TOPIC: September 11 - The 9/11 Thread

Backlash by Church of England: Vicar Banned From Social Media for Endorsing 9/11 Truth Open Letter to The Bishop of Guildford

By Peter Drew

Global Research, February 19, 2015

The Right Reverend Andrew Watson
The Bishop of Guildford
Willow Grange
Guildford, GU4 7QS

Dear Reverend Watson,

As the Bible says about God, “His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Does the Church of England stand by that statement and support it with their actions? I refer to the Church of England’s seemingly inconsistent and racist approach to the issue of 9/11 in relation to the recent announcement of your decision to ban Reverend Stephen Sizer from using social media due to his posting a link and a comment raising questions about who committed 9/11.

I have an interest in this issue as I am the UK Coordinator for the international organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth). This is an organisation made up of more than 2,300 qualified and professional Architects and Engineers from around the world who believe that the scientific and forensic evidence they have gathered proves that the collapse of the three towers on 9/11 could only have occurred through controlled explosive demolition and are asking for a new and independent inquiry, with subpoena power. This evidence has now been presented in over 30 countries around the world and in over 80 cities across the US. The reaction from the audiences to this evidence has been overwhelmingly supportive everywhere it has been presented. So much so that the Washington Journal news network (C-SPAN) in the US recently ran a 40 minute live and in depth interview with Richard Gage, the CEO of AE911Truth, which was shown live to millions of American citizens.

I must say that I find the decision to ban Reverend Sizer from all social media a little difficult to understand and I find it an extremely inconsistent approach by the Church of England, especially following so closely on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo event in Paris. In Paris we had 3 million people gathered in the streets in a quite amazing show of public unity and public strength behind a common cause of peace and freedom of speech. Those who gunned down the innocent victims in Paris sought to quash freedom of speech when they didn’t agree with the message. While the Church of England has not fired any physical bullets of terrorism or racism with this decision, the principle is the same. Why has the Church of England not also publicly condemned the allegations by our government officials and mainstream media about alleged Muslim involvement in 9/11? These are allegations that have been made with absolutely no evidence to support them. But yet any mention of possible Israeli involvement is met with instant condemnation by the Church of England. No group or nationality should have the finger of blame pointed at them for anything unless there is clear evidence to support the allegations, so where is the consistency by the Church of England with regard to Muslims?

More than one million innocent people have so far lost their lives in the Middle East since the US and UK launched their military attacks on the back of 9/11. More than half a million of these victims have been innocent children. In addition, most people in the UK are not aware that millions more in the Middle East will die or be deformed at birth in the coming decades and for centuries to come from the massive amounts of depleted Uranium shells that have poisoned Iraq and surrounding regions. Iraq and the wider Middle East have now had their own holocaust, and it is still ongoing right now as we speak. This holocaust was launched on the back of totally baseless allegations that 9/11 was committed by 19 Muslim hijackers.

Instead of banning your staff from attempting to ask questions about who was really responsible for 9/11, the Church of England should instead be supporting the hundreds of thousands of courageous and peace loving individuals around the world who have been campaigning tirelessly for new investigations into what really happened on that day of 9/11, and exactly who was involved. Because the one thing that is absolutely certain about 9/11 is that we have not been told the truth by our governments and our military officials.

I have no idea if Israel was involved or not, and I have no idea if Muslims were involved or not, but I do know that we have not been told the truth and that very serious questions and very serious investigations need to be carried out which could potentially alter the course of history in a positive manner. Any hatred towards another specific sector of the community such as Anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. But could you please explain to me how this is any different from accusing Muslims of committing 9/11? Muslims have been blamed for 9/11 and as a result of this there has been a massive global backlash against the Muslim community. Are you aware that despite what we have been told by our government officials, there is not one shred of any evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers were the perpetrators of 9/11? None. And yet Muslims have been blamed for committing this horrendous crime and a holocaust has been unleashed in Iraq and the Middle East. Has the Church of England ever asked our government officials and media to provide evidence of their allegations against Muslims, or if they can’t provide this evidence then to stop spreading these false allegations about Muslims being the perpetrators of 9/11? The silence from the Church of England on this has unfortunately been deafening, despite attempts made by the public for the Church of England to look at this issue.

Are you aware that there is no video footage of the alleged Muslim terrorists getting on board the airliners that day, and no evidence of their names being on the passenger lists? Are you aware that many of the 19 alleged Muslim hijackers on 9/11 have been confirmed to be still alive and well today, and as such they are wondering why they are on a list of alleged suicide terrorists who died on 9/11? This is a quite incredible fact that has even been highlighted on BBC documentaries. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden was never put on the FBI wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI stated themselves that they had absolutely no evidence to implicate him with 9/11, despite what the US government was saying? Muslims have been accused of this horrendous crime with literally not one shred of evidence. They are just baseless allegations by our government officials which we are told to believe while they launch a holocaust on the Middle East. That is racist in the extreme. Why is the Church of England not seriously challenging this situation instead of quashing the freedom of speech to raise some very difficult questions about 9/11? You have said to Reverend Sizer that his Facebook posting was racist. But it is also racist for the Church of England to condemn allegations against Israel but not to condemn allegations against the Muslim community when there is zero evidence to support those allegations?

Are you aware of the incontrovertible scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence which proves conclusively that the three towers on 9/11 collapsed as they did not because of fire from the airliners, but because of explosive, controlled demolition? This evidence has been provided and supported by thousands of professional experts as well as eye-witness testimony from 118 of the first responder fire fighters on 9/11. Are you aware that World Trade Centre Building 7, the third tower to completely collapse on 9/11, was a 47 storey sky scraper not struck by a plane and yet it collapsed totally, in near perfect symmetry, in less than 7 seconds, and achieved free fall (gravitational) acceleration during its descent? As our 2,300 professional architects and engineers will confirm with you, the ONLY way that this can occur in a high-rise tower is through controlled demolition using perfectly placed and perfectly timed explosives. There is no other possible explanation within the known laws of physics. It is as simple as that, despite what our government officials and media try to tell us. As we speak, NIST, the official US government investigators into the collapse of the three towers on 9/11, have a major legal action against them for criminal fraud on the basis of their fraudulent investigations and fraudulent findings into the collapse of those towers.

This raises extremely difficult and psychologically challenging questions about who could have been responsible for making those towers come down in that manner, because it certainly wasn’t Muslim terrorists who would have had the ability to make that happen. In further support of what I have just stated here, are you aware that 100,000 citizens of New York have just signed a petition in support of the ‘High-Rise Safety Initiative’, which calls for a new investigation into the free fall collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7? These calls for new investigations are also supported by numerous family members of victims of 9/11 who want the truth about who killed their loved ones. President Obama is under extreme pressure at the moment from many members of US Congress to release the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report. The two members of US Congress who have been granted special permission to view those 28 pages have demanded they be released to the public because they say the content will shock the nation, and the public needs to know.

Here in the UK, we have Matthew Campbell who lost his brother in the North Tower on 9/11. He has been campaigning tirelessly with British and US officials to have his questions answered about his brother’s murder. All he has asked for are some answers to some very basic and straightforward questions that would be a standard part of any proper investigation into someone’s death. In effect, there has been absolutely no investigation into his brother’s murder and he has not been able to get one single answer or positive development on this situation from the British Embassy, the US Embassy, President Obama, or the coroners involved. Consequently he is still tormented by the fact that his brother has been murdered and that no one is willing to investigate that murder in any way or answer even the most basic of questions about how he died. If a major organisation such as the Church of England were to provide some support to Mr Campbell’s endeavours to find a little peace of mind and justice then that would be a noble cause worthy of such an establishment. Is this something that you would be willing to assist Mr Campbell with? I am copying him on this letter for his reference. If so, I can provide you with his contact details. I am sure he would be most grateful for some support from the Church of England.

To finish with here, I repeat my earlier point about freedom of speech and having the freedom and courage to be allowed to ask what can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant questions in the pursuit of truth. We don’t know who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and exactly how they did what they did. What we do know is that what we have been told happened on 9/11, and who did what, is incontrovertibly false and that there were other unknown entities that must have been involved. Those unknown entities have been responsible for unleashing the most horrific carnage/holocaust imaginable in parts of the Middle East which will continue to cause terrible human suffering for a very long time to come. Reverend Sizer may perhaps have been a little misguided, but well intentioned, in raising his questions about 9/11 in the way he did. The Church of England has made the decision to supress this type of questioning towards a specific sector of the community, and that is fair enough if that questioning cannot be backed up sufficiently with clear and incontrovertible evidence. But has the Church of England done anything to support the global Muslim community against the terrible baseless accusations that have been made against them about 9/11, and which have led to them suffering their own horrendous holocaust?

Perhaps you were not previously aware of the abundant scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence that I have mentioned here. Perhaps this is why you and the Church of England have not previously rallied to the support of the Muslim community as you are now rallying to the support of Israel. If that is the case then there is still an opportunity for the Church of England to have a positive impact here and help change the course of history in a direction more aligned with peace, as should be the mission of the Church of England, according to the Bible. The Church of England could take a proactive approach to helping to put forward to the public the abundant and incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence that challenges the official story of 9/11.

This doesn’t have to point the finger at anyone, as Reverend Sizer has done to some extent. The Church of England could take exactly the same stance as ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, which is to help allow the public to see the true evidence that is being covered up, call for independent investigations into this evidence, and then let the cards fall where they fall in terms of where those investigations lead to and who is found to be responsible. The Muslim community and the millions of victims in the Middle East deserve that evidence and information to be put forward, and they deserve those investigations to be conducted.

I am sure that the Church of England supported the Nuremburg trials, so will the Church of England also support this request to help bring forward the true evidence about 9/11? The current holocaust must be stopped/mitigated and the true cause identified. Reverend Sizer may not have approached this issue in quite the right way, but he was certainly correct in his belief that there are very serious questions to be asked about 9/11 and he has shown great courage to at least be prepared to put his head into the line of fire and try to raise some questions about what really happened on 9/11 and try to help address the ongoing Middle East holocaust.

I believe that Reverend Sizer’s intentions, if not his methodology, were consistent with my opening message about the Bible’s stated mission of the Church of England…..“His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Will the Church of England honour those words of the Bible and support justice and righteousness being sought for the victims of 9/11 and the victims of the Middle East holocaust?

Thank you for considering what I have said here, and I would be more than happy to provide further information about anything here and to provide contact details for Mr Campbell if you would be interested in following that up.

www.globalresearch.ca/backlash-by-church-of-england-vicar-banned-from-social-media-for-endorsing-911-truth/5431964?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_c...-endorsing-911-truth

They are open to discussion about one vile act of Jewish behaviour and questioning the official narrative ... but not Hebdo or the Holohoax

Newly Released Photo of Condoleezza Rice and Osama Bin Laden.
A newly declassified photo showing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
and ‘terrorist’ Osama Bin Laden has been released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The photo shows the two partying at a wine and dine in an American owned bar at Kandahar,
Afghanistan just two weeks before the infamous and fateful 9/11.
www.anonymousmags.com/newly-released-photo-condoleezza-rice-osama-bin-laden-2/

Joe Hermes commented :
Did these assholes even know how tall they both were?
Bin Laden, being 6'5" would dwarf Rice.
If you're going to fake a photo at least try to make it somewhat less ridiculous.

Greg Nelson wrote:
The source of the photo is from a special April Fools Edition of FreakingNews.com
that invited readers to send in their best photoshop efforts.

Orangeaid wrote: They will never give any answers to any of it........

Because they all looking like total idiots already in-front of the entire World.
There pans are all down, all there asses on fire with nowhere to run being all involved be it directly or indirectly.
And they all know it & all Governments knowing it which are guilty by association what happened after 9/11.

And still no matter if they were Muslims ........ no right to murder other Muslims just because they Muslims not having shit to do what happened half around the world on 9/11.

What fucking laws system they even working by is a total mystery to me?? ........
the laws made by the synagogue of Satan would be the only thing I could think of.

They only having two options; go to jail or kill everyone on earth......... good luck with it.
They all just counting there short time they having left.

The entire thing of 9/11 is based on total madness, lies & these Governments with all there helping pimps are part of it in one or another way!

Again the resulting blood of millions is on all there hands no matter which way you turn it or look at it!
100% Guilty by association ......... & they all knowing it!

Just imagine this type of letter gets send to you ....... then you would not answer it or you would not answer this letter in a comm & sense manner.
You would make a absolute total retarded fool out of yourself marked forever after.

And what's about this? Any result yet?
This evidence has now been presented in over 30 countries around the world and in over 80 cities across the US.

@ oiram @

Check this out

grizzom.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-people-speak-with-steve-johnson.html

More Rebekah Roth interviews, give it a click....

www.methodicalillusion.com/Interviews.html

rodin wrote:
- she's pushing the idea that planes hit, maintaining The REAL Illusion , amongst other things .

Lizzy wrote:
I like some of her insider detail

Deffo talks like an airline pro, fingers the you know whos...

I have heard her opine maybe no planes (I think) - that's not her area of expertise tho...

rodin wrote:
Anyone who does true indepth investigation will easily find out NO planes hit - that it was digitized . From there I dismiss all this crap that supports any theory that they did . I have never heard her say no planes hit - her whole story reinforces that they did.

You miss the point, she is fleshing out what happened to the planes and passengers... they were landed. Lots of accurate detail

edit

Unless you think no planes took off at all?

rodin wrote:
NO PLANES HIT AT ALL - neither did one hit the Pentagon nor another shot down , - many planes were diverted from they're destinations that day - but she does talk about the missing gold and the pentagon trillions ......

Blgd 3 had to go - it held the centre of operations and Hundreds of case files under investigation for bank and other major fraud. - all that went bye bye.

She's yrs behind and didn't even address the pancake - free fall collapse or how that was done - that some on the inside knew - is so old hat now. - it's almost a cover -up in itself.
For the public to grasp it was all faked is just too much for most.

This clip was damning to the 'box cutter job'. The amount of debris that would/should have been present is not there. Landing gear/wheels/200+ seats/engines/tail section ect. No way, no how a 'craft' as large as the offical story ever stuck this building.

^^^^ yep - so nothing much was said about that in the 'reports' - it's such a huge 'give away' ......

I listened again to the interview posted @ Mamis Shit

She thinks a missile hit the Pentagon, and thinks there may have been no planes at WTC, also knows nothing hit Shanksville. She even supports your Chemtrails, saying that they are sprayed at 20,000 feet therefore are NOT for atmosphere control...

What is interesting is that she has a large constituency of support in "high" places...

This could make waves - she also said she had insider info now since the book was published - peeps have come forward in droves - on exactly how the towers were taken down using new high energy demolition technology. I hope she lives long enough to tell that tale...

Bill Cooper: "When IN HELL are all you people going to wake up?" - when in hell !


LUCIFERIAN TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST NWO







Remember before 911..Bill Cooper told you,.NEW WORLD ORDER

Video description:

Most still don't know who Bill Cooper was and you sure
want hear it in American Class rooms or text books!
Just a reminder before Sept.11 2001...

More brilliant symbolism videos by Nicholson1968 => truth-zone.net/forum/symbolism/63607-symbolism-videos.html
.

I try to concentrate on the planes these days. I think these models were made by someone from the 9/11 pilots truth forum.







Look at this seemingly about impossible banking turn, ok perhaps for a small jet plane with an experienced pilot, but a Boeing at approx 500mph?



I don't think that that can be achieved without setting the flight path before the execution.

Further info pertaining to what Orange posted previously:

This is a long video so if you like you can skip to the 1 hour 14 minutes and 15 second mark when Dimitri (former officer of nuclear Soviet Intelligence according to him) gets down to the nitty gritty of his explanation of what happened on Sept 11th.. that being a thermo-nuclear device was set off 77 meters below the earth's surface and 50 meters below the base of the World Trade Centers.

He says that before the World Trade Centers were built the regulations stated that the builders had to submit a demolition plan as was required and that the World Trade Center planners did have thermo-nuclear devices put in underground as the demolition plan before the Towers were built, that in Russia they knew of this because this information had to be submitted as part of a Treaty with Russia as regards to thermo nuclear devices/bombs used for possible demolition and other purposes. He says that there is also a thermo-nuclear demolition device or bomb below the Sears Tower in Chicago.

I don't agree with some of his conclusions as he says were told to him by the FBI, for example that the U.S. Government had to bring the Towers down because they had reason to believe that there were atmospheric nuclear bombs in the Towers themselves which if they went off would have killed millions so they had to do this, to pull the Towers 'for the greater good' (utter bullshit and doesn't even make sense). There are too many reasons for them to have wanted to pull off this 'new Pearl Harbour' as referred to in the 'Project for a New American Century', and there was definitely Mossad/Israeli involvement in 911 up to the high heavens (that's not even up for debate).

His explanations as to what technically happened on that day do seem to make a lot of sense though imv as well as his explanation concerning the missile that hit the Pentagon.

Meaning of the term Ground Zero pre September 11th:

Ground Zero - a point on the surface of land or water at or directly above or below the center of a nuclear explosion.

Collins English Dictionary, Major New Edition (Third Edition 1991, ISBN 0 00 433286-5)

"ground zero" - the point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic or thermo-nuclear bomb.

The International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedia Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796).



To begin with, I would like to quote a statement concerning a hero from 9/11 – Detective John Walcott, a “Ground Zero” responder, who spent a considerable amount of time at the WTC site cleaning rubble from of the World Trade Center. He had spent enough time there to develop a very interesting disease: acute myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form. Just a mere two paragraphs taken out of a frightening article entitled “Death by Dust”managed to contain and reveal practically all the “unexplainable” things many had questions about concerning “Ground Zero”. The excerpts below will provide the reader with some key basic points which will allow you to better understand the main point of this article – that of dust and radiation:

“…Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen - desks, lights, and computers. But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of tiny grains of dust - no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.

At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what Walcott likes to call "all that freaking bad air." One day, he was sitting in the shed with his colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is wrong with this picture?...”

Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong. Something was very badly wrong with that picture…

Those FBI agents, who had no shame in showing up in full haz-mat suits, moreover sealed shut with duct tape, knew the truth, as they stood in front of the “commoners”. That is why today these guys don’t suffer from leukemia or from any other kinds of terminal cancer. The FBI agents will apparently live long and fulfilling lives, despite having briefly visited “Ground Zero”…

If you were to only open up a contemporary dictionary and look up the actual meaning of this peculiar term, you wouldn’t need to ask that question; you would immediately understand what was wrong with “Ground Zero”:



Above – all possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

It should be noted that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who used to work at “Ground Zero” and who were not as lucky as him. On December 17, 2007, it was briefly mentioned in an Internet news article[3] that John Walcott had at last undergone a truly advanced (and extremely painful) operation known as a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live, but only on special immuno-depressant drugs which prevent transplant rejection; and without ever leaving his home due to the fact his entire immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection can easily prove fatal.

For anyone who doesn’t know what “marrow transplantation” is, I am obliged to explain. A marrow transplantation is required in patients who have incurred heavy doses of either penetrating or residual ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (which is responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed off by heavy doses of radiation.

This is a particularly unique property of radiation – it strikes bone marrow cells more heavily than it does other cells in the human body. That is why the majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia. And, the heavier the dose of radiation, the more bone marrow is killed off, thus, the worse the case of leukemia the patient suffers from. John Walcott apparently suffered from the most severe possible condition – before obtaining his bone marrow transplantation, he was living exclusively on donors’ blood because his own blood was not regenerating at all.

In addition to killing off or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone inhales or ingests radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, causes various kinds of cancers that can affect virtually any part of the human body and even several parts all at once.

It is, however, not too difficult for dishonest doctors and health officials to provide plausible “explanations” as to what may have caused these cancers. They can just claim it was due to “asbestos”, “toxic fumes”, “toxic dust particles”, etc. However, when it comes to bone marrow damage, these deceivers are caught right in their tracks because bone marrow damage can only be caused by ionizing radiation.

That is precisely why the FBI agents showed up in full “haz-mat” suits and even had their head masks sealed shut with duct tape to “ward off fumes” while visiting “Ground Zero”. They didn’t want to suffer from leukemia nor from any other cancer, so they went as far as to seal their head masks shut with duct tape, not just to “ward off the fumes”, as John Walcott had believed, but because they needed to ward off airborne radioactive dust, and more specifically, radioactive vapor, which must not be inhaled or ingested at all costs.


Volunteers at “ground zero” amidst the Twin Towers’ debris and amidst streams of radioactive vapor ascending from under the debris – the photo was taken approximately five weeks after the events.




ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).




ground zero” = point on the ground directly under the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

Dictionary of Military Terms (Peter Collins Publishing 1999, ISBN 1-901659-24-0).




“ground ze-ro” /,.’../ n the place where a NUCLEAR bomb explodes, where the most severe damage happens

Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).



“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. (2nd Edition 2006, ISBN-13 978-0-521-60499-4 - this is a post 9/11 edition, widely available).

The above were complete, unabridged definitions of “ground zero”. It was the only definable and proper definition of its meaning. If you don’t believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store and buy an English dictionary, don’t be in too much of a hurry.

When you arrive at the shop you will be surprised even further because as of now it is no longer possible to even find a dictionary that contains the original, unedited definition of the term. All dictionaries printed before 9/11, like those which I mention above, containing the original correct meaning of “ground zero”, have been removed from book-shelves and replaced with newer ones. Unfortunately, the very English language itself was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration…

The dictionaries’ photos below were not present in the original version of this article in NEXUS magazine; however, I decided to add them to this Internet-version, since they are very illustrative.

These photos compare similar dictionaries produced by the very same publishers that had previously printed them - and after the name “ground zero” was inadvertently awarded to the location of the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center:




Above – “Encarta” dictionary by the Microsoft – the 1999 and the 2001 editions.




Above – The Chambers Dictionary – the 1998 (reprinted in 2001) and the 2003 editions.




Above – The Macquarie Dictionary (of the Australian English) – the 2001 and the 2005 editions.




Above – The Macmillan Dictionary of 1987 and the Macmillan Essential Dictionary of Learners of English of 2003 (the second dictionary of 2003 is much smaller in grade and contains lesser words and definitions than the first one – of 1987; nonetheless, “ground zero” has a much “broader” definition in the second one dictionary).




Above – Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of 1983 and the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the infamous “September 11, 2001 edition” (the ISBN for the second dictionary - 0-375-42566-7 – was indeed reserved on the very day – the eleventh day of September, 2001 – and thus the date of 9/11 became is the official date of the publication of that infamous dictionary…)[/b]

and so on (see more comparisons in link)

Don’t be surprised that almost every new English dictionary printed after 9/11 has begun to describe “ground zero” as having more than one sense. Now, at least 3-5 new meanings have been ascribed to this particular term, ranging from some supposed “great devastation”, “great disorder” and “busy activities” to some supposed “basic level” and “starting point” definitions. Some preferred another approach: editors of the new Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, for example, defined “ground zero” as a “place where a bomb explodes” without mentioning anything at all that such “bomb” is supposed to be nuclear or thermo-nuclear in nature. In addition to all of this, these days almost every dictionary – whether big or small – has begun to include this (to be exact “these”) definitions.

The term “ground zero”, obviously due to being such a specialized term prior to 9/11, existed only in really big English dictionaries – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full Collins, full American Heritage, and other similar large dictionaries (and even in those it contained only the single correct meaning of the term). It didn’t exist in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for students and for advanced learners (with the only exception being the Longman Advanced American Dictionary – which is mentioned above). For example, “ground zero” was absent in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in their 4th, 5th and 6th Editions published before September 11, 2001. Even Oxford’s 4th special “Encyclopedic” version (which was about 50% larger compared to the regular one) did not contain any reference to the term “ground zero”. Only Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 7th Edition first published in 2005 began describing this term at last.

Post-9/11 editions of the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, all kinds of new Merriam-Webster’s Dictionaries, the majority of new American Heritage Dictionaries, the new Collins English, the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary and many other new dictionaries and encyclopedias after the September 11 affair have all begun to include “ground zero” and to define it in such a sense that it might supposedly have more than one meaning, all trying their best to divert attention away from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of this term.

By the way, editors of the last mentioned above Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary should be praised for not having deceived their readers: they were brave enough not to include any misleading definitions of the term “ground zero” in their post-9/11 dictionary, which is in sharp contrast to every other dictionary that was edited at the behest of the 9/11 cover-up. It was reported there had even been attempts to prove that the WTC was already referred to as “ground zero” even before September 11, 2001.

All these post-9/11 linguistic efforts in attempting to obscure the term “ground zero” are understandable indeed. That obviously revealing name, rashly awarded by Civil Defense specialists to the demolition grounds of the former New York World Trade Center, was obviously too revealing to just leave this particular term in future editions of dictionaries with only its former sense alone…

Nuclear demolition of the WTC.

The author of this article used to be a commissioned officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, otherwise known as the "Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR". The 12th Chief Directorate itself was an organization responsible in the Soviet Union for the safe-keeping, the production control, the technical maintenance etc. of the entire nuclear arsenal of the state. The Special Control Service was responsible for detecting nuclear explosions and was responsible for the observance of all international treaties related to nuclear testing. It is especially important to note the existence of the so-called “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty” of 1976 between the USSR and the United States of America. In accordance with this Treaty, all parties were obliged to inform one another about all nuclear explosions intended for non-military purposes.

During my military service in the abovementioned organization at the end of the ‘80s, it came to my knowledge that there was a so-called “emergency nuclear demolition schema” built into the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York. The actual nuclear demolition schema was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT yield) which were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers. It was strange to me by then and, to be honest; it was hard to believe that US authorities would be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city using underground nuclear explosions.

However, as I understood it correctly, nobody had ever actually planned to demolish the World Trade Center in such a way. It was merely a means to get around the bureaucracy: such a nuclear demolition schema had to be built into the Twin Towers not to get them demolished, but to get permission to build them in the first place. The problem was that the then building code of New York (as well as that of Chicago) didn’t allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits to build a skyscraper unless its constructor could provide a satisfactory means by which he could demolish the building either in future, or in the case of emergency.

Since the late ‘60s (when the Twin Towers were first proposed) this type of steel-framed buildings was a totally new concept and nobody knew how to deal with them in the sense of demolition. Given that traditional (“conventional”) controlled demolition methods were applicable purely to older-style buildings, they had to come up with something new for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers that would convince the Department of Buildings to issue permission for their actual construction. And the solution was indeed created: nuclear demolition.

read more here: www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

Despite the common misconception, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever been demolished by implosion anywhere in the world prior to the WTC towers. This is primarily due to the fact that most skyscrapers are newer buildings and the need to demolish them has yet to come. Even the tallest building ever demolished by implosion was only 47-strories high - it was the Singer Building in New York City which was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to it being so obsolete. This building was much weaker in structure when compared to the incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers which are built today. So, despite this common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building using any conventional controlled demolition (implosion) schema.

In older times, when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-panelled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders. Sometimes these concrete bearing structures were reinforced by the insertion of metal bars and even sometimes just by concrete alone.

In any case, it was always possible to calculate the right amount of conventional explosives that was needed to attach to these bearing structures and in the correct spots (or to be placed into holes drilled into the bearing structures) in order to break them all at once and cause the building to collapse into its own footprint. However, with modern steel-framed buildings this is simply no longer possible. Examples of modern steel-framed buildings include the former Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago.

Here is an example of the steel structure of the WTC Twin Towers:



There was no "bearing structure" in the older sense of the meaning - the entire Tower was essentially a "bearing structure" in of itself.

The steel-frame of the WTC consisted of exceptionally thick double-walled steel perimeter columns and core columns.

This co-called "tube-frame design" was a totally new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior in order to support the loads like it had traditionally been implemented in older structures.

The Twin Towers featured load-bearing steel perimeter columns (square in cross-section) which were positioned one meter apart from each other on the Towers' facades which formed an exceptionally rigid structure that in turn supported virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and even shared the gravity load with the core columns.

The perimeter structure contained 59 of such columns per side. The core structure of the Tower consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns that ran from the bedrock all the way up to the tops of the Towers.

In the following picture, you can see steel perimeter and core column remnants that remained at “Ground Zero”:



Here is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Tower perimeter columns during their construction:





Perimeter columns are being inspected at “ground zero”.

Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank, it would not be possible to come up with a solution to break these columns simultaneously and do so in many spots simultaneously in order to achieve the "implosion" effect – which is, of course, the basic goal of controlled demolition.

It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-charges attached to each individual column, but even such an incredible amount of explosives wouldn’t be enough to achieve the desired "implosion effect". The Towers were simply too high and too rigid - their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford, and even if they could, still, such a solution would not lead to the desired effect - there would not be any guarantee that such a high-rise structure would fall straight down into to its foot print. It would most likely just scatter its debris over the course of a quarter mile given its mere height alone. So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any form of traditional controlled demolition.

The same thing could be said about WTC building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago. Both of them were constructed using similarly thick double-walled steel frames which were impossible to break at once due to the same reasons described above.

However, in accordance with US laws governing the construction of skyscrapers, designers had to submit a satisfactory demolition schema before construction would be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one would be allowed to build a skyscraper that could not be demolished in future.

This is the main reason for having a built-in nuclear demolition feature. Ironically, the nuclear demolition schema of a skyscraper is not actually meant to demolish the skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means - it is merely intended to convince the Department of Buildings to give permission to build the skyscraper.

It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemas sincerely hope their ideas not be put to use during their life-time.

How does this work?

First off, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the previously discussed atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept.

During the modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion - with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, thermal radiation, air-blast wave and electro-magnetic pulse. It explodes quite deep underground - much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it produces neither air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating ionizing radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It causes only relatively minor harm to surroundings by its ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, is considered to be a negligible factor by the designers of such projects.

What is the basic difference then between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion?

The basic difference is as follows. During the initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in the form of "primary radiation" which in its main part (almost 99%) falls within an X-ray spectrum (and the remaining portion is represented by a gamma-ray spectrum which causes radiation injuries and a visible spectrum which produces a visible flash). So, the almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding air within a few hundred feet around the explosion’s hypocenter.

This occurs because X-rays can’t travel very far as they are consumed by the surrounding air. The heating of the relatively small area around the hypocenter of a nuclear explosion results in the appearance of "nuclear fireballs" which is physically nothing more than extremely overheated air.

These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion –

1) thermal radiation

and

2) an air-blast wave since both factors result exclusively from the high temperatures of air around the nuclear explosion.

When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different.

There is no air around the tiny "zero-box" which the nuclear charge is placed into, so the entire amount of energy instantly released by the nuclear explosion in the form of X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding rock instead.

It results in the overheating, melting and then vaporizing of the rock. The disappearance of the vaporized rock results in the creation of an underground cavity whose size depends directly on the explosive yield of nuclear munitions used.

You can get the idea on how much rock would disappear during an underground nuclear explosion based on the table below - whereby the quantities of vaporized and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on a "per kiloton of yield" basis:



Just as an example: the detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in the creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter - such as the one shown in this picture:



All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations approximately 20-30 meters beneath the surface of the Earth. So therefore it is easy to calculate the position under the skyscraper where you would need to position the "zero-box”. This is the precise location from where it will expand its upper cavity which is in the direction of the lowest subbasement of the building.

For example, in the case of the Twin Towers, their lowest underground foundation was 27 meters beneath surface. A 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charge was positioned at a depth of 77 meters below surface (or 50 meters below the underground foundation). A thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity whose upper sphere would expand to the lowest underground foundations of the tower it intended to demolish.

However, it would still be short of reaching the surface of the Earth by 27 meters - so the surrounding structures would not to be affected by the destructive factors of the underground nuclear explosion, with the possible exception of radioactive contamination. The Tower being demolished then loses its foundations completely and is sucked into the overheated cavity whose internal temperatures are hot enough to melt the entire Tower. The nuclear demolition schema of WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the exact same way.

However, there is one additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration during the calculation of the nuclear demolition of any skyscraper. This is the actual vaporized granite rock inside the cavity. How is all that former granite rock, which now exists in a gaseous state, supposed to escape from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let's consider it.

Typical physical processes during an ideally deep underground nuclear explosion.



1) Nuclear explosion starts to heat the rock around its hypocenter.

2) Rock is vaporized. As a result of the disappearance of the vaporized rock, a “primary cavity” appears and is filled with the former rock which now exists in gaseous form. The extremely high pressures from the gases in the cavity now begin to expand the actual primary cavity at the expense of neighboring areas of the still solid rock.

3) The actual cavity reaches its final “secondary” size because of the extremely high pressure from the gases inside of it and as such expands from its original size (shown by the dotted line) to an even bigger size (shown by the firm line). Given that this expansion occurs at the expense of the neighboring areas, these neighboring areas of rock become tightly compressed.

4) Final picture. White: the underground cavity (the secondary size); blue: the “crushed zone” – totally pulverized rock (crushed into complete microscopic dust ~100 micron particle size); green: the “damaged zone” – partly crushed rock.





The picture above shows an example of the fine microscopic dust that covered all of Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was dust – but mainly pulverized steel. Despite the common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete at all. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floor slabs at most. It was not used anywhere else.

The majority of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So accordingly, the majority of this ultra-fine dust is represented by steel dust. However, it was not only "steel dust" alone - it was also "furniture dust", "wood dust", "paper dust", "carpet dust", "computer parts dust" and even "human dust", given that human beings were left to be pulverized in the Towers the same manner in which the steel, concrete and furniture were.

Some may wonder how WTC-7 collapsed so neatly into its own footprint, and in its entirety, while the Twin Towers came down not only scattering dust, but even larger debris and ejecting them to such far distances. This question is very easy to answer – you just have to look at the distribution of the "crushed" and "damaged" zones within the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.



The picture above represents the approximate distribution of the damaged zones in the scenario of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of the building. Don't forget that the demolition charges in this particular case were buried not "ideally deep", which is why the formations of the "crushed" and "damaged" zones were not "ideally round" either - they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards – like an egg – in the way of least resistance. It is easy to understand that the entire length of the WTC-7 fit well into the “crushed zone” alone so there were not any undamaged areas on top of it that might produce the effect of an undamaged top falling down like we saw during the collapse of the North and South Towers.

The particular distribution of damage within the skyscrapers’ structures inflicted by such a process could be better understood when you watch the videos that show the details of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and of WTC-7. These contemporary videos are widely available on YouTube.



The North Tower just began to collapse a moment ago.




These two pictures show the North Tower’s collapse (which collapsed 2nd). It is clearly seen that the Tower was reduced to a fine fluffy dust. In the lower right corner it is clearly visible that WTC-7 (the glassy shining nice brownish building) was not damaged at all. On the right picture WTC-7 appears to be a little bit “shorter” than in the left one, but this wasn’t because WTC-7 was “collapsing” in any way, is was because the helicopter taking the picture was on the move and the second picture had been taken from a slightly different angle and with the photographer himself being at that moment slightly further away from the WTC location. WTC-7 did not collapse until 7 hours later.



The “planes”.

Now, as I presume the reader has already understood how strong the Twin Towers were and that it was not even possible to bring them down using any conventional demolition and only possible by huge underground thermo-nuclear explosions, it would be interesting to consider another question: If aluminum-made passenger planes would ever be capable of penetrating the Twin Towers like it was shown to us on TV?



This is the second terrorist “plane” which is about to penetrate the thick double-walled steel perimeters and completely disappear into the South Tower.




This video is the most shameless 9/11 concoction by Evan Fairbanks. It shows an aluminum plane cuting through the steel perimeters of the WTC South Tower (that were as thick as a tank's armor) with as much ease as if the plane itself were made of steel, and the Tower made of butter.

Besides, a man that was accidentally caught in the frame reacted to neither the sound of an approaching plane, nor to the sound of aluminum crashing through steel. The man reacts to the actual explosion inside the Tower only. It is clearly noticeable. When it comes to the plane - you can see that the plane merely digitally erases itself upon disappearing inside the Tower - not even the tiniest part of the plane falls back onto the sidewalks. And what is even more ridiculous is that the plane does not even reduce its speed upon "penetrating" the Tower....

First of all, to make this understanding easier, let’s briefly come back to the point I started this article with: since the Twin Towers collapsed n due to huge underground thermo-nuclear explosions, moreover, they collapsed in the “wrong order”, and, in addition to that, WTC-7, which was not even hit by a “terrorist plane”, also collapsed, we can presume that the planes were not actually needed. They were redundant because they had no contribution whatsoever to the actual collapse of the World Trade Center .

read more here: www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

Whew..... that was a tremendously long post.... even for me ...but it is what makes the most logical sense to me.

@ Malila
In your post #96 you have copy and pasted most of the Bull$hit on the Dimitri Khalezov Disinfo site where he makes a pi$$ poor attempt to perpetuate the Nuke Hoax.

http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

Interested readers go here and read about the Bathtub

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bathtub

A) Nuclear Weapons are a Hoax
B) If we accept Khalezov's BullShit (ie Nukes exist and work and one was detonated under the WCT Towers) then:

1) the Bathtub would have been destroyed
2) the NewYork subway tunnel that runs close to the South Tower would have been destroyed
3) the basement levels of the Towers would have been destroyed

The Bathtub, Subway Tunnel and basement levels of the Towers were practically undamaged so Khalezov's theory, from my viewpoint, is automatically and deservedly consigned to the Bull$hit Disinfo Bin!

IMO the Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition using nano thermite and conventional explosives.

911 was a "Fake Ashkenazi Jew" False Flag "inside job" to justify the Gulf War.

Exorcist wrote:
You have to factor in Steven Jones' history @ Lawrence Livermore, and his part in suppressing Cold Fusion, and the elevated tritium. But yes, Nukes as we are told are a hoax.

OTOH...