Commentary by Maxwell C. Bridges
When these three words were written in ~1865 by Mary Baker Eddy, the definition of "radical" was more along the lines of "indivisible root" or "kernel":
- (mathematics) a quantity expressed as the root of another quantity
- (linguistics) the form of a word after all affixes are removed
- (chemistry) two or more atoms bound together as a single unit
- arising from or going to the root or source
Before even the time of my youth (1970's), "radical" took on the more commonly used meaning of revolutionary, extremist, or beyond the norm. However, beyond the norm does not make it wrong.
The word "right" is the opposite of wrong:
- correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth
- in conformance with justice or law or morality
- precisely, exactly
- correct in opinion or judgment
- properly
The truth about 9/11 has a distinctive "right is radical" nature.
To look at the 9/11 root, source, evidence, and cover-up with an open-mind using math and science can lead to (correct) opinions or judgments that are beyond the norm of the propaganda that the government through fawning corporate media has been spreading & defending and that non-questioning sheeple have been spoon-fed into believing. Of course, because that 9/11 norm was heavily manipulated and scripted to get a specific public knee-jerk reaction. Being right and conforming to fact or truth about 9/11 are revolutionary and extremist. And we know this because two of the conspirators (government and corporate media) have been covering for their 9/11 crimes this whole time (9 years) by labeling such views as nutty, looney, and crazy.
The three "right is radical" take-away points from this 9/11 essay are:
- 9/11 was thorough and redundant, and included missiles and pre-planted explosives.
- Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) was employed to fool us in most of 9/11 footage replayed ad nausem by the corporate media. Go to YouTube and search for "September Clues."
- 9/11 was a nuclear event, a line that few cross, because the lie of 9/11 can be proven without it.
A missile was used at the Pentagon. It does not matter whether or not missiles were used on the towers, because pre-planted explosives existed that eventually bring down the towers and therefore could logically already be in place to simulate the jet impact (if no missiles) and finish engraving a cartoon cutout of the planes on the towers' faces (with or without missiles) while CGI tricks the world into believing in aircrafts.
A low-flying commercial aircraft is very loud, yet witnesses and some audio-only recordings did not hear anything until the explosion of the "impact." Some witnesses closer reported hearing what sounded like a missile (on the 2nd impact), and others reported seeing a smaller plane. (Perspective: a missile or small plane can have the appearance of a larger plane further away.) The on-the-street reporters who repeated the missiles claim were quickly corrected by in-the-booth newscasters who saw (the faked) footage showing airplanes.
Note that 'missile' is mentioned in no uncertain terms even by a few newsmedia people: What to do with those? ... If a "Joe Public" had very clearly seen a missile, he would undoubtedly find comfort in the fact that even war-zone experts like ABC's Don Dahler had been initially 'mistaken' as to what he saw. The endless TV replays of the BOEING 767 animation would have eventually put Joe's torments to rest. The TV images would have "cleansed" his recollections.
~ http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.htm
According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, our brains generate an uncomfortable feeling when given the task of holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. A person reduces dissonance by changing attitudes, beliefs, and actions, or justifying, blaming, and denying. Television's repetition of the CGI planes is a clever PSYOPS into witness tampering: change what witnesses believe they saw and heard.
Other than this, why use CGI? Risk mitigation.
Could four planes even be hijacked? Could they be flown to their targets? Would hijacked planes get intercepted? Would the hijackers have the nerve to carry out a suicide divebomb? Would the planes hit their targets? Would the impacts cause enough damage?
The WTC towers were designed to withstand impacts from large aircrafts. Were a real plane to fly into them, the fuselage would probably exhibit notable deceleration deformation & crunching like a beer can at velocity hitting a steel bat. Portions of the plane, like the tail and wings, would likely shear off the fuselage and possibly bounce off of the building completely. The high probability risk is that, other than the heavy engines, a real plane would not penetrate the building deeply, and thereby not be credible as the catalyst for the onset of the fires and later structural failure to bring the whole building to the ground.
CGI controls the total imagery of would could be seen by an incredulous public, while supplying both the false-flag excuse and the PSYOPS shock & awe of "this could have been you on a commercial flight." Another reason for CGI comes from contemplating the "known unknowns" when 9/11 gets turned into a nuclear event. If the energy from the redundancy in the multiple milli-nuke per tower and other buildings exceeded the confines of the steel mesh that composed the outer walls to give away the true source of the demolition, the video footage could be manipulated.
Because the lies of 9/11 can be proven without hypothesizing a nuclear 9/11, many in the 9/11 Truth Movement reduce their cognitive dissonance in this massive crime by denying it. Recall that a precedence was set by the Bush Administration to pressure "the fixing of reports" to match their conclusions (ala "The Downing Street Memos" about the Iraqi invasion). To wit: the EPA with their "air is clean" ruling, NIST with their explanations only into the initiation of the WTC tower destruction, NIST with their 7 year delay in its WTC-7 report and omitting visible physical evidence of free-fall in its draft report, FBI with the confiscation of video tapes, FAA with the destruction of air traffic controller tapes, FEMA with its clean-up of the site, all agencies in not testing for Plutonium ruling out controlled demolition for superficial reasons outside their scope, and the 9/11 Commission in the questions not asked.
Some have justified denying the possibility of a nuclear 9/11 based on data & reports from other agencies, like seismic data or tritium levels at Ground Zero. Due to the already established precedence of pressure on government agencies, these very reports need to be viewed with skepticism. If they are possible tainted, that could change opinions and conclusions.
Leaving aside the heineous crimes of Hiroshima and Nakasaki and the use of Depleted Uranium weapons in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan(?), and Pakistan(?) that by themselves demonstrate crimes against humanity, American leaders nuking Americans has no precendece, they'll say. But there is:
- Port of Chicago, 1944. (African-American Service Men were killed.)
- World Trade Center, 1993. (They learned that one micro-nuke, even when placed well, would not be sufficient to take out the inner-core.)
- Oklahoma City, 1995. (They learned to not leave unexploded nukes lying around to incriminate, to make the destruction complete, and to not use American patsies.)
On his http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ and in his book "The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath" available from http://www.anonymousphysicist.com/, the Anonymous Physicist puts forth the hypothesis that the 3 or 4 milli-nuke fission devices per tower brought them down. He suggests that WTC-7 had morning nuclear events that fizzled, necessitating the afternoon nuclear demolition that sudden took out 8 stories and transitioned the building into 100 feet of free-fall.
Among the reasons he gives are:
- heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
- inability to quench ground zero heat with water
- red hot/molten steel at ground zero
- missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
- spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
- washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
- extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
- extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation
- extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
- disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
- disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
- disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
- several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
- bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
- multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
- small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
- fission-nuke technology well-established
- low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome
- EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
- Description of heat in WTC blast cloud
- Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
- High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders
- Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire
- Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro
- Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps
- Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface
- Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath
- Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temperatures of nukes
- Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
- Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test
- Extremely compacted ground zero debris
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to observe the videos of WTC-1, 2, and 7 to see if milli-nukes can account for the observed demolitions. Instead, I will point out anamolies in other WTC destruction.
The image above shows the destruction of the WTC complex. Coincidence that only buildings with a prefix of "WTC" were destroyed while nearby buildings had comparatively little collateral damage?
The right-hand side of the above image shows WTC-6 and multiple circular holes bored into it, each having little visible debris inside. The remains of WTC-1 are to the left of WTC-6.
The above image shows the dome of WFC-2 at the bottom, WTC-7 five story debris pile on the left, WTC-6 with its hole in the center, WTC-1's North wall leaning on WTC-6, and WTC-1's remains on the right. The questions raised on Dr. Judy Wood's webside were: Where did the top 100 floors of the North wall go? They did not fall on WTC6 or WTC7 because there are no steel wheatchex there. Some of the core of WTC-1 remains, but where is the rest of the core? The amount of steel on the ground barely covers the ground.
Ground Zero EMT: " I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police... standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "You can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running West again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern... I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now."
The above image shows a close-up of WTC-5 and its circular holes.
The photo above shows large circular holes centered in WTC-5. Because a large section of the penthouse has no support under it and overhangs hole (A), it appears as if hole (A) was created from below rather than from debris falling from above. Hole (C) was created by exterior tower columns hitting it.
The collapse of WTC-1 and its heavy column & spandrel sections did not reach further than the South-West corner of WTC-5. Exterior aluminum sheet-metal cladding, as shown in the photo of the Magic Fuselage, comprises the remainder of the litter on the roof.
The photo above shows how circular hole (B) is. There is little correlation between the cavity of the hole and the debris, suggesting
The two photos above show little debris from the towers in the form of steel columns heavy enough to collapse the roof of WTC-5 near the craters.
The arrows in the further enlargement of WTC-5 shows the roof segments overhanging the holes. The un-scarred roof suggests that the cavity originated from within.
The above images shows the missing material from WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-3, WTC-4 (except North wing), and nearly all of WTC-7, as well as the holes in WTC-5 and WTC-6.
The animated photo above is before the South Tower fell and shows large amounts of white smoke rising from much closer to street level than the plane impacts. This is also shown in Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video.
The above photo shows that WTC-6 was severely damaged before the first tower collapse.
This photo from photographer Bill Biggart shows a damaged WTC-6 (on the very left just over the red "122" sign) as the first tower is collapsing.
9/11 was a nuclear event and is evident by the clean-up of Ground Zero. Proven methods to reduce radiation include putting dirt and water on the radiation source. The following pictures show fresh dirt coming in (and not being dug up at the scene), then getting removed once it has absorbed radiation. The workers wear hazzardous material clothing and hose down vehicles leaving the site.
The photo above shows large amounts of rich-brown dirt.
The photo above from Tuesday shows a fresh new pile of dirt.
The photo above from Friday shows the dirt pile gone.
The photo above shows a Ground Zero worker wearing a rubber hazmat suit.
The photo above shows two workers in hazmat suits hozing each other down.
The photo above shows a dump truck being hosed down before leaving the site.
The small collection of photos and links (to blogs and websites worthy of deeper exploring) in this commentary support the contention that 9/11 was a nuclear event and aided by CGI to fool the world. The anomalous circular destruction patterns to neighboring buildings in the WTC complex more than suggest pre-planted explosives. The thoroughness of tower's destruction, the hot-spots burning for weeks under the rubble, the radiation mitigation techniques, and the tight control of Ground Zero media are tell-tale indicators of a nuclear 9/11.
George Orwell wrote in 1984 as the party slogan:
He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.
Controlling the past was indeed a goal of the 9/11 perpetrators.
"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.
~ E. P. Heidner [Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF) ]
Once the perpetrators had squashed the investigations into their past misdeeds, they were able to leverage this freedom into going after the PNAC goals outlined in Rebuilding America's Defenses.
The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability. ... Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. ... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. ... Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.
"Joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions"? Can you say "joint-service"? "New missions"? "Contractors"? "Mercenaries"? "Outsourcing"? These are all just a hop-skip-and-a-jump away from "False Flag".
The theme of this piece was right is radical on 9/11. From the government's perspective, public knowledge of the 9/11 nuking of America (whether by domestic or foreign entities) had to be suppressed, because were it left to go critical, the fallout could include uncontrollable nuclear escalation against the named enemies as well as the removal of the present leaders and agencies under whose watch it occured.
Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy.
~Mary Baker Eddy
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
8 comments:
as much as I believe more happened than we were told. Your theory is ridiculous. Good Job with the roof sections, but still pretty weak.
Wow, do you know there are people convicted of murder on a lot less circumstantial evidence???
But go ahead and give us the salient points that prove to you that its weak. Believe me I won't take it personal. Make your case showing where we are wrong.
Using correlation coefficients and the "t" test statistic and mathematical confirmation of the data to 0.98 - 0.99 accuracy with 1.0 as perfect, combined with the physics and chemistry associated with fission I can statistically confirm Ternary Nuclear Fission in New York on 911.
The data used is from the USGS web site, Open Source, sampling of dust across Lower Manhattan on 9/16 and 9/17. This confirmation is conclusive. At 4 decimals, the correlation coefficient is 0.9897. The 't' test returns a virtual inability that daughter elements and decay paths fully correspond to fission and very likely ternary fission.
How do I contact you?
Thanks for that short summary, you can contact us at the email address above on the right near the top. It has the email address and one of us will get back to you. Thanks vatic2010@gmail.com
Main Stream Media is just as culpable psychopaths, as the ones they were suppose to inform the public about.
sure looks like roughly circular holes that could only have been cut out with some sort of beam from above to me but...
Yes, Eric, someone emailed that point to me earlier about the fact it looks like the same configuration that resulted in the Gulf blow out rig on the platform. There were two holes and they went from top to bottom and if there had been an explosion from the rig below, it would have shown bottom to top and there would have been carbon all over the holes from the explosions. There was none, it was like the aluminum was cut with a laser.
Well, that may well be the case here,,,, and in either case, its a weapon of mass destruction regardless of which one it was.... so its still clear that it was not two planes flying into the building and fires that brought it down. That is for sure. It was either a space laser weapon or nukes, two of them. Both are death penalty offenses either through the system or NOT.
Why did they do this? How was the attack planned and conceived? How did the U.S. government fail to anticipate and prevent it? What can we do in the future to prevent similar acts of terrorism?
TemplateRepublic
Post a Comment