Did Israel nuke America on
9/11?
Or did they just
nanothermite us?
Veterans
Today Editors Gordon Duff and James
Fetzer say “yes.” The political implications of proving this thesis
would be hard to overestimate. It would mean America has not only been fighting
the wrong enemy, but has actually been laying waste to the enemies of the real
enemy. If these guys are right, we have been fighting against our own best
allies – the very people who would help us strike back at the folks who nuked
us.
Or
whatever they did to pulverize three skyscrapers and murder almost 3,000
Americans in a single morning.
There are
two issues here: “Israel did it” and “how they did it.”
Regarding
issue #1: Israel and its US agents have been fingered as the main 9/11 perps by
reliable researchers including Christopher
Bollyn, Alan Sabrosky and Laurent
Guyénot. (The cui bono issue by itself frames the Zionists as
leading suspects – a suspicion I entertained, based on my Middle East Studies
background, within minutes of hearing that the World Trade Center had been
struck.) Bottom line: Once you learn who privatized and over-insured the condemned-for-asbestos
World Trade Center right before 9/11, and who signed off on the September 2000 document calling for a “New Pearl
Harbor,” the rest is just details.
So let us
move on to the less important question of “how they did it” – specifically, how
they demolished the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. Gordon Duff has a
background in high-level covert non-proliferation work, while Jim Fetzer – a
Philosophy of Science professor – bases his views on an analysis of various
experts and researchers including Don Fox and Ed Ward. Both of my esteemed
VT colleagues argue that mini-nukes were used to destroy the WTC Towers.
Here are
some of Jim’s articles laying out that case:
For his
part, Gordon Duff is conducting “Nuclear Education” sessions and citing a
once-secret DOE/IOIA report, recently released by the Russians, in articles
like “Nuclear 9/11 Revealed.” (Note: While Gordon
claims that Wayne Madsen was given a copy of this report by unnamed
Russians, Wayne insists he has received no such report. Maybe he hit the delete
key because he doesn’t read Russian?)
On the opposing
side: Software engineer Jim Hoffman – considered by many to be an infamous
deception-peddler and provocateur in the debate about what happened to the
Pentagon on 9/11 – argues against the nuclear demolition hypothesis and smears
Gordon Duff here. More pertinently, back in 2007, physics
professor Steven Jones, a major figure in the 9/11 truth movement, published a
letter entitled “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were
Used on the WTC Towers.”
Since
2007 I have been challenging proponents of the nuclear demolition hypothesis,
especially Jim Fetzer, to lay out their counter-case against Jones, and for
nuclear demolition, in careful, understated, thoroughly-sourced, non-polemical
scholarly fashion and submit it to the pro-Steven-Jones Journal
of 9/11 Studies. If such an article were rejected for bogus
reasons, the case for nuclear demolition would get an enormous boost. The
gaping void where such an article should be may be the strongest argument
against the nuclear demolition hypothesis.
But does
it really matter whether we got nuked or nanothermited on 9/11?
The issue
is potentially important in three ways:
1)
Resolving the nukes-vs.-nanothermite dispute could have a bearing on how well
the case for controlled demolition – both the who and the how – could stand up
in court…whether the World Court, other international courts, the UN, US
federal or state court, or the de facto courtroom of a congressional or other
legally-mandated investigation.
2) It
could also affect public opinion; the headline “Israel nuked US on 9/11” packs
more of a visceral punch than “Israel nanothermited US on 9/11.” Also, elite
public opinion is largely created by scientists, scholars, and other experts,
whose views on the merits of the respective hypotheses will set the terms of
the public debate; directing attention to a weak hypothesis will not help the
9/11 truth movement succeed in this arena.
3) If
Gordon Duff is correct, and Israel has been terrorizing the US and the world with
mini-nukes, proving the WTC was nuked on 9/11 could play a key role in
neutralizing this much larger threat.
Then
there are those who argue that some kind of Tesla-style technology was used on
9/11, and that revealing this fact might shred the free energy coverup and
usher in a new era of abundance. For details on that, read Judy Wood’s
book. And if you haven’t yet heard of the evidence that free
energy/antigravity exists and is being covered up, read the free pdf of Nick
Cook’s The Hunt for Zero Point.
So there
you have it!
A photo
of Dr. Allison Geyh, who collected radioactive air dosimeter samples from
ground zero workers in an effort to gauge the level of Roentgens/Hour workers
were being exposed to. Important efforts were taken to monitor the level of
radioactive Roentgens/Hour each worker was exposed to in order to keep them as
low as possible in order to keep the cover up going. Too much exposure would
create acute radiation sickness in workers and create a lot of attention. Despite
the success of rotating workers in and out of ground zero in order to keep
their level of Roentgens/Hour to a minimum, thousands of workers and tens of
thousands of Manhattan residents still suffered and continue to suffer from
chronic radiation related sicknesses and leukemia which is mainly caused by
exposure to artificial ionizing radiation.
Allison
herself passed away in 2011 from leukemia.
Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11
http://presscore.ca/concrete-evidence-shows-us-government-nuked-new-york-city-on-911
https://debamboozled.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/2014-05-30-real-whistleblowers.png
ReplyDeleteBefore you can charge someone with a crime, you have to know what crime was committed. Should a death be ruled a homicide by gunshot, there better be a bullet hole in the body...
The order of crime solving, that one must first identify:
1) WHAT happened before determining
2) HOW "it" happened...before one can determine
3) WHO did "it" or
4) WHY they did "it."
Since writing her book, Dr. Wood has come to understand more clearly how cover-ups work. People are encouraged to skip step #1 and begin arguing about step #2. In order to argue about HOW "it" happened, people are left to IMAGINE what "it" was that happened. From then on, they are only addressing an imaginary problem, not a real problem. And they can never ever solve the real problem unless they begin with step #1, which defines WHAT the problem is they need to solve. So skipping to step #3 is a useless path that leads you nowhere. See how easy a cover-up works! ;-)
THE DIRECTED ENERGY COVER-UP TEAM
https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/images/Richard-DavidG-StevenJ.jpg