911Truth Now1 Dan, thanks for the link. Somehow the notification didn't work so I only spotted your reply now. I had not seen this paper before but have downloaded it and will take a look at it. Greening's work is usually pretty good, although his 2006 paper on the energy required to pulverise concrete amounts to one big non-sequitur: his conclusions aren't supported by his own calculations. More specifically, he claims there was enough potential energy stored up in the towers to crush all the concrete. That would take the equivalent of about 60 tons of TNT according to Greening's own numbers. Crushing and pulverising concrete is one of the two big energy sinks in the collapse, the other sink being mechanical bending of steel, snapping of joints, etc. According to Greening, the two sinks consumed about equal amount of energy, i.e. 60 tons of TNT each. So that's 120 tons of TNT consumed by those two sinks. Here is where the trouble starts, because Gregory Urich's meticulous calculations show that the potential energy stored up in the towers was worth about 115 tons of TNT. If you've got two sinks consuming 120 tons, that's about it. There is no energy left over for anything else, not even percussion as the debris falls to the ground. To keep the energy balance, the debris would need to fall smoothly like feathers on the ground. There is no energy available for percussion causing seismic shocks. But if no energy was available for that purpose, what then caused the seismic shocks? The only answer is that there must have been an external energy source providing the extra energy input required to shake the bedrock. What is more, some of the crushing and pulverisation of concrete, as well as some of the bending of steel, snapping of joints, etc. must have been accomplished by an external energy source that reached inside the towers. What I'm saying here is that Greening's own numbers defeats his "official story" conclusion. That's the big non-sequitur. In reality, the upper half of the towers were crushed, pulverised and bent by a nuclear device (nuclear-pumped laser), and the lower half of the towers, by official-story collapse. So the real-world story is a near 50/50 mix between the two. Greening notes that crushing concrete by impact is 10x more energy-efficient than crushing it by explosion. So to crush and pulverise the concrete by explosions, you would need 10x more TNT than with gravity-driven crushing. That's 600 tons rather than 60 tons. If the upper half of the towers was crushed by explosion (nukes with lasers), that's 300 tons of TNT for each tower. The lower half would be half of Greening's figure, or 30 tons for each tower. Bending the steel drops out of the equation for the upper half with nukes, but is still there for the lower half. That's another 30 tons of TNT. The total is now 360 tons for each tower. Available in potential energy we've got 115 tons for each tower, which means a deficit of 245 tons per tower. Suppose the nukes deliver 350 tons each, which jibes with my calculation and also with what Netanyahu says. About 50 tons would stay at the bottom and a fraction of that, say 4-6 tons, would shake the bedrock causing the seismographic readings. The remaining 300 tons would be transported by the laser beam up to the top parts of the towers, and do the work up there. We would then have 300 – 245 = 55 tons left over for other purposes including percussion as the debris falls to the ground. If you look at the seimograms, you'll find there is a 7-8 second big shock, followed by about 12 seconds of far more muted activity. The first part is the nuke detonation shock, the second part is the percussion effect from debris falling on the ground. For Building 7 we have the same pattern with two shocks. Because the detonation shock is much smaller for conventional explosives, the two shocks are separate and do not overlap. The explosion shock is 3-4 seconds, followed by a few seconds' lull, then comes the percussion shock for another 7-8 seconds. Looking at the energy levels of the seismic shocks, the nuke shocks at the towers are over 30x higher than the demolition shock for Building 7. That's not in the conventional ballpark, so we can tell from the seismograms that it was nuclear. The percussion shocks for the towers are about 3x more energetic than percussion for Building 7. In terms of potential energy, the towers were up towards 10x higher than Building 7, but the collapse took longer so was distributed for one, and also the top parts were pulverised mid-air so didn't contribute much to percussion. The two papers are: • F. R. Greening, "The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11" • Gregory H. Urich, "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1"
"It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a
number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window
openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds.
According to the NIST FAQ1
these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began
its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations
have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is inconsistent with
any theory of collapse except controlled demolition. Yet the official story remains that the
buildings were brought down by fires and damage to the structural members of the buildings
resulting from the impact of the planes. The WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed
that it was brought down by fires. "
Based on two faulty assumptions via Encyclopedia of Explosives and Crippen’s book on explosives
the object MUST CONTAIN iron oxide and aluminum therefore Millette concludes "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the
red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite." http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/Rapport_Millette.pdf
"The thermite reactants shown
here, iron oxide and aluminum, constitute the classic thermite
mixture. Numerous other combinations also react similarly. For
instance, active metals such as calcium, magnesium, titanium or
zirconium can be substituted for the aluminum, keeping iron oxide
as the oxidizer. Likewise, when aluminum is used as the fuel,
other oxidizers including chromium (III) oxide, silicon dioxide,
cupric oxide, and manganese dioxide can be swapped for the iron
oxide. Generally, if the energy of the metal-oxide bond is higher
than the potential bond between the fuel and oxygen, the reaction
is energetically feasible. "
Aluminum Iron matrices is the weapon above huffingtonpost
The TEM analysis paralleled the light microscope results with additional chemical signatures of silicates, kaolinclays, pigments (TiO2), calcites, dolomites, carbonates, metal complexes (sub-micron chromium, aluminum/iron matrices), and chrysotile asbestos.
Copper Thermite reactions around the World Trade Center during and after September 11th
LAX 138 or LAX 128 impact of projectiles containing small amounts of a reactive material. ..... This is an Energetic Materials and Products, Inc proprietary material similar to LAX-134 originally developed at Los Phase I. The formulations will be developed for composites of nanothermites with polymers, explosives and electrically conducting polymers. The novel materials should produce desired combustion performance and safe handling level. The integration of nanothermite composition with advanced materials like carbon nanotubes, graphite nanoparticles etc will also be carried out. The phase I plan will include development of the right combination of materials’ compositions and optimize their synthesis procedures to solve the most important problem (high ESD sensitivity of bare nanothermites) limiting the practical use of the nanothermite compositions. The synthesis of self assembled nanocomposite consisting of oxidizer and fuel will produce nanoenergetic materials with superior combustion characteristics. One of the key problems preventing the extensive use of this kind of energetic material is the extremely high sensitivity of nanothermites to electrostatic discharge (ESD). http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir20102/army102.pdf
"Of the patients with interstitial disease, all had large amounts of aluminum and magnesium silicates in an unusual platy configuration, ranging from 27,600 to 184,000/g wet weight of lung. As a comparison, we reexamined for the presence of carbon nanotubes in 40 samples taken from unrelated workers from diverse construction trades suspected for asbestos-related disease. These patients were known to have been exposed to asbestos, and most of these 40 patients had a high lung burden of asbestos fibers. Less than 10%, however, had platy aluminum and magnesium silicates similar to those seen in WTC patients. Furthermore when they were seen in the control samples, they were present in small quantities (< 1,000/g wet weight of lung)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854726/pdf/ehp-118-499.pdf
An article published in a Journal of Chemical Physics, signed by no less than nine experts, analyzing the results of studies on particles taken from the 9/11 event at the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001 makes the most shocking conclusion: "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material" was discovered. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-08-2013/125327-nine_eleven_pyrotechnics-0/?mode=print
1. reaction west street
2 . reaction one was fire truck fire
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING SUBMISSION TO SPECIAL GRAND JURY OF REPORT BY LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE AND 9/11 VICTIM FAMILY MEMBERS OF YET-TO-BE- PROSECUTED 9/11 RELATED FEDERAL CRIMES
CONTACT: MICK HARRISON, ESQ., LITIGATION DIRECTOR (812) 361-6220
DAVID MEISWINKLE, ESQ., BOARD PRESIDENT (908) 420-2943
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization, announces its receipt of a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in response to the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition (https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-first-amended-grand-jury-petition/) demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction ofthree World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7). The U.S. Attorney, in his November 7, 2018 letter to the Lawyers’ Committee, stated: “We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions” (emphasis added). (The U.S. Attorney’s letter is attached. It is also available at https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/7-nov-2018-u-s-attorney-geoffrey-berman-will-comply-with-18-usc-section-3332/)
The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”
This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. On November 24, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee replied, thanking the U.S. Attorney and expressing support for a thorough inquiry into the crimes reported in the Lawyers’ Committee’s petitions.
The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits(https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/) and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC buildings. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of explosions at the WTC on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The Lawyers’ Committee’s July 30thAmended Petition addresses several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition. The Lawyers’ Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 and increasing the tragic loss of life.
Attorney Mick Harrison, Litigation Director, stated: “The failure of our government to diligently investigate this disturbing evidence has contributed to the erosion of trust in our institutions. The Lawyers’ Committee felt it was out duty as public citizens to submit this evidence to the U.S. Attorney for submission to the Special Grand Jury.”
Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, stated: “We have offered to assist the U.S. Attorney in the presentation of this evidence to a Special Grand Jury. We have also requested that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provide us expert support in the hope that our organizations will be invited to make a joint presentation of relevant evidence to the Special Grand Jury.”
Attorney William Jacoby, Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, stated: “We call upon the public and legal community to contact us and support our efforts to contribute to this grand jury process and to monitor and ensure compliance by the Justice Department.”
Executive Director Ed Asner stated: “The U.S. Attorney’s decision to comply with the Special Grand Jury Statute regarding our petitions is an important step towards greater transparency and accountability regarding the tragic events of 9/11.”
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 09:10 PM by jberryhill In 2001, Sam Hollenshead was a staff photographer for Labor Research Associates.
For example, if you searcj the articles from the union site workinglife.org, you will find a lot of examples of his work.
http://wbff.org/films/detail.asp?fid=664 Sam Hollenshead worked as a photographer from 2001-2003 documenting union labor throughout NYC. In 2004 his photographs of the rebuilding of subway infrastructure at the World Trade Center site were exhibited at the Museum of the City of New York.
http://www.samhollenshead.com/bio01.html After 9/11, he documented workers at the World Trade Center site clearing debris and rebuilding damaged subway lines. Images from this project were published in the New York Times Magazine and displayed at the Museum of the City of New York in a group show with Magnum photographer, Bruce Davidson and MacArthur fellowship recipient, Camillo Jose Vergara. A solo exhibition of his subway photographs is currently on display at the New York City Transit Museum until December 2006.
http://www.lraphotography.com/essays/sep11/essay_wtc.ph... When historians sit down to write about September 11th and its aftermath, they will have to reserve a page of History for the workers at ground zero whose tireless efforts saved lives and helped New York City rebuild itself. Here is the story of workers at ground zero. Photography by Sam Hollenshead.
The fact that Mr. Hollenshead spent a lot of time documenting ironworkers renders it no surprise that many of his WTC photographs involve people working with torches.
2. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
I've written to Mr. Hollenshead to ask whether he has more information about that photograph, or is even aware of how it is used by Richard Gage et al. Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top
He's going to check his notes for more information about the photograph, but he has written back to me and said:
"i do recall that the photo of the firefighters was taken almost a month after 9/11 and the cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker, not the result of 'intentional demolition.'"
The only recordings on the graphs so far are explosives, because quarry blasts as you know they use explosives, right? I doubt all this quarry blast activity just so happens to be on 9/11.
Notice at #18 - #22 two-three things happen 1. the cause is dropped i.e “very weak” and the location is trimmed i.e 40.71 and 74.01
Depth is “Zero” when depth could be < 0.1 they use less then sign! NOT DETAILED
All this editing is clear signs of criminal activity!
problem #2
One problem with your data is that every earthquake should have a detailed GPS location. Since each earthquake labeled “quarry blast” does not have a accompanying GPS location signal, you can’t rule what it is unless you do have those details.. Judy is writing in “quarry blast” right? For Example 40.711??? and 74.013??? i.e the question marks are missing details Judy didn’t provide, right?. Your data shows 40.71 -74.01 is Broadway & Cortlandt another “1″ on each data point array would have the signal placed right under the Twin towers. Notice they cropped off numbers or trimmed off location details but only for the towers. HOWEVER if you provided “40.711 and -74.013” this gives you WTC Cortlandt, New York, NY 10006, USA i.e you are basically under the towers.
problem #3
Top graph is PAL and everything is larger so 100.00 K on BRNJ graph means its smaller gain. So you wrong with the K 100.00 gain concept.
problem #4
no “quarry” exists at 40.71 -74.01 Broadway & Cortlandt St, New York, NY 10007, USA or under the Twin Towers and more details numbers would place the blast right at the World Trade Center location i.e the explosions i.e explosives and are not “quarry blasts” on 9/11. “quarry blasts” use explosives! The starting time #18 at 11:00 AM is after the trade center fell. 11:15 is BRNJ PAL 11:20 or seems edited two different times that close? . BRNJ should have been later at 11:20 and PAL should have 11:15 because its closer to WTC. So they deleted the spike on PAL. All other signals on each graph match perfectly! in time and size but ONE! Can you see that. You keep pointing to other graphs. Stop doing that.
Problem #5 No oxide was reported the USGS in their dust study.
A search of that document returned ZERO RESULTS!!
The chips however DID contain Copper Oxide. So WHY IS Judy Wood conflate the Chips with the WTC dust? Why would she do that? Can you answer that? thanks Why did Judy leave out the cause of blasts #18 - 22? and trim the GPS numbers?
Yes, in a quarry they use explosives for sure and they use them frequently! Why not on 9/11? And what are you trying to prove, as those explosions happened after both Towers were destroyed. Do you claim they were destroying WTC7?
“Notice at #18 - #22 two-three things happen 1. the cause is dropped “very weak” and the location is trimmed i.e 40.71 and 74.01.″ I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
If you read the NCSTAR 1–9 Vol.2 it’s all explained. The signals were too weak to be significant and to be reported precisely (depth and magnitude). (too weak for who, PAL Station?)
problem #2
Every seismic signal registered DOES have detailed data. Those latitude and longitude and pretty precise. The data is not coming from Dr. Wood but from Columbia University and summarized on the NIST report.
Correct, the source of those (weak) signals are coming from the WTC as they are the origin/source of those (weak signals) and are happening late in the afternoon. So? What’s so strange?
problem #3
Please prove that a higher gain results in smaller seismic signal amplification. If you do so, only then I’m wrong.
problem #4
Of course no qurry exists at those coordinates, because it is the location of the WTC. Please read the table carefully. You are seeing ghosts regards to the PAL vs. BRNJ seismic charts. As a matter of fact I see other signals which are recorded by PAL but not by BRNJ and viceversa. And So what? That all depends on the earth composition, on the seismic instrumetation (if already told you the stations did not have the same sensitivity, etc) and on other complex factors. Are you a seismologist to explain it correctly for me? The signals do not match perfectly!
You say I’m referring to another seismic graph, then please provide the link to where you took the PAL vs. BRNJ graphs.
You say they edited/deleted the spikes. What for if they happened after the buildings where destroyed?
problem #5
It is true if you search the USGS fact sheet no iron oxides are found but then why did Steven Jones find iron oxides in the dust? Don’t you think it’s normal to find rust in the dust coming from the steel which made up the buildings? Check this out World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment. Here you are: iron oxide found Fe2O3- iron rust.
WTC 7 was reported as being “ATTACKED” on the news.
What else would be “attacking” WTC 7 but explosives?
The GPS location details were trimmed enough so you can’t find out for sure. Do you have the rest GPS numbers?
Problem #2 They trimmed the GPS i,e shorten the length of GPS signal so you can’t find the exact location of the signal. i.e WTC 1 or WTC 2 WTC 6 or WTC 7
Judy wood then removed the CAUSE OF SIGNAL! with “ “very weak” in her graph.
problem #3 look at the two graphs this proves it btw
please provide the link to where you took the PAL vs. BRNJ graphs. Select 2001 LCSN Catalog Archive
“You say they edited/deleted the spikes.” one spike one spike 15:15 spike of BRNJ was deleted
“It is true if you search the USGS fact sheet no iron oxides are found but then why did Steven Jones find iron oxides in the dust?” HE DID FIND IT IN THE DUST. HE FOUND IT THE CHIPS !!!!! JESUS
Oh yes, the news said it so it must be true! Sure!
The locations are not GPS but latitude and longitude and were not trimmed, cut, or anything else! I don’t have the rest because thay are complete and are the available ones provided by Columbia University and reported in the NIST report.
They couldn’t find the exactly location, so they assigned events 18–22 roughly to be at the WTC (40.71 N -74.01 E) because the signal was too weak and not recorded by all the stations. Work has to be done to determine where a signal originates and it is not easy at all!
Your seismic graph proves nothing and why did no one ever mention this to NIST? No one from the truth movement raised this alleged editing out. Is it your original discovery? I don’t even know what your trying to prove!
Again, that data is not Dr. Wood’s data, she did not remove anything! You are wasting my time and yours.
I cannot believe you are honestly doing what your doing. If your are so sure Columbia University and/or NIST edited the data then I suggest you sue them just as Dr. Wood did. Good luck!
1. Oh yes, the news said it so it must be true! Sure! BRNJ graphics back the BCC news report up which was the point! Early news reports are correct, not the news in general. You are grouping the two together. Stop doing that!
2. GPS coordinates are most commonly expressed as latitude and longitude
3. latitude and longitude numbers are trimmed and no this is NOT true “I don’t have the rest because thay are complete and are the available ones provided by Columbia University and reported in the NIST report.”
NO COMPLETE NUMBERS EXIST, PERIOD !!!!
4. Your seismic graph proves nothing. Answer not my graphs!
5. ” No one from the truth movement raised this alleged editing out. “ They don’t do much of anything. Sorry!
6. “They couldn’t find the exactly location?” really and you believe that all stations in NY could find the location. All 13 stations! FOR is 12.51.19 miles away!
AMNH 5.15 miles away CPNY 6.15 miles away CNY 8.37 miles away CUNY 10.19 miles away FOR 12.51.19 miles away MONJ 13.25 miles away N61a 13.25 miles away
no “quarry” exists at 40.71 -74.01 Broadway & Cortlandt St, New York, NY 10007, USA or under the Twin Towers and more details numbers would place the blast right at the World Trade Center location i.e the explosions i.e explosives and are not “quarry blasts” on 9/11. “quarry blasts” use explosives! The starting time #18 at 11:00 AM is after the trade center fell. 11:15 is BRNJ PAL 11:20 or seems edited two different times that close? . BRNJ should have been later at 11:20 and PAL should have 11:15 because its closer to WTC. So they deleted the spike on PAL. All other signals on each graph match perfectly! in time and size but ONE! Can you see that. You keep pointing to other graphs. Stop doing that.
A search of that document returned ZERO RESULTS!!
LCSN Catalog Archive
LCSN Catalog Archive
15:15 spike of BRNJ was deleted