4
3
2
That a DEW caused the “dustification” of the Towers is the theory of Judy Wood, Ph.D. who is an engineer knowledgeable about the effects of this kind of weaponry. She has issued a legal challenge to the NIST report’s results asking if the WTC destructive effects might be “consistent” with the use of DEWs. The case is supported by voluminous evidence surrounding the collapses——photographic, seismographic, atmospheric——prior and immediately following No. 7’s collapse. Data also includes statements by multiple witnesses of hearing overhead sounds “of a high-pitched ‘jet engine’” prior to the Towers’ collapse.
The spokesman for the Air Force’s Directed Energy Directorate, Juventino R. Garcia, quickly reviewed her evidence, and readily conceded the existence and testing of stratospheric weaponry; he stated that the data were “worthy of further investigation.”
Aerial photographs showed large perpendicular holes in the midsections of Buildings 3, 5, and 6 containing dust, but few signs
of rubble from the carved-out portions. No. 4 was split in half by a clean, vertical cut, but also shows no rubble from the destroyed half.
Too, of the hundreds of vehicles cleared from nearby streets and those half-a-mile from the WTC on Roosevelt Drive, many had engines and windows revealing an inside explosion; one car with that burned-out front end missing door handles had a back end that was newly waxed back. A firetruck’s gas tanks were untouched, but its inner parts had disintegrated.
Wood concluded that such phenomena suggested results consistent with claims about DEW’s pinpoint accuracy. They were also characteristic of random explosions subjected to such weaponry’s hurricane-like features similar to a Class 5 storm.
(11) That if high-yield explosives were responsible for the collapses, some may have contained fusion-boosted fissionable materials such as a 1/10th of a kiloton, fourth-generation micro-nuclear device. Or devices. This theory is held by William Deagle who reported his findings about the Oklahoma City bombing at a major 9/11 conference in Vancouver, BC in July 2007. His confidential “Special Op” sources claimed the Murrah building’s floors were “layered” with thermate. Micro-nuclear devices that were placed at its top took out the core, they reported. He indicated this procedure should not be ruled out in theories concerning the Towers’ destruction.
Federal reports did indicate that tritium and “massive amounts of strontium and barium were found in the dust” of the WTC complex. And above the dust, a blizzard of paper covered the Towers’ immediate area. Paper becomes inert if energy is generated by electromagnetic pulses and thus raises questions why fires alleged to be hot enough to weaken structural steel, were not hot enough to burn paper.
Another nuclear aspect Deagle has cited involves significant cracks found in the substructure of WTC basement’s retaining walls keeping the Hudson River from flooding downtown Manhattan. Because the cracks were underwater, fire involvement has been ruled out.
Similarly, the force ascribed to impact by aircraft on the Towers’ upper stories is highly unlikely, according to Deagle, to have generated direct and adequate energy to cause any damage to those retaining walls.
Add to this evidence, the molten metal that reportedly burned for months at the WTC site despite efforts of firefighters to extinguish it. The ineffectiveness of water and constant replacement of soil to cool those hotspots——especially at the No. 7 site——would seem to underpin Deagle’s view that a “mini-nuke” device had been detonated onsite.
Another Deagle theory involves the possible use of the Pentagon’s new weapons of “ultra-powerful magnetic pulses.” Lasers can generate nuclear explosions without requiring a nuclear fission/fusion as their trigger.
(12) That only a cursory investigation of No. 7’s collapse was done by federal agencies and the insurer. That enabled owner Larry Silverstein to collect $861,000,000 in claims. (The 9/11 Commission did not deal with No. 7.)
That has been the theory of many who have read official reports (FEMA/NIST) about the building’s collapse. Among them was a shareholder, John-Paul Leonard, from the building’s principal insurer, Allianz Group of Munich. He sued the company in April 2005 on grounds of fraudulent explanations about the collapse and claimed it was caused by a controlled demolition.
FEMA’s report (2002), which apparently satisfied Allianz officials, claimed the collapse was the direct result of several fires ignited by North Tower debris and not shock waves from the Tower collapses.
Yet if flaming debris fell on the roof, the obvious unanswered questions ever since September 11 have been: 1) Why fires were seen inside No. 7 on two or three floors though the windows had not been blown out, customary in conflagrations; 2) Why firefighters were ordered from the building at 11:30 a.m. “for safety reasons” instead of extinguishing the fires; and 3) How Silverstein could claim that his directive to the Fire Chief to “pull it” alluded to pulling firefighters from the building if none were inside. (“Pull” is the demolition term for setting off explosive charges for an implosion.) FEMA’s report stated that “no manual firefighting operations were taken.”
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
