Friday, July 6, 2018

Joe Olson: Memorandum for the President: The Twin Towers were destroyed using “clean nukes”, WTC 7 with conventional demolitions


Joe Olson: Memorandum for the President: The Twin Towers were destroyed using “clean nukes”, WTC 7 with conventional demolitions

Collective IntelligenceCultural IntelligenceEthicsGovernmentPeace Intelligence

The Twin Towers were destroyed using “clean nukes”, WTC 7 with conventional demolitions
Joe Olson, Structural Engineer
6 July 2018
“Clean Nukes.” The Twin Towers and most of the World Trade Center (apart from WTC-7, which came down seven hours later in a classic controlled demolition) appear to have been demolished – much of it vaporized – using “clean nukes.”
The technical term is “minimum residual radiation” (MRR, also sometimes called “reduced residual radiation,” RRR). Residual radiation is what remains by way of radioactive contaminants after the initial radiation of the first minute has worn off. Because the fission products are the “dirty” part of the nuclear blast, two factors are central in order to keep the device as “clean” as possible: (1) the fission-fusion mix of the thermonuclear device, i.e., the share of the total yield delivered by the fission primary and fusion secondary, respectively; and (2) the conditions under which the nuke is fired, whether it’s an air burst, ground burst or underground explosion, and whether the underground explosion takes place in an unobstructed shaft and whether any structure stands on top of the shaft, i.e. the energy can be channelled. Actual MRR appears to have been a 400-ton equivalent requiring 4 pounds of uranium.
Construction Favoring Nuclear Effect & Containment. WTC 1 & 2 exemplified a novel tube-within-a tube design that created open office space with 47 massive core columns and 240 external support columns. This allowed the deeply buried nuclear devices to have their full force channeled upwards and destroy the inner tube from the bottom/up, but caused the external tube to blow apart from the top/down. The buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust (which is itself a signature of the use of nuclear devices) and, when it was done (about 9 seconds for South Tower, 11 for North), there was no stack of debris in their footprints, where the result of a classic controlled demolition would have been around 13.5 floors to debris (roughly, 12% of the height of the original 110 floors for each structure). Additional explosives may have been used as a supplemental means of destroying the buildings. Many floors appear to have been unoccupied – free of both occupants and furniture  – prior vacancy rates having been accelerated by a 40% increase in rental rate to encourage tenants to vacate.
Radioactivity Indications in USGS Dust Studies. The contrast between the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7, which collapsed about seven hours later as the effect of a classic controlled demolition, was striking. Instead of vaporization in every direction, all the floors of WTC-7 came down at the same time. There was no conversion into millions of yards of very fine dust. And, when it was done, there was a stack of debris of about 5.5 floors (or 12% of the original 47 floors). Studies of dust samples from 35 location in Lower Manhattan confirmed elements that, in their quantifies and correlations, were indicative of a nuclear event, including Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Chromium and Tritium.
Nuclear Vaporization versus Thermite Melting. 0.13 pounds of thermite required to heat each pound of steel to its melting point. The decorative Aluminum Cladding + Iron Oxide + high heat = thermite spheres, which were residue. With 400,000 tons of missing steel and concrete – much of it vaporized – nuclear energy is posited. The directed force spared “the bathtub” any horizontal stress such that it continued to function as designed.
Waiting on memos from Gage, Tarpley, and Bollyn.
Phi Beta Iota: All of the individual memoranda reflect individual opinions rooted in research. Any of them can be challenged in detail. In the aggregate, however, they clearly demonstrate that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up, and that our President needs to root out the  truth on 9/11 and share it with the public. This series, which will run until 16 July, is intended to provoke public reflection in the public interest.

Marc A. Thiessen: The Left's Contempt could help Re-Elect Trump

Democrats have a new theory for how they can win back Congress and the White House. Just like “soccer moms” helped put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office in 1996, and “NASCAR dads” helped George W. Bush win in 2004, Donald Trump, the theory goes, was elected because of “#NeverHillary” voters who didn’t particularly like him but despised her. Axios reports that Democrats are targeting the “20% of Trump’s voters [who] told exit pollsters they didn’t like him,” hoping these reluctant Trump voters will help power a “blue wave” in the 2018 midterms and defeat President Trump in 2020.

One problem with that theory: The left’s nonstop, over-the-top attacks on President Trump are not peeling those voters away from him; they are pushing them further into the president’s camp.

In recent weeks, Trump derangement syndrome on the left has reached critical mass. First, there was Robert De Niro’s “F--- Trump” tirade at the Tony awards, followed by Samantha Bee’s calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c---” on her TV show. Then the owners of the Red Hen restaurant threw out White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders because she works for the president, while chanting protesters heckled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) added fuel to the fire by openly calling on mobs of left-wing activists to “absolutely harass” Trump officials. 

Then there were the countless Trump opponents in the media, Congress and on Twitter who compared family separations at the southern border to Nazi Germany, and the Time magazine cover depicting Trump staring down heartlessly at a crying migrant girl and implying she was separated from her mother (until it emerged that she had not in fact been separated from her mother). And now come the threats to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before he has even nominated one.

How do liberals think that 20 percent of reluctant Trump voters respond to these displays of unbridled contempt? They are outraged not at Trump but at his critics. The unhinged hatred for the president makes these voters almost reflexively defend him.
Don’t take my word for it. The New York Times recently interviewed dozens of tepid Trump voters who explained how the incessant attacks are causing them to rally around the president. “Gina Anders knows the feeling well by now,” the Times reports. “President Trump says or does something that triggers a spasm of outrage. She doesn’t necessarily agree with how he handled the situation. She gets why people are upset.” But Anders, who the Times says has “not a stitch of ‘Make America Great Again’ gear in her wardrobe, is moved to defend him anyway.” When she hears the “overblown” attacks on Trump, she says, “it makes me angry at them, which causes me to want to defend him to them more.” Another reluctant Trump voter, Tony Schrantz, agrees. “He’s not a perfect guy; he does some stupid stuff,” he tells the Times. “But when they’re hounding him all the time it just gets old.”

These are exactly the voters Democrats are hoping to win back. Instead, they are doing the opposite. Polls bear this out. Two weeks ago, Trump’s Gallup approval rating hit 45 percent — the highest it has been since his inauguration. (It slipped slightly to 41 percent last week). Trump’s approval among Republicans is at a near-record 87 percent, comparable to the levels of support for George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Think about that: The left’s attacks on Trump have had the same rallying effect for GOP voters as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

So, if appeals to civility, decency and conscience won’t work, then perhaps an appeal to base political pragmatism will. Democrats are deluding themselves if they think they lost because of #NeverHillary voters who will come home when she is not on the ballot. They lost because they have become a party of coastal liberal elites who have lost touch with millions of ordinary citizens in Middle America — working-class voters who are struggling with factories closing, jobs leaving and an opioid epidemic that is destroying their families. These voters concluded in 2016 that Democrats no longer care about their problems and that Trump does.
Spasms of anti-Trump outrage are not going to win them back. If anything, they are confirming these voters’ conclusions that Democrats still don’t get it — and don’t get them. The left’s miasma of contempt may feel cathartic, but it is the best thing that ever happened to Trump. Indeed, it may very well get him reelected.

Read more: