Posts Tagged ‘Science’

9.11 sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles

October 23, 2010

By Dark Politricks

Despite directly contacting 9.11 sceptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven’t managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don’t even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.

Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you’re not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime.

Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons.  Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.

Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.

You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day. Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:

  • 4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
  • Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practise.
  • Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
  • The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skysrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn’t hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost freefall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.

This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn’t have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of  truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual modus operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.

Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn’t not mean that either Al Qaeda didn’t or couldn’t carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.

A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means “the database” and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.

As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent Bin Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe Bin Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.

As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn’t rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden’s cave in Tora Bora. We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain. For a start we should ask ourselves the following:

1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:

  • Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
  • A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
  • To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.

You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major “New Pearl Harbour” event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.

2. Were those people in government.

Yes the co-authors and supporters of the now controversial report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century were none other than Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.

3. Were there existing plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before the attacks of 9.11 took place.

Yes not only were there plans to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban that were talked about in July 2001 to be implemented before Christmas of 2001, but no sooner had George Bush taken residency in the White House plans were set in motion to topple Saddam Hussein and manage the rich oil fields that would fall under their control after any successful invasion.

So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place. The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.

Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn’t mean they staged 9.11. It’s one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn’t otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.

You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it’s own people for political expediency.  The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.

More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it’s own people  including:

  • Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it’s citizens to be blamed on the far left.
  • The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Cheychen seperatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
  • The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.

One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it’s bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:

Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter.

The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it’s supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.

Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilised humans who would never consider such tactics.

LOL. You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way. This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:

Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:

“A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war.”

Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war.

We should also remember that we are dealing with the sorts of people who ran unofficial assassination squads and who sanctioned the use of torture on detainees at bases from Abu Girab to Gitmo. These are also people that knew that most of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent.

Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to “Sweep it all up. Things related and not” as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.

Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.

Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:

  • The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately “ignoring” the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
  • Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.

Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the “no planes” theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians in the media being in on the secreet both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.

If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.

The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know. We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.

Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn’t I hear about this on the news?

Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK. The reason you didn’t hear about it on the news is just one example of how the main  stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:

  • No sooner had the towers collapsed than Bin Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
  • The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
  • Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the “official” story was released.
  • Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.

Okay so the Mainstream media doesn’t report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on recieved intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.

You would think so wouldn’t you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.

In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:

  • Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
  • Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
  • Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
  • Brigadier General Montague Winfield
  • Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
  • Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness
  • Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit
  • Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York

and there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high rankers would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.

Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.

Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.

Did it though?

6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commision to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. – Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.

Not only did the White House delay creating the commission and then put limits on the scope of the investigation they also blocked the commission from reviewing documents and interviewing White House staff.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.

The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it’s case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90’s including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.

Also the 9.11 commission wasn’t fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.

So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it’s report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.

The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:

  • We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
  • The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
  • Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
  • The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.

Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.

Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.

Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
  14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

WTC Building 7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

  1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
  2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building’s destruction
  3. Symmetrical “structural failure” — through the path of greatest resistance — at free-fall acceleration
  4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
  5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
  6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
  7. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7’s destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:

  1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
  2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
  3. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.

However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the “smoking gun” of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11. The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.

Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous “pull it” comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

“I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard….Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh who was told by the fire department that Building 7 was going to be brought down deliberately due to collateral damage.

Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who said that he heard demolition charges go off inside the building as it collapsed.

The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won’t release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.

They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed.

However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!

If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.

Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!

NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.

The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.

Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts pyroThe energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark)  was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.

As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.

Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.

Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale. Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.

WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built out of. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition. If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.

Surely you must agree?

Advertisements

NIST Admits their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics

August 1, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This snippet of David Ray Griffins essay is specifically about the 2.4 second free fall decent of WTC-7 which if one believes the official 9/11 story means that a miracle occurred when this building collapsed as it ignored the laws of physics for over 2.4 seconds.

Even if some readers question whether the two previously discussed features of the collapse of WTC 7, when understood within the framework of NIST’s fire theory, imply miracles, there can be no doubt about a third feature: the now-accepted (albeit generally unpublicized) fact that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds.

Although members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that this building descended at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so, NIST had long denied this. As late as August 2008, when NIST issued its report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment, it claimed that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”52

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”58

That was what Sunder himself had explained, on NIST’s behalf, the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But NIST then in November, while still under Sunder’s leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7’s collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”59

Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above:

“[P]articularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. . . . The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. . . . One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. . . . The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. . . . The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second.”60

For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”61 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by affirming absolute free fall while continuing to deny that either incendiaries or explosives had been employed, is not consistent with basic principles of physics.

Accordingly, now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.

George Monbiot, as we saw, described members of this movement as “morons” who “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.” Unless Monbiot, upon becoming aware of NIST’s admission of free fall, changes his stance, he will imply that al-Qaeda is capable of magic.

Matthew Rothschild said he was “amazed” at how many people hold the “profoundly irrational and unscientific” belief that “Building 7 . . . came down by planted explosives.” Given the fact that progressive members of the 9/11 Truth Movement “so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming,” Rothschild continued, it is “more than passing strange that [they] are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

NIST’s report on WTC 7, however, provided the final proof that the 9/11 Truth Movement had been right all along – that those progressives who credulously accept the Bush-Cheney administration’s explanation for WTC 7’s collapse are the ones who “abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

View the full essay at Dark Politricks

Question – Do you deny the laws of physics?

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This article and the videos contained within should be compulsory viewing for anyone who believes that any talk of controlled demolitions in relation to the World Trade Center is the crazy talk of tin foil hat wearing loons. Its a collection of clips, news stories, talks and links that cover the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th. The aim of the article is not to accuse anyone behind the attacks but to show that logic and science backs the view that the buildings did not fall from the hijacked planes alone.

The first video is a 10 minute condensed overview of a much longer talk held by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that detail the many flaws in the official story as well as the evidence that points towards controlled demolition in World Trade Center 7.

This is the building which many in the 9/11 truth movement treat as the smoking gun that proves complicity in the attacks and by the end of the article you will see why. Remember this is the 47 storey skyscraper that was not hit by any plane and was the third steel beamed tall building to collapse that day, supposedly from fire alone.

Leave aside co-incidences that all 3 buildings were heavily insured and owned by the same person who “admitted” that building seven was pulled.

Also leave aside the damage to the American psyche that was obtained through the collapse of the huge potent symbols that the WTC represented to the world and leave aside all talk of NORAD stand downs, US training for the terrorists and ignored warnings as well as a desire to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq that required a pretext for doing so. Lets just look at the buildings:

Now I am not an engineer or architect but I would take their educated opinion on matters relating to how buildings are built and how they are destroyed over most other groups of people. These are all well educated people at the height of their chosen profession who have chosen to make a public stand against the official story. Given a choice between following the evidence and keeping quiet to avoid being labelled a conspiracy nut or “truther” they have bravely chosen the former and gone on the road to convince others.

Having looked at the flaws in the NIST report into the collapse of WTC-7 myself I know that the official explanation by NIST does seem to be a blatant attempt to coverup some form of collusion in the collapse of the buildings.

Questions of who and how doesn’t matter right now as it only allows for far fetched theories to propogate and detract new people from investigating the main issues revolving around the evidence that proves demolition. Remember just because there is evidence of controlled demolition it does not logically equate to George Bush being in on it or a huge conspiracy involving lots of people sworn to secrecy. To see why please read the following article of mine on the type of conspiracy involved.

The NIST report into WTC-7 came out not long back and although proponents of the offical story tried to claim it was the final nail in the coffin regarding the smoking gun it did not take long for people to see the various lies, omissions and bad science that the report was based on.

Leaving aside all the lies about their being no witnesses to the explosions at any of the towers when there were many:

Rich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Greg Brady — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …

Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
… the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

and leaving aside the lie that there were no witnesses or evidence of molten steel:

and leaving aside the peer reviewed scientific study by 25 phsycists that provides evidence that explosives, namely Thermite, was used in the collapse of the World Trade Center:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

and leaving aside the dodgy computer model used by NIST to explain the collapse of WTC-7 in which they loaded the input parameters to create a model that didn’t fit the events on the day.

A model for which they still haven’t released the data so that it can be analysed independently.

A model in which the different parts of the building were heated differently causing unnatural thermal expansion and a model in which parts of the building that were in early NIST reports disappeared from the final report.

In all it was a model in which all computer programmers can attest proves that if you put shit data in you get shit data back out. As the non peer reviewed report didn’t even consider controlled demolition or the use of accelerants then it does seem to be an attempt to push a preconceived outcome on the public.

Leaving aside all those inconsistencies and problems I have still not been told by anyone who believes in the official story how a building as large as WTC-7 can collapse at almost free fall speed without having some form of demolition to remove the path of least resistance.

Even the NIST admit that the building falls at free fall speed for a couple of seconds! Saying in their final report that they had found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a “freefall drop for approximately 8 stories.”

This obviously defies all logic unless something had caused the resistance to magically disappear. However without controlled demolitions as the cause of this free fall path it leaves proponents of the official story in a very sticky place having to defend an event that defies all the known laws of physics .

As this famous YouTube video created by a high school physics teacher shows, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from gravity for over 2 seconds.

Unless the laws of physics are updated soon to give an alternative explanation we are left with the fact that only a controlled demolition can explain this event.

And if we accept that fact then we also have to accept that 3rd parties colluded with the terrorists on that day to ensure these buildings fell.

Obviously this leaves believers in the official conspiracy with an awkward decision.

Either to accept the laws of physics or to deny them because they cannot face the alternative.

Which choice do you make?

Water vapour a ‘major cause of global warming and cooling’

January 29, 2010

David Derbyshire
UK Daily Mail
Friday, January 29th, 2010

Climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.

American researchers have discovered that the amount of water high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.

Although the findings do not challenge the theory of man-made global warming, they help explain why temperatures can rise and fall so dramatically from decade to decade.

The study, published in the journal Science, says a 10 per cent drop in humidity 10 miles above the Earth’s surface explains why global temperatures have been stable since the start of the century, despite the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And a rise in water vapour in the 1980s and 90s may also explain why temperatures shot up so quickly in the previous two decades, they say.

Full article here

TuneUp Utilities 2010

The Biggest Black Hole in the Universe (It's BIG!)

January 16, 2010

Luke McKinney.
www.dailygalaxy.com

6a00d8341bf7f753ef011571109148970c-500wi

Scientists have determined the mass of the largest things that could possibly exist in our universe. New results have placed an upper limit on the current size of black holes – and at fifty billion suns it’s pretty damn big. That’s a hundred thousand tredagrams, and you’ll never get the chance to use that word in relation to anything else.

Black holes are regions of space where matter is so dense that regular physics just breaks down. You might think physical laws are immutable – you can’t get out of gravitational attraction the same way you can get out of a speeding ticket – but beyond a certain level laws which determine how matter is regulated are simply overloaded and material is crushed down into something that’s less an object and more a region of altered space.

While there’s theoretically no upper limit on how big a black hole can be, there are hard limits on how big they could have become by now. The universe has only existed for a finite amount of time, and even the most voracious black hole can only suck in matter at a certain rate. The bigger the black hole, the bigger the gravitational field and the faster it can pull in matter – but that same huge gravitational gradient means that the same matter can release huge amounts of radiation as it falls, blasting other matter further away.

Based on this self-regulating maximum rate, scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Massachusetts, and the European Southern Observatory, Chile, have calculated an upper limit for these mega-mammoth masses. Fifty billion suns, that’s 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg, otherwise known as “ridiculously stupidly big” and triple the size of the largest observed black hole, OJ 287.

There are potential problems with this calculation. Based as it is on the radiation outflow from a black hole, new discoveries could change this estimate – though only from “insanely massive” to “ridiculously ginormous.”

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Image credit: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-004 Supermassive black hole at Milky Way core.

View the original article at The Daily Galaxy.

A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science

January 13, 2010

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Wednesday, January 13, 2009

I’m always searching for better and simpler ways to explain the reason why I believe climate researchers have overestimated the sensitivity of our climate system to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

What follows is a somewhat different take than I’ve used in the past. In the following cartoon, I’ve illustrated 2 different ways to interpret a hypothetical (but realistic) set of satellite observations that indicate (1) warming of 1 degree C in global average temperature, accompanied by (2) an increase of 1 Watt per sq. meter of extra radiant energy lost by the Earth to space.

A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science Three cases global forcing feedback

The ‘consensus’ IPCC view, on the left, would be that the 1 deg. C increase in temperature was the cause of the 1 Watt increase in the Earth’s cooling rate. If true, that would mean that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by late in this century (a 4 Watt decrease in the Earth’s ability to cool) would eventually lead to 4 deg. C of global warming. Not good news.

But those who interpret satellite data in this way are being sloppy. For instance, they never bother to investigate exactly WHY the warming occurred in the first place. As shown on the right, natural cloud variations can do the job quite nicely. To get a net 1 Watt of extra loss you can (for instance) have a gain of 2 Watts of forcing from the cloud change causing the 1 deg. C of warming, and then a resulting feedback response to that warming of an extra 3 Watts.

The net result still ends up being a loss of 1 extra Watt, but in this scenario, a doubling of CO2 would cause little more than 1 deg. C of warming since the Earth is so much more efficient at cooling itself in response to a temperature increase.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Of course, you can choose other combinations of forcing and feedback, and end up deducing just about any amount of future warming you want. Note that the major uncertainty here is what caused the warming in the first place. Without knowing that, there is no way to know how sensitive the climate system is.

And that lack of knowledge has a very interesting consequence. If there is some forcing you are not aware of, you WILL end up overestimating climate sensitivity. In this business, the less you know about how the climate system works, the more fragile the climate system looks to you. This is why I spend so much time trying to separately identify cause (forcing) and effect (feedback) in our satellite measurements of natural climate variability.

As a result of this inherent uncertainty regarding causation, climate modelers are free to tune their models to produce just about any amount of global warming they want to. It will be difficult to prove them wrong, since there is as yet no unambiguous interpretation of the satellite data in this regard. They can simply assert that there are no natural causes of climate change, and as a result they will conclude that our climate system is precariously balanced on a knife edge. The two go hand-in-hand.

Their science thus enters the realm of faith. Of course, there is always an element of faith in scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in the arena of climate research the level of faith is unusually high, and I get the impression most researchers are not even aware of its existence.

View the original article at Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change damage

January 12, 2010

Watts Up With That?
Tuesday , January 12th, 2010

From a University of Exeter press release, another inconvenient truth about our planet sure to be denounced by some who claim that global warming is irreparably damaging reef systems.

Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change damage parrotfish page

A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of climate change. Published Monday 11 January in the journal PLOS One, the research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming.

Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate aquatic ecosystems.

Increases in ocean surface water temperatures subject coral reefs to stresses that lead quickly to mass bleaching. The problem is intensified by ocean acidification, which is also caused by increased CO2. This decreases the ability of corals to produce calcium carbonate (chalk), which is the material that reefs are made of.

Approximately 2% of the world’s coral reefs are located within marine reserves, areas of the sea that are protected against potentially-damaging human activity, like dredging and fishing.

The researchers conducted surveys of ten sites inside and outside marine reserves of the Bahamas over 2.5 years. These reefs have been severely damaged by bleaching and then by hurricane Frances in the summer of 2004. At the beginning of the study, the reefs had an average of 7% coral cover. By the end of the project, coral cover in marine protected areas had increased by an average of 19%, while reefs in non-reserve sites showed no recovery.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Professor Peter Mumby of the University of Exeter said: “Coral reefs are the largest living structures on Earth and are home to the highest biodiversity on the planet. As a result of climate change, the environment that has enabled coral reefs to thrive for hundreds of thousands of years is changing too quickly for reefs to adapt.

“In order to protect reefs in the long-term we need radical action to reduce CO2 emissions. However, our research shows that local action to reduce the effects of fishing can contribute meaningfully to the fate of reefs. The reserve allowed the number of parrotfishes to increase and because parrotfish eat seaweeds, the corals could grow freely without being swamped by weeds. As a result, reefs inside the park were showing recovery whereas those with more seaweed were not. This sort of evidence may help persuade governments to reduce the fishing of key herbivores like parrotfishes and help reefs cope with the inevitable threats posed by climate change”.

###

Professor Mumby’s research was funded by National Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation.

Reef facts

  • A coral reef is made up of thin layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) secreted over thousands of years by billions of tiny soft bodied animals called coral polyps.
  • Coral reefs are the world’s most diverse marine ecosystems and are home to twenty-five percent of known marine species, including 4,000 species of fish, 700 species of coral and thousands of other plants and animals.
  • Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
  • The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along the northeast coast of Australia, from the northern tip of Queensland, to just north of Bundaberg. At 2,300km long, it is the largest natural feature on Earth.
  • Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of the Earth’s marine environment, yet they are home to more than a quarter of all known fish species.
  • As well as supporting huge tourist industries, coral reefs protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage.

To download high quality reef videos by Professor Peter Mumby: www.reefvid.org

The main funding for the research came from Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation and the Natural Environment Research Council.

The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation (www.livingoceansfoundation.org) is dedicated to conservation and restoration of living oceans and pledges to champion their preservation through research, education and a commitment to Science Without Borders®.

View the original article at Prison Planet

Secretive food firms risk public backlash, Lords warn

January 10, 2010

Mark Henderson

London Times

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

The secretive attitude of food companies towards nanotechnology research risks starting a consumer backlash against products that could improve health and reduce waste, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

Nanomaterials that are 800 times finer than a human hair have the potential to deliver foods that are very low in fat and salt and packaging that changes colour when food is spoiled because of the strange properties of molecules at such a small scale. Their development, however, has also raised safety concerns because their effects on humans are poorly understood.

These fears have inspired a culture of secrecy about nanotechnology in the food industry because it is worried about a repeat of the GM crop safety scare, according to a report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. This lack of transparency could encourage exactly the sort of mistrust that companies hope to avoid.

The committee also found significant gaps in scientific understanding of the toxicology of nanomaterials, which need to be addressed urgently with new research so that they can be regulated effectively.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at London Times

Assassinator Robot Wasp No Longer Drug-Induced Hallucination

January 8, 2010

The future is now….that super-weird science fiction future where flying killer robot insects can undertake missions that humans with a steady hand and a sniper rifle once had to take care of :

The Air Force Research Laboratory set out in 2008 to build the ultimate assassination robot : a tiny, armed drone for U.S. special forces to employ in terminating “high-value targets.” The military won’t say exactly what happened to this Project Anubis, named after a jackal-headed god of the dead in Egyptian mythology. But military budget documents note that Air Force engineers were successful in “develop[ing] a Micro-Air Vehicle (MAV) with innovative seeker/tracking sensor algorithms that can engage maneuvering high-value targets.”

It might seem limited compared to larger craft, but the Wasp excels at close-in reconnaissance. Its quiet electric motor means it can get near to targets without their ever being aware of its presence.

The Air Force’s 2008 budget plans described the planned Project Anubis as “a small UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] that carries sensors, data links, and a munitions payload to engage time-sensitive fleeting targets in complex environments.” It noted that after it was developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Anubis would be used by Air Force Special Operations Command. The total cost was to be just over half a million dollars.

According to the budget, $1.75 million was spent to reach the goal.

Anubis, an Egyptian god of the dead, who dealt with mummification and getting the dead through to the afterlife :

Assassinator Robot Wasp No Longer Drug Induced Hallucination  Anubis

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at YOUR NEW REALITY

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA

January 7, 2010

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thursday, January 7th, 2010

A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather.

Body Scanner Waves Tear Apart DNA THz%20damage

Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and “frisk” people at distance.

The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don’t travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.

With all that potential, it’s no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.

But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it’s easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. “Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none,” say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they’ve found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That’s a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic
effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.

This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at Technology Review