Plaguepuppy's Mailbox
Since I
make an effort to
reply to anyone who seems serious
about the subject and takes the
time to write, I decided to post some of the more interesting recent
emails concerning the Trade Center collapses here.
Messages are posted as received, with no editing done.
And as long as it's not part of a hate letter, I really don't mind
"stupid questions." In the history of engineering and the
physical sciences it has often been the seemingly naive or foolish
question that leads to the most interesting answers.
Who
is this 'PlaguePuppy' character, and what's this about
him being an "MIT Engineer"?
YouTube video of my talk
in NYC on 9-11-2004
Brief biography
I got this rather cryptic email
from Mr. John Kimber on July 23, 2006.
The reply below was sent on the
same day, and has thus far remained unanswered.
===================================================================
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
plaguepuppy@attbi.com
(expanded from: <jmking@alum.mit.edu>)
This proves that the jmking@alum.mit.edu address points to plaguepubby@attbi.com,
which is no longer a valid address. But it DOES PROVE that the Jeff King
with the SB in Physical Biology at MIT in 1974 IS THE SAME Jeff King who
uses the Pseudonym [sic] Plague Puppy. This should remove all doubt that I
have correctly established the single identity of the Jeff King in the 15
minute video as the Jeff King, MD and the Dr. Jeffrey King in the MIT Alum
Directory. Can we agree that this Jeff King (AKA Plague Puppy),
having been a practicing MD for the past 25 years and having only one
MIT degree (in Physical Biology) CANNOT BE an MIT Engineer?
Regards,
John Kimber
Reply:
Dear Gabe and John (whoever you are),
Sorry that you have had such a hard time contacting me by email, but my
address is readily available on my home page, here:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
The plaguepuppy@comcast.net address no longer works.
There is also a brief biography here: Pup
Bio
I did my first 2 years at MIT as a math major, left to
work in electronics (had a small manufacturing company of my own and
worked for Analog Devices when it was still a small MIT spinoff), then
went back and did a dual major in Electrical Engineering and Biology (not
"physical biology," whatever that is, but molecular biology
under Salvador Luria).
This was before there was such a thing as a Bio-Medical Engineering
Department at MIT, but my degree program was created by the
same faculty members who formed one a year or two after I
left. I did all the undergraduate requirements for Bio and EE,
as well as a Senior Biomedical Engineering Project Lab - as the only
mixed-major student in a group of EE majors, I was also the only one to
have a working device at the end of the year (a widget to transmit stethoscope
sounds over phone lines using frequency modulation).
After graduating from MIT in 1974 I went to med school at UVM in
Vermont, then spent a year at the Harvard School of Public Health in the
Pulmonary Physiology lab doing electrical and mechanical engineering work
before deciding to do an internship and practice clinical medicine.
[I then did an internship at Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield and have
been doing rural primary care and ER medicine since 1981.] BTW, the "MIT Engineer" caption on the video was not my doing,
and the brief bio I gave at the beginning was truncated to almost nothing
when the video was produced. In fact I didn't see the video until
almost a year after 9/11/04.
In any case, my engineering experience is substantive and the points I
make in my talk are based on simple principles of physics. I stand
by the soundness of the evidence and conclusions presented, and I would be
happy to respond to anything you believe is incorrect..
Science is not a matter of authority, but if you want to hear it from
someone with Mechanical Engineering credentials, an increasing number of
academics are coming forward via Scholars for 9-11 Truth:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
And their peer-reviewed online journal:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
Judy Wood is a Mechanical Engineer and has
some good observations about the collapses:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/
Best wishes,
Jeff King
******
A
plausible explanation for the spire: is it an artifact of dust
clinging to the columns?
Greetings,
I have read a number of your essays on the Trade Center collapses and I
think they are for the most part impressive.
I think I can offer a reasonable explanation for the apparent crumbling
of the remnant spire into dust, however.
Watch the CNN video again and see if this makes sense:
The remnant of structural steel remains standing, but in what
condition? At the very least every horizontal surface has to be cloaked
in a heavy layer of fine powder, if not the vertical surfaces as well.
As its support is finally undermined by the mass of collapsing debris,
it begins to sway back and forth and then fall. As its fall
accelerates, at some point the heavy load of dust is dislodged, either
from simple air resistance, or perhaps as the piece is jostled due to
impact with the debris pile below.
It may simply be a matter of the heavy steel structure outpacing its
cloak of powdered concrete and gypsum. What you describe as it turning
into a "heavier" dust that falls faster, is just the top of the spire
continuing to fall out of the field of view behind an obscuring dust
cloud.
I hope that offers a "reasonable" explanation for the anomaly. There
are enough things wrong with the events of that day to have to worry
about steel girders disintegrating in defiance of any reasonable
physical explanation!
Be well,
Mike D.
Dear Mike,
As for the dust model that you describe, the main problem is that not much
dust could stick to the columns that were left of the core. The collapse
was a very intense and turbulent event that would have tended to scour away
any light dust clinging to the (mostly) vertical surfaces. Compared with
the high velocity pyroclastic flow of the collapse cloud, which has already
passed when we first see the spire, the acceleration of the columns falling
down would have little power to shake dust loose from the columns. And
this
still begs the question of how those columns could fall straight down rather
than toppling over as we would normally expect. Just where do the bottoms
of the columns disappear to?
In fact the animated GIF below, extracted from this
video (5mb mpeg) and converted
by WebFairy, shows a remarkable
amount of detail when viewed full-screen.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/dustspire.gif
It clearly shows the columns of the
spire waving back and forth several times
before they begin to fall. That lateral motion would do a much better job
of shaking
loose dust clinging to the sides than the rather gentle acceleration of gravity,
which would be acting on both the columns and the dust. Only after they
had
gained enough speed for air drag to become a factor would the
columns begin shedding significant amounts of dust.
Careful inspection of this GIF also shows that the "dustification"
process
begins at or near ground level and moves up, with the outlines of the columns
becoming noticeably wider and more blurry. Since the bottom has longer to
expand,
it continues to widen as the wave of disintegration moves up to the top,
leaving a skinny
triangular dust cloud. Soon after the disintegration begins at ground
level, the tops of
the columns
begin to move straight down, still with sharp outlines but soon
overtaken
by the advancing wave of pulverization.
One other interesting point about those waving columns: they are actually
moving independently rather than as a fixed unit. This means that all the
horizontal connections between the core columns (multiple cross-bracing
between the columns at every floor) have been stripped away. Stills of the
spire show that only stubs remain attached to the exposed columns:
That implies that a very intense
scouring process went on during the collapse,
which would almost certainly remove any fine dust clinging to the surfaces.
I realize that the images involved push the limits of resolution in the
available sources,
but I believe there is enough signal in the background blur to allow patterns to
be recognized.
As grainy as the video images are, the still pictures are very sharp and confirm
an abrupt
transition from sharply defined intact columns to thin towers of dust.
Look at the pictures here:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
And on this
page and the next from my photo gallery
And this very sharp
series of stills
******
"Two strands of planning met in the 9-11-1 attacks.
All evidence for Arab participation (except for window dressing) has fallen
apart. Newspaper men and women who step forward claiming there is evidence
have so far shown none. In two German trials, the U.S. government provided
this much evidence for the alleged Arab participation: zip (zero). The
reason: There is no such evidence. The FBI chief Robert Mueller III admitted
as much in his speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco back in
2002.
The theory that Arab terrorists perpetrated 9-11-1 is a
piece of Oriental lore. That does not mean there is no explanation, of
course:
About six weeks before
9-11-1, the insurance coverage for the towers was raised from $1.5 billion
(had sufficed for two decades) to $5.05 billion, i.e. was more than trebled.
Example from law school:
A farmer more than trebles the fire insurance for his barn. Then the barn
burns down. The next morning, the police rings his doorbell to ask
questions."
******
On the
Venezuelan high-rise fire and recent NIST press conference
Comment:
This exchange, in typically confusing reverse
chronological order, deals with the October
19 press conference held by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to announce "tentative conclusions" in the
still-incomplete NIST WTC investigation, and the non-collapse of a high-rise tower
in Caracas Venezuela that burned for 17 hours beginning on October
16.
The "buckling" or "bowing" described below
cannot be demonstrated in any stills or videos of the perimeter columns of the
towers, no matter how closely we look. And bowing is even less likely in
the core, whose vertical columns are bound tightly together at each floor by a
network of steel spandrel plates. Each individual column is braced by
the ones around it, creating a very sturdy "bundle of sticks" much
stronger than the individual elements. Even if one or a few columns were
somehow heated much hotter than the rest of the core, they could not begin to
fail (i.e. shorten) unless the entire core failed at the same time - but this
requires the rest of the core to be even weaker than the hypothetically
overheated columns.
The fire in the Caracas high-rise burned for
17 hours and involved 26 floors of the 56 story tower, yet left the building
structurally sound. Military helicopters used firefighting buckets to
drop water:
"The high temperatures also stopped firefighters from
reaching the tower's upper floors, where the fire was strongest. Military
troops and rescue teams were brought in to help, and military helicopters flew
over the building, dropping water on the tower, which houses government
offices and ministries."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
Might have been a good idea in New York
too...
From: StefanGrossmann@t-online.de (Stefan Grossmann)
Subject: Re: Building in Venezuela Does Not Collapse!
This below theory is completely bankrupt. It
is the real candidate for the literature Nobel prize (category
"yarn"). The initial jet fuel was consumed after no more than 10
minutes, the 60,000 thousand or more tons of steel would have taken weeks to
superheat to weaken steel, and there are numerous indicators of relative
coolness in the Twin Towers on 9-11-1 such as:
- jumpers (not scalded, no more than 200 Fahrenheit)
- survivors who placed emergency calls from the top floors (up till collapse,
detailed)
- thermogram of WTC2 facade at 9:18 a.m. (100 Celsius - water boiling point
only)
- firemen nearly at collapse time above 70th floor of WTC2: no major fires
- over 400 computer hard drives recovered (Convar, a German company - not over
250 Celsius)
- computers recorded financial transactions seconds before each collapse
- dark smoldering smoke color
- no air flicker
- hardly any fires visible from outside until collapse time (very graphic)
- hundreds of people who managed to flee from the Twin Towers - no major fires
- not one shroud of "weakened steel" is ever presented despite clear
crystal structure
- media push belief structure versus facts that cannot be forged (such as
steel)
- 1.5 million tons of tell-tale debris from the WTC bombing were stolen &
destroyed
- millions of unsinged papers did survive the "BS-TV fire inferno"
- high-rise fires do not cause collapses and never have, apart from 9-11.
This means the hard facts are really on the
table. No doubts possible.
The folly has been admitted. Only diehards
may believe it. That's always the problem when lies get stuck in too much
detail.
Stefan
"jmking" <jeffrey.king2@comcast.net> schrieb:
Absent the airplane damage it's not a very close parallel, but it does seem
noteworthy that it survived 17 hours of fire over about half its height and
remained structurally sound. How can there be a fully-involved fire
over many floors without at least partial Playdoughification of the
structural steel?
And speaking of Playdough, the following is from
today's NYT - Case closed!!!
I especially like the bit about the top of the North Tower - first it bows
in, then out (did anyone happen to see any of this undulation or catch it on
video?), then "the entire upper section of the building above the
impact zone tilted to the south, sealing the fate of the tower and anyone
who remained inside."
What the hell are these guys talking about? Are they confusing the
North and South Towers, or are they just hallucinating? How do you
turn that little tilt of the antenna mast into a (very clearly non-existent)
tilt of everything above the impact zone? And if that tilt really did
start the collapse, how on earth did the tower collapse straight down?
The infernos that erupted in the two towers
are to blame for the ultimate collapse, the report found. As temperatures
rose in the buildings, the remaining core columns softened and buckled,
shifting much of the burden to the building's exterior. The floors, which
largely remained intact outside the impact zone, reacted by pulling the
exterior columns inward, adding to the extreme stress on the exterior
columns.
In the north tower, as fires consumed
office furniture and other debris, softening the steel in the exterior
columns, they gradually started to bow inward and then buckle. Ultimately,
the entire upper section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the
south, sealing the fate of the tower and anyone who remained inside.
"The buckled columns exceeded the
strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure,'' the report says.
"Global collapse then ensued."
The floors played a more significant
role in the collapse sequence in the south tower, the investigators said.
Fires there caused them to sag by as much as two feet, adding to the inward
pulling that already had started because of the buckling of the core
columns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Building in Venezuela Does Not Collapse!
> This building doesn't contain enough similarities to
conclusively draw
> defacto weight/stress parallels, but it may pan-out to compare more
> favorably than it looks.
>
> WTC was Pittsburg steel/PPG glass, I believe. I doubt anyone has
directly
> elicited the help of former engineers to assist us here.
>
> Unfortunately, Venezuela 'went dark' after the last Chavez victory, so
it
> does not exist in American media at this time. Sort of like Cheney's
Old
> Europe. Still, to meet such challenges, Cheney re-insists that
"they may
> nuke American cities," just to keep the cooperative spirit alive
until
> Halloween, er, um I mean the election.
>
> Hat's off again to Fentan for broadcasting the reviews on the
"BANNED" BBC
> special airing in UK begining tomorrow. Not being able to broadcast the
core
> issue(s) to the mainstream is really taking it's toll on the movement.
> Jimmy/Stern combo could be dynamite! 12M-listeners, that's a dynamic
swell.
>
> Still, this and everything else seem to fit the diabolical template of
a
> real NWO- power grab, no matter how things appear to be playing out
ever so
> slowly today. Note the illusion of Democracy (or maybe just the media
> version) is still pandering to the masses despite gaping revelations,
i.e.:
> "It would be a lot easier if I were a Dictator"-GWB I just
can't fathom how
> you buy that much outright felonious support, for anything, (unless
it's
> injected directly into the veins.)
>
> Tom
>
>> From: jeff strahl <jstrahl@well.com>
>> Subject: Re: Building in Venezuela Does Not Collapse!
>>
>> >From a friend in the SF physical evidence group (which
had a very rocky
>> meeting last night re the Pentagon, by the way). - Jeff
>>
>> ----
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
>>
>> Interestingly, on this site, next to the story, they felt compelled
to have
>> a link to two stories explaining why the twin towers went
down...both of
>> which actually fail to explain it...and even the partial
explanation they
>> give gives no explanation of the core or WTC7.
>>
>
>
******
The
Unbearable Lightness of Disintegration:
On the
difficulty of believing that the available pictures of the spire's collapse show
something more than a simple gravitational collapse...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:41 AM
Subject: Spire
> Love your pix & writing on this disturbing evidence. In my
opinion it is
> the hottest evidence against the official story. I've heard Tesla
wrote
> about disturbing the underlying EM fields of objects remotely and may
have
> even damaged neighbors' property making such a device himself.
>
> I do wish there were clearer footage. All the "skeptics"
I show your page
> to say to them it looks like it could just be dust shaking off of the
spire,
> not spire turning into dust. The newer footage to them looks like
it could
> just be the blur of falling.
>
> It is so teasing to have such potentially explosive footage that is just
on
> the edge of deniability/undeniability with respect to an
anti-official-story
> interpretation.
>
> How do we ask the world to help us find more spire footage? Do we
have
> anything of it from the helicopter crews? The large thick side
cloud
> certainly doesn't help.
>
> Best wishes for finding the truth and getting people to see it,
>
> Ray Ubinger
> Durham NC
***********************************
Dear Ray,
Thanks for your thoughtful observations, and sorry
that it's taken me so long to answer.
I'd be very interested to hear more about your EM
"experiment" that you say rattled the neighbors. From what I
understand of some of Tesla's earlier experiments (probably not involving
scalar waves) it's fairly easy to generate standing waves of large amplitude
by pumping a resonant mode of the local ground-transmission
line-generator loop . It's kind of a distributed L-C circuit, and
with a "driver" device pumping in-phase energy into the circuit at
low amplitude over a period of time, very large standing waves can be
generated. As I recall Tesla blew up a power station outside of Denver more
or less that way doing a similar experiment that he couldn't shut
down quickly enough.
As for the "spire," I understand that
for a lot of people not used to digging around for signal close to the level
of the background noise (a not uncommon task in many fields of engineering)
all of the visual evidence related to the spire may seem like just some blurry
pictures. It takes more than just prolonged squinting, it takes an
active process of looking as carefully as possible at all the stills and
videos and asking at each point if the aggregate picture that emerges makes
sense in terms of what we know about the failure modes of structures and
materials.
Numerical modeling is simply too crude at these
levels of resolution: the data set for exact position and speed of points in
the collapsing structure is just too sparse to allow an exact dynamic model to
be convincingly tested. That leaves us with "qualitative"
data, i.e. no equations, to be examined at the finest level of resolution
we can discern by combining all the visual evidence. It's not as
satisfying as a nice neat formula, but it's more honest under the
circumstances.
The strongest qualitative evidence are the still
pictures taken just before and after the spire's collapse, which are much
sharper than the videos. To my eye the "before" pictures set a
fairly low upper limit on how much dust could have been clinging to the mostly
vertical surfaces of the columns:
The few stills caught just as the collapse
started show that the columns are not just hidden by a cloud of dust; the
narrow vertical dust column we see just wasn't dense enough to hide solid
steel, and there is no darker outline inside it to suggest solid columns
trying to hide:
And an especially nice before and after sequence
from the west:
By themselves the videos will never convince the
skeptical or hostile questioner, they're just too fuzzy to the ordinary
observer. It's a gestalt process: actually seeing the
disintegration in the sequence of frames is one of those "aha"
experiences that you either have or you don't, kind of a figure-ground
reversal. An even moderate negative bias against seeing one version of
events is more than enough to prevent most people from forming the
gestalt, especially at the level of fuzziness that the videos offer.
As to the Holy Grail of finding new images, I can
only hope that there are still some private collections out there that will
surface as more people become aware of the peculiarities surrounding these horrific
events. There were a lot of video and still cameras pointed at the Trade
Center by the time of the second collapse, so there is some reason to be
hopeful.
Best Regards,
Jeff King
*******
A letter from Japan forwarded by
Australian 9-11 researcher Gerard
Holmgren
about
the significance and unique nature the of pyroclastic flows seen in the
collapses:
Hi Gerard,
I'm living in Japan and I was using the concept of volcanic eruption
causing pyroclastic flow of dust and debris versus earthquake collapse
of buildings in Kobe to illustrate to people this difference in energy released.
I thought this might be another angle for you and your associates to
use in your presentations.
Take footage of an building collapsing in an earthquake, showing
relatively smaller dust cloud then NYC and large pieces remaining.
Then compare Mt. St Helen's pyroclastic flow to the huge sky high
dust cloud around NYC to explain that an explosive event is required.
cheers,
dave in tokyo
**************
This
is a very important point, in that pyroclastic flows were indeed seen in the
collapses of the Twin Towers, and can only form under certain very specific
conditions. A large mass of material must be reduced almost instantly to a
fine powder and at the same time mixed very rapidly with air, something that can
only occur as the result of an explosion or volcanic eruption.
Pyroclastic flow on Mayon Volcano, Philippines
Link
to previous discussion of pyroclastic flows
******
Hi Brad,
I just came across this :
"Note
the (700 foot high) piece of the WTC perimeter wall that stood by itself for
a few seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed."
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/seven/fake-explosion.htm
For some reason (?)
Iīve always assumed that it was part of the core. But if itīs a part of
the perimeter wall, doesnīt that really scream out that the core columns
were "cut" at the base? I mean, the core columns were way stronger
than the perimeter walls, so if the core columns were all gone, but
parts of the perimeter walls remained standing for a few seconds, well it
says it all doesnīt it?
(Should be easy to
determine if itīs part of the core or part of the walls (a corner), if we
have some (previous) pic from the same angle, with the tower still standing.
(Or by calculations from a map)).
What do you reckon?
All the best,
Kjell Roald
Reply:
At the beginning I thought that the spire was
part of the outside wall too - it looks like a corner of something, and seeing
the cross-ties between the vertical columns made me think I was seeing the
spandrel plates visible between floors on the outside walls.
And that would have been very remarkable if true:
for the core columns to crumble away but have some of the smaller perimeter
columns left standing would take some very peculiar collapse dynamics.
But I finally convinced myself that it was a piece of the core after looking
at the alignment of the spire with the original tower in several
pictures, especially the series below:
Notice how the left-hand edge of Building 7 in the
foreground lines up with the center of the tower before collapse, and lines up
with the spire in the last frame.
The other tip-off is the diagonal bracing that can
be made out in some of the clearer pictures of the spire:
Pictures of the towers under construction
show four large cranes positioned on the four corners of the core:
Notice how the four columns in each corner of the
core are tied together with extra bracing to create a "composite"
column strong enough to support the construction cranes. To the
best of my knowledge this is the only place in the towers where diagonal
bracing was used on this approximate scale. The outer walls only
had the horizontal spandrel plates at each floor welded to the vertical
perimeter columns, no diagonal braces..
Pup
******
Dear Sir,
i am quite excited to receive your mail no, i don't have any such personal
contacts. i am on the west coast california) - everything by internet.
my approach is to break it down to something very simple - i use the
analogy of your household gas stove, which burns at least twice as
hot as a building fire, and the steel griddle is not affected at all by the
heat.
i will send you my draft countermotion to the AGM, which i must
complete by 5/11 there is a website, 911physics.org, are you familiar with it?
i also want to use psychological arguments, about how people
rationalize facts away and wait on authority figures, instead of using their
eyes and heads to see what is in front of their nose.
it has to start with perception, at some point people just have to
see it.
the evidence is so strong that degrees are superfluous, might even
confuse their holders.
like the reporter on the soundtrack on the video at wtc.net, he says
right out, this is the 3rd time today we're seeing what looks like a
controlled demolition. before the propaganda set to work with conditioning by
repetition, his perception worked fine.
i think i shall also forward your correspondence to the
911truthalliance list serve and to the one i moderate, waronfreedom yahoogroups,
if you dont' mind
also are you in touch with Lehrman in NYC who is also trying to work
on the Swiss Re lawyer? his letter is posted at the serendipity site.
have you posted anything about this on the web yourself?
hmm.. i've looked you up on google - you're in california too!
intellectual property, maybe you can help me out sometime with publishing
problems.
keep the faith
John Leonard
"...it has to start with
perception, at some point people just have to
see it."
*As Thomas Huxley concluded a lecture on
Darwin, he was immediately accosted by a little, old lady who challenged him to
refute her conviction that the world, which was flat, rested on the back of a
turtle. Before Huxley had a chance to respond, the lady concluded:
The question of course being "but
what does the turtle stand on?" What for Huxley (or Bertrand
Russell in another version) was an obvious "gotcha" was no problem for
the "little old lady" who was not intimidated by the idea of infinite regression.
It is that familiar vertigo of the depths that frightens most people off at the idea of infinite
regression, or for that matter at the idea of an infinite universe, and also keeps them from
wanting to see too far into the depths of the deception and manipulation that
came to their most intense focus on 9-11.
By
an odd dynamic, stopping short of seeing the full strangeness and perversity
of 9-11 actually makes one an agent of the ongoing cover-up (in some cases a
witting agent, but usually not). By the act of staking out a claim to
one particular level among the many limited fallback stories and rejecting
everything beyond that as a conspiracy theory, one becomes a gatekeeper,
saying in effect "the outer limit of acceptable consensus reality ends
here." This allows the gatekeeper to encourage others to take
action that would seem rational based on that particular fallback position:
e.g. simple incompetence==>vote them out. But these are all safe
channels for the energies of protest, guaranteed to make some people feel
better but have no effect on the outcome.
The
underlying problem is cognitive dissonance, and the attachment people feel to
their particular model of the world. The human brain is wired in such a
way that the highest-level construct, the "world view," is very hard
to change. Changing higher-level assumptions about the world has a lot
of practical consequences and cannot be undertaken lightly by creatures in an
environment of relative scarcity, where a less-than-optimal survival strategy
could lead to death.
But we
live in a largely human-made world that can change much more quickly
than the natural world we are adapted to, and because of that our
"ontological conservatism" can work against us. We live in a
world based on artificial abundance that dulls our survival instincts, and
creates a new mediated reality whose fundamental structure can
change almost overnight. That great stack of turtles receding into the
abyss may in fact be finite, but for practical purposes it might as well be
infinite. Only a willingness to accept that there could be one more
level of deception beyond what we have understood will allow us to find the
real contours of this all-encompassing fake reality that is
attempting to control us all.
Pup
******
From
911.review.org:
In the name of the fake War on Terror, Canada, the US
and the EU are
building huge Big Brother databases on all people who travel: see new page:
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CappsII.shtml
and
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CappsForCanadians.shtml
But even according to the American Justice Department's version of events,
all of the "hijackers" who were alleged to have been responsible for
9/11
had been previously granted visas by US Immigration (including the 7 of them
that have since been found to have not even been in the US at the time).
So it is clear that nothing in these police state measures enhance anyone's
security against the kinds of attacks that were perpetrated on September 11.
It is now clear that the Hijackers/Patsies entered the US under a
rather special visa programme; we have been provided copies of
official complaints filed prior to 9/11 by the former head of the
Consular Section, US Embassy, Jeddah, that document how the visa
programme at that embassy, where 15 of the 19 supposed "hijackers" are
reported to have obtained their visas, was being run by the CIA.
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/SpringmanInterview.shtml
J. Michael Springmann, formerly chief of the visa section at the
U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has testified that he rejected
hundreds of suspicious visa applications by Saudi Aabian men similar to those
named as the 9/11 "HijackersPatsies" when we was head of the consular
section of the US embassy in Jeddah, but C.I.A. officers repeatedly
overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued.
Springmann protested to the State Department the Office of Diplomatic
Security, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and congressional committees, but
was silenced. Springmann observed that 15 of the 19 HijackersPatsies got
their visas from the same CIA controlled consulate in Jeddah.
When Canadians begin to realize what Canada's Patriot Act has in store for them
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CanadasPatriotAct3.shtml
along with CAPPS, we can expect a boycott of all travel to the United States.
_______________________________________________
Announce mailing list
Announce@lists.911review.org
http://www.911review.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
******
Dear Friends,
I am a lawyer, law school professor and concerned
citizen. Even before I saw the videos posted on your websites, I believed the
Bush administration let 9-11 happen. Your videos raise the question of whether
World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were destroyed by controlled
demolition, as was WTC 7.
It occurs to me that you may have very powerful
allies: namely, the insurance companies who hold policies on the World Trade
Center. There is ongoing, multi-billion dollar litigation between these
insurers and Larry Silverstein, the buildings' owner. If WTC 1 and 2 were
brought down by controlled demolition, it might void the policies. Specifically,
an intentional demolition by the buildings' owner would likely be excluded by
the policies, so that the insurers would save billions of dollars. Think
about it.
Are your videos for real, or have you retouched
them? If they are for real, passing them onto the attorneys for the WTC
insurance companies would likely generate substantial investigation and
publicity for the 9-11 truth movement.
Regards,
D. Alexander Floum, Esq.
Dear Alexander,
"Are your videos for real?"
As far as I can establish they are
unmanipulated, and I have neither means nor talent for creating manipulated
video myself. The clips on the web are generally publicly available in
some form. Some are network archive copies of broadcast feeds, some are
video captures and some are taken from documentaries including TLC, NOVA and
the Naudet brothers' documentary "9-11". Real-time video
manipulation is possible but takes a lot of computing power, and in complex
and "messy" scenes is difficult to pull off without leaving obvious
artifacts.
Overall there is just too much agreement
between videos from different sources for any significant part of them to have
been faked. All the anomalous things, the vertical collapses, the
high-velocity ejections of pulverized building contents right from the start
of the collapses, the disintegration of the top of WTC-2 after it began to
fall, all those things can be clearly seen in many types of media from many
sources.
Anyone out there know one of the lawyers on the
Silverstein case?
Regards,
Pup
******
Where
does the information on this website come from? I need a reply, Is this all a
conjecture? If I am to continue to read your information , or if you wish I
don't , answer my questions please.
DanRacer@aol.com
Dear
Dan,
It
comes from a lot of original research, video and photos collected by myself
and a network of fellow researchers starting shortly after 9-11. I have
read the reports from FEMA and NIST (links here: http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-showresources.html-TopRes-WTC-20Collapse-20Forensics.html )
and am struck by the lack of any clearly-stated scenario of how the collapses
actually took place. There is some speculation about possible collapse
sequences in the FEMA report, but no effort to prove or disprove - that was
explicitly left to "further studies."
The
problem is that there is not enough physical evidence left to conduct a true
forensic study (~250 pieces of steel, <1% of the wreckage was spared from
recycling). So NIST is plodding along, piecing together the bits that
remain but still not proposing an actual model for the collapse. Could
there be a reason all these people avoid coming to conclusions?
So
we work with what is available, doing the best technical analysis that can be
done with the evidence that survived the immediate purge and recycling. But
that still leaves us with eye witness stories, photos, videos, some
seismic tracings, some dust analysis... It would be nice to have more, but
even with this limited evidence it's clear that the official story (whatever
that may be exactly) simply doesn't fit the facts. And the
simplest explanation that does fit all the evidence, including all the
"anomalous" pictures and videos on my web site, is a controlled
demolition.
Until some
insider decides to talk, we are left without most of the technical details of
how it was done. But as a 57 year old MIT trained engineer I can tell
you that there's no way in Hell these buildings went down without a lot of
help.
After
looking at various angles of the WTC clouds, I think the 'flashes from
unexploded charges at the edges of the cloud' or however it was worded,
are actually reflections, probably from sections of the external columns which
I believe were shiny. This does not in any way diminish the possibility
of charges inside the building, but we should try to be as accurate as
possible, don't give the other side any ammo!
Also,
I have seen on some web sites the cloud, I think from the first collapse, that
seems to 'glow' a few seconds after starting to collapse. One site even
called it 'nuclear glow' and claimed it might be alpha radiation! http://thewebfairy.com/911/glow/
If
you look at the whole picture, at about 46 seconds in, yes, the cloud glows,
but so does the sky, and other parts lighten up. I was involved in video
production and TV stations for 20 years, this is simply the camera iris being
opened up, overexposing the brightest parts of the image. Another
possible explanation (both may be involved), the cloud may have dispersed
enough to allow sunlight to penetrate through and light up the closest dust,
like a star can light up an interstellar dust cloud between us and the star.
The
less we invoke aliens and secret technology, the easier it will be to convince
the sheeple that we are right!
Keep
getting the word out!
David
White
*****
Dear David,
I appreciate
your thoughtful criticism, and I fully agree with the notion that we should
avoid invoking "the unknown" unless absolutely necessary, and that
goes for Skunkworks-style black technology as much as putative alien
technology, since both suppose the existence of things that are
fundamentally unverifiable. But after spending much time reviewing the
available evidence I am left with a residue of phenomena that simply don't
lend themselves to conventional explanation, and these may prove crucial to
understanding what really happened. We know that many billions have been
poured into creating advanced-technology weapons, and if anyone would have
access to such things it would be people like Cheney and Rumsfield and their
military-industrial chums.
The most
striking of these, and the one that ultimately convinced me that some type of
"black budget weaponry" was involved, was the disintegration of a
portion of the North Tower core that I refer to as the 'spire'. These
two pages discuss it in some detail:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
In fact
one of the the photos on my home page (https://publish.comcast.net/wsb-cgi-bin/view.cgi/photo.html?wsbID=56016&SiteID=230497)
shows the spire just after it has turned to dust, but still confined to a
narrow vertical column only a little bigger than the intact spire. I
have hear all kinds of attempts to explain it away as dust that was
clinging to the columns, or that it's just motion blur as the intact columns
fall straight down, but looking at all the available videos and still photos
makes it obvious that nothing of the sort truly describes or explains what we
are seeing.
As for
the glow, your aperture theory is the opposite of what we actually see: the
part of the scene around the collapse cloud gets much brighter and the
auto-exposure closes down the aperture - we see the surrounding area darken as
it stops down, which can only happen if there was an objective increase in
brightness in part of the scene. The sun was still fairly low in the
East, and couldn't create the kind of sudden increase in brightness we see
when viewed from the west or north, especially with the grayish color the
dust shows in most views.
Other
pictures and videos show the same increase in brightness just as the cloud
hits the ground, so I suspect it is real, but have no idea what caused it.
I have not heard any eye-witness descriptions of a glow, which makes me
suspect that it was more visible to CCD detectors than to the naked eye,
making me think that it trails off into near-UV, but I agree that calling the
glow "nuclear" is misleading. Perhaps static electricity
generated within the cloud, something like a thunderhead, could create
electroluminescence, but this is not an area I know much about.
As to
the "flashes" seen during the collapses, there are different
ones seen in different views, and most of them have mundane explanations:
in some videos of the dust clouds there are thousands of small white specks
that seem to be pieces of paper. As for the aluminum facing strips on
the outside of the columns, in a lot of pictures (e.g. http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-387701.html,
http://www.skfriends.com/images/biggart/04-wtc-Biggart5-24.jpg)
we can see these strips being blown out in advance of the rest of the debris
clouds, but they are not polished enough to create flashes of light. The
only places I claim to see flashes consistent with demolition charges (too
bright and too brief to be anything but explosives) are these:
Very
discrete flashes lasting no more than 1/30 second and appearing in parts of
the buildings that were in shadow just don't seem consistent with and kind of
reflection from a polished object, especially if that object is in shadow.
There
is definitely much we will never know. The 'woolworth' video does seem
to have a lot of flashes in it, and I can see rectangular objects turning over
in the path of some of the flashes as though they are no longer at the right
angle to reflect back at us, but I have no idea what they are.
On
another note, I recall a web page somewhere that claimed a lot of work was
being done in the upper floors (40+?) of the towers the weekend before the
attacks, the excuse was upgrading data cable bandwidth of the computers,
requiring powerdown, therefore no cameras, no security doors/badges, many,
many 'engineers' in and out. This person claims he worked on the
computers for one of the tenants and had to shut them down for the weekend.
During the attacks he 'knew this had something to do with that weekend work'.
I find the powerdown excuse ludicrious, as comm cables cannot be run in
the same conduit or raceway as AC wires, therefore no need to turn off power.
Do you have any idea where this website is?
My
best guess, thermite in the columns in the basement (puddles of molten steel)
to drop the core and start the collapse, cutting charges to shear the floors
and walls etc.
On
the aperture theory, overexposed video will sometimes be compressed by
equipment down the transmission line, forcing the image tones to become closer
or reducing the brightness of midtones and shadows. If I had original
tapes instead of multi-generation copies encoded to mpeg & other formats,
I could be much more sure of my analysis, as it is, there is still plenty
fishy in Denmark
David
White
******
Dear plaguepuppy, I dl-ed some
nine 11 material from your archives and
congratulate you on the wealth of information you accumulated and share
with the rest of the world. It's guys like you that will eventually
unearth the terrible truth of that sad day in American history.
Something bugs me in the movie showing the first attack/crash and I
have a question that might interest you.
It is said that the maker of this movie is a professional filmmaker and
this shows: seemingly aiming his camera by ear he picks up the low
flying plane the moment it appears(?) from behind the building on the
right in the frame.
He then follows the plane as it disappears behind the building on the
left of the frame and as it reappears behind that building he picks up
the plane again in the center of the frame.
The moment of impact is sharp and full-centre in the frame. We can tell
when he zooms into the explosion. It's all sharp and well defined. We
can make out individual windows, parts flying around in the explosion
etc.
It is well lit too. Not too bright or too dark, which is what you would
expect from a pro.
This brings up the question:
How come this cameraman, who was making a film about the NYFD, manages
to shoot such badly lit, unfocused scenes of the fireman (the actual
subject he is supposed to be shooting according to the story) he is
filming?
His camera obviously was prepared for the impact-shot (the building far
away) instead of for the close-up shot of the subject he was filming
(the fireman nearby).
So can we conclude that the cameraman knew what was going to happen?
what do you think?
And who is the cameraman anyway?
I cannot find the name of this cameraman (I remember reading somewhere
"they were a french cameracrew").
I think it's weird.
Sincerely,
Mark K.
Thanks
for the kind remarks - sometimes it seems like this work is my true vocation,
though the "day job" still gets most of my time. As for the
photographers, they were two brothers, Gedeon and Jules Naudet, who had been
making a documentary about the crew at the fire station for several months
when 911 happened.
They
were following a "probie" - a new guy just graduated from
firefighter school - to show the process of him becoming a real firefighter,
and went out on a call for a gas leak. Jules was the actual
photographer, supposedly just going out for practice. The first shot is
of a guy with a gas sniffer checking a grating, just before the camera swings
up to follow the plane. As to why the first part of the scene looks bad,
I really think that it's just due to the fact that they are in shadow.
It was shot with a professional video camera, which would have auto exposure
and focus, so there's no need to pre-set anything for particular conditions.
The North Tower was in full sun, so the image quality did improve once it
shifted toward it, but that in itself doesn't show any special planning.
The
shot itself is certainly nicely framed, almost as if whoever called them out
for the gas leak wanted them in that particular spot. And there are a
lot of people who think there is something too convenient about the way
the filmmakers managed to be so well situated for so many exclusive shots: the
first plane hitting, both collapses, building 7 collapsing that afternoon
(they even had a tripod set up for that). And though they were very
close to the action throughout, neither brother and none of the firefighters
from that firehouse was injured. Seems like someone, mortal or
otherwise, was looking out for their welfare.
Jeff
King
*****
Hi
Mark, I think the Naudet "brothers" were definitely
a big part of the whole 911 scam. Here's my site
which makes that argument:
http://www.911hoax.com
regards,
Scott Loughrey
Footnotes
From: Axel Harvey:
The other I read or heard, but I don't remember where. Eddington was
giving a lecture on cosmology and began with a rapid overview of early models of
the universe. He mentioned the Indian idea that the world rested on the back of
a giant turtle, and said it wasn't a good model because it didn't say what the
turtle rested on. After the lecture an elderly lady went up to him and said,
forcefully, "You are very clever, young man, very clever, but there is
something you do not understand about Indian cosmology: it's turtles ALL THE WAY
DOWN!" ----------
From: Nicolas Bray:
From A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking(don't sue me):
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun
and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars
called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of
the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is
really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The
scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise
standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said
the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" ----------------
From: Anton Sherwood:
To add to the confusion: When I first heard the story with the above punchline,
the scientist was Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"). ----------------
From: Philip Baird Shearer:
I have been surfing for "it's turtles all the way down" Your page was
thrown up here is another version (I have seen on the web) which if the source
is correct would seem to be the most likly to be the original: The person who
originally experienced this anecdote was William James (1842-1910), a famous
American psychologist and philosopher. The novelist Henry James was his brother.
After a lecture on the solar system, philosopher William James was approached by
a determined elderly lady with a theory. "We don't live on a ball rotating
around the sun," she said. "We live on a crust of earth on the back of
a giant turtle." James decided to be gentle. "If your theory is
correct, madam, what does this turtle stand on?" "The first turtle
stands on the back of a second, far larger turtle, of course." "But
what does this second turtle stand on?" The old lady crowed triumphantly.
"It's no use, Mr. James -- it's turtles all the way down!" Source:
American Museum of Natural History ----------------
So, who knows which scientist was
given this wise lesson?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/10.html
