In “X-COM UFO Defense” I actually end up selling most of my E-115 on the open market.

I found the key to that game was to NOT have so many expensive troop carriers, maybe two squads each covering half the earth. You need some E-115 to build and fuel the last stage transports which do use reverse-engineered UFO technology.

What does help is to have lots of small airbases, stack them full of the old interceptors which can be upgraded with better weapons almost right till the infamous “Mars Mission.” When one interceptor finds a UFO, it’s basically frozen in place by the game until the other ones join up.

A note on base design for all those hangars you need for these interceptors: Have only one room next to each hangar, that way when the aliens attack you can bottle them up. Once my squaddies make sergeant (especially the low psychic ability ones) I move them to base defense. Two sergeants plus a rocket tank / laser tank combo usually does the trick (tanks are just RC tripwires). If they have decent armor and heavy plasmas as well as rockets and laser rifles for backup it’ll be enough to hold your bases.

A note on weapons: almost all of them are worthless! Keep heavy plasma only, don’t even research the other ones, rifles and pistols. Also switch your clips before they run out and they magically replenish next mission (love that E-115). Early on use rifles, rockets, and when you get them laser pistols and laser rifles (rocket troops get a laser pistol for backup). Some creatures like Mutons can survive laser fire so just blast them with rockets.

Important: Early on you want to research and reproduce the UFO stun bombs. When you go to a terror attack event, just stun-bomb every civilian you see and the aliens ignore them. Cuts down on the deaths.

Rocket the shit out of those terror cities – for some reason the enemy hovers around gas stations (kablooey).

Early on is really the most fun, just ignore all the heavy weapons and outfit every trooper with a rifle, and a grenade with the pin pulled. Space everyone out and don’t get too attached. Go slow and leave everyone ‘reaction time’ and in the kneeling position, behind cover if possible. THe survivors will shoot straight, the ones who die when the enemy blindsides them will take them with them when that grenade goes off after their corpse drops it.

There’s probably more to it but ignore most of the tech trees, sell off everything you don’t need, and remember – more bases with mroe radars is better than huge vulnerable bases with death trap hangars (two or more rooms beside them)

The understanding of the AI subject has to begin with the closure of the Nuclear Research and Development Station (NRDS) between 1968 and 1972.

The NRDS was going strong, full and active, testing Nuclear Rocket Engines until one day the entire operation was summarily shut down – with no advance warning; from alive and viable and important to non-existent – all in less than six weeks.

I posit that something ‘better’ took the place of nuclear energy to power rockets so the NRDS was no longer needed.

I also posit that Element 115 had been discovered in the tunnels in Area 12 by at least 1965; and that a stable, synthetic form of Element 115 was created there by 1968. If Element 115 was found to be suitable for UFO-powered flight, then the Nuclear portion of the NRDS would have no further purpose in being alive.

If we take the statements of Ben Rich made between 1988 and 1992 when he passed, it seems obvious that one event overshadowed the other and that the new discovery of Element 115 in its synthetic, stable form was the key.

Area 51 could have been a Mars or Venus 20 level deep underground launch pad since easily 1965.
[This implies “dual concurrent space programs�: one secret, military and space oriented; the other known, public, and Moon Faked.]

Being many stories underground would provide sight-access security and secrecy; an underground space launch facility at Area 51 coupled with a similar facility at Vandenburg AFB would allow for the launching of numerous rockets to unknown destinations with little or no fanfare.

If Element 115 was discovered by 1965, that would also have provided sufficient impetus to develop the codes necessary to drive, or fly the vehicles. Thus the CIA at Area 51 could have developed AI 30-60 years in advance of what it being touted now as “AI�.

And neither the CIA nor the USAF would have any reason to tell you and me about any of this. Nor would it be published in any public domain scientific journals.

But folks like you and me CAN look at various historical events and try to make some sense of them.

The sudden closure of the NRDS and its relation to Element 115 is one of those events that needs to be looked at in a new, fresh and different way.

You are right about the music of the masses, and they don’t even listen to revolutionary philosophical smart music bands like The Doors, Rush, Tool, Rage Against The Machine, Chuck Mangioni, Public Enemy, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, that would lead to a global anarchist revolution, music which would increase the warrior revolutionary instincts in people

The good thing about this website of Ron Unz, is that it is an alternative news site with a comment section that exercises a libertarian democratic freedom of ideas. Other websites that i am also a member of and who hate oppressive governments, exercise an oppressive censorship of ideas. Like The World Socialist Website http://www.wsws.org

I still participate in The World Socialist Website, they are trotskists anti-stalin, but since i am an ultra-skeptic scientific evidence-based anti-dogma person, i also have my suspicion against Trotskists and Leon Trotsky. That website even though it is great and full of great articles, it is too authoritarian, too anti-democratic, too anti freedom of speech, I bet that people like Andrew Anglin won’t be able to write comments there, because the moderators of that site only let comments from a pure trotskist point of view. So really I wouldn’t want a government ruled by them.

That’s why i have evolved from a capitalist-reformist, toward a socialist and lately toward anarchist anti-state libertarian, as the best political system for people who love total freedom and no lies.

And i prefer this website a lot more than World Socialist Website, because even though it includes articles and ideas from the right-wing, center, and left-wing it is nevertheless a website that defends the little guy, the lower classes, the oppressed of the whole world, inluding palestinians, africans white poor people, etc. and best of all it exercises democratic freedom of ideas

And even though i love the UFO extraterrestrial phenomenon so much and even though i am a believer in life in the universe, I think that Richard Dolan’s new book posted here from Amazon in this article “UFO’s for the 21st Century Mind” is just too damn expensive. I know that the US dollar itself has less buying power and it has experienced a devaluation and making books must be expensive. But still I think that 30 dollars for a UFO book is just too much https://www.amazon.com/UFOs-21st-Century-Mind-Definitive/dp/B0CG7FSTQK/

So even though i still support many of the Dr. Richard Dolan’s claims in his new book, I still have my suspicions about the real objectives of Richard Dolan, if it he is really interested in finding the truth abbout extraterrestrial or wether he is just aiming to increase his personal wealth

There might be spots where you have to do a bit of relativistic correctioning but going to the moon is AP high school physics. Tsiolkovsky did a lot of the heavy lifting and Von Braun knew a thing or two about rockets. Ground control to Major Tom.

Did advanced space aliens create humans? Do humans live in a computer simulation created by advanced space aliens? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaSzGdqxOf4
Video Link

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax is textbook cognitive infiltration.

One small reason people might doubt the moon landing happened is that Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong’s line “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” is so iconic that it could’ve been part of a movie script.

I’d highly recommend this episode of the podcast The Great Debates, in which the hosts debate whether faking the moon landing would’ve been harder than actually landing on the moon:

https://greatdebates69.podbean.com/e/34-it-would-have-been-harder-to-fake-the-moon-landing-than-to-actually-go-to-the-moon/

To think “WHO,WHY” is more important than to think only “HOW”.
Only “HOW” is a distraction from the substance.

Your comments do not withstand logical scrutiny:

The gravitational effect upon the structural elements.could not have pulverized the concrete……………

The amount of drywall in the building was relatively trivial…………….

You’ve offered no logical scrutiny, merely a compendium of baseless assertions.

For one thing there was plenty of gypsum in the WTC towers. Asbestos too. All of which is friable and easily turned to dust.

https://www.fireengineering.com/fire-safety/the-world-trade-center-construction-and-collapse-part-2/

Much of what is seen in the image of the north tower collapse, above, consists of condensing water vapor that had previously been bound within the concrete during mixing,…………..

Nonsense. From thirty year-old concrete? And what would cause it to condense?

The dust was not merely “hanging in the air“, as you described it, but was flowing outward in a parabolic trajectory that includes an upward component on the right hand side in the first image, momentarily defying gravity.

A parabola? Really? You fit a curve to it? The dust was doing what dust does – hanging, floating, flowing.

We could have expected any initial pancake collapse near the top to have been absorbed by the remaining structural integrity beneath, and decelerate to a halt.

Utterly ridiculous.

The volume of air on any particular floor could have absorbed any additional pressure coming from the shaft………..

Another baseless assertion.

if these jets were explosive charges, then why doesn’t the building start to fail just where and when those jets are seen?

No explosive charges placed on any floor could have in itself been sufficiently powerful to trigger a structural failure………

If merely flying drone aircraft into the side of each building by remote control (Plan A).

There were no drone aircraft and they weren’t flown by remote control.

I find it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who look at a video and see things that aren’t there.

It is weird that there are several factions.

Masterminds are clever.
To cause confusion was in their plan
from the beginning.

They planned to use all kinds of weapons(thermite, usual bombs, Nuclear bombs, Directed Energy Weapons,…), to cause confusions and controversies.
They are adepts of PsyOp(Deception).

Why are people arguing about the types of weapons ?

The purpose of using all kinds of weapons was to let people argue.

if that doesn’t induce the desired collapse either, then there would remainsthe nuclear option (Plan C), based on small devices placed at the bottoms of the single freight elevator shafts in each of the twin buildings going all the way to the top

Bullshit

“The internet exists to destroy bad information. Posting bullshit does not work anymore, …”
~Kratoklastes

Here you were close

Based on the physics, observers of the initial collapse of the south building could not have expected to see the top tilted portion of the building to have suddenly ended its rotation and then disintegrate into debris instead

WTCs 1 & 2 were progressively, level by level, both downwards and upwards explosively disassembled, using conventional, most likely military-issue highest performance explosives. This fully explains the tilting upper section *not* appearing as a semi-intact remnant in/near the rubble pile. You are correct with the billowing pyroclastic clouds of powdered concrete plus dry-wall and other small particles, like human bone fragments and iron-rich micro spheres.

Basta! We’ve been through it all before. No nukes, only ‘conventional’ explosives and those in massive quantities [hence the ‘hot-spots’ under 3 towers], *not* wishing to leave anything to chance since there could have been very little in the way of preliminary proving-trials. Nukes go BANG! [and debris goes everywhere from that point-source] – there were no such bangs, see Chandler’s North Tower vid [and listen to it – closely!]

Now; I would like to pose this Q: Cui bono? Who benefits and how, for a few nutters to be ‘pushing’ ridiculous assertions 23+yrs down the track to challenge the AE911Truth consensus = ‘conventional’ explosives ‘controlled’ demolition?

It’s astounding
Time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely
Not for very much longer

No DEW, no dustify, no nukes [no planes optional]

No further augment will come from me; the ‘sanity-incapable’ can go to hell forthwith.

Your comments do not withstand logical scrutiny:

The video clearly shows a dust cloud from pulverized concrete and drywall hanging in the air…

The gravitational effect upon the structural elements.could not have pulverized the concrete at the core and the floors into the fine dust-like granularity that was evident within a huge circumference beyond the building.

The amount of drywall in the building was relatively trivial relative to the volume of dust that is evident in the image. Many floors had open offices (for instance financial trading floors) or cubicles to enhance the feeling of spaciousness and provide additional lighting from outside and views from the inside.

Much of what is seen in the image of the north tower collapse, above, consists of condensing water vapor that had previously been bound within the concrete during mixing, before it was poured into shape on location during construction. The separation could not have been induced by gravity and must have occurred due to the extreme heat from within the building.

The dust was not merely “hanging in the air“, as you described it, but was flowing outward in a parabolic trajectory that includes an upward component on the right hand side in the first image, momentarily defying gravity.

It looks exactly as I would expect it to look.

Your purported expectation cannot be derived from any empirical observations because what is documented in the images had never occurred before. Based on the physics, observers of the initial collapse of the south building could not have expected to see the top tilted portion of the building to have suddenly ended its rotation and then disintegrate into debris instead. We could have expected any initial pancake collapse near the top to have been absorbed by the remaining structural integrity beneath, and decelerate to a halt.

Those jets out of the side of the building happened at the floors where the express elevators terminated.

The second image shows horizontal debris ejections in perpendicular directions within two or three floors of each other. The express elevators did not terminate within this difference in altitude, nor were the bottom portions of the shafts directly connected to the windows from which the jets exited. The volume of air on any particular floor could have absorbed any additional pressure coming from the shaft.

if these jets were explosive charges, then why doesn’t the building start to fail just where and when those jets are seen?

No explosive charges placed on any floor could have in itself been sufficiently powerful to trigger a structural failure. There were reports of multiple explosions near the bottom of the buildings prior to the actual collapses. Even those shaped charges, which weakened the structure, did not induce a collapse.

…resorting to outlandish scenarios and bogus arguments informed by a glaring ignorance of basic physics and engineering.

From an engineering perspective it is not at all “outlandish” to engage in careful prior contingency planning and thorough physical preparation, including redundancies, if one wants to ensure that both towers are to be brought down, motivated by the desire to avoid tedious disassembly due to asbestos liabilities, a perceived need to create a public spectacle for promoting a war agenda, while blaming imaginary Arab hijackers, and then ultimately collect double payments from premiums by the German insurer. If merely flying drone aircraft into the side of each building by remote control (Plan A) were not sufficient, then one could additionally weaken the base structure and other crucial supports with explosives (Plan B); if that doesn’t induce the desired collapse either, then there would remainsthe nuclear option (Plan C), based on small devices placed at the bottoms of the single freight elevator shafts in each of the twin buildings going all the way to the top. See the link in comment #933 above for the measured radiation evidence for this event having occurred. Plenty of other credible evidence has been reported in past threads here.

The premise for wanting to collapse the towers is not in doubt. There was a failed attempt on February 26, 1993 to bring down the tower with a truck bomb in the garage. People had been hinting at this possibility during the months leading up to the event. The concept was featured in a television episode, in a video game: even Alex Jones announced the possibility weeks before, in what could be described as a comprehensive predictive programing effort, which also included the three hour movie Pearl Harbor, shown during the summer of 2001. Presumably some people in New York wanted to destroy the towers from the very beginning. See my previous quote (September 12, 2023 at 8:09 am GMT • 1.4 years ago) from Wikipedia:

Construction of the World Trade Center (Wikipedia)

Yamasaki, who had previously designed Saudi Arabia’s Dhahran International Airport with the Saudi Binladin Group, incorporated features of Arabic architecture into the design of the World Trade Center. The plaza was modelled after Mecca, incorporating features such as a vast delineated square, a fountain, and a radial circular pattern. Yamasaki described the plaza as “a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the Wall Street area.� He also incorporated other features of Arabic architecture into the building design, including pointed arches, interweaving tracery of prefabricated concrete, a minaret like flight tower, and arabesque patterns.

Let’s see if Donald Trump’s new Justice Department has the guts to pursue the perpetrators.

It appears as if though a huge volume of water is gushing outward like a fountain from inside the building.

In a still frame, out of context. The video clearly shows a dust cloud from pulverized concrete and drywall hanging in the air as the solid debris of the building falls through it. It looks exactly as I would expect it to look.

Here is an image of particles being ejected sideways.

Those jets out of the side of the building happened at the floors where the express elevators terminated. It’s the result of air that was compressed in the elevator shafts by the falling floors above them blowing out the doors and through the windows. Tell me, if these jets were explosive charges, then why doesn’t the building start to fail just where and when those jets are seen? But it didn’t. It started to fail exactly where the airplanes hit.

None of these things are hard to explain and do not require resorting to outlandish scenarios and bogus arguments informed by a glaring ignorance of basic physics and engineering. Evidently most people, at least most people who have commented on these images in echo chambers like this one, have no idea how to interpret what they’re looking at.

None of the ones I’ve seen show anything flying upwards.

It appears as if though a huge volume of water is gushing outward like a fountain from inside the building.

Here is an image of particles being ejected sideways.

The only ignorance I see in this little discussion is yours.

However, the initially outward and even upward ejection of some heavy debris from the twin buildings at high velocity in all directions – then necessarily falling along a parabolic path – during their spectacular collapses at nearly the rate of free fall, clearly entails additional sources of energy, which you conspicuously ignore or deny.

Nothing flew upwards. I don’t know what video you’ve seen. None of the ones I’ve seen show anything flying upwards. The collapse of WTCs 1 and 2 were completely consistent with the scenario laid out by NIST.

The ratio of “intimidating men” to “killing foreigners” is out of kilter.

1. CIA agent’s confession :

ã€�CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed : ‘We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11】

(posted on Sep.16,2022)

| Principia Scientific International

🔶 https://principia-scientific.com/cia-agent-confesses-on-deathbed-we-blew-up-wtc-7-on-9-11/

2.�Sao Paolo Skyscraper Collapse and its Strange Relation to 911】

🔶 https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102651-Sao-Paolo-Skyscraper-Collapse-and-its-Strange-Relation-to-911/

See this one’s 5th article
written by indigopete.
This indigopete writes like
“Looked like a controlled demo to me”.

Every building that collapses falls due to gravity.

Nobody disagrees with the gravitational effect, so this law of physics merely expresses the least common denominator of consent. However, the initially outward and even upward ejection of some heavy debris from the twin buildings at high velocity in all directions – then necessarily falling along a parabolic path – during their spectacular collapses at nearly the rate of free fall, clearly entails additional sources of energy, which you conspicuously ignore or deny.

While I can tolerate kooky characters or the less informed

Something you guys never grasp is that buildings fall straight down

I do hope you two enjoy your state of malevolent ignorance.

Thank you. You views are very reasonable.

There are so many unknowns or unconfirmable aspects, that it is hard to be 100% sure what happened. I take it as a mark of intelligence if someone can hold off judgement till enough facts are sufficiently available.

However when someone like Skrik comes along and professes total confidence in this theory or that, we know that he is a bit of a nut. Or at least not very bright.

While I can tolerate kooky characters or the less informed, I am unfortunately less sanguine about his rudeness.

AE911 Truth is the name of the organization. Despite it’s name, many of it’s members are neither engineers nor architects. As Ryan Dawson pointed out, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth couldn’t even be bothered to look at the architectural drawings of the Pentagon, and did not know how it’s architecture was laid out.

WTC7 was clearly a ‘ controlled demolition,’ and Chandler’s North Tower vid clearly illustrates ditto for WTCs 1 & 2 [identical vertical collapse].

WTC 7 does look like a controlled demolition, at least from the videos available, all of which are at some distance and obscured by other buildings. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 don’t look like any controlled demolition I’ve ever seen. Still, WTC 7 could have fallen of it’s own just from the structural and fire damage it sustained. Something you guys never grasp is that buildings fall straight down because that’s the way that gravity points. Every building that collapses falls due to gravity. It’s just a question of what weakens it enough that it does so.

No; I refuse nothing that seems reasonable;

There is nothing at all unreasonable about Friedman’s observations, nor is it unreasonable for me to note that you’ve been dodging them.

I do think Friedman’s report of columns in “too-good condition” is offering us a valuable clue, but so far nobody here has picked up on it.

Any theory must account for all of the evidence.

There is already a technology which can make space (high quality) images.
It is by laser or by something else. But the technology has not yet been released. Because it was developed for the purpose of general public’s mind-control.
I also experienced such thing in 2012 or 3.

Correction :
FEMALE’s ⇒ FEMA’s

Urgent

It was FEMA :

�UNBELIEVABLE !
FEMALE’s Role in the California Fires :
Leaked Documents Prove Weather Manipulation, Land Grabs, and
Heat-Mapping Technologies Used
to Ignite Fires ! (Jan.13,2025)】

� Gazetteller . com

🔶 https://gazetteller.com/unbelievable-femas-role-in-the-california-fires-leaked-documents-prove-weather-manipulation-land-grabs-and-heat-mapping-technologies-used-to-ignite-fires/

Administrator of FEMA (now) :
Deanne Crisbad(Cris”well”)

Trump nominee
for (new) director of FEMA :
Kevin Guthrie

with the destruction of the towers and Pentagon happening essentially exactly as the NIST studies concluded

No. From the headline article:

9/11 Truthers endlessly refer to the thousands of architects and engineers who have publicly signed the 9/11 Truth Statement, saying the official story of the WTC attacks is physically impossible

9/11 Truthers are far more than a

little mystery cult

and anyone can join; research two convincing bits of evidence:

1. The collapse of WTC7. [DIY = you do the research work*].

2. Try searching for this:
“North Tower Exploding by David Chandler� AE911Truth site:youtube.com

WTC7 was clearly a ‘ controlled demolition,’ and Chandler’s North Tower vid clearly illustrates ditto for WTCs 1 & 2 [identical vertical collapse].

Q: Where have you been hiding [= ignoring proven reality] for the last 23+ years? One could theorise that you put coffee-beans into your ears while saying “la la la� as you ignored the available evidence out of [erring!] ideological grounds.

*[for any too lazy to research, try searching for this:
“WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial” DavidChandler911]

Witnessing is something. Whether what I experienced has a manmade origin or not does not matter in the least. I’ll always be curious.

Event 1: tail end 1970’s, red, green, blue lights over Lake Michigan forming moving triangles. Our young family had watched a film on TV and spooned together. As heading toward bedrooms, dad announces “wuz this?” while retrieving window fan. We wiggle into the window bay to see silent lights form rotating contracting or expanding triangles. Lights disappeared, went to bed. Light show, lasers, whadevah. Explainable.

Event 3: early 2000’s, a skydiver laying in the open door of a Twin Otter at take off. As climbing, I glance at Farmer McNasty’s huge oak and the comic book flying saucer “hiding” from our hangar behind the tree. Classic bronze-colored saucer with a bubble atop. Large, very beautiful jewel-like red, green, blue and white bright lights. Rotating and wobbling like a drunk. Hilarious, and then my view changed so I didn’t see my flying saucer anymore. Hoax, prank, cumulative hypoxia, whadevah. Explainable.

Event 2: mid-1990’s, bringing a 70 ft racing yacht back from Chicago to Mackinac Race along with ten sailors, one girlfriend and a famous, no-nonsense CEO owner/CEO. Sailors are all electrical engineers, mostly IBM. We are running with the wind under full spinnaker and having a somewhat intoxicated blast surfing until we notice an enormous object cruising in the opposite direction against the wind at 1,000 agl. Crisp lines, perfect tetrahedron, white/off-white and casting a crisp shadow below. Size of a small town. Self-propelled with no disernible means of propulsion. No way manmade was consensus at the time. I hold a computer engineering PhD from a top five program and enjoy a good professional reputation. I am an experienced pilot with many ratings and an outdoorsman. The object witnessed sent a chill down our spines for years afterwards. Open to explanation, but strong belief the object was constructed by non-human entities. No way the means for building the object could be concealed from prying eyes during lengthy construction period. Open.

If you co-witnessed Event 2, Ron, perhaps your skepticism would be tempered as mine is.

Clearly, the claim that a handful of people visited the moon in the years 1969-72 is extraordinary, given the level of technological knowledge in the 1960s, the poor track record (many failed launches) of the US space programme before the “moon landings�, the lack of protection of the astronauts against the high levels of radioactivity in the Van Allen belts, and the fact that in the last 54 years, no human being has been further away from the Earth than the ISS (400 kilometres).

None of that is true. The level of technological knowledge – and more importantly, ability – as pertains to rocketry was about the same in the late 1960s, as it was in the early 2000’s. The reason we didn’t do anything more ambitious in the 2000’s than in the 1960s was because the technology had not advanced much. And we didn’t bother to do the same thing is because……why? Why replicate a stunt, the value of which lies primarily in being the first to do it. As I mentioned upthread, the deepest manned ocean descent – into the challenger deep of the Marianas Trench was only done in the early 1960s. And then was not done again for about another fifty years, in 2012. Does that mean that it never happened at all? Or that there just isn’t much intrinsic reason to do it.

There is no radioactivity in the Van Allen belts. There are energentic charged particles trapped on magnetic field lines. You get a dose going through them. You get a bigger dose lingering in them (which nobody wants to do). The faster you go through them, the less of a dose you get. And they didn’t go through the densest parf of the Van Allen belts, owing to the relative orientation of the geomagnetic equator and the plane of the Moon’s orbit.

The TV footage is far too blurry for anyone to be able to tell where it was shot (it is claimed to be a copy of an original which has mysteriously vanished).

So, the original wouldn’t have been much clearer, it was low-resolution video that was data-rate limited. And anyway, even if the original video-tape still existed, it might be well nigh unreadable just from age. You probably can’t find the original of Euclid’s Geometry in Ancient Greek. Does that mean that Geometry is false? And the movies and still pictures were quite clear and had very good resolution.

The still pictures are ridden with anomalies (for example, in some of them two sources of light are visible, where there should have been only one, the sun).

No, that isn’t true. Some pictures have shadows that have been interpreted as being from more than one light source. And there was more than one light source on the Moon’s surface: the Sun, and Sunlight reflected off of other surfaces (the spacecraft, lunar surface).

Also, while it would be possible with today’s technology to use unmanned satellites to take detailed pictures of the alleged landing sites on the moon, showing the Lunar Modules if they are actually there, the US goverment has shown absolutely no interest in doing so, or even in allowing others to do so at their own expense.

This was done, by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and you lot just said it was faked. Why should NASA or any one else bother to take more pictures? Moon hoax believers would simply say that it was faked, no matter how good the imagery was. You’re an audience that would never be placated? So why bother placating you? In any event, you’re an audience that is irrelevant: nobody cares what you think.

I don’t make stuff up.

No, you just peddle stuff you’ve read that somebody else made up.

I do not give a FF about 600C warmed up steel, because any such had *zero* effect on the pre-loaded explosives in WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

There were no pre-loaded explosives. There is no evidence of such. And if fire can’t bring down a steel-framed building, why do they bother to fireproof the steel?

That quote was possibly before the general consensus = inside-job = explosive disassembly meaning it’s possibly now merely truther-history.

General consensus? Among whom? A dozen or so people on this thread? A few thousand people around the World who have yammered on about this for the last quarter century. There is no “general consensus” other than the official story – and a lot of that is down to people like you who have poisoned the well for any serious investigation of the reality of 9/11.

And, in any event, an “inside job” does not require explosive disassembly. This is just a fetish of Truthers. It’s part of their catecism. It is perfectly possible for there to have been a wider conspiracy behind 9/11, including the involvement of state actors – i.e. an “inside job”, with the destruction of the towers and Pentagon happening essentially exactly as the NIST studies concluded. But you guys have blinded yourself to anything but your own little mystery cult. It’s why you are inneffectual nobodies who have had no influence.

Donald John Trump doubts official 9.11 narrative. See the next one :

�Mini nukes were used on 9.11】
ï¼� Presstv. ir’s telephone interview to Jim Fetzer (2017)

🔶 https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/09/11/534825/Mini-nukes-were-used-to-blow-apart-Twin-Towers-on-911

So, Donald J. Trump may release CIA documents and FBI documents.
For it, it is important that who are Trump’s nominees for director of CIA, director of FBI,and DNI.

Trump’s nominees :

・Director of CIA : John Ratcliffe

・Director of FBI : Kash Patel
(Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel)

・DNI
(Director of National Intelligence):
Tulsi Gabbard

No one wants to read your crap article.
Time is very precious.
To read your crap ones is only waste of precious time.

Unlike the Auschwitz Holocaust accusations, which I tested and found that the official narrative is rather wonky,

I admit I have not tested out the issue of the moon landings so maintain an agnosticism whether it is true or not.

But two (relatively) recent things raise my suspicions.

1. After China announced that they were interested in visiting the moon, NASA suddenly scrambled to get their own Artemis moon mission. Maybe this was just to show “We still as strong and vibrant as we ever were”. But maybe not.

2. The recent announcement by a certain “international” organisation to preserve the symbolic historical importance of the first moon landing site, which would be at risk due to space tourism. This one smells fishy to me.
https://www.rt.com/news/611028-moon-endangered-sites-list/

Both these items may suggest that NASA wants to conceal something about the circa 1969 moon landing sites.

In 1, place new equipment and footprints at the site to give plausible deniability “oh you can’t find any evidence of the 1969 landing because we walked all over it already”.

In 2, keep away anyone who can verify that the 1969 landings did not take place “oh, we need to preserve this site, so you stay over there. The 1969 landings are real…trust me.”.

Again I stress I am no expert. But these recent incidents make me more suspicious.

You are a true genuine Idiot

s/he/it said, admiring him/her/itself in the mirror.

Now; read my lips: *NO NUKES*!

You clearly have a concentration/comprehension problem:

but I’m not playing so gets his/her/its nickers in a twist

You are a true genuine Idiot.
Have you read the one in 933 above :
�Mystery Solved ・・・】?
Anyone who read that one realizes that some nukes were undoubtedly used in 9.11 inside job. ((other ones (usual bombs, thermite) were also used))

Hello Ron,
I am a frequent reader of The Unz Review, and strongly supportive of your work. I have learned a lot from reading articles in TUR. I would like to make a comment concerning the alleged “moon landings”, which is the ONLY issue where I disagree with your own assessment.

I think that in this case you are placing the burden of proof on the wrong shoulders. It is the people who make extraordinary claims who should be pressed the hardest to provide proofs (examples: the claim that aliens from outer space are regularly visiting the Earth, or the claim that 6 million jews were put to death in gas chambers during WW2), not the people who take a sceptical attitude and doubt these claims. Clearly, the claim that a handful of people visited the moon in the years 1969-72 is extraordinary, given the level of technological knowledge in the 1960s, the poor track record (many failed launches) of the US space programme before the “moon landings”, the lack of protection of the astronauts against the high levels of radioactivity in the Van Allen belts, and the fact that in the last 54 years, no human being has been further away from the Earth than the ISS (400 kilometres).

In truth, the proof that has been offered for the “moon landings” is almost as scant as for the other two examples mentioned above. The TV footage is far too blurry for anyone to be able to tell where it was shot (it is claimed to be a copy of an original which has mysteriously vanished). The still pictures are ridden with anomalies (for example, in some of them two sources of light are visible, where there should have been only one, the sun). Also, while it would be possible with today’s technology to use unmanned satellites to take detailed pictures of the alleged landing sites on the moon, showing the Lunar Modules if they are actually there, the US goverment has shown absolutely no interest in doing so, or even in allowing others to do so at their own expense.

Furthermore, since the PR and goodwill generated by the alleged “moon landings” is enormous, it is clear that the US government had a very strong motive for faking them (in particular during a time period when the US received a lot of “bad will” from the Vietnam war, political murders, and civil unrest).

I suggest that (when you have some time at your disposal, I understand that you are a busy man) you read some books that go through the alleged proofs of the “moon landings” in more detail. I suggest “One small step?” by Gerhard Wisniewski. You may also want to watch the movie “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon” by journalist and filmmaker Bart Sibrel, and as a companion to that, the “memoir” of Bart Sibrel entitled “Moon Man”. Perhaps you will find that the “moon landings” is well deserving of a place in your “American Pravda” series.

I don’t make stuff up.

No. You just regurgitate stuff that you have not digested.

Did you see the video I attached about the debunking? They specifically said that when this report was written there have been no cases. But since then there have. And I showed you explicit videos of examples.

I do not give a FF about 600C warmed up steel, because any such had *zero* effect on the pre-loaded explosives in WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

For the UMPTEENTH time, our discussion is not about explosives. I have already told you that I believe that explosives were used to ENSURE the collapse of WTC.

But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is your insistence that steel framed buildings cannot fall due to fire.

Have you asked your medical advisors about OCPD?

I have no idea what that is. Obviously I was never recommended to take one.

Again, you display your quick resort to childish insults rather than to stick to the point of the argument. Because you have no argument except “what somebody else said” = “I don’t make stuff up”.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/649-faq-3-has-there-ever-been-a-total-collapse-of-a-steel-frame-fire-protected-high-rise-besides-world-trade-center-buildings-1-2-and-7

FAQ #3: Has there ever been a total collapse of a steel-frame, fire-protected high-rise besides World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7?
No. There has never been a total collapse of a steel-frame, fire-protected high-rise building other than the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.
There have, however, been partial collapses of steel-frame, fire-protected high-rise buildings around the world and a total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building without fire protection in Iran — although AE911Truth has documented overwhelming evidence that the collapse of this building was caused by controlled demolition.
There have also been partial and total collapses of hybrid steel/reinforced concrete-frame high-rise buildings without fire protection as well as partial and total collapses of reinforced concrete-frame buildings, which typically don’t have fire insulation. There has also been a total collapse of a concrete-frame building without steel reinforcement.
Therefore, the Twin Towers and Building 7 stand alone as the only steel-frame, fire-protected high-rise buildings to experience total collapse ostensibly due to fire

I don’t make stuff up.

That quote was possibly before the general consensus = inside-job = explosive disassembly meaning it’s possibly now merely truther-history.

I do not give a FF about 600C warmed up steel, because any such had *zero* effect on the pre-loaded explosives in WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

Have you asked your medical advisors about OCPD?

No. is pushing some agenda which does not impact the 9/11 ‘debate’

Huh? Discussing whether steel framed buildings CAN collapse vertically like WTC does not impact the debate?

If you have any intelligence/wisdom at all, you would use what I have explained to you to REFINE your arguments.

When you confidently spout silly statements like “steel framed buildings CANNOT collapse vertically in a fire” it only gives ammunition to Joe Public to laugh at us and dismiss us as conspiracy kooks.

Do you have the courage and strength of character to say “thank you for your explanation”, then Refine your arguments for future discussions? No, you stick to your guns and argue on ad nauseam because of butthurt.

Thanks to people like you, no wonder Joe Public laughs at us.

the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911

No; nukes were considered long and hard; here is one of my contributions:

https://www.unz.com/article/did-the-plowshares-program-set-the-stage-for-nuclear-terrorism-on-september-11/?showcomments#comment-6185195

My 9/11 mantra: No DEW, no dustify, no nukes [no planes optional]

fallout shelter…bunker…whatever…if you want to be technical about it: basically some sort of an architectural edifice where brainiacs and the top brass could peer out of a concrete slit and gawk at a test of a runaway atomic chain reaction using welder goggles. If you bomb that you’ll set back any country’s a-bomb program for a generation or so.

Yeah whatever, they had big get-togethers at Los Alamos whoopeedoo-but even so the scientists there were guarded by a huge force of soldiers precisely to prevent assassinations or kidnappings with the commies in their respective atom bomb programs even more paranoid about this threat.

You’re raining all over their little gnostic mystery cult

No. @littlereddot is pushing some agenda which does not impact the 9/11 ‘debate’ – which not so BTW has long been closed with the conclusion ‘inside job’.

With respect for this rational debate space, there’s only so far one should go with OT topics, and IMHO @littlereddot has crossed an OT-red line – but I’m not playing so @littlereddot gets his/her/its nickers in a twist.

Speaking of dishonest ‘activist/trolls’ it seems to me that this once proud rational debate space has been invaded by – ta ra! Dishonest ‘activist/trolls’ whose only function seems to be attempting to destroy rational debate. Bad trolls! Shame! – Ah, but dishonest ‘activist/trolls’ have no shame, which would most likely expose them as Kol Nidre types, eh?

LOL thanks.

You’re raining all over their little gnostic mystery cult

But comparing Skrik to the Gnostics would be insulting the Gnostics way too much. I kinda like their Gospel of Thomas 🙂

Skrik, on the other hand, is just a puffed up know-it-all.

You bring up actual facts and make points informed by some actual knowledge of engineering, and commenter “skrik” can only reply:

Debunkers are the reverse of the truthers’ coin; more often than not dishonest ‘activist/trolls’ [often hiding behind a [lying?] ‘respectful’ assertion, say] whilst attempting to disturb honest truth-seeking.

You disagree with him and are informed, and therefore must be a dishonest troll. It’s like that with all these guys. You’re raining all over their little gnostic mystery cult and it makes them angry.

Correction :
no one has not yet mentioned
⇒
no one has yet mentioned

It seems that the following one is most important on 9.11 incident :

�Mystery Solved :
The WTC was Nuked on 9/11】
� Alternative

🔶 https://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911-2635484.html

It seems that in this comments section no one has not yet mentioned on this matter.

Neutron bomb might have been set at basement.

And also other bombs and Thermite would have been used at upper floors.

9.11 incident was meticulously planned one. Computer simulation was perhaps done taking into consideration of the strength of each part of the buildings.

Upper floor explosion was nesesary.
Because it was under supposition of aircraft crash, when it never happened.

If lower floors are blown away, building will free fall by its own weight and be destroyed.

What you are trying to assert has little to no relevance to WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

Why bother to talk about these other buildings if we have not even established that
Steel buildings CAN collapse vertically in fire?

You are like trying to do calculus before you are able to add 2 and 2 together.

This is why you are confused.

So go on, tell me if steel framed buildings can collapse vertically under fire.
Maybe after that, we can discuss whatever else you wish.

Idiot.
You are a master of distraction.

Do you oppose einstein’s
1920 assertion of that
“Aether’s existence is inevitable ”
?
Are you an ex lawyer ?
You are merely a silver-tongued.

but you refuse to understand that Friedman’s description of the core columns he saw being in “too-good condition� pretty much rules out your shaped charges

No; I refuse nothing that seems reasonable; I don’t see any evidence contradicting my theses. You have some other idea(s)? Fine. Research then publish; I’m ‘all ears’.

BUT: I do think that we agree that WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were explosively control-demolished AND I think that we know by what combination of rogue-regimes.

It’s *who/there* where justice-implementation must start. rgds

Perhaps you have not fully comprehended what I wrote

No, I understand what you’re saying, which is what you’ve been saying here for some time already, but you refuse to understand that Friedman’s description of the core columns he saw being in “too-good condition” pretty much rules out your shaped charges, detcord and all other explosives. Surely Friedman would have noticed and remarked on any such obvious marks on the columns as would have been left by explosives.

Indeed, the whole purpose of Friedman’s remarks was to register his amazement that the columns had failed the way they did with the steel welds between them being ripped out.

“All lies and jest,
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear,
And disregards the rest.�

— Paul Simon – “The Boxer”

You neglected to say that you think that Einstein = god. haw

Not only that, but you seem to have ignored my input, namely that when Einstein mentioned ether in 1920, he was not being exactly ‘100% honest’; he was [reportedly] only speaking ‘loosely’:

he was using the term metaphorically

Check my quote.

Further, I gave you a link to ‘zero-point energy’:

These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics

It’s not nice to ignore inputs but I suspect that you are acting a bit like a cocker-spaniel on the search for a turtle: Head down and charge ahead, regardless of externals – like my inputs, say.

Tip: Help us out a bit; kindly specify *exactly* what you are ‘pushing’ and why; how are you trying to ‘change the world’?

Einstein and Feynman are sleeping easily, their legacies secure.

What you are trying to assert has little to no relevance to WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

Who could care IF a steel building can fail under fire? THEN what?

WTCs 1, 2 & 7 did *not* collapse due to fire, finito.

Tell it to your grandmother [she might trust you].

Try getting lost; you’ve worn out your welcome – with silliness to boot.

I don’t deny that explosives were used in the demolition, but we need an explanation for those core columns in “too-good condition� that all failed by having their welds ripped out. I’m sorry, but detcord didn’t do that

Perhaps you have not fully comprehended what I wrote, so a quick re-hash [my opinions of course, but thoroughly grounded by observation & truther + other articles + deduction]:

1. Shaped charges top & bottom of each vertical core-column unit, on opposite faces so that when they detonate, the column-unit is flipped towards the horizontal. This is ‘handy’ as the column-units are flipped, a lot of ’empty space’ is made free for the falling components to stack in an efficient way into the rubble-pile. You quoted from metabunk; in that article you can see column-unit/ends [relatively unscathed, some with weld-rips], some with concave depressions in them = shaped charges damage.

2. The det-cord was threaded into electrical conduits in the floor-slab post-poured concrete. Two different disassembly methods, with more shaped charges to disassemble the wall panel-units, blowing some/most them outwards to kingdom come.

3. Back to the actual demolition sequence, working both downwards and upwards level by level from the alleged collision levels, accounts for all the construction units either into the footprint [core-units] or scattered around [perimeter-units], with the floor-slab/truss components turned to billowing pyroclastic clouds.

Upper section with TV-tower tilting:

before just disappearing into thin air, like a bad special effect

No; the progressive disassembly was obscured by smoke/dust billowing around.

No shit, Sherlock; proof = no large upper-section trace in the rubble-piles = the upper sections were both disassembled as in my description. rgds

So what?
Do you oppose einstein’s assertion ?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Just look at the excerpt from your own quote:

is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so.� Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings, but buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials

Steel Reinforced (RC) buildings are MORE RESISTANT than steel framed buildings. Yet it can collapse due to fire as per the Delft building.

The WTC was Steel Framed, NOT Steel Reinforced (RC)….and was more liable to fail under fire conditions. Same goes for the Sao Paolo building.

I suggest you speak to a real structural engineer or architect, before you make more of a fool of yourself.

And no, quoting all sorts of other stuff to obfuscate does not win you the argument.

We are talking about whether or not a steel building can fail under fire conditions. Not whether a bomb was used or not.

Please try to focus.

IMHO you are a trouble-maker looking for a fight;

You were the one who started with the derision and insults.

If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.

Don’t go wimping out on me now. We have only just begun.

It cute that you think there’s a fallout shelter at a test site. Los Alamos contradicts you on get-togethers.

Do you oppose your God’s assertion?

Errr; “your God” does not compute; I personally do not relate to any such, let alone ‘possess’, but any particular god? Any particular assertion? Any credible, certified authority?

Recall the construction, which resembled a soda-can with a massive core column

Well, I think you’ve got it backwards. The jetliners are like aluminum soda pop cans, but the Twin Towers resembled a steel cage on the outside, composed of tapering steel box columns, which were also tied to the central core with the hat trusses, in addition to the floor trusses, and at least two floors had horizontal steel I-beams to support the weight of heavy equipment on those floors.

On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/~nin11evi/911research/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Thought experiments with inaccurate models are not likely to yield useful results. So please…

I don’t deny that explosives were used in the demolition, but we need an explanation for those core columns in “too-good condition” that all failed by having their welds ripped out. I’m sorry, but detcord didn’t do that.

Can’t see any use of CGI in that. rgds

Graphic: Dick Atlee

Well, then you’ve got to explain how the entire top of WTC 2 detached itself from the rest of the structure, rotated itself, and appeared to fall off the rump of WTC 2 before just disappearing into thin air, like a bad special effect.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

— Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

No Feces Fosdick!
No Crap Columbo!

You know the rest.

Your cited video tells us all we need to know about you:

Part 3 Gage’s Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses
Chris Mohr
17,153 views 30 Jun 2011

Part 3 of Chris Mohr’s respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 9/11 video Blueprint for Truth looks at the assertion that “no tall steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire,” but the 2008 Delft University Tower fire-induced, fast collapse mostly into its own footprint proves “it ain’t necessarily so.”
…
CORRECTION and CLARIFICATION: The Delft University Building was a steel-reinforced concrete building, not a steel-framed building. As the initial report stated, “The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so.” Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings, but buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials

[my bolding] IMHO you are a trouble-maker looking for a fight; I suggest: Try looking elsewhere!

Debunkers are the reverse of the truthers’ coin; more often than not dishonest ‘activist/trolls’ [often hiding behind a [lying?] ‘respectful’ assertion, say] whilst attempting to disturb honest truth-seeking.

Try looking up the “Tu quoque” fallacy, it really does not matter what any other building on the planet did or did not do; we are talking here of WTCs 1, 2 & 7 + Pentagon hoax and empty hole in the ground in an open field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Here, “empty” really does mean “no plane”.

Based on my ~23+ years of observations, reading and thinking, WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were ‘controlled *pre-planted explosives* demolitions,’ with *nothing* to do with steel warmed up to 600C [except possibly in the Hollywood Horror Show = simulated a/c collisions, allegedly piloted by amateur Arab flight students learning poorly in Cessnas]. haw

Do you oppose your God’s assertion ?

But Stan Friedman used the same method in the nineties to later determine that there was a saucer crash and retrieval in the late thirties (prior to World War II) involving General MacArthur. If true (and Friedman used the same methods he used in his Roswell investigation) that one would have been much more important than a follow-up Roswell crash since it would have the first time (aside from alien crashes supposedly witnessed out in the Wild West from the 1880’s to the 1910’s) and it would have influenced the course of WW II and the technology used in that war.

Again, if true, that crash would have been much more IMPORTANT than Roswell.

The Friedman 1938 crash (and similar rumors of a 1941 crash in Italy), however, just didn’t take-off (ha ha since it crashed d’uh) because culturally the public was too invested already in a mythology of saucers crashing in the Cold War and influencing Cold War technology which Friedman happened to contribute to. Similarly, no-one is interested in a 1941 Italian crash since despite having access to tech perhaps millions of years ahead of ours, Italy lost the war big time so obviously that one is bogus.

The fifties and the sixties were the heyday of private saucer clubs like the National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), Mutual UFO Network, Ground Saucer Watch etc.. If there was a UFO sighting anywhere in the US or Canada in that era, a member of such organization living close-by would travel and do an investigation and interview witnesses according to a set written procedure.

Throughout the fifties and sixties no witness to Roswell ever contacted these organizations (there were supposedly civilian witnesses to Roswell who were under no military secrecy orders) until Friedman in 1978 noticed an old newspaper article about a captured saucer (in 1947 there were several stories here and there about crashed saucers and not just in Roswell) then a follow-up article about the saucer being a balloon. Feeling intrigued he went to Roswell.

Suppose you were a witness to an car accident in 1995. Let’s say you didn’t actually see it since it was up the street but you saw cop cars honking and an ambulance blaring. It would be in your memory for the next thirty years but in general it was an event that wasn’t too important to you at the time.

Now let’s suppose someone contacts you in 2025 saying he is investigating that accident which he thinks wasn’t an accident but the planned assassination of the top Chinese spy in the US. Your memory of what happened would generally shift to the POV of your friend to help him out.

…but a fall-out shelter at a test-site just prior to a test is the one place where you will get all the top scientists and responsible military personnel all-together in one spot. If those people are murdered, a country might need to wait a generation to assemble an equal batch of talent. The location of the fall-out shelter at Lop Nor was probably located by U-2 overflights.

Due to security reasons, scientists and military personnel working on secret projects are usually dispersed-even in factories, offices, and conferences making and designing secret weapons, responsible people do not usually congregate in one spot.

some debris was scattered well beyond the confines of the World Trade Center

True; IMHO as a consequence of shaped-charges having been used to blow mainly perimeter-units outwards. The det-cord and those charges could have been installed in full daylight – as upgraded internet cables into the floors, and ‘modems’ behind dry-wall adjacent to the wall-panel joining points. IIRC, some observer noticed ‘no wall unit with bolts still in place!’

Recall the construction, which resembled a soda-can with a massive core column down the middle, and floor-trusses welded to the core at one end but fixed to the perimeter via two 5/8th inch bolts in sliding-enabling slots. Before the hat-trusses went on, the perimeter could – and did – move slightly due to wind loading.

Sooo, we saw on some vids a pronounced flash at/near the ‘collision’ levels, from which the lower sections were progressively disassembled layer by layer [see Chandler vid] – but Q: What of the tops? My A: They were also progressively disassembled layer by layer working upwards – otherwise we should have found large remnants of the upper soda-can sections and severed but rather whole core-sections in the rubble – not.

Can’t see any use of CGI in that. rgds

Just to flog a dead horse again with Able Archer in 1983, the question is what really spooked the Soviets? The possibility is that it was an actual preparation for a first strike in a planned nuclear war which was later called off due to cold feet-if it was, it is unlikely we will know the truth since the people responsible would ensure any records would be destroyed.

Again, the Soviets were really scared in 1983-they received info about a first strike which their professionals evaluated as being highly legitimate. What was it? Since this would involve highly secret sources again we might never know. Perhaps a top Western general was working for the KGB and he was having a depressive episode so he interpreted an exercise as actual preparation. Being so highly placed, his personal mental instability panicked the Soviets because again culturally they valued warning from sources since one of their greatest mistakes was to ignore spy warnings about the German invasion in 1941 and they didn’t want to make the same mistake twice. Of course, this is speculation only.

Looking back at Able Archer after you made your comment about it, I noticed something unusual about it that might have contributed with some other information to a Soviet panic-

…nations and alliances conduct nuclear war exercises all the time. Basically, they are just large scale school fire drills meant for adults to have fun.

The emphasis is on continuity of government -in the US there are places set aside in the bunker for the Supreme Court, the Postmaster General etc.. In Canada, the bunker has space for the Governor-General and in the UK there is a place in the bunker for the Queen (now King)

Nevertheless, all these government officials would actually be useless in a post-war scenario where martial law and summary executions would prevail.

Able Archer involved the simulation of a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union and the evacuation of the government which involved Margaret Thatcher and Helmuth Kohl into their respective bunkers BUT it did not involve the evacuation of the Queen or the Bundespresident! Neither were evacuated minor and actually useless NATO leaders like the Belgian, Norwegian or Italian PM.

To the Soviets it really looked like preparation for a genuine surprise attack since the West was placing ACTUAL decisions-makers into safety but IGNORING SUPERFLUOUS personnel that on paper outrank Prime Ministers or Chancellors but are actually powerless. Previous exercises involved the evacuation of the Queen and the Bundespresident (like I said most nuclear war drills are meant to be fun like a school fire drill) but Able Archer did not do that thus to the Soviets this unusual activity seemed like the real thing.

This combined with other information would induce a Soviet panic-should we attack pre-emptively or undergo the same trauma we experienced in 1941 except this time much, much larger? In the mean time, info was coming in that spies were reporting the West WAS NOT slaughtering cows or pigs in unusual quantities thus it was just an exercise.

Anyways this is my evaluation of that situation, I do not know if I am right and there really is no way of knowing.

[re OmK’s “Aether” long; not sorry:]

[from:]
https://www.quora.com/In-1920-does-Einstein-confirm-the-ether
{lightly edited}:

Ed Wegorzewski
Former Ex Lifeguard
Dec 12

You provoked with your ‘600C

I stated a fact.

If you had bothered to read the entirety of my comment with reading comprehension, you would have understood.

Yet you did not. Neither did you bother to clarify with me.

Instead you launched into insult.

You read some conspiracy stuff and immediately assume it is true. You neither fact check, nor keep abreast of the issues at hand.

Watch this video made 13 years ago.

Video Link

People have not yet recognized that the tremendous peculiarity of the idea of point mass (or mass point) and point electric charge.
If people think it(peculiarity), people would soon be led to the one: Aether.
Can a point of zero size have any property ?
Mass and electric charge are ones which originate from spacely spread region. This thought naturally leads to the Aether.

Even that Idiot einstein himself admitted (1920) that Aether’s existence was inevitable.
See the following one :

�Einstein 1920�Does the Aether
exist ?】� YouTube

🔶 https://youtu.be/yCm6eLP9zRw
Video Link

einstein cult (consisting of einstein believers) member must believe it.

�����
Philip Mihailovich Kanarev’s models of electron, photon, proton, neutron :

�The Inhabitants of the Microworld】
by Kanarev, Ph. M.
(December 22,2010)

🔶 https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications/View/632

or from
🔶 https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/114/Ph.%20M.,%20Kanarev

or from
🔶 https://www.gsjournal.net

The first seconds of the video show a drone delivering a package gently to the doorstep of a lovely home. It made me think of Ted Kaczynski, in fact, millions of Ted Kaczynskis.

which caused 3 WTCs to collapse vertically.

We’ve been over all this before. If they’d collapsed vertically, there would be nice big rubble heaps in the footprints of the Twin Towers as there is for Bldg. 7.

Instead, the images and insurance claims indicate some debris was scattered well beyond the confines of the World Trade Center, amounting to insurance claims totaling $5 billion, IIRC for damage done to property outside the WTC proper.

But right now I’d like to focus on Friedman’s report of those central core columns in “too-good condition,” and also how the top of WTC 2 could have rotated itself like that, fallen off the rump of WTC 2, and then just dissolved in midair.

Yet you go strutting around, full of confidence like you are the fount of all knowledge and see fit to insult others when they do not agree with you

Yet you go strutting around, full of confidence that aircraft collisions and resulting fuel/office fires softened some steel somewhere

[FIFY] which caused 3 WTCs to collapse vertically. Hmmm? You provoked with your ‘600C softened steel’, yet could not stand the [in here = ‘inside job’ hence predictable] backlash. diddums

what exactly is your point?

My point is that I do not go around berating and insulting other people, when I am not 100% sure of the cause. And I am an architect. Or at least I was, before I retired.

You however, have read a few reports here and there, have little specialised knowledge of the issues at hand, did not bother to do proper research/fact checking as evidenced in your “no steel framed building has ever collapsed vertically due to fire” claim.

Yet you go strutting around, full of confidence like you are the fount of all knowledge and see fit to insult others when they do not agree with you.

The structure’s columns were made of steel and steel-reinforced concrete, which supported cantilevered floor slabs of ribbed concrete.[4][5] An aluminum-framed glass curtain wall wrapped the exterior of the building

and

The vid shows two concrete-looking columns, the left one collapses downwards as a unit = collapse initiation at the bottom, the 2nd one’s image as it goes down is not clear; I found no analysis of what failed [i.e. steel OR concrete OR both], but the rubble-pile is impressively ‘steely;

’

Using steel in buildings has many advantages as well as disadvantages. The primary disadvantage is the susceptibility to failure during fire. This is why GREAT PAINS are taken to protect the structural steel of buildings. This usually takes the form of special paints, or some kind of fireproofing wrapped around the steel.

In steel framed buildings, it is normal to have elements that use steel reinforced concrete (RC) for specific purposes. This is usually takes the form of RC lift shafts. One of the main structural purpose of the RC lift shaft is to stabilise the steel frame by a “bracing” effect. That is why you see RC being referred to in your Wiki quote.

RC is much more resistant to fire than is unprotected steel. Even when steel has certain fire retardant coatings, RC is still regarded as more durable because the protective coatings can easily be nicked off.

But if RC lift cores are used in other wise steel framed buildings, they may make up perhaps 10 or 15% of the total loadbearing vertical structure (columns etc). But at least it gives it a little more durability.

In the WTC, the RC lift shafts were not used. This made the WTC even more vulnerable to fire than the Sao Paolo building.

I found no analysis of what failed [i.e. steel OR concrete OR both], but the rubble-pile is impressively ‘steely;’

Please show the building (when it is still standing) to your friends who may be structural engineers or architects. They will tell you it is a steel framed building with one glance.

My typo:

[US + J as perpetrators]

should have read

[US + ((other rogue-regime)) as perpetrators]

Another typo; my statement:

no steel building

should have read

no steel framed building

Your vid “Burning building collapses in Sao Paulo, Brazil” = nice catch, but no cigar.

Wiki:

The structure’s columns were made of steel and steel-reinforced concrete, which supported cantilevered floor slabs of ribbed concrete.[4][5] An aluminum-framed glass curtain wall wrapped the exterior of the building

The vid shows two concrete-looking columns, the left one collapses downwards as a unit = collapse initiation at the bottom, the 2nd one’s image as it goes down is not clear; I found no analysis of what failed [i.e. steel OR concrete OR both], but the rubble-pile is impressively ‘steely;’

[Perhaps some naughty person(s) put explosives in the cellar?] But no matter; I’ll ask a different Q: Just *why* are you obsessed with:

steel structural members become dangerously weak at 600C

– especially as you admit that controlled demolition = your assessment of what PROBABLY took place? IOW, what exactly is your point?

Thanks.

Friedman’s report didn’t mention any blast marks from shaped charges, nor did he report any 45° cuts

I don’t know how much Friedman was *allowed* to see, and ’45° cuts’ would totally give the game away so I posit that IF 45° cuts were used [IMHO necessary] THEN they’d have been a) identified while still in the rubble-pile then b) specially extracted to be sent to a different ‘disposal’ point [the rubble-pile was ‘controlled-access’]. As to blast marks, “There were some dents here and there” – IIRC, some observer(s?) did note depressions near the ends of some beams. I’ll stick to my ‘flipping core column-units’ scheme, which involves disassembly both downwards and upwards from the alleged ‘collision’ levels. Some proof is that no bulky upper-section remnants appeared in/on the rubble-pile; there were only mostly separated core-beams and wall-panel units. Note that there were extremely few floor-panel parts [trusses, floor-pans] in the rubble – they were blown to smithereens = turned into pyroclastic clouds by some sort of high-performance det-cord threaded into the electro-conduits cast into the open-plan floor-concrete. Some proof of that are the iron-rich micro-spheres. rgds

Too bad; unless ‘controlled demolition [US + J as perpetrators]

Yes, that is my assessment of what PROBABLY took place.

But unlike you, I give space for doubt.

You seem to see the world in Black and White with no nuance. As displayed by this statement of yours.

‘no steel building has ever collapsed [vertically through the line of greatest resistance] due to fire – but due to controlled demolition, yes’.

Video Link

You Idiot are farting fart from your mouth.
Are you an ex attorney ?
You are only silver-tongued.

Feynman’s mentor was John Archibald Wheeler.
He was very fascinated with that Idiot einstein.
He,wheeler, was an Idiot of Idiots.
He easily”invented” cheap wormhole.
Crap wormhole thing.

Easy-peasy. Put a shaped-charge at the top of each [core-]column…

But Friedman’s report didn’t mention any blast marks from shaped charges, nor did he report any 45° cuts.

I agree that the top of WTC 2 seemed to tilt at the outset of the demolition before seemingly fading to nothing in mid-air. However, 45° degree cuts in the core columns can’t really account for that, certainly not for the entire top section of the building vanishing.

Bad CGI, however, does.

Burn suckers, burn.

(ET laughing diabolically)