graves and B. H. Liddell Hart), 1963, Casell, London

And he wrote of his recklessness on the road:

TO D. G. HOGARTH

Easter Day [April 1] [1923] Tank-town

Yesterday fatigues for us ran short at 10 A.M. (usually their ingenuity keeps us at it till near noon): so I leaped for my bike, & raced her madly up the London road: Wimbourne, Ringwood, Romsey, Winchester, Basingstoke, Bagshot, Staines, Hounslow by 1.20 P.M. (three hours less five minutes). Good for 125 miles: return journey took 10 minutes less! *

......

I should have said that I bust the bike, just outside camp. Ran over a broken glass bottle at speed, burst front tyre, ran up a bank & turned over. Damage to self nil; to bike somewhat. There goes my power of breaking bounds!

L.

* An average of 44.5 m.p.h. for the round trip of 250 miles.

Dem Bones

TO E. (Posh) Palmer

August 25th 1925

On Friday early they sent me to a doctor. He said 'Have you ever had... ... ....?' 'No sir' 'Have you ever had... ... ....?' 'No' (less confidently). 'Have you ever broken any bones?' This was my chance: I poured over him a heap of fractured fibulae, radii, metatarsals, phalanges, costes, clavicles, scapulae, till he yelled to me to stop. So I stopped, and he made clumsy efforts to write them all down

Letters No. 271

A Melancholy Joy

TO LIONEL CURTIS

14.V.23 Tank-town

.....

.... When my mood gets too hot and I find myself wandering beyond control I pull out my motor-bike and hurl it top-speed through these unfit roads for hour after hour. My nerves are jaded and gone near dead, so that nothing less than hours of voluntary danger will prick them into life: and the 'life' they reach then is a melancholy joy at risking something worth exactly 2/9 a day.

.....

E.

The Phantom Hacker

TO LIONEL CURTIS

27.VI.22 (but actually 1923)

......

...... That's as irrational as what happened on our coming here, when I swerved Snowy Wallis and myself at 60 m.p.h. on to the grass by the roadside, trying vainly to save a bird which dashed out its life against my side-car. And yet had the world been mine I'd have left out animal life upon it.

......

E.

Despoiled

TO BERNARD SHAW

20.xii.23 Clouds Hill

......

My noble cycle, the poor beast who allayed my 'shrinking nerves' was taken out secretly by a beast who left her broken, in a ditch: and she is too ruined to mend, even if I could like her again. So I'm not able to go abroad without public leave and a rail-ticket, now. Yours ever

T.E.S.

The Thieving Beast Revealed

TO E. PALMER

10.xii.25 Clouds Hill

......

Crashed off the Brough last monday: knee: ankle: elbow: being repaired. Tunic and breeches being replaced. Front mudguard, name-plate, handlebars, footrest, renewed. Skid on ice at 55 m.p.h. Dark: wet: most miserable. Hobble like a cripple now.

S.

(post script omitted)

The Annual Step-off, 1926

TO DICK KNOWLES

3.xii.26 Uxbridge Depot

......

I managed to squeeze out 1/2 an hour in Clouds Hill: and 1/2 an hour at the Hardys. I had meant to come to you last Sunday, and started about 7.30 A.M. but Islington streets were greasy (I had to see G.B.S. on the way) & I got into a trough in the wood paving, and fell heavily, doing in the off footrest, kickstart, brake levers, 1/2 handlebar, & oil pump. Also my experienced knee-cap learnt another little trick. Alb Bennett took the wreck for £100. I limp rather picturesquely ...... Yours

T.E.S.

The obvious

3rd May 1934
To George Brough
.....
It looks as though I might yet break my neck on a BS.

Kismet

Lawrence rode into Bovington Camp on his Brough motorcycle and sent off this telegram:

TO HENRY WILLIAMSON

[Telegram; postmarked 13 May 35]

Lunch Tuesday wet fine cottage one mile north Bovington Camp

SHAW

and was riding back to Clouds Hill when he came on two errand boys, riding pedal cycles in a dip in the road. He swerved violently to avoid them, lost control, was thrown over his handlebars and received severe injuries to the brain. His physical vitality was so great that he lay unconscious for nearly five days before he died of congestion of the lungs and heart failure.

The evidence at the inquest revealed a curious contradiction. Corporal Catchpole of the R.A.O.C. who was standing about 100 yards from the road, near Clouds Hill, saw Lawrence on his motor-cycle, travelling at about fifty or sixty miles an hour, pass a black private car, going in the opposite direction, just before he heard the crash. The two boys, whose evidence about times was confused, had no memory of a car passing them.

Mr. Cairns, the brain surgeon, stated that had Lawrence lived he would have lost his memory, been paralysed and unable to speak.

Lawrence was buried at Moreton Church on May 21st.


TEL effigy by Eric Kennington

His bust by Eric Kennington has been placed in the Crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral, a recumbent figure in Arab dress by Kennington has been placed in the ancient Saxon St Martin's church at Wareham, and his cottage at Clouds Hill now belongs to the National Trust and is shown to visitors.


T. E. Lawrence and George Brough October 1930
Photographer unknown.
Bodleian Library (MS. Res.c.54)


The last known photograph of Lawrence.
Clouds Hill 1935

Tuesday, 2 January 2007

Orwellian mind control

The truthling movement

Just as predicted in Orwell's book, 1984, there is a drive to destroy real logic, and create an automatic function in each individual that creates false logic in order to create apparently good reasons for the total crap being put forward as the "official outlook".

It applies to everything and is being taught to our children in schools now.

Because there are those of us who do not readily take to such nonsense, the elite use mind control experts to achieve the same result by way of technical brainwashing. They can only achieve this if they have a "spell of believability", as their arguments are easily pulled apart by the truth. I have said elsewhere, always make your own mind up about each piece of evidence, and beware the leader with all the answers.

It is those who present as leaders we should worry about.

The battle for S9/11T

911 truthlingwatch

Griffin wants to write new global religion for New World Order

Holmgren and Gold: exposing doublethink

Mark Bilk attacks S11 researchers, Coffinman responds

Open letter to Steven Jones re his refusal to respond to "Crash physics for everyone"

Questions for David Griffin

9/11 'hard science' group linked to archaeology hoax

Steven Jones Murdered the development of free energy

Prisonplanet

Assorted names for the Orwellian truthlings


Covert operations

Here is a picture of a B2 bomber activating a cloak of ionised gas:

This gas cloak can glow brightly and make the craft look like a glowing ball. An orb.

The B2 is not limited to conventional propulsion, and it can hover.

The ionised gas cloak is no longer secret, but many aspects of the technology used in this aircraft are still classified as top secret.

Consider the possibility of different craft, some unmanned that use advanced technologies and are classified as secret.

Consider technologies such as the use of electromagnetics to create "electric lenses" to bend light around an object so that it cannot be seen.

Also, the reason people jumped out of the buildings has not been explained.

We know that there were no fierce fires, and nobody could have known that the towers were going to disintegrate.

There is a strong belief amongst researchers that the active denial systen and/or some other weapon could have been used to make people jump, and that the cloaked aerial vehicles could have been the platform for that.

The contents of the black ops arsenal cannot be quantified, it is after all secret.

But black ops were used on September 11, 2001.

And the evidence is mounting.

Orbs

Many cloaked aerial vehicles were caught on video in operation around the World Trade centre on September 11, 2001.

A clear shot of cloaked aerial vehicles.

Look just above the a and p of "gamma press" as the "plane hits the building.
It's a tiny, blinking spherical cloud-thing.
It goes through phases of being invisible.

A close-up of an orb at WTC

There are also many in the blue sky to the right at the end of the shot.

Here's more.
Use your pause button on the second one and check out how it's apparent form changes.
Is this device anything to do with the man who is falling?
We still want to know why people jumped.

And more
Visible to the left of the tower.
Look right on the bottom on the left, in the blue sky at 0:04 -0:06 to see what I'm talking about.
There's loads of them in this video.
Look at 0:04 when a group of them comes from the left of the screen and moves up into the smoke.
And there's a dark one that appears from nowhere on the right in between the two buildings at 0:34 moving to the left.

Film of orb test flights at area 51

Thousands of these have been filmed by people all over the world.

Watzits

The Hidden Advanced Aircraft of Bush's Black Operation 911

911 0ctopus part 1- Black ops and media fakery

911 octopus part 2- Star wars in New York

Black ops soldier disguised as a fireman in WTC before firemen arrived!

And what the black ops admit to looking forward to:

Future Weapons for Future Wars


Building collapses

On September 11, 2001, three steel-framed skyscrapers somehow collapsed.

They all collapsed at freefall speed or greater, building 7 collapsing into its own footprint, and the two towers disintegrating mostly into dust which formed a cloud that enveloped the city.

Directed energy weapon

Controlled demolitions and common sense

High energy release

Douglas Beason Los Alamos discusses directed energy weaponry
(click on picture to play audio)

Two Towers

Building 7

WTC 6

Figure wall. A view over the dome of WFC2 shows the damage to WTC6 in the center of the photo. To the left is the collapsed WTC7. Its debris stack is at least five stories high. To the right of WTC6 is the remaining north wall of WTC1 which leans toward WTC6. Where did the wall go? Where did the top 100 floors of the north wall go? They did not fall on WTC6 or WTC7 because there are no steel wheatchex there. Some of the core of WTC1 remains, but where is the rest of the core? The amount of steel on the ground barely covers the ground.
(Thanks to spooked for this picture.)


UFOs

Hitler's secret flying saucers

Antigravity propulsion system
Used in the B2.

Hacker exposes NASA's secret UFOs!
They want to lock him up for 60 years!

UFO researchers - Dying to know


Fluoride

Fluoride is crap

Fluoride is poison

The Fluoride Conspiracy

Behavioural Effects of Fluorides On Mass Populations

Fluoride fallacy

Fluoride fantasies

Fluoridation:
Mind Control of the Masses

Part 1

Part 2

Sodium fluoride used in concentration camps

The Dentist's Tale


Aspartame

Sweet shit

(and I mean SHIT)

Aspartame, fraudulently pushed onto the market as safe by Donald Rumsfield, is a horrible, aggressive poison.

L-Aspartyl-l-phenylalanine methyl ester, 98% (or)
Aspartame
(CAS# 22839-47-0)

It breaks down in the body to:

bullet
METHYL ALCOHOL 67-56-1
Methanol
bullet
METHYL FORMATE 107-31-3
syn. FORMIC ACID, METHYL ESTER
Formic Acid
bullet

DkP (diketopiperazine) (Tumor agent)

The methanol is known to cause detachment of the retina. Obese people have been loosing their sight and this has been blamed by the British government on the alleged fact that obesity causes vitamin deficiencies that cause blindness.

It is more likely that the obese people who have lost their sight were consuming large amounts of aspartame in a vain attempt at weight control, and that the methanol from the aspartame caused their blindness.

We should be very concerned about the drive to remove sugar from our children's diets and replace it with this poison.

Aspartame- the bad news

Diet coke

Aspartame Causes Cancer in Rats

Aspartame and Brain tumors part 1

Aspartame and Brain tumors part 2

Aspartame and Brain tumors part 3

Mr aspartame
Donald Rumsfield

Dead Cats & Dogs Used To Make Pet Food


(And to feed the food animals we eat)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/26/18179911.php



We see pictures of whole grains, prime cuts of meat and human grade vegetables on the bag, and we assume there's some chef in a pet food kitchen cooking up the best for our loved ones. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.Most of what makes up dog and cat food comes from the rendering plant.

To render, as defined in Webster's Dictionary, is "to process as for industrial use: to render livestock carcasses and to extract oil from fat, blubber, etc., by melting. "When chickens, lambs, cattle, swine, and other animals are slaughtered for food, usually only the lean muscle is cut off for human consumption. This leaves about 50 percent of a carcass left over. These leftovers are what become what we so commonly find on pet food labels, such as "meat-and-bone-meal" or "by-products.

"So basically, what pets eat are lungs, ligaments, bones, blood and intestines. Some other things that go into rendering to make your Cat and Dog Food are:

* Euthanized companion animals Cats a Dogs

* Spoiled meat from the supermarket, Styrofoam wrapping and all

* Road kill that can't be buried on the roadside

* The "4 D's" of cattle: dead, dying, disease and disabled

* Rancid restaurant grease

When dead animals from cow pastures are picked up, they may not be rendered until up to a week after they are dead. Because of this, it is estimated that E. coli bacteria contaminate more than 50 percent of meat meals.

The rendering process destroys the bacteria, but it does not eliminate the endotoxins bacteria release when they die.

These endotoxin, which can cause sickness and disease, are not tested for by pet food manufacturers. When all this comes to the rendering plant, it's put in a huge vat and shredded. Then it's cooked at 220 to 270 degrees for 20 to 60 minutes. After it cools, the grease is skimmed off the top.

This is "animal fat." The rest is pressed and dried. This is "meat and bone meal. "Dogs wouldn't eat this stuff in the wild, so why will they eat it out of their bowls? Their noses are tricked by the smell of it. The smell of animal fats for dogs and fish oil for cats is sprayed on the dry, bland kibble bits to make them appetizing.

These flavors usually come from rendered restaurant grease, animal fat, or other oils unfit for human consumption. Huge conglomerates use pet food companies as a cheap, and even profitable, way of disposing of the waste from their human food companies. Three of the five major pet food companies are owned by these huge corporations.

Who owns what? Corporation & Pet Foods:

Nestle: Alpo, Fancy Feast, Friskies, Mighty Dog, Purina One

Heinz: 9 Lives, Amore, Gravy Train, Kibbles-n-Bits, Nature's Recipe

Colgate-Palmolive: Hill's Science Diet

Proctor & Gamble: Eukanuba and Iams

Mars: Kal Kan, Mealtime, Pedigree, Sheba, Waltham's

VETERINARIANS AND PET FOOD: So why don't vets warn people? The question should be, what makes veterinarians think they can recommend food. In Food Pets Die For, Ann Martin says, Our family physician doesnt display weight loss products in the reception room So why is this going on in our veterinary clinics that do not specialize in nutrition. She says she considers it unethical for vets to sell pet food unless they are trained in pet nutrition. The reason your vet thinks so highly of the pet food they sell probably has more to do with money than nutrition. In vet school, the only classes offered on nutrition usually last a few weeks, and are taught by representatives from the pet food companies.

Vet students may also receive free food for their own dogs and cats at home. They could get an Iams notebook, a Purina purse and some free pizza. The companies also hire students to be representatives for the company and to promote their products to other students. This issue was even placed on the agenda for an Executive Committee meeting at the vet school at Colorado State University. According to the minutes discussion was held on how to handle dealing with pet food companies and their donations of pet food to the university. It was agreed to put together a task force to discuss this issue, investigate the possibilities, and make suggestions to the Executive Council on how to work with the numerous pet food companies that want to donate to CSU. There was no further mention of this topic in meetings since.

In May 2000, Purina made the announcement that in an effort to help university, veterinary hospitals provide optimal nutrition recommendations for dogs and cats, Ralston Purina is funding three new veterinary diet technician positions. They donated $100,000 to support these positions for the first year. How would you feel about a company that paid your salary?

CHEMICALS IN PET FOOD: Because the ingredients in pet food aren't exactly as pure as consumers are made to believe, not only is the food unhealthy, it may also be poisonous. When the "food" comes out of the rendering plant, there's no way it would be bought by a consumer or eaten by a dog. To make it more pleasing to the eyes of owners and the mouths of animals, the producers of pet food add a myriad of chemicals. To keep the food fresh, the first thing added is a preservative. The bags of food must stay fresh through shipping and on the shelf. There are several synthetic preservatives out there:

* Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)

* Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)

* Propylene glycol (also used as automotive antifreeze)

* Ethoxyquin

Their is little known about the effect these chemicals may have on an animal. Some experts and veterinarians claim ethoxyquin is the best and safest preservative on the market, others claim it is a potential carcinogen, causing skin problems and infertility in dogs. Some other things that may be added to your dog or cat food are:

* Coloring agents

* Drying agents

* Flavoring agents

* Lubricants

* Nutritive Sweeteners

* Texturizers

IS THERE CAT AND DOG IN PET FOOD?: Reporter John Eckhouse was one of the first people to discover the practice of sending euthanized pets to the rendering plants. He quoted an employee of Sacramento Rendering as saying, "Thousands and thousands of pounds of dogs and cats are picked up and brought here every day. "When a vet tells a grieving owner that they'll "take care" of their dead loved one, they usually mean sending it off with the disposal company for rendering. This is all perfectly legal. Many veterinarians and especially shelters don't have the money to bury or cremate animals. Although many in the pet food industry deny that they use euthanized animals, proof that the practice goes on continues to surface.

Also Do you know what is in meat meal, the major constituent of dry dog/cat food?...Urine, fecal matter, hair, pus, meat (from animals, afflicted) with cancer and T.B., etc."

Pets in pet food?

Animal Rendering Products
In More Places Than You Think

The fraudulent Bolshevik revolution

We are told a story of the Russian masses taking the power of the country into their own hands.

That is not what happened.

The philosophy of Marxism was carefully crafted by those who had thus far been manipulating Human knowledge and history.

From their true understanding of reality they were able to weave a crock of shit so convincing that even the most analytical of minds would believe that they were looking at the very science that exposed the laws of historical development of Human society.

The bit they left out was that we had been lied to about the true nature of reality.

All traditional cultures have been invaded and traditional knowledge is rare.

They burned the books in Europe, and our knowledge with it.

And they killed those who held knowledge.

And they left out the bit that the clique who took control of Russia did so for an ancient secret group that has been working on a "work of ages", a long-term plan over millenia that ends in a world totally controlled by a single committee and everybody under total surveilence and control.

The conquering of Russia and the elimination of the Russian Royal family was one stage of the plan

The formation of Israel was another

Our children today have been dumbed down by having material gradually removed from the school syllabuses, under the guise of learning more relevant things in their place.

So we drop quadratic equations and learn how to fill in a spreadsheet instead.

We are learning to use technology that we cannot possibly construct, and our knowledge of how to do real things is been taken away in the process.

Then we are reliant on the technology and those who produce it.

The Russian revolution is presented as a success of the masses in overthrowing their oppressors, but in fact, they ended up with a terror much worse that of their own Sovereign.

The Ashkenazi

The origins of Ashkenazism

The takeover of Russia

One of "them" speaks

The suppression of technology

Lost Lightning

The missing secrets of Nikola Tesla

Tesla's missing inventions

Heavy watergate
This film examines the sabotage of cold fusion research, which would have solved the world's "energy problems".
As you will see, Professor Steven E. Jones was the main player in this planned sabotage of scientific development.

Water fuel cell


Mind control

The Remote Manipulation of the Human Brain

Targeted individuals

The life of people in the latest phase of MKULTRA.

Human guinea pigs chosen from the ranks of whistleblowers, political dissidents, the military, and others. Non-lethal weapons development expert John B. Alexander, working with NSA General Michael Aquino at Los Alamos laboratory have devised a new Phoenix Program using state of the art ELF, microwave, and RFR weapons.

U.S. victims protest classified non-consensual weapons experiments


Mindjustice.org

Perverse peer group/blackmail

Part 1

Part 2

http://www.kaygriggstalks.com/

MK Ultra/Monarch mind control program

On August 3rd, 1977 the 95th U.S. Congress opened hearings into the reported abuses concerning the CIA's TOP SECRET mind control research program code named MK-Ultra. On February 8th, 1988, a top-level MK-Ultra victim, Cathy O'Brien, was covertly rescued from her mind control enslavement by Intelligence insider Mark Phillips. Their seven year pursuit of Justice was stopped FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. TRANCE Formation of America exposes the truth behind this covert government program and its ultimate goal: psychological control of a nation.

Cathy O'brien

http://www.trance-formation.com/

Seeing through corporate brainwashing

The Asian "tsunami"

A tsunami is caused by water being displaced by something falling into it.

An earthquake can not cause a tsunami.

If you make a pile of rocks under the water in a swimming pool and then knock it over it will not cause a massive wave because it is not displacing any water, it is already submerged, so an undersea collapse can not cause a tsunami.

Further, the earthquake said to have caused the tsunami was a mild one, and there have been larger ones since.

The tsunami bomb

8.7 quake didn't cause a tsunami

Did New York Orchestrate The Asian Tsunami?


Population reduction

Aids

The Georgia guidestones

Alex Jones warns about vaccines

U.S. Concentration Camps: FEMA and the REX 84 Program

US concentration camps for US citizens

FEMA camp

They will use guillotines

HB 1274 - Death penalty; guillotine provisions

Toy guillotines


The use of genicidal weapons

Weapons have been developed using secret technologies, and have been used in the "battlefield" already.

Also "depleted" uranium is nuclear waste, and has become the material of choice for conventional munitions, poisoning the Earth for good.

War from space

Depleted uranium

Star wars in Iraq

Montage showing injuries caused by unconventional weapons
(Extremely disturbing images)

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order

The fraudulent Moonlandings

The fraudulent Moonlandings

The NASA moon hoaxes were the original T.V. fakery.

This is one subject that is fought heavily by the psy-op machinery, though the fight is extremely low key.

One documentary, the only clip YouTube have ever taken down from my channel, was footage filmed from inside the spacecraft, with the camera at the rear of the craft.

The craft was blacked out so that the interior could not bee seen and the small, round window was made to look like the whole Earth at a distance.

In fact the window showed only a small area of the Earth, which was in fact very large beyond the window as the astronauts (liars) were in low Earth orbit.

Neil Armstrong is heard to declare "we are half way to the moon".

Here is the documentary:

A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Buzz Aldrin confronted with fakery evidence

"We were just passengers on a flight"
Haaaaaahaahahaaahaaahaaaa!

Interview with Bart Sibrel (producer)

With clips of astronauts (liars) being offered a Bible to swear on!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

They used wires to simulate low-gravity!

More wire-work!

A look at some evidence of fakery

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

Morgan Reynolds1

and

Dr Judy Wood2

Examining what really happened to the WTC buildings

1Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971
M.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969
B.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1965


2Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992
M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983
B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981

23 August 2006, version 1.0

18 September 2006, version 1.01 (formatting, title change, video links, additions to figures 4f, 6, 12, 14c, 25b)

11 October 2006, version 1.02 (addition of figure 13a,b,c,d,e)


Nothing doth more hurt in a state than
that cunning men pass for wise.

-- Francis Bacon

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Overview

III. WTC Demolition

IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum

V. High Energy Devices

VI. The Pentagon

VII. No Big Boeing Theory (NBB)

VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania

IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence

X. Vote for Jones

XI. Conclusion

Abstract-Foreword
Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed.

I. Introduction
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," perhaps the biggest scientific scandal of the last half-century. Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.

Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office.

Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization?Scholars for 9/11 Truth?and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side."
Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.
The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research.
II. Overview
Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government’s lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research. More importantly,
  • Jones’ work is deficient as shown below
  • Its overall thrust is to rehabilitate portions of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT).
  • More specifically, we assert:
  • Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along, but he initially said that it is "…a hypothesis to be tested. That’s a big difference from a conclusion…" His subsequent concentration on issues like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered materials from unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined confidence in demolition.
  • That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven years ago but Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on it, though truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided.
  • Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.
  • Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air.
  • Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-big-boeing-theory (NBB). He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.
  • Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams.

    Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would be inconsequential. Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.
    On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NBB, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT. The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."

    Figure 4(a): Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.

    Figure 4(b): Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive. Figure 4(c): Blistered car with unburned upholstery and unburned plastic window molding.
    Figure 4(d): Front half of a car burned with an unburned rear half. Figure 4(e): What burned and dragged these cars and mangled the left rear wheel?

    Figure 4(f): What was this object across the street? What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground?

    III. WTC Demolition
    The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet Jones treats them implicitly as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially destroyed WTC 7 from the bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1 and 2 were primarily top-down, virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by a combination of conventional and unconventional devices. Jones points to conventional demolitions which leave clean-up crews with only short piles of rubble and remarks, "As observed for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2?the Twin Towers?on 9-11-01" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 16].", as if all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The perpetrators could not order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly take down one-quarter-mile tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres of interior space.

    Figure 5(a): Failed demolition in South Dakota. (mov) (wmv)

    Figure 5(b): Demolition gone bad: the leaning tower of South Dakota fails to collapse any further. (mov) (wmv)
    Figure 5(c): Demolition starts bad: the top 300 feet of WTC 2 tilted as much as 23° before being blown to kingdom come. Figure 5(d): No one had ever attempted to demolish a building nearly the size of a twin tower, and smoke from WTC 1 helped to distract and cover up problems in destroying WTC 2.
    Figure 5(e): WTC 1 smoke obscures WTC 2 demolition.
    The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so little rubble. "It simply did not seem possible that two of the world’s tallest buildings had all but disappeared…In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building, containing nearly 10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a tangled, smoking, burning heap less than 200 feet thick."
    Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small.

    Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background look full height.

    Figure 6(c) Where did the quarter-mile-high buildings go?
    Figure 6(d) Video of WTC2's demise
    Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was. Little of the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are gone. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings.
    Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan suggests how much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if the government’s gravitational collapse story were true.
    Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan. Note there is no dust in the air, validated by the clarity of the shadows.
    Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada.

    Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar.

    Listen to the Ace Baker's documentary song, "Blown to Kingdom Come."

    Figure 7(c): The cauliflower top looks familiar here, too. (Mount Saint Helens)
    "[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the building’s sides fall inward," Jones writes, "…all of the rubble collects at the center of the building"[pdf (7/19/06) p. 19].". Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200’x200’x10.2’ high. If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block at each tower base 200’x200’x56.1’ high. Together they would total 66.3 feet tall of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris. This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200 elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems, a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc.
    Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer:
    Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not just by 19 hijackers?
    A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities…" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45]
    This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government’s unproven story without independent proof. If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard for government liars? Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos. In downgrading the importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006,"…there are stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on the time-of-fall of the Towers. We're still working on those calculations…stronger arguments are growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition than near-free-fall speed.
    Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110 floors can only hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before upper floors reach them. For more, see the billiard ball example.
    Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark explosions shoot up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white explosions the building has vanished while the lower part awaits termination.
    Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the question.
    IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum
    Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with the WTC study by the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 14(b) and (c)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence of photoshopping?
    NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because
  • No heat source is specified
  • The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow
  • The flow changes windows
  • The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
  • The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.
  • Figure 10(a):NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists.
    Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with. Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window.
    We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.
    Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues,

    "…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])."

    We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature.
    Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart
    Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart [Source]
    At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it.
    Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.
    Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. [source] Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69]

    Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?"
    If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C?

    (a) Water at -10 to 0°C

    (b) Some liquid at 25°C
    Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature)

    Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a).

    Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures.

    Note that the emissivity of Aluminum increases with temperature.

    Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C

    Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C

    Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C

    Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr).

    Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher.
    Thermite plays a major role in Jones’ work on the demolitions. He concludes that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its use in WTC demolitions based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11 activist Michael Berger plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of molten white-hot iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that clean up crews at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing with thermite. (wmv) (YouTube)

    Figure 14(a), (b), (c): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground Zero clean up.

    What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others might conduct experiments to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can happen. "Such molten-metal pools never before seen…with controlled demolitions which did not use thermite, nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances," writes Jones, "Huge quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite was used to bring the buildings down" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 62]." but if proven wrong, there is little or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead to slim breakfasts down the road.
    Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and control the necessary thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower. Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220 floors, each with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these scenarios some thought.
    Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 77].". Perhaps he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and undoubtedly involved steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower structure, but the cutters were not necessarily thermite. Without proof, thermite advocates put themselves out on a limb.
    V. High Energy Devices
    Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see 911eyewitness) like these:
    1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).
    2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below).
    3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.

    Figure 15: Steel beams turn to steel dust.

    Figure 16: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source.

    Figure17(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. (gif) (mov) (avi) (gif) Figure 17(b): Another video of steel turning to steel dust, although CNN’s Aaron Brown calls it smoke.
    [Click on image for video, or (mpg) (avi) ]
    4. 33-ton section of outer wall columns ripped off side of tower.
    Figure 18(a): Large sections of outer wall to the left and somewhat hidden to the right blow off the tower.
    Figure 18(b): What scooped out the middle portion of the building across the street from WTC2?
    5. Sharp spikes of Richter 2.1 and 2.3 in seismograph readings occurred at the start of both tower collapses. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event, as illustrated by the audio track recorded in Rick Seigel video, 911EYEWITNESS. The abrupt cessation of movement implies no collapse but sudden termination of shifting of debris.
    Figure 19: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no expected tapering off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. Source: [911eyewitness]
    6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses.
    7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water and huge rainstorms.
    8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest sulfuric acid. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up.
    9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York.
    10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess of traditional demolition explosives.
    11. Some rescue workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins.
    12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.
    Figure 20(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient of a hose job.
    Figure 20(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in advance?) and lots of scrubbing.
    Figure 20(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it.
    13. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper littered the dust-covered streets. Material with significant mass may have absorbed energy and were vaporized while paper did not.
    14. 200,000 gallon sprinkler and water supply systems were in WTC1 and WTC2, but there was no water in the ruins.
    15. Many cars and trucks exploded around the WTC and caused burned out wrecks that were not hit by debris. A group of police cars on the FDR Drive had parts roasted. EM pulses may have caused electrical components to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site (see Figure 4 above).

    These data should excite scientific curiosity. Citing a photo of a mushroom cloud atop a tower [pdf (8/15/06) p. 18]. Jones calls it "evidence for use of explosives, like RDX, HMX, or Superthermite (nanoaluminum powder)." Massive mushrooms tops do not erupt from a building imploding from RDX. The towers were not imploded. They were exploded. They were blown to kingdom come. Normally, people look at "what" happened and then try to figure "why" or "how" it happened. There is no good reason to stick to the familiar or conventional in the belief that the perpetrators would not kill citizens with exotic devices. The stone-cold killers would use whatever was in the arsenal and would do the job best, including simplifying the cover story.
    Jones asks a question related to high-energy-release phenomena: "Could mini-nukes have been used on the Towers?" He explains, "Hypothesis was raised by someone (not me) [so] we do experiments to find out! (Scientific method)" [pdf (8/15/06) p. 149]. We wonder what experiments Jones did with mini-nukes on the BYU campus. Experimental method aside, it is not scientific to bypass data and set off to disprove a circumscribed hypothesis proposed by somebody (a "bad" person?). Jones claims he tested a metal slag (origin unknown) for radioactivity (what kind? what instruments?) and found nothing above background levels. Residents of New York City reportedly detected abnormal radiation on hand-held Geiger counters at the WTC site, though we cannot vouch for the veracity of these reports. While we too doubt a fission bomb was used, Jones’ assertions play no role in our assessment.
    Tritium would be a telltale sign that an extraordinary device was employed on the Twin Towers. Jones says he tested an air sample (origin and preservation technique unknown) and found only traces of tritium. Until independent researchers test verified samples, there is nothing here but Jones’ word and we leave it to you to decide its value. Jones takes a victory lap ("Mission Accomplished") by saying, "So the evidence is strongly against the ‘mini-nuke’ idea, which no longer be promoted [sic] unless and until the above compelling evidences [sic] can be successfully overturned" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 150]."
    A promising hypothesis derives from the super fine particles found by Dr. Cahill, so small that they would normally occur only if metals were heated to the boiling point, e.g., approximately 2,750° C for steel, that is, steel vaporized and re-condensed as particles. Since such temperatures were not reached, the process would be something that could extract or neutralize the bond energy of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily involves secret technology, so it is not a proven but possible explanation for the data. We encourage Professor Jones to investigate.
    VI. The Pentagon
    Jones did no research that we know of on the Pentagon incident. Most 9/11 skeptics believe no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon because the gash was too small, no plane marks left on the building (airliner silhouettes of passage at the Twin Towers, not at the Pentagon even though concrete is brittle and more likely to shatter and show a plane’s imprint), no verified debris, no bodies, no blood, it is physically impossible to land a 757 at a speed of 500+ mph because of the downwash sheet, etc.
    Figure 21(a): A small hole in the wall, no plane silhouette and no wreckage.If the Boeing does not fit, you must quit (the plane story). Figure 21(b): The putting green in front of the Pentagon.
    Figure 21(c): An airliner would have to hop over the unburned cable spools before hitting the ground floor. Figure 21(d): Pieces around the car are not burning or burned while the steel hood is burning and burned through and the right front fender is noticeably distorted. Jet fuel does not burn through steel and therefore cannot burn through steel hoods and engines.
    "The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has NOT reached a consensus among the Scholars group" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 157].", says Jones. The word NOT suggests that people should suspend judgment. Maybe a big Boeing magically shrunk itself and disappeared inside the Pentagon. Voting machines, surveys and Steven E. Jones’ subjective guesses aside, facts are not determined by polls. "Several of the Scholars group argue…perhaps a B737 rather than a B757 (AA flight 77)" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 159]." went into the Pentagon," Jones persists, offering zero scientific evidence for this hunch. If the hoax of a Boeing at the Pentagon is unproven, nothing about the 9/11 hoax has been proven. "We also seek answers as to why there were no air defenses to stop the incoming jet!" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 160].". With no proof of an incoming jet, Jones assumes OGCT. Jones and the scholars should hunt the Boeing.
    VII. No Big Boeing Theory (NBB)
    At the heart of the 9/11 fiction, we were told that, using only boxcutters, Arabs hijacked four airliners and crashed them in designated locations? Jones sees no real problems with this story. He is hostile to the "no big boeing theory" (NBB), the theory that no Boeing 767 airliners went into either WTC tower, and no Boeing 757 airliners went into the Pentagon or the Shanksville covered strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other air vehicles flying about, including unmanned (UAV’s), or even smaller planes. Jones’ motivation is unclear, but he applies no physics to the events and fails to study the physical evidence associated with the alleged crashes. An objective scientist, for example, would review data like this silhouette of passage in WTC 1:

    Figure 22(a): Silhouette of passage by invincible Boeing 767?

    Figure 22(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible RoadRunner. Hmmmmmm!?

    Figure 22(c): Beep! Beep!

    No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no verified debris was knocked to the ground below the impact wall. Consider the conspicuous right wing tip mark. If the Roadrunner can fly through an Acme steel plate, a Boeing can too, right? The aluminum airliner nose crashed into the steel wall and five steel/concrete floors, remaining intact. The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower. In truth, with no direct resistance from the building and powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum would tear the wings from each suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively "sawing" through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum fa├žade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible Americans and most American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven E. Jones in embracing the WTC airplane fiction.

    Figure 23: A C-130, about half the weight of a Boeing 767, hit this 10-story apartment building at approximately the 8th floor in Tehran last December and crumpled outside, throwing debris around and spilling burning jet fuel over the impact wall and inside the building.

    Figure 24: Three-pound bird goes mano a mano with aluminum plane and does heavy damage. [source]
    The incurious Jones passes up a treasure trove of data which defy logic and laws of physics:
  • Holes in the towers too small to swallow wide-body 767s.
  • No plane debris on the ground below the impact holes.
  • No fuel burned below gashes of either tower (Figure 22).
  • No plane debris visible in the gashes, hanging out, nor outside any exit side.
  • Videos showing the same impossible physics, gliding smoothly at 500+ mph through the steel exterior and steel/concrete floors and stopping within a tenth of a second inside, suddenly destroying itself and vanishing with virtually all 3.1 million parts inside.
  • Virtually no airplane debris at any of the four alleged crash sites ("the cleanest crash sites in aviation history" except for evidence planted by government agents) and no time-change parts with serial numbers unique for each aircraft ever identified or proven.
  • As retired software engineer in the aerospace industry Joseph Keith says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing," "No nothing." The videos are fake.
  • It is a foregone conclusion for Jones (apparently) that airliners went into the Twin Towers, no questions asked. Even when he discusses demolition, Jones reinforces the plane fiction: "Think of it?just put explosives for (sic) a few upper floors (like where the planes went in)" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 22].". Or, Jones cites Fire Engineering magazine without criticizing its assertion of "structural damage from the planes and explosive ignition of jet fuel" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 40].". Or, "The data as a whole are sufficiently compelling NOW to motivate an immediate investigation of parties, besides the 19 hijackers/Al Qaeda, who might have had a role in 9/11 arson and murders" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 95].".
    "Can anyone prove that al Qaeda acted ALONE?" writes Jones, "I have not seen any such proof" (p. 124). The Government never attempted to prove its OBL fiction because it could not. OGCT is the most audacious fraud of all in a history littered with frauds like Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Kuwait baby incubator hoax, Niger yellow cake and Saddam Hussein’s WMD. Rather than research, Jones assumes premises not in evidence. He has the same amount of proof that al Qaeda conducted 9/11 as he has that Saddam Hussein did it.

    No one can prove a lie, not even Steven Jones, hence government cannot prove OGCT.

  • 9/11 was solved on TV within 60 seconds of the second tower event by a Fox News anchor: an instant conspiracy theory
  • There is no proof of Arab hijackers, for example, no Arab names on passenger manifests
  • No verified security video tapes (fake of Dulles boarding nearly three years later)
  • AA flights 11 and 77 were not in BTS data base
  • AA airliner tail numbers N334AA and N644AA not FAA-deregistered until January 14, 2002
  • United airliner tail numbers N612UA and N591UA not deregistered until September 28, 2005
  • "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot," stated FBI Director Mueller. He claimed that the attackers used "extraordinary secrecy" and "investigators have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards." [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 4/19/2002; Los Angeles Times, 4/22/2002]
  • On June 6, 2006 the FBI stated that OBL is not wanted for 9/11 because the FBI has "no hard evidence" that he was involved
  • The U.S. government refuses to authenticate the December 13, 2001, bin Laden "confession video."
  • Mainstream media reported as many as ten of the accused hijackers alive after 9/11 (Hamza Alghamdi, Saeed Alghamdi, Salem Alhazmi, Ahmed Alnami, Abdulaziz Alomari, Mohand Alshehri, brothers Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri, Mohammed Atta, Khalid Almidhdhar) and Majed Moqed was last reported seen in 2000.
  • Expressing uncertainty over the identity of the accused hijackers on September 20, 2001 FBI Director Mueller said, "We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others" [Newsday, 9/21/2001]. On September 27, after revelations in the media about live hijackers, FBI Director Mueller responded, "We are fairly certain of a number of them." [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/2001]. On November 2, 2001 Mueller stated, "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," and said that the FBI would stick with the names and photos released in late September [Associated Press, 11/3/2002].
  • Saddam Hussein did it.

    "Did a faction in the government know about the hijackers’ pending attacks beforehand?" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 124]." Jones asks.
    The professor is clueless or a disinformation agent. He refers to pre-9/11 intelligence warnings that are disinformation, thereby echoing the blood libel that 9/11 was done by Arab hijackers. Jones defends the 9/11 Commission’s conventional air defense "breakdown" story. It is nonsense to make such statements backing the OGCT without looking at or conducting scientific research on these issues.
    When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars’ (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted? In NFL broadcasts, the first-and-ten line is inserted in real time, as are billboards at NBA and MLB games, even customized by region. At the Winter Olympics, TV trickery inserted the flag of each speed skater’s nation under the ice and then switched it in real time as the skaters switched lanes. Truly remarkable.
    Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11. If so, then the videos are fake. But he answers, "many, many witnesses." Even if we granted many, many for the sake of argument, so what? One day in the past, many, many witnesses saw the earth was flat and five years ago many, many saw the psy-op on TV, including those who allegedly saw an airliner hit a tower from the street below or a skyscraper. Jones lays it on extra thick about eyewitnesses because once the videos are exposed for the fakery they are, that is what he and the government have left as proof.
    To sketch in a refutation of eyewitness accounts, first, most people in the "canyons" of lower Manhattan could not see a plane if it smacked into a tower at 500+ mph, and many said so. A plane at 500 mph would cover a 60’-wide street and its sidewalks within a tenth of second. Second, many witnesses heard no jet and most of the video sound tracks record no jet liner booming at incredibly high speed and low altitude. South tower penetration is silent in videos. Third, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and fungible. Fourth, people lie (the perps hired actors, along with a script for complicit media). Fifth, physical evidence ranks number one with prosecutors and scientists while eyewitness testimony ranks lower, certainly no higher than second. A physics professor should exhibit more interest in physical evidence than hearsay inadmissible in court.

    Figure 25(a): Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not on a street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter. Figure 25(b): Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not on a street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter. The crime-scene ribbon is oriented differently and the axel hanging over the curb more than in Fig. 25(a). [cut from this picture.]


    Figure 25(c): Landing gear on a dust-free street corner near shiny new scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman pillar visible. The tire and brakes look different too. Note the failure surface of the shaft. It's sharp, not appearing to have bounced around on the pavement. It also appears to be a torsion failure. How can an explosion cause that? Figure 25(d): Landing gear in new photo op: tire looks in better health, no extensive dust, new scaffolding, further from the corner, further forward toward the top of a dust-free Greco-Roman pillar. We suspect tampering with evidence J . Actors gape (no one walking on their way, a suitcase on the morning of 9/11?) at nice tire and shiny shaft, wondering why the tire, brake housing and shaft would be unburned despite ejection through a "jet fuel conflagration" high atop a tower.


    Figure 25(e): This piece also has an affinity for canopy-covered scaffolding. Figure 25(f): And yet another view.
    Scrutiny of alleged eyewitness testimony, however, may not be entirely worthless. As far as we can tell, there is a dearth of testimony from disinterested witnesses affirming airliner flights into the WTC towers. Consider the first plane that allegedly flew into the North Tower: many thousands of people in Central Park plus northbound drivers, passengers and pedestrians along First, Second and Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc., would have seen a low-flying AA Boeing 767 thundering south/southwest down the island of Manhattan. At high speed it would have been incredibly noisy, extraordinary and scary. It would have echoed down the canyons. The direction or source may not have been obvious at first. At 400+ mph the jetliner would have taken approximately one minute to fly less than seven miles from just north of Central Park into the North Tower, plenty of time for witnesses to see and track a plane go by but not hit the tower. Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses could have confirmed a Boeing 767 flying overhead if the official story were true but I’ve not seen such interviews. The internet lacks credible "street interviews" and the controlled media did not go there. That is a telling fact.
    The witnesses offered are usually media people, "anonymous" or those who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all. From a legal, adversarial point of view, most WTC "eyewitness" testimony in favor of large airliners is highly vulnerable. Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That’s a whole new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard Holmgren" variety would crush them. In a traumatic event, people switch into survival mode and their powers of observation become impaired, highly selective, and they are much more susceptible to media manipulation. One telephone caller to Bryant Gumbel of CBS said he just saw beams shoot out from the WTC building followed by "Wait a minute, the radio just reported it was plane parts that flew out of the building, so, I just saw plane parts fly out of the building." Radio is powerful enough but people are most susceptible to visual[pdf] manipulation.
    CNN, otherwise known as the Complicit News Network, was the lead sled dog that day, quickly set up the party line within minutes. Here is the key to CNN coverage that day: at 8:54 a.m. Sean Murtagh, CNN’s vice president of finance and administration, "witnessed the crash from his nearby office" and tells [CNN Anchor Carol ]"Lin via an on-air phone call that the plane that hit the north tower was a ‘large commercial passenger jet.’" Uh huh. "My office faces south toward…the…what,…where the trade center used to be and… probably caught the last 5-6 seconds of flight of the first plane flying straight into the north tower. Impact, fireball and when it hit, it was like, you got like a thud in your stomach, like did I just see what I just saw?" Sure, sure.
    There is a credible eyewitness statement, right? Wrong. Here's what is wrong: first, CNN offices then were at 5 Penn Plaza on W. 33d street, almost three miles north of WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That’s not "nearby" by our lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st floor sounds good but it’s not a good vantage point because the plane would fly by in a flash, too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would take over 20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not "the last 5-6 seconds of flight" claimed. Murtagh’s timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely effective, Murtagh is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report from one of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North Tower. They did not even have enough respect for the audience to interview a hired actor on the street, instead putting the lie "in plain view" by broadcasting it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a lousy actor, with a flat, disinterested delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly into the North Tower could possibly muster.
    Ok, let's continue for a bit. Some truth leaks out in early media coverage of a disaster because the controlled media is not entirely controlled down to the reporter level. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is immediately overturned by the first unidentified female witness who insisted the North Tower hit came from inside, and then the second, Jeanne Yurman, who reported a sonic boom. Neither witness confirms Murtagh's report of a large airliner.
    Jones should conduct a thorough analysis of the witness testimony before pushing this tower of babel to prove a large airliner crashed into a tower. In any event, witness testimony contrary to the laws of physics is worse than useless. Perhaps our critique will lead him to conduct psychological experiments at BYU.
    VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
    To our knowledge, Jones passes over the Pennsylvania hoax, the Todd Beamer "Let’s Roll" fraud, the absurd "crash site" in Shanksville, PA. We wonder why. Perhaps we should applaud professor Jones for his silence on this issue because he has conducted no scientific investigation. Perhaps the perpetrators did such an embarrassing job and the story is so weak that he found no way to defend it. Yet Jones’ silence speaks loudly to us because it is so easy to prove OGCT a lie in Pennsylvania. The professor might want to start his search with Hunt the Boeing II.
    Figure 26(a): Smoking hole near Shanksville, PA free of plane debris, bodies, luggage, etc. A local resident observed, "It’s the only place it could have gone down and be sure no one would be hurt." Translation: it was the only place where there could be no witnesses. According to media reports, no local resident claimed to see a plane crash. Figure 26(b): For national security and privacy reasons, the government has not yet shown this evidence of the Shanksville plane crash J .

    IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence
    Jones goes to great pains to praise the scientific method. We could be unkind and term this refrain sanctimonious but it serves the useful purpose of hoisting Jones on his own petard. We need only cite data for high-energy releases at WTC and no evidence for Boeing crashes to see that Jones fails by his own standard. Jones fails to look carefully at the "what," that is, the data and then apply physical principles to analyze "how." Instead, he dismisses serious hypotheses with prima facie evidence on their behalf.
    Perhaps Professor Jones’ most disturbing offense is failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commission’s methods, much of Jones’ so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is a closed loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by outsiders. It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.
    X. Vote for Jones
    Given Professor Jones’ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones’ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (I’m a victim, I’m courageous), crowd—pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.
    Does anyone really care what a physicist says about Nephi, the U.S. Constitution, pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, Able Danger, or an alleged insider sell-off of Raytheon pre-9/11? He even gets his economics wrong here because a pre-9/11 "buy-off" of Raytheon would profit insiders as defense contractors’ share prices would soar with the forthcoming "war on terror." Excusable error for a physicist perhaps but bad physics and use of his authority to pronounce in fields where he has no expertise are not excusable. All would be forgiven if he offered insights or revealed hidden truths, but he does not. As 911eyewitness creator Rick Siegel said in mocking Jones and his thermite diversion to explain missing towers, "Of course it was WMD, why else [call in] an educated nuclear physicist promoting solar cookers?"
    XI. Conclusion
    Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot" glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).
    The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11?that of physicist Steven E. Jones?predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled back.
    Critics may claim that we damage Scholars for 9/11 Truth by exposing failings in the work of Steven Jones, who has been thought of as the leading physical scientist. Yet the Scholars are "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths." S9/11T is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may."