Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Kamaloca
> 6/1/2005Ironically, Felt is not a Jew.
> Nixon in Hell:
> Nixon always suspected that W. Mark Felt, the second in command at
> the FBI, was "Deep Throat." When it was all starting to fall apart,
> Nixon stated so outright, according to one of those many tapes. And
> when Haldeman told Nixon that Felt was Jewish, the ol' anti-Semite-
> in-chief said, "Christ. [The bureau] put a Jew in there?... It could
> be the Jewish thing. I don't know. It's always a possibility."
- Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
"Bradford, I know you consider me spiritual-scientifically retarded
come to such things, but could you or Mr. Tang please advise exactly
the numerous and varied connections are.
Additions to Michael Rain when posing the idea of Lodge murders we
have a long list of lodge murders that were aimed at the whole
Kennedy aspect of the the American psyche. Aimed at turning and
quelling the Peace and Love movement which had the ability to
approach the Etheric Christ and global brotherhood. Let in the crack
and cocaine whores ole CIA and knock out some of the cult leaders of
this global movement, because Sorath would not be able to step in
with the current monsters in the Monkey Palace.
But included in such a Lodge atrocities and Sorathian chess moves on
The GrandChessBoard would be the horrific disaster and murder of
some, near 3000 people just to start the ball rolling with the dawn
of the 21st century, Armageddon, destruction of the full American
psyche, media and meltdown of the american soul. And a patsy,
puppet, spoiled psycho sitting in the middle of the monkey palace
with the other chimps, as clueless as golf ball. His chart, with no
Aries at all, reveals no interest in ideas or idea relationships at
all. That would be GWB. But as Michael Rain would have it..further
stunning proof, just for Frank.
"To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers
at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts
(also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp.
1218) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened
each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural
components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials,
causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper
floors to pancake onto the floors below.
Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching
the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as
satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs
acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant
Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government's collapse theory is highly
vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack
of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal
scientific rival controlled demolition. Only professional
demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated
with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and
the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21
pm on that fateful day.
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has
two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that
damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable,
motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am
and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the
North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor"
rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter
As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the
northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured
separated from each other yet there is no direct evidence
of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the
broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its
counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum
covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across
the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from
beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter
columns, and missing parts of floors 9598 at the opening, the
aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the
columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the
The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically
after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually
remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the
aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the
columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North
Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening
itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the
floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 9598,
photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts
the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do
not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was
allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government
authorities primarily FEMA had it quickly removed. Eyewitness
testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower
concerning core damage probably is unavailable.
Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the
building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know
that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong
(claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core
was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns
connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular
core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8
m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36"
x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around
(100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was
also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims
of a lightweight "truss" system.
Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14),
professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT,
usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from
the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the
holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have
been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in
buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar
points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if
heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, "
around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though
the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly
billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the
entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of
floors 9498 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire
structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene
evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed
before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position
to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at
New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II,"
quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the
rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris
truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an
unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
The preliminary NIST Response claims that "the wall section above
the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no
evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging
floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This
looks minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and
the integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire
looks weak too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes
later. This would be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory.
About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the
North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way"
because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is
troublesome for the official theory that a plane crash created the
hole and subsequent explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of
physics imply that a high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings
breaking through thin perimeter columns would deflect the shattered
ends of the columns inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly
not bend them outward toward the exterior.
A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash
would bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but
the subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite
direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten
toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the
exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed
steel "reversal theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend
outward by explosion) suffers two major handicaps:
No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely
that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion,
the hypothesis is ad hoc and lacks simplicity, both scientific
Occam's razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter
columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than
bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this
theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown
perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges
demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The
hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly
formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of
core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel
The engineering establishment's theory has further difficulties. It
is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less
than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757,
but the North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767
either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11
(officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing
767 has a wingspan of 155' 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance
across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole
undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the
tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns,"
comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I'd call that
a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since
aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the
aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into
buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of
the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact
hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no
reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision
and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my
knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at
Church street (pp. 689) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is
that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the
northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105)
high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an
opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its
frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine
is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and
weighing 24 to 28.5 tons, depending upon model. No engine was
recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly
The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not
even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead
contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp.
62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not
move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration
by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a
maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail
number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been
recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video
plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower.
Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to
put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can
testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account,
the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was
completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced
a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged
hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic
collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice
(CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either,
so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history
of major domestic crashes.
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that
photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either.
There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate
crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the
landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower
and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by
FEMA or other government agents. I've never seen any objective
analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact,
the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any
of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo
of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission
Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as
a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly
were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National
Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report
on the alleged airliner crashes..."