Mind Deprogramming Jukebox

Friday, 9 September 2016

Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction
Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires.
Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7.
Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.
Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.”
Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn't the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It's the materials within the building that generate the heat release.”
The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse.
NIST could not have been correct in claiming that such a failure mechanism could have resulted in the collapse.
Korol’s July 2015 paper, “Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7,” used accepted equations associated with thermodynamics and heat transfer to determine how much heat could be generated from office fires. Studying the type of fire that would occur in a typical office arrangement with cubicle partitions, he and his fellow researchers derived the temperature that would have been reached based on the heat release rate of combustible materials identified by NIST and others.
Given that high burn rates do not generally last longer than about 30 minutes and that fires in office buildings do not occur over entire floors simultaneously, Korol says that the assumption of having the entire area of the 12th and 13th floors ablaze was “a ridiculously conservative estimate for the purposes of determining the consequences to the building.” Even then, the researchers showed the temperatures to be insufficient to push a girder off its seat near Column 79, thus disproving NIST’s claim that such a failure mechanism initiated the collapse of the building.
In the subsequent February 2016 paper, “The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach,” Korol considered the “virtually impossible circumstance” that the building experienced an inferno on two adjacent stories simultaneously. Noting that collapses do not occur instantaneously, Korol explains that even if two-thirds of the columns in a building are somehow “wiped out by virtue of the high heat, then the remaining one-third would still be sufficient to prevent collapse.”
According to Korol, Bažant assumed that any possible collapse would only be localized in the form of a plastic hinge; however, Korol’s team went further in terms of assessing the capacity of the columns. “Whereas Bažant assumed that there was only bending energy, we say these columns were resisting load axially — and Bažant ignored that.”
Robert Korol 2Dr. Korol has done extensive research on the axial loading properties of steel columns and beams. He appeared in the documentary “9/11 in the Academic Community,” and is seen here in his laboratory in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Korol’s team painstakingly analyzed what would happen if WTC 7 experienced fire-induced failures of more than two-thirds of the columns on both floors 12 and 13. The researchers performed lab tests to determine the amount of resistance for the upper block of WTC 7 to come down to the floor level of story 13. Assuming that the floor slabs of floors 12 and 13 were so hot that the concrete was pulverized without any applied load (an unrealistically generous assumption), the only energy associated with the structure in those two stories would have been that of the 26 columns that had not yet failed. Accounting for the remaining amount of resistance in the building, Korol et al. found that while the 11th story would collapse, there was still enough remaining energy in the building that the structure would not fail below that point.
Korol and his colleagues also undertook tests at McMaster University with regard to pulverization of concrete that is typically specified for floors incorporating ductile steel to restrain lateral motion. He explains, “Crushing is not an effective way of transforming brittle material into pulverized material. When you combine that with the 82 columns, there is no way the building is going to come down.”
Dr. Korol and his team are not yet done with their work. They are now conducting a study of the potential for fire-induced collapse of steel-framed office buildings in general, using a 50-story building as an example. The study will examine eight different fire scenarios, four of which will consider 4 adjacent stories experiencing raging fires as might be conceived from airplane strikes at various height locations. This work builds on the research described in the two papers discussed here — and none of the scenarios being studied has resulted in a complete building collapse.
The question that remains to be answered is whether Korol’s peers in their engineering community will begin to pay attention — or if they will, instead, continue to accept on blind faith NIST’s fantastical explanation for the destruction of WTC 7. - by Mike Bondi, P.Eng.

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/36/19

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/50/41

Friday, 10 July 2015

Oh happy day !

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3cudy6/ellen_pao_is_stepping_down_as_reddits_chief/

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

9/11: The Best Physical Evidence of Explosives - David Chandler Lecture

Of the below info, please watch this VIDEO !


9/11: The Best Physical Evidence of Explosives - David Chandler Lecture

Here is an excellent list of posts from the Reddit /r/conspiracy community

 Here is an excellent list of posts from the Reddit /r/conspiracy community.... none of this is my effort.
I just liked reading this info :

-------------------------------------------------------THE AIRPORTS
19 alleged terrorists (to be referred just as terrorists from now on) were able to avoid hundreds of airport CCTVs, except 3. Of those 3,one of the recordings[1] (which will be named Dulles from now on) that was only released in 2004[2] poses a serious problem:
At least until the date of the 9/11, all of the CCTVs available (including the Pentagons') only recorded at 1-5FPS and had timestamps while the Dulles was recording at +12FPS(if I am not mistaken) and has no timestamp.
The airports, which the terrorists used, have hundreds of CCTVs that cover the entrances and all of the public areas, yet only 1 camera from 2 airports (Dulles [RES ignored duplicate link][3] and Portland, Maine[4] ) were able to capture 6 of the 19 terrorists. The airplane victims were also never captured by the airport CCTVs. In contrast, here is the constant tracking via CCTV[5] of the navy yard shooting using all the CCTVs that captured the shooter outside and inside the building. Somehow the Logan airport failed to record a single victim and/or terrorist.
--------------------------------------------------------THE HIJACKS
Every pilot and co-pilot is instructed with transponder squawk codes, one of them -7500-[6] is the code for hijacking[7] and it takes 3s to input and send. Despite having 4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them sent out the 3s squawk as they were instructed to. The alleged Flight11's FDR shows that the airplane was too high[8] to have struck the lamp posts. Todd Beamer, one of Flight93's passenger, described the hijack occuring as he was speaking (at 9:43 AM[9] ) when in fact this event had already happened ~20 minutes earlier.[10]
--------------------------------------------------------THE CRASHES
-------------------------THE PENTAGON-------------------------------
Only 2 cameras recorded an object crashing into the Pentagon, one recorded only a flash. The 2 cameras that recorded the object show a white smoke[11] coming from the object that the Flight77 could not have produced:
Engine damage from lamp-posts impact: Not possible, airplane engine smoke produces a thin and dark smoke[12]
Fuel leaking from tank damage or engine damage: Not possible, it didn't catch fire when the airplane exploded, the lawn has no jetfuel burn marks.[13]
Contrails: Not possible seen that the humidity levels were not enough, corroborated by the lack of those on both airplanes that crashed into the twin towers
Condensation: Not possible, same reason as contrails
Rocket/missile-like smoke: Strongly resembles the smoke produced by missiles/rockets[14] and might explain why Pentagon personnel stated that they noticed the smell of cordite[15]
These 2 cameras have all frames perfectly synchronized -including the moment of the high speed explosion- except the one where the object enters the frame. According to the cameras, the airplane existed in 2 different places in the same moment of time.
-------------------------THE PENNSYLVANIA---------------------------
Despite the entire airplane allegedly plunged into the ground, one of the engines jumped to a considerable distance from the crash site.[16] This engine was attached to the same airplane as the other one, diving at the same speed as the other one and hitting the same ground as the other one, yet one of the engines was buried and the other landed far away for no reason.
The engine that was buried under the ground was compressed along it's length under ~3 and half feet of dirt.[17] This engine had a clam shell[18] of considerable proportions, but for some reason not one part of that shell is present in the previously linked photo of the engine.
There were debris found at such a distance from the impact point of the airplane that it could not have been covered from its explosion, this path of debris suggests that the airplane was actually flying on the opposite direction[19] and not the one officially told. This also fits Val MacClatchey's testimony of the plane path.[20]
Val MacClatchey's famous photo poses a serious problem, it displays a mushroom cloud that is consistent with an explosion and not with a jet crash.[21] When an airplane crashes it produces a long column of smoke, not just a mushroom cloud. The lack of typical airplane crash aftermath smoke has also been confirmed by another witness.[22]
In contrast with Flight 93, here is an airplane crash of a Boeing 737-200 of 17,November 2013 that nose dived[23] in 70º[24] and still had plenty of easily identifiable airplane parts[25] and both engines were found in the same location.[26]
Here you can see more airplane crashes comparisons with Flight 93 and see how unique Flight 93 was.http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html[27]
----------------------------------------------------------THE CALLS
There are 2 calls that contradict the offical version of events; the before mentioned Todd Beamer call and Jeremy Glick's.[28]
Todd Beamer:
Flight 93 hijack occured at 9:28[29]
Todd Beamer's call describes the hijack about to happen at 9:43[30]
Flight 93 crashed at 10:03[31]
Todd Beamer's call made with an airphone last for 3925 seconds. [RES ignored duplicate link][32] It last 45 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
Jeremy Glick:
Call starts at 9:37
Flight 93 crashes at 10:03
Call lasts for 7565 seconds, placing the end of the call at 11:41. It last for 1 hour and ~38 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
These calls were made from the airplane's airphone destined to two different interfaces: One was to the GTE's assistant landline telephone, the other was to a cellphone.
These calls could not have remained connected by a system mistake because airphones charge per time, the system was built to only count the time the client is connected in order to avoid overcharging him by allowing calls to "stay connected" when they were not. The fact that they also disconnected at different times rules out any possible system fault which, if possible, would at best disconnect both calls at the same time since they would have "disconnected" at the same time, the time of the crash.
The ACARS data also corroborates the above,[34] seen that the only possible explanation for the calls to remain connected after the airplane crashed is that the airplane from where the calls came from never crashed in the first place.
--------------------------------------------THE TOWERS' COLLAPSES
-------------------------SOUTH TOWER--------------------------------
The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. In this case this was the expected movement of the top[35] if it was simply collapsing.
Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.
-------------------------NORTH TOWER--------------------------------
A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occuring on the right face of the building.[36]
Sharing the exact same result as the South Tower, the North tower also violates Newton's third law by an even larger margin. The top section was only 15.45%(17 floors) destroying the intact 93% 83% (92 floors).
According to NIST, WTC1 fell only 28% longer than pure free-fall:
"The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below, within 12s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."
If it was free fall it would have been 9.32s without air resistance, meaning that -according to NIST- all floors provided a resistance that add up to 2.77s (12s - 9.32s).
Below the collapse area there were 95 floors.
2.77s / 95 floors = each floor being destroyed in 0.029s
29/1000ths of a second.
According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.
Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining 93% 83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.
For example: for every floor of the 93% 83% destroyed another floor of the 16% has to be destroyed. If Newton's third law had been respected, the building would be standing with ~75 floors, not 0. A better explanation of the laws of physics violation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2329[38]

Saturday, 8 June 2013

A Reddit post from someone who has seen tyranny...... please read.


With news that the US is spying on everyone and everything (like we didn't know this, yet somehow hope it was not true).... here is a post from the reddit site that truly shows why we should not allow this behavior.

/U/161719 tells us all why surveillance is not OK. This needs to get shared. Please read. (self.conspiracy)

submitted 13 hours ago by GrippinThaGrain be aware

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.

3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.

You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.

4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "fuck you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a fucking wound on my leg?"

"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.

Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.

You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.

This all happened in the country where I live.

You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.

Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?

You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?

Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?

I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.

I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Hon. Paul Hellyer - Minister of National Defense Testified knowing of 4 Alien races actively visiting Earth.



 Honestly, this old man no longer cares if they kill him he's old now. I hope more and more people from government do this ................

Monday, 13 May 2013

Stand up for your own people, do not let them die in vain ... go Pakistan!

A Pakistani court has declared that US drone strikes in the country's tribal belt are illegal and has directed the government to move a resolution against the attacks in the United Nations.

In what activists said was an historic decision, the Peshawar High Court issued the verdict against the strikes by CIA-operated spy planes in response to four petitions that contended the attacks killed civilians and caused “collateral damage”.

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court said the strikes must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people.

“The government of Pakistan must ensure that no drone strike takes place in the future,” the court said, according to the Press Trust of India. It asked Pakistan's foreign ministry to table a resolution against the American attacks in the UN.

“If the US vetoes the resolution, then the country should think about breaking diplomatic ties with the US,” the judgment said.

US officials have said the drones target al-Qa'ida and Taliban fighters in Pakistan's tribal regions who are blamed for cross-border attacks in Afghanistan and say the operations are done with the complicity of Pakistan's military. Activists say hundreds of civilians are killed as “collateral damage” and that there is no transparency about the operation of the drones.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) party is considered frontrunner in this Saturday's election, this week vowed that he would not tolerate drone attacks on Pakistani soil.

“Drone attacks are against the national sovereignty and a challenge for the country's autonomy and independence,” he said.

The case was filed last year by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, a legal charity based in Islamabad, on behalf of the families of victims killed in a 17 March 2011 strike on a tribal jirga.

The jirga, a traditional community dispute resolution mechanism, had been called to settle a chromite mining dispute in Datta Khel, North Waziristan. This strike killed more than 50 tribal elders, including a number of government officials. There was strong condemnation of this attack by all quarters in Pakistan including the federal government and Pakistan military.

Shahzad Akbar, lawyer for victims in the case, said: “This is a landmark judgment. Drone victims in Waziristan will now get some justice after a long wait. This judgment will also prove to be a test for the new government: if drone strikes continue and the government fails to act, it will run the risk of contempt of court.”?

Clive Stafford Smith of the London-based group Reprieve, which has supported the case, said: “Today's momentous decision by the Peshawar High Court shines the first rays of accountability onto the CIA's secret drone war.”

He added: “For the innocent people killed by U.S. drone strikes, it marks the first time they have been officially acknowledged for who they truly are - civilian victims of American war crimes.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-court-declares-us-drone-strikes-in-the-countrys-tribal-belt-illegal-8609843.html


Wednesday, 26 September 2012




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk&feature=player_embedded


Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”

As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”

Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

http://thepassionateattachment.com/2012/09/25/israel-lobbyist-hints-that-pearl-harbor-may-be-needed-to-get-us-into-war-with-iran/