Friday, February 15, 2019

My Thoughts on the State of 9/11 Demolition Research + 911 - WTC dismantled and hollow vs mini-nukes - edited - HD version

Here is a very spirited debate that's well worth a listen. I have often noted that there are reservations about Jim Fetzer by people I respect, but he comes off here very much as just a person with strong differences of opinion, not an agent of disinformation. That said, his position on the Pentagon strike and related issues is garbage as demonstrated time and time again on this site. He is no longer promoting Judy Wood's ideas and I find the theory of mini-nukes much more plausible. In the second video he makes a point that one must really consider that has only come to light in its full magnitude over the passing of the years. UPDATE 3/29/10 Private correspondence I instigated concerning Fetzer attacking another 9/11 researcher and then lying about it has shown me undoubtedly that the man is not to be trusted.

POISONOUS DUST FROM 9-11 IS GIVING PEOPLE CANCER
https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2018/08/poisonous-dust-from-9-11-is-giving.html

Obviously controlled demolition itself would not garner such a result. Could the contents of the buildings really result in so many differing and often fast acting cancers?

Asbestos in the buildings was a concern, but that is associated mainly with mesothelioma.

https://www.mesotheliomaguide.com/mesothelioma/causes/911-asbestos-risk/

Were the respirators and face masks worn at ground zero so ineffective that 10,000 first responders have died?

Of course Fetzer begs the question of radiation. On a recent podcast I interviewed David Slesigner who told me he's had smart researchers argue to him that there both were and were not high enough levels of radiation present to support this theory. The environmental anomaly of high levels of volatile organic compounds at ground zero are argued by Fetzer to better support his theory than the nano-thermite theory.

Regarding that theory, please note Mark Basile who was supposed to do what he thought would be a confirmation study, but due to personal complications has failed to produce a full report, has stated that he will refund anyone who donated to him via paypal. My family donated something like $200 if I recall. Mark has affirmed to blogger Ziggi it is still coming. I have had no contact with Mark for quite some time.

James Millete who was supposed to publish a refutation study also failed to follow through.

thermite or no thermite? – the saga of the red-gray chips:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/25/jones-harrit-mohr-millette-the-red-gray-chips/
"Millette’s failure to publish as promised has raised obvious questions about his faith in his own conclusions."
So in my view the original paper has neither been confirmed or refuted, although the preponderance of evidence seems to favor the former being the most likely outcome. But who knows. I've tried vert hard to resolve this issue as a concerned citizen.

In the past I have noted...

The truth movement has many differing opinions concerning the method of demolition, but almost universally agrees on the physical evidence... Even supporters of the nano-thermite evidence like Jim Hoffman have presented it alongside the other plausible theories of distributed conventional explosives (an idea which I have warmed up tomore than before) and better yet thermobaric devices, which have many desirable attributes for a covert demolition, including the advantage of an absence of conventional explosive residues. Combinations of conventional and non-conventional explosives has also been proposed. But again, the bottom line is, the physical evidence is widely agreed upon and must also be debunked, but as the following material demonstrates, the government investigators and defenders of the official story have failed at this task.

The official investigations conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology were not peer-reviewed...

OK, now to that debate...
HD version of a conversation between three nuke advocates (Don Fox, Joe Olson and Jim Fetzer) and Steve De'ak regarding evidence that suggests the WTC was not nuked, or vaporized, but that it was dismantled. 2-hours.







http://moonrockbooks.com/product/america_nuked_on_911/

Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre
http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/GZero_Sample.pdf
The enormous peak in Strontium and Barium concentration at WTC 01- 16 is readily apparent. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3670ppm and 3130ppm respectively or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location. This is higher than even the Titanium concentration at WTC 01-16 of 0.25%. This is quite simply astronomical. Barium and Strontium compounds are not valid constituents of concrete or any other building material such as glass, aluminium, plaster and steel. They should not be there. Even at the other sampling locations the Barium and Strontium concentration does not fall below 400ppm, which is still an astronomically high level to detect for these elements. The mean concentration of Barium including the low girder coating readings is 533ppm and for Strontium, 727ppm. These are not trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and toxic amounts.

FAQ #13: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the WTC destruction. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/227-faq-13-various-authors-claim-that-nuclear-blasts-caused-or-contributed-to-the-wtc-destruction-why-does-ae911truth-not-endorse-this-claim



https://killuminatireport.blogspot.com/2016/03/illuminati-card-game-exposed-just-game.html

My Thoughts on the State of 9/11 Demolition Research + 911 - WTC dismantled and hollow vs mini-nukes - edited - HD version