ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

Jim Fetzer

As a student of the history and the philosophy of science, I have been dumbfounded to discover that ISIS, a prominent journal in the history of science, has published a review of a book on astronomers that was edited by T. Hockey, THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, by N. M. Swerdlow, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago (ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-8), in which he assails Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and scholar whom I admire, on the alleged ground of anti-Semitism.

While Kollerstrom has conducted scientific research on the Holocaust related to the use of zyklon gas to exterminate inmates, it has nothing to do with his contributions to THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, where his entries on John Couch Adams, John Flamsteed and even Issac Newton are completely independent of research related to the Holocaust. The only reason for introducing it at all, therefore, has to have been to fashion an ad hominem attack on Kollerstrom, a gross abuse of Swerdlow’s role as a the author of a review, which ISIS should not have accepted for publication.

Even if he disagreed with Kollerstrom about the Holocaust, those views ought not have been cited or used to attack him. They had nothing to do with his research on the astronomers whose entries he authored, which included one on Newton, which reflected great confidence by Hockey in Nicholas. It is as if Swerdlow had intended to demonstrate to the world his ruthless dedication to the extermination of any vestiges of (what he considers to be) anti-Semitism. Astonishingly, he not only adopts the extreme measure of discouraging any library from purchasing the encyclopedia but outrageously suggests that the book itself should be pulped!

So Swerdlow not only commits the ad hominem fallacy by discounting Kollerstrom’s research on astronomers because of his interest in questions about the Holocaust, a point that should have been apparent to ISIS, but he practices an extreme form of guilt by association by condemning the entire contents of this volume on that basis, which means that he compounds one fallacy by committing another—and it is one that, from the perspective of intellectual history, actually appears to be even more egregious as a form of group punishment for the sins of one of its contributors.


IMAGE OF NICHOLAS KOLLERSTROM

Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this kind and having an extensive background as the founding editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, of which I was the sole editor for ten years, and having spent another decade as an associate editor of SYNTHESE, which is devoted to methodology, epistemology and philosophy of science, I was shocked that a journal of the stature of ISIS should have permitted this offense to have occurred, which not only taints Kollerstrom but stains the journal itself.

The charge of “anti-Semitism”, alas, has often been used to impugn the character of anyone who conducts research on issues that may adversely affect the interests of Israel and its Zionist allies, which I, as the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have repeatedly encountered as a consequence of discoveries that implicate the Mossad as having a role in 9/11. I have published about this myself, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” While Nick has made no such charge, the evidence supports it.

Significantly, Kollerstrom has conducted rather extensive research on 7/7, including publishing TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded, 2011), which exposes the role of government agents or of those acting on its behalf to arrange for the terrorist acts that were attributed to four young Muslim men, who appear to have been used as patsies, when the circumstances of the case—including missing a train that would have brought them to London—made it physically impossible for them to be present.


COVER IMAGE OF TERROR ON THE TUBE

This case has been brilliantly exposed by John Anthony Hill, who is also known as “Muad’Dib”, in his DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”, which I recommend to everyone who cares about 7/7. We live in a world, alas, where governments lie more than they speak the truth and spend much of the national treasury promoting initiatives, such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are inimical to the interests of their citizens, squandering enormous resources both financial and personal for the benefit of corporations and their profits.

Because it is extremely difficult to expose government complicity in atrocities of this kind, I have greatly admired Muad’Dib and Nicholas Kollerstrom for their dedication to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about these events, which has included featuring them both as guests on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, where those interviews can be found in its archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com and as the authors of or the subjects of blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Swerdlow’s actions are so unwarranted by any reasonable professional standard that I personally suspect that they were deliberately contrived to punish Nick for research not only on the Holocaust but on 7/7 as well. I therefore volunteered to compose a letter to ISIS, in which I explained why I believed Swerdlow’s assault was completely unjustifiable and deserved to be remedied. Nick and I discussed my letter in some detail, which the journal accepted and published in ISIS 102:1 (2011) as follows:


COVER IMAGE OF ISIS

Re: ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-198

Dear Editor,

During a recent visit to the UK, I met the scholar, Nicholas Kollerstrom, whom I have previously interviewed on "The Real Deal", an internet radio program I host, about 7/7, his book, TERROR ON THE TUBE (2009), and aspects of 9/11 and other atrocities.

He has been a productive author with multiple books, including ASTROCHEMISTRY (1984), THE EUREKA EFFECT (1996), and NEWTON’S FORGOTTEN LUNAR THEORY (2000). For a fine collection of his articles, visit http://dioi.org/kn/index.htm.

Nick is one of the few academicians I know who has the courage, the mentality, and the integrity to assume the role of a public intellectual, not only relative to 7/7 and 9/11 but also by pursuing scientific questions concerning the history of the Holocaust.

Reading N. M. Swerdlow’s revisew of Thomas Hockey, ed., THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, I was taken aback to find a discussion in ISIS that commits fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen and sophomores to avoid.

Nearly 30% of this review is devoted to a slashing "ad hominem" attack on Nick Kollerstrom! After cursory remarks about Nick's entries, Swerdlow makes a variety of allegations that are either false or completely irrelevant to the essays in question.

Nick, for example, is an historian of astrology, not an astrologer. With N. Campion, he has co-edited GALILEO’S ASTROLOGY (2003), perhaps the definitive work on the subject, which is relevant to his essays but Swerdlow does not deign to acknowledge.

He also has a (perfectly legitimate) intellectual interest in horoscopes, which he has pursued, as well as in the factual accuracy of the (widely embraced) history of the Holocaust, both of which Swerdlow either exaggerates or grossly distorts.

Neither these interests of his nor his conclusions that 9/11 and 7/7 were "false flag" ops in which elements of the US and UK governments were complicit, however, has any place in a review of his essays in a collection of biographical studies of astronomers!

Laws against expressing doubts about the Holocaust, in my view, are simply absurd. If you believe in the Holocaust, as I do, then it should be apparent that serious research will lead to its vindication and, if it does not, we are all entitled to know. Truth is paramount.

Something that stuns me, moreover, is that, unless Swerdlow has studied 9/11 and 7/7, he cannot possibly know that Nick is wrong! Having done quite extensive study of 9/11 and considerable on 7/7 and it is obvious to me that, on the contrary, about both, Nick is right.

The very idea that the reviewer should single out Kollerstrom because of his research on matters unrelated to the essays he authored and discourage other scholars and libraries from purchasing the book on that basis “crosses the line"! It smacks of burning books.

Nick and I discussed the matter and agreed that it would be preferable for me to speak on his behalf, since a letter from him might be interpreted as self-serving. As another scholar who has devoted himself to issues of this kind, I have been glad to address this matter.

Swerdlow has conducted an unprofessional and unwarranted vendetta for which he owes the profession an apology. We should be standing in support of those few among us who have the strength, integrity and courage to investigate the controversial issues of our time.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth

The editor of ISIS, Bernard Lightman, apparently felt that Swerdlow deserved another opportunity to wield his axe, which he pursued with relish. Swerdlow asserted that he saw no reason to modify his position, suggesting that Nicholas regarded Auschwitz, for example, as a very hospitable environment, where Zyclon-B was used as a disinfectant rather than as a method of extermination. While he has concluded that there were certain amenities at Auschwitz, which he has discussed, without having studied the evidence, how can Swerdlow be so certain that he is right and that Nick, who has actually been studying it, is wrong?

Strikingly, Swerdlow compounds his assault with a counterpart attack on me for research I have done on the death of President John F. Kennedy and for editing a collection of studies on 9/11, which he presents in as unsympathetic a fashion as possible. This attack is even more revealing than his assault on Kollerstrom, since I organized a research group in 1992 consisting of the most highly qualified experts and scholars to investigate the death of JFK, which, I am confident, he himself has never studied.


IMAGE OF N. M. SWERDLOW

These have included a world-authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was brought to Parkland Hospital and, two days later, was responsible for the care of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects.

I have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the subject, published three books by experts on different aspects of the case, and produced a 4.5 hour documentary about the assassination. I have made hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews, including lectures at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. Indeed, my background with respect to 9/11 is comparable, where I edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference in Madison, Wisconsin, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”.

In lieu of reasoned arguments, Swerdlow appeals to popular sentiments by taking for granted that widely-held beliefs must be true and that views at variance with them have to be mistaken. Thus, unless you have actually studied the evidence, it might be difficult to appreciate that there are more than fifteen indications that JFK was set up by the Secret Service, where he appears to have been taken out by the CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement, where the FBI covered it up and LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were principals with financing from Texas oil men. For an overview, see my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” , which I presented at a national conference featuring Theodore Sorenson as the keynote speaker and was introduced by Judge John Tunheim, who had served as the head of the ARRB.

Those familiar with the history of the UK, however, might be less surprised than Americans, since Shakespeare would have had little to write about were it not for plots against the kings of England. But there were technical aspects to the cover up, where JFK’s X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, another brain was substituted for the original, and the home movies of the assassination were revised to conceal that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure that he was killed. See, for example, studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John P. Costella, Ph.D., and me archived at http://assassinationscience.com.

Others who would like some reassurance about the quality of our work should follow this link to reviews of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) -- http://assassinationscience.com/booktwo.html -- and to access the Preface and the Prologue as well as endorsements by Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael L. Kurtz, Ph.D., and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, among others. Of special importance is the review by George Costello, J.D., THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. Its author would receive a commendation from the journal for his review, which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com/george.html.


IMAGE OF BERNARD LIGHTMAN

Relying upon his correspondence with Bernard Lightman, the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, Nicholas had formed the rather strong impression that he would be given the chance to respond to Swerdlow’s reply to my letter. He therefore drafted a response that ran exactly the same number of words as Swerdlow’s second bite of the apple, which was 470. It was therefore a bitter disappointment when Lightman declined him the opportunity to set the record straight, a nice example of his adding insult to injury.

On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren -- archived at http://www.codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html -- Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he restricts himself to features he has been able to establish rather than the atmosphere. This suggests ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously. As Nick has remarked to me, the accounts we have from Auschwitz tend to be fairly dire.

Suppose that Kollerstrom were wrong about his conclusions based upon his research. Does an historian of science deserve to be ostracized for advancing opinions that are at variance with prevailing views? Nick’s article also cites significant differences on the question of how many may have died there. Is that question also ruled out as a subject for historical research? Shouldn’t we discover if popular views are more than political myths? Surely Lightman ought to have published the following letter, which Nick submitted to him, as the final word in this nasty and unprofessional exchange:

Letters to the Editor, Isis WORD COUNT: 470

Dear Editor,

There is something deeply ironic about a journal devoted to the history of science publishing an attack upon me for conducting scientific research on one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th C. As Professor Fetzer observed in his letter, what do we have to fear from research on the Holocaust? If it was real, then its reality will be confirmed; and if it was not, then surely we all deserve to know.

N. M. Swerdlow falsely asserts, ‘[Kollerstrom] defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating websites’. If true, that would be a hate crime. For the sake of the integrity of ISIS, if he cannot substantiate this allegation, ISIS should demand an apology and retraction. Outrageous distortions not only discredit him as a source but also tarnish your reputation for accuracy and truth as a professional publication.

While I have authored TERROR ON THE TUBE about the July 7 London bombings, currently in its 3d edition, anyone who reads it will know that I make no such claim as that the event was “the work of ‘international Zionism’”. Swerdlow is advancing criticisms he cannot sustain, which should never have appeared here--defaming both my book and its publisher.

Swerdlow declares that, “a line has been crossed that should never be crossed”. But how can that apply to scientific research about an historical controversy without begging the question? I have an interest in the several investigations of residual iron-cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz labour-camp buildings, which carry residues of how and where zyklon (granular cyanide) was used sixty years ago. But this is a scientific question that can only be addressed by conducting scientific research.

In his second attack, Swerdlow also asserts I have “nothing original” to say. But I have actually established the ‘control’ values for the normal background levels of ferro-cyanide found in kitchens, dormitories and such, of the German labour-camps by synthesising the two sets of Leuchter and Rudolf cyanide values on the basis of objective measurements of insoluble iron cyanide.

Nothing could be less original than using the phrase, “Holocaust denier”, to bash the reputation and standing of those of us who believe controversial events are those we most need to address. He alleges I contend “Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But who in the world could believe so insane an idea? Only someone willing to distort research could try to pin this on me.

Like Fetzer, I am an historical revisionist, who cares about the truth and getting it right, especially concerning monumental events, such as the death of JFK and reality of the Holocaust. But that is precisely what the study of history is all about, where efforts like ours to insure the record is factual rather than fictional deserve praise, not condemnation.

Nicholas Kollerstrom

Perhaps most importantly in relation to this decision, Nicholas had written to Bernie Lightman on May 27, 2011, “to request that you ask Swerdlow [quite specifically] which are the 'strident Jew-hating websites' which he reckons I link to: I believe this is hate-crime which your Journal has accused me of, as defined by 2010 European Union legislation.” And the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, replied to his request as follows:

“I did not tell you that you would be able to reply to Swerdlow's
reply to Professor Fetzer. I told you that the journal's policy was
that there could be one reply to a review (you chose to have Fetzer
reply for you) and then that the reviewer was given the opportunity to
respond. The matter then comes to a close. That is the policy and I
will not deviate from it. Regards, Bernie Lightman”

Since ISIS has facilitated the publication of what appears to qualify as a hate-crime under European Union legislation, surely ISIS had an obligation that justified going beyond its normal policies. In my opinion, this decision by Bernard Lightman was an astounding affront to every member of the profession, whose ability to respond to allegations that should never have been allowed into print were thus circumvented. Given the new venom injected by Swerdlow in his reply to my letter, even if under ordinary conditions one reply would have been enough, a second was justified here.

For the sake of comparison, the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE committed a blunder by adding a preface to a special issue of the journal, “Evolution and Its Rivals”, as a consequence of pressure imposed upon them by proponents of Intelligent Design, in which they expressed concerns for “the tone” of one of the contributions. Their act created an academic scandal that was discussed intensely across a broad spectrum of forums, where nearly 500 scholars endorsed a boycott of the journal or called for a formal apology and retraction of their preface, many calling for their resignations.

Those who may stand in disbelief that a matter so relatively trivial compared to the repeated abuse of an historian of science by a prominent journal that is devoted to the history of science should visit some of the blogs and other venues in which it has been discussed, which range from Brian Leiter’s influential philosophy blog to The New York Times. Since the offense that ISIS facilitated in the first instance was compounded by the second, I am at a loss as to how a professional society could accept these actions without a formal protest. Under these circumstances, I believe that Bernard Lightman ought to resign.


IMAGE OF ISIS

THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a collaborative academic publication from Springer, one of the world's leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, which has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of contributors, where its Table of Contents is simply staggering http://www.springer.com/astronomy/astronomy,+observations+and+techniques/book/978-0-387-31022-0 Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly selective on his part and a very cheap shot.

These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest, even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the publisher? That is a disgrace.

There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopdia, which were authored by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol, pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp the whole book!

I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.

He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become involved.

Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that, once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not, we are all entitled to know.

Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow’s review. The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow has gone off of the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that is completely grotesque, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his own position.

The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden--conducting scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org

Read More

The Trial of Muad'Dib (9-12 May 2011)

The Trial of Muad'Dib (9-12 May 2011)

Special Report

For anyone who has been following the extraordinary case of Muad'Dib, the "Not Guilty!" verdict rendered yesterday must be seen as a win for the Truth about 7/7 and for justice in the Courts.

Muad'Dib, or John Anthony Hill (JAH), is the producer of a documentary film entitled "7/7 Ripple Effect" about the 7/7/2005 London bombings, which was released to the internet on the 5th of November in 2007. In less than an hour, using mainstream media news reports, the film exposes the false flag operation that took the lives of 56 innocent people that day and injured close to 800 others. Muad'Dib, who was extradicted from Ireland for sending his study to officials of the Court hearing a case against associates of the alleged "suicide bombers", and others have been interviewed multiple times on "The Real Deal" regarding this ordeal, which has lasted for over two years thus far.

The Background

Muad'Dib was arrested in February, 2009 in Ireland on the authority of an EU arrest warrant, supposedly for "doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law". This trumped-up charge was officially for sending DVDs of his film to a UK court to prevent a miscarriage of justice after the judge and QC BAR-rister in the case lied to the jurors from the outset about the guilt of the 4 alleged 7/7 bombers (Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain). Muad'Dib then fought extradition from Ireland to the UK to face this malicious and politically motivated charge for more than 20 months until the British-controlled Irish Supreme court ruled to extradite him to the UK on the 11/11/2010 at an 11:00am hearing.

Thanks to a British legal system that so desperately wanted to keep him under lock and key that on 4 occasions they didn't deliver him from prison to his scheduled bail hearings, he spent a total of 157 days in prison.


The "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD

Supposedly this was for sending DVDs of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" film to the UK court that was trying 3 innocent terror patsies whom the British government falsely accused of "helping" the 4 alleged 7/7 bombers. In reality the British government was punishing Muad'Dib for making the film and hoping that they could silence him by throwing him in one of "her majesty's" dungeons. What they didn't bank on though was that Muad'Dib would challenge their entire system, including the sovereignty of Elizabeth A.M. Battenberg/Mountbatten, who is known by the criminal alias "Elizabeth II" and "the House of Windsor". She is the richest woman on the planet and has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.

Elizabeth A.M. Battenberg is not only the head of the Church (of England) and State (the U.K. and the British Commonwealth), but she is also head of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry), the head of the Committee of 300 and of the New World Order (NWO). And the very last thing the NWO wants is for someone to expose their false flag operations, the way Muad'Dib's film "7/7 Ripple Effect" has done. If you haven't seen the film yet, please go to http://jforjustice.co.uk/77 and download it now. It's a free tutorial on how these false flag operations are pulled off.

Confronting the Queen

Why would Muad'Dib challenge the entire system instead of focusing on the trumped-up charge they had used to lock him up? Because he has rock-solid proof that Elizabeth is a fraud and exposing her would put a major spanner in the works of the NWO endless war of terror machine and their plans to exterminate over 90% of the world's population of "useless eaters" (or "consumers", if you prefer that word).

So what does the richest, most powerful woman on the planet do when she is about to be embarrassed and exposed as a fraud? She cheated, that's what she did. Please see the following link for a summary of how the first day of Muad'Dib's Trial went, where Elizabeth's sovereignty and the jurisdiction of "her majesty's" courts were questioned.

http://mtrial.org/node/129

There was no way THEY* could let of a jury see the irrefutable evidence and proof of her fraud that Muad'Dib has, so they first had a corrupt judge deny Muad'Dib's witness application behind closed doors and then purportedly send the paperwork to the wrong address so Muad'Dib wouldn't learn of it before the trial. That was followed up by the presiding judge at the trial denying Muad'Dib the basic right to a jury in the preliminary matter of his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.

*THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You

Please think about this for a moment. Every judge in the U.K. has sworn an oath to Elizabeth. Every judge in the U.K. draws both their salary and their authority from Elizabeth. It should therefore be obvious that no judge in the U.K. could be impartial in a matter that questioned Elizabeth's authority and thus called into question the judge's authority as well. It's a blatant conflict of interest and that's exactly why Muad'Dib had lawfully requested a jury to decide the matter.


Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Coronation, 1953)

You can ask for a jury trial for a traffic citation, so why couldn't someone request a jury trial to decide a matter impossible for a judge to fairly decide? Are you starting to see just how afraid of this evidence THEY really are?

So THEY cheated and the judge ignored Muad'Dib's Challenge. THEY were anxious to move on to the trial, get a conviction on this ridiculous charge, and get Muad'Dib back in one of "her majesty's" prisons to silence him and teach everyone else to think twice before challenging the system.

Confident in their plan, THEY decided it would be in their best interest to finally allow their government controlled propaganda machine to let the story out, which they did on the 10th, as the trial on this trumped up charge of attempting to "…pervert the course of justice…" proceeded. Please see http://mtrial.org/node/131 or google "7/7 bombers 'were innocent patsies'."

The Flaw in their plan

The one big flaw in their plan though was a complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Muad'Dib. But hey, what are lawyers/barristers for if not to put on a convincing show for the jurors in the complete absence of anything of substance.

And that's exactly what THEY did. The prosecution spent hours going over DNA evidence, fingerprints and witness statements linking Muad'Dib to the DVDs that were sent to the UK court despite Muad'Dib readily confirming he sent the DVDs multiple times. A previous judge had ordered the prosecution months ago not to waste any more time or taxpayers' money on a completely unnecessary investigation of this very clearly established and undisputed fact.

So sure of themselves, the prosecution next decided to show the jury the "7/7 Ripple Effect”. Finally a productive use of everyone's time. Apparently it did not have the desired effect that the prosecution had anticipated, but we'll get to that in a moment.

The prosecution then presented as evidence audio files from the "7/7 Ripple Effect" extracted from Muad'Dib's computers that had been stolen during his initial arrest back in February of 2009. It was very kind of them to work so diligently to dig those files out of Muad'Dib's personal computer so that the jurors could hear again those parts of the film which have been in the public domain since the 5th of November 2007.

The "Case Cracker"

Then came the case cracker. The prosecution described to the jury how an "expert" had examined the http://jforjustice.co.uk website and email addresses, and found the website contained an identical copy of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the DVD copies of the film that were sent to the Kingston Crown court. Some more amazing detective work which we can only hope wasn't as costly as the totally unnecessary DNA evaluation. Of course the prosecutor could have simply asked Muad'Dib, who would have confirmed that the film content was the same online as on the DVDs, but that wouldn't have provided the drama that the prosecution was going for with the jurors. Remember, when you don't have any real evidence, you have to try to dazzle your audience/jurors with tricks and nonsense.

The prosecution ran out of undisputed facts to prove, so they rested. Muad'Dib took the stand.


Muad'Dib (aka John Anthony Hill)

What Muad'Dib shared wasn't really much different than what has been shared during the interviews he has done on "The Real Deal". He shared the story of how and why the film was made, and mentioned that he had seen the film "9/11 Ripple Effect" by Dave von Kleist from the Power Hour, an independent American TV show, which impressed him and inspired the title of the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

Muad'Dib explained that he had been motivated to send the DVDs of his film to the Kingston Crown court after learning of the misleading and outrageous statements made by Judge Peter Gross and QC Neil Flewitt at the first Kingston trial in their attempt to mislead the jurors into thinking there was no doubt that the 4 alleged bombers (Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussain) carried out the 7/7/2005 London bombings. How could a judge and a QC/prosecutor not be familiar with the presumption of innocence? The 4 alleged bombers have never been proven guilty in a court of law, or in any legitimate and independent public enquiry, and millions of people doubt the official government conspiracy theory. The 4 alleged bombers have only been tried in the government controlled propaganda machine, also known as the mainstream media.

"In Care of the Court"

Back to the Southwark Crown court and the case of Regina vs. Muad'Dib, we were then told that the DVDs sent to the judge and the jury foreman were sent IN CARE OF THE COURT, giving the Kingston court complete discretion over whether the material was then forwarded on to the judge and the jury. So how could sending information through the proper channels to the court to correct lies being told to the jurors by the judge and prosecutor be considered a crime? Well it certainly couldn't be considered improper to address information to the judge in care of the court because the judge should be able to determine whether the content of the film was relevant or not to the case in question. The judge at Southwark agreed and so that charge/count was dropped during Muad'Dib's Testimony.

The prosecution then moved on to the BBC hit piece, which the government controlled propaganda machine had used to try to discredit Muad'Dib in the hope of reversing the popularity of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" which was in the process of going viral. The prosecutor wanted to know why Muad'Dib had not participated, acting as if he had something to hide.

Muad'Dib pointed out that he had given the BBC his conditions before participating, which were that the BBC show the film unedited in its entirety on prime time, a condition they did not meet, and therefore Muad'Dib told them he would not cooperate with them in any way. The BBC then stalked him and ambushed him outside his home, which backfired on them as the "7/7 Ripple Effect" became even more popular as a result of the BBC hit piece.

But maybe the most telling story of all was the prosecution's admission that the film was made in such a way that it "changes the minds of the people who see it".

Isn't that the real reason THEY are so afraid of the film?

In the movie "Dune" Muad'Dib trained The Fremen/Freemen to use The (Weirding) Way of battle. The reason that it sounds "weird" to people is because it is the TRUTH, which cuts through all of the lies and can most definitely change the minds of the people who "see" and "hear" it.

Isaiah 33:19 "Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a ridiculous (weird sounding) way of talking [The Truth], [that thou (the majority who believe they are human) can] not understand."

(For a more detailed explanation of the movie "Dune", please visit http://jahtruth.net/dune)

The prosecution may not have understood the Truth contained in the "7/7 Ripple Effect" and in the testimony of Muad'Dib, but the jury sure did. They saw through the prosecution's smoke and mirrors and found Muad'Dib not guilty, just as one would expect a fully-informed jury to do in such a clear-cut case of political persecution.

NOT GUILTY!

No wonder THEY were afraid to have a jury decide Muad'Dib's Challenge of the court's jurisdiction and Elizabeth's sovereignty. As George Orwell said, "in times of universal deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act" or a (weird sounding) way of talking to most. If you haven't seen the Ripple Effect films, it's high time that you learn The (Weirding) Way and watch them both.

"9/11 Ripple Effect" about the September 11th, 2001 false flag attack in the U.S.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6847507648836588010#

"7/7 Ripple Effect" about the July 7th, 2005 false flag attack in the U.K.
http://jforjustice.co.uk/77


Truth Will Out

Hopefully people will build on this victory and help to dismantle the NWO/Global Elite before Elizabeth and her evil colleagues are able to complete their plans to kill most of us off through WW3 and poisoning us in various ways. The time to fight them is now, and the man to show us The Way is Muad'Dib.

Long Live The Fighters!

This special report was prepared with the assistance of Rob, a follower and close friend of Muad'Dib who, along with Nicholas Kollerstrom, the author of TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded edition, 2011), has kept me informed of developments in this case. For more, listen to my archived interviews with them on "The Real Deal", http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Read More

Osama Bin Laden, 1957 – 2001

Osama Bin Laden, 1957 – 2001

Nicholas Kollerstrom

In Orwell’s novel 1984, there is a figure called Emmanuel Goldstein who functions as an all-purpose enemy, even though we gather that he may actually have died some time ago. Osama Bin Laden has been used in a similar manner by the Powers that Be, by a process of identity theft during the last days of his life. In reality there have been no sightings or reports of him since 2001. I here argue that he died on or around December 15th, 2001, in consequence of the intensive bombing of his then-residence the Tora Bora caves of eastern Afghanistan; and that he had no involvement in the events of 9/11.

Osama Bin Laden - Warrior of God or CIA Asset?

It is a life which needs to become a film, a transcontinental drama. But, any film company making such could expect a glowing future…. Far safer, to make a film of the bogeyman we all know and fear – but, who never existed. The Sunday Times in March 2007 had a nine-page article about where he might be lurking, and how no-one had been able to find ‘the world’s most wanted man.’ It gave not the slightest hint that he might have died five years ago (Christina Lamb, The Invisible Man, The Sunday Times Magasine, ‘Who is hiding the world’s most wanted man?’). Pakistan was blamed, as if it could have hid him through the years, even though he was over six foot six high and his distinctive appearance was known all round the world. The article conceded that ‘the last positive sighting’ of OBL had been in the December, 2001 US attack upon Tora Bora.

I did a book review concerning the speeches and videos allegedly produced by OBL. ‘Messages from Bin Laden,’ suggesting that all of them from 2002 onwards were faked.

His final months

The last months of Bin Laden’s life, July to December, are of world-historical importance. In July 2001 he was residing for a week in an American hospital in Dubai to treat his kidney trouble, as reported by the French paper Le Figaro. He had an operation on the 4th. This story was reported in Le Monde and the Guardian on 1st November but denied by the CIA and also reported by John Snow on Channel 4 News. Snow first confirmed the story with the British doctor in Dubai who treated Bin Laden: source Martin Summers, of the London 9/11 Sceptics and he there met CIA station chief Larry Mitchell on 12th July. Many members of the Bin Laden family came to visit him - ‘There goes the story that he’s a black sheep!’ was Mike Ruppert’s laconic comment. He flew off on the 14th in a private jet. We do not hear about Bin Laden him again until September 10th, when he reappears in a military hospital in Rawalpindi in Pakistan – with some military protection - again for kidney dialysis (Nafeez Ahmed, The War on Freedom, How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001, 2002, p.223; Thierry Meyssian, 9/11 The big Lie, 2002, p. 107.)

On September 12th a Pakistani newspaper reported OBL’s first denial that he had been involved in the event of 9/11, then on the 16th OBL’s assistant Abdul Samad faxed a message to the Afghan Islamic Press (in Islamabad, Pakistan) that was broadcast by al-Jazeera in Quatar. In it OBL declared, ‘I categorically state that I have not done this,’ adding that he had an agreement with Mohammed Omar, chief Mullah of the Taliban in Afghanistan, that prohibited his involvement in such political activity. A week later, on 22nd September, he gave a longer set of replies to questions from the Pakistani newspaper ‘Ummaut’:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.... The American system is totally in the control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States ... I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom."

This accords with a statement of his some years earlier:

“We also have been hit with some of the traces of this campaign as we were accused of funding terrorism, and being members of an international terrorist organisation. Their aims in making these allegations were to place psychological pressure on the Mujahideen and their supporters so that they would forsake the obligation of Jihad and the resistance of oppression and American Israeli occupation of Islamic sacred lands. However, our gratitude to God, their campaign was not successful, as terrorising the American occupiers is a religious and logical obligation. . . .

As for their accusations of terrorising the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category "accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses". The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women, and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere…Then, killing hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, and whose numbers (of dead) continue to increase as a result of the sanctions. Despite the continuing American occupation of the country of the two sacred mosques, America continues to claim that it is upholding the banner of freedom and humanity, whilst these deeds which they did, you would find that the most ravenous of animals would not descend to. . . .

As for what America accuses us of, of killing innocent people, they have not been able to offer any evidence, despite the magnitude of their expenditure on their intelligence services…Similar is our history with respect to our differences with the Saudi regime: all that has been proved is our joy at the killing of the American soldiers in Riyadh and Khobar” (October 1996).

On the 20th September, OBL was officially designated by President Bush as responsible for the attacks. Then on 23rd Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that a paper would shortly be ready with the supporting evidence. Although announced repeatedly, no such paper ever appeared (Meyssan 9/11, pp. 82, 102). A letter by OBL of 24th September urges Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stand firm against aggression from the ‘Crusaders’ (R. Jacquard, In the Name of Osama Bin Laden (2002) has just this one post-911 letter, p. 258), and contains no hint that he might have been involved in the event of 9-11, still less any approval of the notion of attacking America.

In mid-September the Taliban responded to US requests for OBL to be handed over, by saying they would be happy to do so, if some evidence for his complicity in the 9/11 event could be produced. (That may have been unwise, given that the UN Security Council had two years earlier passed a resolution demanding that the Taliban ‘hand over’ Bin Laden, though without specifying to whom (UN Security Council Resolution 1267, passed 15 October 1999); however, let us recall that he was regarded as a hero in Afghanistan for having driven out the Soviet Union). After that request for evidence was declined, the Taliban offered on October 1st to give over OBL for trial to an Islamic court in Pakistan - apparently with OBL’s approval; this proposal was vetoed by Pakistan’s President. Days later, the bombs started falling.

On October 1st, Britain’s prime Minister Tony Blair averred: "I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [OBL’s] link to the events of the 11th of September" (The Daily Telegraph, London, 1 October 2001). That statement was presumably related to the UK Government’s ‘Bin Laden Dossier’ which appeared on October 4th – a mere three days before the US/UK bombing began, of one of the poorest nations on Earth. That dossier lacked any references for its didactic and unlikely statements. It was described by the Independent on Sunday as ‘little more than conjecture, supposition and assertions of fact’. (For comments on untruthful information in this UK dossier, see Burke, Al-Qaeda, p. 17.) Only an ‘updated’ version of this document remains available to investigators.

Earlier versions (cited by Meyssian 9/11, p.225) are no longer accessible. Jason Burke discussed this dossier, finding that eg its linking OBL’s name to the attack on US military personnel serving in Somalia was ‘almost certainly untrue,’ (Al-Qaeda, p.17). and it concluded: ‘the British intelligence specialists must have known that the dossier they gave to the Prime Minister to reveal to parliament and the British public to justify involvement in a major conflict included demonstrably false material but felt the war in Afghanistan needed to be fought and the public needed to be convinced of it. Painting Bin Laden as profiting from the heroin trade served the same purpose as atrocity stories about Germans in World War I (Burke, Al-Qaeda, p. 17).

On November 3rd, after the war had begun, al-Jazeera released Bin Laden’s final major statement, in which he viewed Afghanistan as the last in a series of ‘crusader wars’ against Muslim nations, and insisted that there was no evidence of any Afghan involvement in the event of 9/11. British MPs would, I suggest, benefit from reading this statement.



The Real OBL



The Real OBL

Fake Osamas



Fake vs. Real Osama

The Fake Bin Laden Video

The centrally-important fake ‘Bin Laden’ video appeared in mid-November 2001, shown on al-Jazeera television station, with the main character expressing approval of the 9/11 event and apparently having some degree of foreknowledge. Although much of the tape was only semi-audible, the Pentagon produced its English ‘translation’ on Dec 13th. A year later, in November 2002, the Swiss Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence in Lausanne, commissioned by France-2 television to analyse the tape, expressed confidence that the voice heard was not that of Bin Laden. The main figure of that video did not even resemble OBL, so it remains a mystery how media hacks were prepared to go with such a story at all.

That video was the only evidence the US ever produced, to justify its bombing of Afghanistan.

Radio transmissions of OBL’s voice from Tora Bora were normally intercepted by four different intelligence agencies, American, Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian (Ahmed, War on Freedom, p. 220), up until 14th December 2001 when they ceased. His funeral took place on the 16th in Pakistan, as reported in Pakistani and Egyptian newspapers, at an undisclosed location. A four-page will of his surfaced some months later, dated 14th December. In a videoed speech of his broadcast 27 December, 2001, OBL declared, ‘Regardless if Osama is killed or survives, the awakening has started, praise be to God,’ (Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, 2004, xiv) and that was his (posthumous) final broadcast.

A Valuable Asset

The Pentagon was able to produce that fake OBL video, without fear of OBL denouncing it, because (I suggest) it knew where he lay, dying. Since then a series of ‘Bin Laden’ tapes has been fabricated, to help the world live in fear. His image has been misused by those concerned to promote global terror. A shelfload of untrue books linking OBL to 9/11 exist, of which Jason Burke’s Al-Qaeda the true Story of Radical Islam is only the most recent. One would prefer to hear from some Muslim researchers, in ascertaining the identity and life-course of this character, fully demonised by the US and UK. Max Hastings wrote on 3rd Sept 2004 in the Daily Mail, ‘If Bush gets back to the White house, more than any other man he will have Osama bin Laden to thank’ – too true!

Shortly after 9/11, the Independent informed its readers that ‘in late August,
Mr bin Laden boasted in an interview with the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi that he was planning an unprecedentedly large strike against the United States’ (The Independent, 17.11.2001 A.Gumbel, ‘Bush did not heed several warnings of attack). and this was cited in Ahmed’s book as evidence for Bin Laden’s fiendish intent (Ahmed, War on Freedom, p. 115.) I ascertained that nothing resembling such an article had ever been published by that Arabic newspaper, which had never conducted an interview with bin Laden. (Mr Ahmed Dabbur, at the London office of al-Quds al-Arabi kindly checked through their archives; all their newspaper (in Arabic) is on the web.)

The National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland, apparently has the record of a phone call made by OBL to his mother. There cannot have been many phone lines out of the Tora Bora caves, and did the persons who made this phone-tap record OBL’s preparations for the event of 9/11? (OBL is alleged to have phoned his Mother on September 9th saying ‘In two days you’re going to hear big news, and you’re not going to hear from me for a while’ (Ahmed, p. 117). One wonders whether these words are meant to be present in this phone call recording held by the NSA?)

The term ‘Al-Qaeda’ started to be used around 1997/8 as a designation for Islamic terrorist groups, which means ‘the base’ in Arabic. (It was OBL’s name for his computer file, used while employed by the CIA in Afghanistan, to co-ordinate the ‘jihad’ against the Soviet Union: Meyssan, 9/11, p.99.) In 1998, FBI-led investigations of bombings of African embassies started using this name (Burke, Al-Qaeda ref 6, p. 6.). These groups lacked any sort of insignia and have been well described as ‘a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as "Al Qaeda." Most of the affiliated groups have distinct goals within their own countries or regions, and pose little direct threat to the United States’ (K. McCloud and A. Dolnik, Debunk the myth of al-Qaeda).

Thus there do not exist, or hardly exist, documents by members of such groups referring to themselves as ‘Al-Qaeda’ (Brendan O’Neill Does al-Qaeda exist?), although one would like to hear more discussion of this issue. The BBC film series ‘The Power of Nightmares’ gave a compelling account of how the ‘Al-quaeda’ threat was mocked up, to help the people live in fear.

By 1998 the FBI had issued an arrest warrant for OBL in six countries (for his presumed involvement in the Nairobi and Kenya embassy attacks of that year), and yet a British couple had the following experience. Alan and Cindy Thompson ended up in the town of Zhob, Pakistan, after making an unexpected detour, and stayed overnight. They left quickly the next day, after discovering that Bin Laden was in town. They discussed their alarm and surprise with American aid workers, who told them of a similar experience they had had in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where they had to move as their offices were right next door to bin Laden. The Thompsons reported their discovery, but were ignored by the FBI. Cindy stated: ‘We were gobsmacked. We found it incredible that we were offering to give firsthand true information about the most wanted man in the world and the US embassy couldn’t even be bothered to get off their butts…it is about time that this story is told to the world to let the people know the truth…the hunt for bin Laden is a farce.' (Kenyon Gibson, Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11 (2003), p. 201. The Thompsons are living in Lincoln.) Indeed!

On the very morning of 9/11, George H.W. Bush met with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, at a conference sponsored by the Carlyle Group in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC. In the ensuing months, the UK & US dropped twelve thousand bombs on Afghanistan. To quote Meyssian: ‘The greatest army in the world, for its part, was unable to find the alleged Public Enemy No 1 it was sent to arrest, while Mullah Omar escaped to Pakistan on a motorbike' (Messyan, 9/11, p. 125). There a danger that the real OBL will be lost in a mythologizing process - as the authorities may desire – so that we are left merely with multiple refracted images. (For example, an alleged interview by an Arabic paper in November 2001 has OBL denying that he had kidney trouble or that he visited the Dubai hospital, and has him affirm his readiness to attack America.) In October 2004, the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell averred that the Pentagon knew where OBL was, somewhere in western Pakistan. Emmanuel Goldstein was a much-needed figure.

The Train moves On

Confirmation of how indispensable OBL was as an enemy-image comes from Kabir Mohammed’s story. In the year 2000, Taliban leaders were anticipating the danger posed by OBL’s presence in their country, and consulted Kabir as an ambassador over what to do. He suggested OBL be handed over to the newly-established International Criminal Court in the Hague, and set up a meeting in August 2000 between Taliban representatives and EU official Reiner Weiland in the Sheraton Hotel in Frankfurt, to ascertain in what way they could hand over OBL. This offer was relayed to the U.S. Government (which does not sound quite what the Taliban had asked for), who responded by appointing Kabir as an Afghan ambassador! In mid-November 2000, the Taliban moved OBL and his henchmen to Daronta, 30 miles outside Kabul, effectively placing them under house arrest. The Taliban placed him in this confined location, where he could be either destroyed by missile attack or arrested and deported. Delays and procrastination followed, with U.S. apologies being repeatedly sent for inaction. Then suddenly it was too late, and on September 15th Kabir was informed ‘the train has moved on’ and the option now was either the Taliban’s total surrender, or war. He resigned from his ambassador role, and soon the bombs started to fall on his country.

Reading between the lines, the U.S. did not want OBL handed over to an International Criminal Court, where his open testimony could cause a lot of harm, but did want him stuck in Afghanistan, so they could weave their story around him.

An Honest Cop, RIP


John O'Neill, Anti-Terrorism Expert

‘The one American who knew more about bin Laden than anyone else’, John O’Neill, was investigating OBL’s alleged involvement in the bombing of the ship USS Cole. He was the FBI’s counter-terrorism chief, in its New York National Security Division office, his speciality being Islamic terrorism. But, he became unduly keen on the pursuit of OBL, and was warned off the case: in November 2000 he was thrown out of Yemen where he was investigating the Cole bombing, then in August 2001 he fell victim to a framed character-blackening and was dismissed from office. He was finally moved to a different job – in the Twin Towers. (O’Neill emerged from the first Twin Tower inferno, then went of his own accord into the second one to try and rescue people, where he met his nemesis.) He does not seem to have appreciated that catching OBL was not quite the name of the game. Bin Laden was the "Most Wanted Man" on Earth – and America wanted to keep it that way!

Identity Theft

On November 2nd 2004, a macabre Halloween reappearance of ‘Bin Laden’ handed the US election over to Bush. The film that Al-Jazeera broadcast in Quatar was highly blurred. Nico Haupt wondered ironically ‘I am meanwhile interested, where the ISI always get their stand-in actors for former CIA payroll buddy Usama Bin Laden’ (ISI =Pakistan Intelligence Service). The lookalike figure who read the script sounded like someone in a rather bored mood reading a speech, and he had different eyebrows from OBL. One might have expected OBL to speak in an animated way from the heart about the things he believes in, indeed an actor would have performed in a rather more animated way, suggesting that this reader was chosen for the coincidence that he is an OBL look-alike. He was clearly reading a script, one saw him turning the pages, and there was an obvious cut in the recording.


The 10/30/2004 "Osama"

The 9/11 Commission Report--The 9/11 Commision Report (2004), cites no authors or editors, only a list of Commission Members with no hint of who they are or whether they are contactable--wove a story about OBL quite incompatible with that told here. Virtually all of its references were uncheckable, as alluding to FBI memos etc outside the public domain. It contained no quotes from OBL: quite a few statements of his have been quoted or alluded to here, not one of which appears in the pages of the Commission’s Report, despite its extensive discussion of him. Its references include ‘interrogations’ of Muslims – under torture, one assumes. I suggest that its account is largely fictional. Let us hope that some attempt at real biography will be attempted, before this intriguing character vanishes into that fractured hall of mirrors.

No, Mr Fisk

Robert Fisk’s doorstopper of a book came out in 2005, a central theme of which is his relation with OBL whom he once met, and his ‘interpreting’ of each subsequent message. Fisk can fill a considerably larger hall than can any British politician, and one would tend to assume he knows what he is talking about on this topic. But, we are distressed to note that he always believes in the from-beyond-the-grave OBL videos. In November 2002, a bin Laden video appeared, and Fisk enthused:

‘I hear his voice. He is alive. It takes only a brief round of phone calls to the Middle East and south- West Asia for my sources to confirm that it was Osama Bin Laden’s gravelly voice that is threatening the west in the short monologue transmitted by the Al-Jazeera television channel’.

But, hang on – let’s quote the Islamic expert Kevin Barrett on this recording. The Pentagon’s fake OBL of December 2001 had been widely ridiculed owing to the low-credibility ‘fatty Bin Laden’ who was speaking, Barrett explained, and he had yet to meet an informed observer who considered it authentic. Therefore,

The next “Osama from beyond the grave” message had no images — it was an audio tape delivered to al-Jazeera in fall, 2002. The CIA verified it as authentic, and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world’s leading voice identification experts at IDIAP in Switzerland reported that “the message was recorded by an impostor.”

Computer voice analysis at the Perceptual Artificial Intelligence in Lausanne (commissioned by France-2 television) demonstrated that the recorded voice differed from that of OBL, and should not the most eminent Middle-East journalist take note of this? This phoney message listed ‘the blows struck at western powers since his presumed ‘death’ – a synagogue in Tunisia, the Bali bomb, the Chechen theatre siege, and spoke of ‘our sons in Iraq.’ No wonder we had to bomb Iraq after that message, if OBL was intoning about ‘our sons’ in that country. Thus even the most gifted and discerning of journalists is obliged to remain within a consensus reality, with bogus ‘enemy’ sustained by fabricated videos...

We are gobsmacked that Mr. Fisk believes in the authenticity of the Pentagon-translated fatty Bin Laden tape of November 2001 which turned up in in Jalalabad, owing merely to a phrase it used which, he recalled, OBL had used to him some years ago - concerning the envisioning of the 9/11 event in a dream (p.1275). He might here pause to consider the miscasting of the holy month of Ramadan in the speech, in a way that no Arab could ever do. ‘He [the Deity] will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan’ chortled fatty Bin Laden (in the Pentagon’s translation) with the video reportedly bearing a date-stamp of November 9th – while the month of Ramadan only began a week later, on the 16th. Its forty minutes of rambling dialogue gave no hint of the ghastly carpet bombing then going on around Jalalabad.

As Mr Fisk evidently believes that OBL has endorsed acts of terrible violence, let us turn back to an earlier and more truthful analysis by Carol Valentine, based on a CNN interview with Bin Laden, conducted by Peter Arnett and shown in March, 1997. She shows how this interview made clear that he was not concerned with the targeting of American civilians: ‘we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of the Two Holy Places.’ Bin Laden's goal, Carol Valentine concluded, ‘was to get US military forces out of Muslim lands …. He just wants us to go away, much like we wanted the British to go away in 1776.’

In January 2006, Fisk is still pronouncing a new OBL audiotape as ‘almost certainly genuine’. Even professor Bruce Lawrence, editor of the book ‘Messages to the world The Statements of Osama Bin Laden’ pronounced this one a forgery, brewed up by the Pakistani ISI. Mr Fisk needs to meditate calmly upon the words of Kevin Barrett: ‘Every “Bin Laden” statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus.’

Bin Laden – Still dead after all these Years

The US ‘Veterans Today’ carried a fine article ‘Hunt for Bin Laden a national Shame’ in December 2009, by Gordon Duff, its Senior Editor. It began:

The embarassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

However … Since we spent 200 million dollars on "special ops" looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the U.S.? . . .

The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people. We don't even know if he really was an enemy, certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said. In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

In May 2011, his death was proclaimed by Obama as having just happened. Not one single UK paper or media outlet expressed doubt.

Evidence does not support the notion of Muslim hijackers as responsible for 911-- see David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbour, Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11(2004)--pointing more to a source within the US military, who devised the event themselves. This issue has to be central in answering the question, "Who was Bin Laden?" Someday, truthful accounts of the 28-year old Arab who visited US military bases as Tim Osman in 1996 may appear – but, not just yet. Those responsible for engineering the event of 9/11 had to have confidence over when OBL was going to die: he had to be in Afghanistan and take the blame, he had to be alive when the country was invaded, but had to be incapable of replying and had to fade away as the Pentagon’s bogus identity-theft video was promoted around the world, loading the guilt onto him.

If the American people wanted to do something about terrorism, apart from using it as a pretext to start wars, suspend the US constitution and surrender their hard-won democratic freedoms, then maybe they should take seriously OBL’s words in a 1998 interview given to ABC television:

‘They (Americans) have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, ... it is Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world ... For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been (by the Jews) slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed…This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people’s lands, or other people's honor."

Hear, hear!

Nickolas Kollerstrom is an historian of science and expert on the 7/7 attacks in London, about which he has published TERROR ON THE TUBE, which is being released in an expanded and revised version this month. He has followed the trial and tribulations of Muad'Dib and has been present for the formal inquest on 7/7. Several interviews with him are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

Read More

Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag

Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack.

http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 4, 2011

Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.

Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.

Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world.

Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus.

The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is also based on Steve Pieczenik.

Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.

“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a television screen.

“It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American people,” asked Pieczenik.

“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked a mortuary.

Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face.

“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,” said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.

“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik, calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was absurd.”

Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a “sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the American public can be duped once again.”

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the world.

Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.

During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general’s name.

“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.

“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had happened”.

“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college, I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the American public,” he added.

Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that was absurd.”

Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in which his country is heading.

Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKvrL03vWik

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Read More

Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?

Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?

“It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that ain't so.” – Will Rogers

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are heavily promoting the theory that “explosive nanothermite” was used to bring down the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, and that microscopic chips of a fused compound containing unignited nanothermite were found in the World Trade Center dust. This discovery is now considered a “smoking gun” by most members of the 9/11 Truth community, even though a good many serious researchers and 9/11 activists remain unconvinced.

Let’s take a look at what is supposed to be the current best evidence in the controlled-demolition theory of the World Trade Center’s tallest buildings. Steven Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11 Truth movement from Brigham Young University during 2005, introduced the theory that thermite/thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers; and in 2006, he refined this theory to propose that nanothermite or “superthermite” – a finely granulated form of thermite – was in fact the substance used, and its high reactivity served to pulverize the steel, concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings’ contents.

In an effort to confirm the claims being made about thermite and nanothermite, T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite. The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly.

Hightower wrote directly to Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, citing a frequently‑referenced March 2005 LLNL paper on thermite, which can be downloaded from the Reference 2 link at the bottom of http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html

This paper explains what nano‑composites are, focusing on thermite mixtures and how they are produced. It also includes some experimental results.

As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’"



What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?” Gage responded: “The nanothermite was set in a bed of organic silica, which I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume work. In addition, I believe that the authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.”

Without further characterization, the “bed of organic silica” is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is raised that “other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona fide explosives. Hightower decided to take an even closer look at the claims advanced on behalf of nanothermite, and has spent several months researching everything he could find in the open literature. Again and again, he found that thermite, even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.

So if nanothermite is to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11, it would have had to have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down. What was it combined with? By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains.

There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movement’s nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem. For example, during a recent interview (“9/11: Explosive Testimony Exclusive” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY), Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up, which allows for the option of adding other chemicals to make it explosive. He states that the role played by the red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on observation of the towers’ destruction and the molten metal present, that both explosives and incendiaries were used. It’s just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove that the nanothermitic material they found in the dust has the explosive properties he believes were necessary to accomplish the destruction.

Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings.

9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event, it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its aftermath – including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments. Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives the discovery of nanothermite presents. Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and may indeed argue, “We still have no real ‘hard evidence’ proving that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.”

We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.

__________________________________________________

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?

& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
WTC Devastation by public domain

COMPARING NANOTHERMITE REACTION VELOCITIES TO EXPLOSIVE VELOCITIES

The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is

Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3

By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let's look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive.

A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nano-particles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance.

“WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nano-particles have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials.” (5)

A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2. in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6)

Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives.

From the above, it is quite clear that the “nano” in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX.

In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO MAKE A NANOTHERMITE EXPLOSIVE?

First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the LLNL paper. (6)

“Gas generating Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R (R = –(CH2)2(CF2)7CF3) nanocomposites. ”

“One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects. Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4,7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.”

“These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above.” (6)

Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn't expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn't it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)

“3. Gas generating nano-thermites ”

“Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nano-particles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.”

“The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nano-thermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille’s law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nano-composite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars.” (5)

I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive (“give them blasting properties”).

WHAT NANOTHERMITE ADVOCATES NEED TO DO TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORY

Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say “explosive nanothermite” over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term “nanothermite”, then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.
___________________________________

THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

1 May 2011

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: T. Mark Hightower began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story.

http://www.serendipity.li/

He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.

REFERENCES

(1) Fictitious Book Cover, “Explosives in the WTC for Dummies”



(2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006

(3) Jones, Steven E., “Answers to Objections and Questions,” Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, 18 July 2006

(4) LLNL Web page cited by Jones – “Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives,”

http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

(5) Denis Spitzer, Marc Comet, Christian Baras, Vincent Pichot, Nelly Piazzon, “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances,” Institut franco-allemand de recherches de Saint-Louis (ISL), UMR ISL/CNRS 3208, 5, rue du General Cassagnou, 68301 Saint-Louis, France,
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 71 (2010) 100–108

(6) B. J. Clapsaddle, L. Zhao, D. Prentice, M. L. Pantoya, A. E. Gash, J. H. Satcher Jr., K. J. Shea, R. L. Simpson, “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” March 25, 2005, Presented at 36th Annual Conference of ICT, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 28, 2005 through July 1, 2005 UCRL-PROC-210871, LLNL This paper is free to download at
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=862389

Read More