Dawn of the E-Bomb

Dawn of the E-Bomb

Microwave weapons researcher Edl Schamiloglu sits in front of the Pulserad-110A accelerator, which his lab at the University of New Mexico uses to produce single 100-nanosecond pulses of electron beams, each pulse emitting hundreds of megawatts of power. BY Michael Abrams // November 2003 In these media-fueled times, when war is a television spectacle and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon, the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair. Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets, yet still leave buildings, bridges, and highways intact. It would strike with precision, in an instant, and leave behind no trace of where it came from. In fact, it almost certainly is already here, in the form of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. As their name suggests, HPMs generate an intense "blast" of electromagnetic waves in the microwave frequency band (hundreds of megahertz to tens of gigahertz) that is strong enough to overload electrical circuitry. Most types of matter are transparent to microwaves, but metallic conductors, like those found in metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS), metal-semiconductor, and bipolar devices, strongly absorb them, which in turn heats the material. An HPM weapon can induce currents large enough to melt circuitry. But even less intense bursts can temporarily disrupt electrical equipment or permanently damage ICs, causing them to fail minutes, days, or even weeks later. People caught in the burst of a microwave weapon would, by contrast, be untouched and might not even know they'd been hit. (There is, however, an effort to build a microwave weapon for controlling crowds; a person subjected to it definitely feels pain and is forced to retreat.) "HPM sources are maturing, and one day, in the very near future, they will help revolutionize how U.S. soldiers fight wars," says Edl Schamiloglu, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and one of the leading researchers in this burgeoning field. The fact that we seldom hear about HPM weapons only adds to their exoticism. Last spring, stories leaked to the press suggested that the Pentagon, after decades of research, had finally deployed such a device in Iraq. And when news footage showed a U.S. bomb destroying an Iraqi TV station, many informed onlookers suspected it was an electromagnetic "e-bomb." "I saw the detonation, and then I saw the burst—which wasn't much. If they took the station out with that blast, I strongly suspect that we used Iraq as a proving ground" for HPMs, says Howard Seguine, an expert on emerging weapons technology with Decisive Analytics Corp., in Arlington, Va. But while the U.S. military proudly paraded assorted new war-making technology during its conquest of Iraq, from unmanned combat aerial vehicles to a new satellite-based tracking network, it remained tight-lipped about this "mother of all weapons." Asked at a 5 March news briefing to confirm the rumor, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. forces during the war, would only say, "I can't talk to you about that because I don't know anything about it." Military secrecy is nothing new, of course. What is known about microwave weapons is that the U.S. military has actively pursued them since the 1940s, when scientists first observed the powerful electromagnetic shock wave that accompanied atmospheric nuclear detonations, suggesting a new class of destructiveness. While much of the work on HPMs remains classified, the Pentagon has also recently sponsored a number of U.S. university laboratories to work out the basic principles of microwave weapons, including reliable and compact nonnuclear ways of generating microwave pulses. Many of those results are being published in the open literature. In fact, all you need is a reasonable grasp of physics and electrical engineering to appreciate the ingeniousness of microwave weapons. Anyone with a technical bent could probably also build a crude e-bomb in their garage, a thought that security-minded folks find rather troubling. How they work From the military's perspective, HPM weapons, also known as radiofrequency weapons, have many things going for them: their blast travels at the speed of light, they can be fired without any visible emanation, and they are unaffected by gravity or atmospheric conditions. The weapons come in two flavors: ultrawideband and narrowband. Think of the former as a flashbulb, and the latter as a laser; while a flashbulb illuminates across much of the visible spectrum (and into the infrared), a laser sends out a focused beam at a single frequency. Like the flashbulb, ultrawideband weapons radiate over a broad frequency range, but with a relatively low energy (up to tens of joules per pulse). Their nanoseconds-long burst produces a shock that indiscriminately disrupts or destroys any unshielded electronic components within their reach. The bomb's destructiveness depends on the strength of the ultrawideband source, the altitude at which it is initiated, and its distance from the target. E-Bomb Anatomy In this hypothetical design for an e-bomb, a two-stage flux compression generator provides gigawatts of power to the virtual cathode oscillator (vircator), which produces the high-power microwaves. The bomb's destructiveness depends on the microwave source and target's vulnerability to electromagnetic attack, among other things, but a 10-GW, 5-GHz HPM device would have a "lethal" footprint 400 to 500 meters across, producing field strengths of several kilovolts per meter. Such an e-bomb would wreak major havoc if detonated over a heavily populated area. Narrowband weapons, by contrast, emit at a single frequency or closely clustered frequencies at very high power (from hundreds up to a thousand kilojoules per pulse), and some can be fired hundreds of times a second, making an almost continuous beam. These pulses can be directed at specific targets—say, a command and control complex positioned on the roof of a hospital in a densely populated neighborhood—and tuned to specific frequencies. Technologically more sophisticated than ultrawideband sources, they are far more difficult to develop, but are reusable and potentially of much greater use to the U.S. military. Both versions wreak the same kind of havoc on just about any kind of unprotected electronic equipment. Particularly vulnerable is commercial computer equipment; anything in excess of just tens of volts can punch through gates in MOS and metal-semiconductor devices, effectively destroying the device, explains Carlo Kopp, a visiting research fellow in military strategy at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre in Canberra, Australia, and a computer scientist who lectures at Monash University in Melbourne. The higher the circuitry's density, the more vulnerable it is, because less energy is required to overload and destroy the transistors. HPMs also produce standing waves in electrical grid wiring and telephone and communications wiring, entering through cables, antennas, and even ventilation grills. They can immobilize vehicles with electronic ignition and control systems, too. "Since the frequency is high, this permits parasitic or stray capacitances to couple energy via paths in the circuit that may not be protected against overvoltage," Kopp explains. The e-bomb You could deliver an e-bomb in a number of ways: cruise missile, unmanned aerial vehicle, or aerial bomb. Whether ultrawideband or narrowband, the e-bomb consists of both a microwave source and a power source. Ultrawideband e-bombs aim to create an electromagnetic pulse like that accompanying a nuclear detonation, except that the nuclear material is replaced with a conventional, chemical explosive. The microwave source typically relies on an extremely fast switching device, according to Kopp, who has written widely on weaponizing HPM technology. Narrowband e-bombs might use a virtual cathode oscillator (vircator) tube or a variant of a magnetron. Though termed narrowband, they don't have the high coherency seen in signal-carrying applications, Kopp says. It takes gigawatts of power to feed an e-bomb's microwave source. For that, the flux compression generator, or FCG, is a good choice, says Kopp. Invented by Clarence ("Max") Fowler at Los Alamos National Laboratory after World War II as a byproduct of research into atomic bomb detonators, FCGs are conceptually simple. The best-known type consists of an explosive-packed copper cylinder surrounded by a helical current-carrying coil. Upon detonation, the explosion flares out the cylinder, short-circuiting the coil and progressively reducing the number of turns in the coil, thus compressing the magnetic flux. Large FCGs have produced tens of gigawatts, and they can be cascaded—connected end to end—so that the output from one stage feeds the next. Despite its simplicity, an FCG-powered e-bomb is probably too difficult for the average terrorist to build on the cheap. For one thing, to test the assembled apparatus, you have to blow it up. For weapons researchers, the e-bomb poses other problems. The strength of the shock wave dissipates rapidly as it moves out from the explosion. To knock out an electrical power substation, for example, the weapon has to strike within about a hundred meters. "Like all microwave radiation, the effect follows an inverse square law with increasing distance," Kopp notes. Though the explosion needed to force out the current can be fairly small, it keeps the munition from being fully nonlethal and nondetectable. Also, anything that's been hardened or shielded against an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear bomb will probably emerge unscathed. Focused like a laser The type of narrowband HPM weapons that the U.S. military is looking at offers everything that e-bombs do not. They're nonlethal, reuseable, and tunable, and they can be fired from miles away. Like a laser, the focused beam disperses only slightly over great distances. With a frequency range that is between about 1 and 10 GHz, they can penetrate even electronics shielded against a nuclear detonation. The deepest bunkers with the thickest concrete walls are not safe from such a beam if they have even a single unprotected wire reaching the surface. A microwave beam is created much like a laser beam. Between the batteries (or other power source) and the beam sit three elements: capacitors that turn the stored energy into an electron beam of nanosecond bursts, a microwave source that converts the electron beam into focused, high-frequency electromagnetic waves, and an antenna that points and shoots the beam. Kirtland Air Force Base, in Albuquerque, N.M., is considered the epicenter of the Pentagon's research on pulsed-power electromagnetic weapons. There, its premier pulsed-power system, the Shiva Star, is housed behind meter-thick walls An Air Force spokesperson refused to comment on what goes on in their pulsed-power programs, but a fact sheet on the Web site of Kirtland's Directed Energy Directorate describes the Shiva Star as capable of producing "120 thousand volts and 10 million amps for down to one millionth of a second to produce a power flow equivalent to a terawatt." The Kirtland machine isn't used to investigate HPM weapons per se, and its massive size makes it clearly impractical for delivering microwave beams to any spots of real military interest. Indeed, one big push in microwave weapons has been toward portability. "Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the attitude was, 'Yeah, we can do it—but we need Hoover Dam as our power supply,' " says Seguine. But just as batteries for cellphones and lap tops have shrunk and gained capacity, so have sources for microwave weapons. In the 1990s, the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research set up a five-year Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program to explore microwave sources. One of those funded was the University of New Mexico's Schamiloglu, whose lab is located just a few kilometers down the road from where the Shiva Star sits behind tightly locked doors. Thanks in large part to his and his colleagues' efforts, the fundamental capabilities and limitations of high-power microwave sources are now better understood and appreciated. Amidst the lead bricks and clutter in Schamiloglu's basement lab lies his masterwork: the Sinus-6. "A lot of laboratories come up with very cute names for these devices," Schamiloglu notes with a smile. "We never did." With a huge cylinder at one end connected to the long microwave source, the Sinus-6 looks like a giant torch lying on its side. Schamiloglu holds a rippled-wall waveguide connected to an antenna. The waveguide is where kinetic energy from a pulsed- power-driven electron beam is transformed into high-power microwaves. In the background sit the Pulserad-110A [left] and the Russian-built Sinus-6 [right]. The Sinus-6 can fire a several-gigawatt pulsed beam 200 times a second in 10-nanosecond bursts. The big cylinder contains a Tesla transformer, whose two coils vibrate in resonance and amplify the incoming voltage "with nearly 100-percent efficiency," Schamiloglu says. Once the pulse has been transformed into an electron beam, it is guided by a strong axial magnetic field through the long tube that will turn it into microwaves. The Sinus-6 can fire a several-gigawatt pulsed beam 200 times a second in 10-nanosecond bursts. "It has to be pulsed power because what you're after is high peak power," says Schamiloglu. "The power in the microwaves is going to depend on the electric field squared, so if you generate very large power, then the electric field is going to be big." How big? To drive the Sinus-6's beam continuously for an entire second, you'd need to supply about 25 gigajoules—"the entire output of a typical coal-fired electrical plant for 10 full seconds," Schamiloglu says. Another reason for pulsed rather than continuous power is to avoid a problem at the output end: the air around the antenna would heat to a plasma that in turn would interfere with a continuous beam at these power levels. The key to reaching gigawatts of power is dumping all the energy in one gigantic, nearly instantaneous pulse. A pressurized gas switch prevents the Tesla transformer from prematurely dumping as it builds up for the next pulse. The switch is filled with highly compressed and nonconducting nitrogen gas. When the transformer coils reach 700 kV, the nitrogen gas breaks down, and the pulse leaps through to the electron-beam diode. "Once you've fired the switch, it conducts, it generates a pulse," says Schamiloglu. "It conducts because you've made a plasma channel out of the gas. Then you have to wait for that plasma to recombine and form a neutral gas again. A typical time scale for this thing to recombine and fizzle out and be a neutral gas again is probably on the order of milliseconds." Among the best candidates for supplying microwaves is the backward wave oscillator; it has the advantage of being tunable (plus or minus 20 percent) and producing output in the 4-10-GHz range. To turn the kinetic energy from the Sinus-6's electron beam into high-power microwaves, the oscillator uses a rippled-wall waveguide, also called a slow-wave structure. The structure sets up standing electromagnetic waves in such a way that energy is rapidly transferred to them from the incoming beam of relativistic electrons from the Sinus-6. This growing energy initially propagates in the opposite direction of the beam's movement—hence the device's name—and is then reflected forward and radiated in the form of high-power microwaves. Backward wave oscillators, by the way, are also being tested as a way to push giant sails into outer space, to detect space debris, and to clear minefields. Being able to tune an HPM weapon comes in handy when a particular target proves invulnerable to a particular frequency. "Experience has shown that if the frequency is slightly altered, measurable effects are discerned," Schamiloglu notes. People used to believe that varying the frequency of HPMs wasn't practical, but Schamiloglu and his students proved them wrong. Coincidence and curiosity led to their discovery. Schamiloglu first acquired the Sinus-6 from Russian researchers in the early 1990s. (The Soviet Union once boasted a sophisticated program to develop microwave weapons; after its collapse, parts of that legacy were put up for sale, to the delight of researchers like Schamiloglu.) But once the apparatus was assembled in his New Mexico lab, he couldn't get it to operate as promised, so Russian colleagues flew over to help. "One of them took the RF structure [the rippled-wall waveguide] and started hammering on the thing," Schamiloglu recalls. When they tried it again, everything worked. "I was baffled why manhandling this RF structure—ramming it in—could affect the power so much," says Schamiloglu. So he started a series of experiments in which he slightly displaced the backward wave oscillator by increments. With a little experimentation assisted by computer simulations, his team found that the frequency could be adjusted by changing the distance between the diode and the microwave source. The result is that the backward wave oscillator is now one of the few pulsed-power HPM sources that can be tuned. Smaller is better One disadvantage of this oscillator, however, is that it needs an external magnetic field to create the microwave beam, a major hurdle to making the whole system smaller. The size of the Sinus-6 and attendant equipment in Schamiloglu's basement suggests that the U.S. military is nowhere near fielding a narrowband HPM weapon. "When I first started working on high-power narrowband sources, we joked that you can do more damage dropping this equipment on someone than you can by using it," he recalls. "People know how to make microwave sources in the laboratory. The challenge is to take this and package it into an autonomous platform and have it function at the same parameter levels." Schamiloglu is now hard at work under a new MURI program to study the possibilities of making a compact pulsed-power source. Current narrowband generators are typically several meters long, batteries not included. Schamiloglu and his colleagues are studying how to incorporate novel ceramics into pulsed-power systems, which they believe will allow the length of such sources to be halved. The trick is identifying materials with a high dielectric constant that can also survive the harsh electric fields. "Materials will be an important part in making the next giant leap," he says. Life in a glass house Among those agreeing that narrowband HPM weapons will need more refining before they become truly useful to the military is Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank based in Arlington, Va. He looked at the technology as principal investigator of "Directed-Energy Weapons: Technologies, Applications and Implications," a report that the institute put out in February. "We have some fairly rudimentary weapons that we're ready to use," Thompson says. "This is going to be a very important weapons technology, and the basic physical principles are well understood. But the military is having some difficulty in assimilating them." Thompson's report speaks of a future with satellites delivering missile-debilitating microwaves, unmanned vehicles that fly by and destroy communications systems, and war without civilian casualties. But the fact remains that it's the U.S. military—as well as U.S. financial institutions, PCs, and Game Boys—that will be the most susceptible to such weapons. "One of the things that happened during the last 10 years—as the Pentagon fell in love with network-centered warfare—is that we purchased a lot of very fragile digital systems off the shelf from commercial sources," Thompson notes. Such moves were taken in the name of cost and efficiency, but the resulting equipment is almost certainly more vulnerable to electromagnetic attack than the vacuum tubes and heavy metal-encased electronics of yesteryear. "Computers become more vulnerable as the voltage at which they operate becomes smaller," says Victor Granatstein, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Maryland in College Park, who is studying the effects of microwave pulses on integrated electronics. "When our opponent was the Soviet Union, the electronics were much more robust because they weren't miniaturized. Now they have very thin oxide layers that can easily break down." Wireless networking makes matters worse. Computers and other communications devices now have antennas attached, giving an electromagnetic pulse a direct pathway to its guts. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy no longer requires that all its hardware be hardened against nuclear electromagnetic pulses. It deemed that maintaining those standards was too costly and slowed down the integration of new technology. The presumption was that after the Cold War, nobody would be using nuclear bombs, says the Lexington Institute's Thompson. "Whenever I ask the admirals, 'Well, what if someone did use a nuclear bomb?,' I just get this kind of blank I-don't-have-an-answer-for-that sort of look." In the wrong hands The scariest part of microwave weapons may be that crude forms of the technology are readily available to anyone right now. "Any nation with a 1950s technology base capable of designing and building nuclear weapons and radars" can build an e-bomb, says military analyst Kopp. Indeed, more than 20 countries now have programs to develop some type of RF weapon. "The more widespread the technology is, the more likely that people with nefarious purposes will have access. It's just an inescapable fact," says Thompson. "I don't know what we're going to do. Nobody in Washington knows. I imagine that the way the clear thinking starts is with a catastrophe." Criminals and pranksters have already started exploiting that weakness. In one of the more harmless applications, a Japanese scam artist rigged up a weak microwave generator inside a suitcase to rip off a pachinko parlor. When he placed the suitcase next to one of the machines (which is something like a cross between a slot machine and a pinball machine) and turned it on, the pachinko machine went haywire and disgorged a pile of coins. The perp managed the trick several times before he was caught. Other press accounts hint at electromagnetic weapons being deployed by Chechen troops, and by an unnamed assailant trying to topple London's futures market. Thankfully, protecting yourself against the microwave-enabled goofballs of the world isn't too difficult. "It is analogous to existing techniques used to trap RF interference inside equipment, except that the higher power levels require special measures," Kopp notes. Rooms or equipment chassis must become electrically sealed Faraday cages, and protective devices must be added wherever cables enter the protected volume. "Optical fibers are very useful in this game." Such protective measures are a lot cheaper to design in from the beginning than to add on afterward, says Howard Seguine. "The general rule of thumb is that if you do the hardening during the design phase, it increases the cost roughly 1 percent. If you do it afterward, it may cost as much as 30 percent more." But maybe hardening is a waste of time. Arthur Varanelli, a Raytheon Co. engineer who has helped write several IEEE standards for electromagnetic field measurement, human exposure, and safety, is skeptical that a malicious prankster could exploit the technology. "Some of this stuff is just so far out there," Varanelli says. "I just don't see people running around with Buck Rogers ray guns. It's great for a science fiction writer, great to prey upon people's fears." He scoffs at the suggestion that a do-it-yourselfer could build a microwave weapon potent enough to do real damage. "People can put tacks in the road. Are we worried about electronic tacks in the air?" The wide disparity in opinions and the uncertainty about microwave weapons, from Loren Thompson on one end to Arthur Varanelli on the other, are all part of what makes them so powerful, says military analyst John Pike, who is director of GlobalSecurity.org (Alexandria, Va.). "It all depends on the complex interactions between the weapon and the target," he notes. "I can set up a strap-down chicken test that makes [an HPM weapon] look pretty good. But as soon as I start getting into real-world targets, maybe it doesn't work so well." "Part of the story is we don't know what the story is," Pike says. "These are weapons that by their nature seek the shadows. And unlike cluster bombs or atomic bombs, they aren't going to leave behind unambiguous evidence of their use." To Probe Further For a detailed technical discussion of high-power microwaves, see High-Power Microwave Sources and Technologies , edited by IEEE Fellows Robert J. Barker and Edl Schamiloglu (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2001). Schamiloglu is also coauthor, with James Benford and John Swegle, of the forthcoming High-Power Microwaves , 2nd edition (Institute of Physics, 2004). The truly prepared, or merely paranoid, will want to consult Carlo Kopp's "Hardening Your Computing Assets" (PDF 88 kb - from www.globalsecurity.org).

911-Airplane Animations

Airplane Animations

Please allow time to download graphics. (30 MB) THE AIRPLANE ANIMATIONS AIRED ON LIVE TV THE 16-SECOND 'MAGIC SEQUENCE' This is the 16-second sequence of the "second airplane approach" These four clips are the ONLY LIVE IMAGES (of the alleged "Flight 175") still to be found on the official 9/11 TV archives. I have put them together sequentially to highlight this 'curious coincidence': Is it plausible that 4 cameramen just happened to film a 'slice' of the full airplane approach, all 4 'slices' then combining into a seamless, full 'airplane approach sequence'? Or is this - more plausibly perhaps - a prefabricated sequence of computer-animated imagery ? The full sequence of the four 'plane approach' shots breaks down in this way: -16sec to -15sec : "DIVEBOMBER"(cbs) -15sec to -7sec : "THE BALL"(nbc) -7sec to -4sec : "THE WINGTIP"(cbs) -3sec to 0sec : "INTERNATIONAL SHOT"(abc) In the real world, the odds for this sequence to occur are, of course, astronomically remote. Much as the endless string of bizarre 'coincidences' pushed by the official 9/11 storyline, this extraordinary occurence challenges our very limits of credulity.  THE CBS 'FOLLOW-UP' SHOT Only 1min & 52seconds after the "LIVE strike", CBS aired a "follow-up" shot. It showed a small dot passing between the Empire State Building. So small, in fact, that CBS anchor Bryant Gumbel complained that he couldn't see it. This shot exemplifies most effectively the digital aspect of the 9/11 TV broadcasts. By simply blowing up a detail of the scenery, we can make the following observations : 1• No 'video artifact' issues can account for the thick, black linings/ghost edges (see contour of WTC). The "plane" is seen overlapping those edges. 2• The approach angle/trajectory of the "plane" is absurd: if this were to be a Boeing 767 (travelling at the reported speed of "550mph"!) no way could it perform a last-minute turn to hit the WTC almost head-on (as seen in other 9/11 imagery). 3• The overall aspect of the imagery is not in the least consistent with real, video broadcasting standards; it has an altogether artificial aspect often seen in chroma-key/luma-key filtering or similar digital manipulations. Exactly what sort of techniques/software-packages were employed? This cannot reasonably be our onus to establish. Most likely, numerous deception techniques were used - as the 9/11 hoax was certainly not meant to be exposed in as little as 6 years (September Clues version 1.0 was released in july 2007)... We may, however, apply a series of empirical and deductive processes in order to rule out that the 9/11 imagery is real photography. To this end, a host of data has been reviewed, compared and cross-analyzed. The aberrations which have emerged are not confined to the photographic domain: what is observable in the 9/11 TV broadcasts defies the very laws of physics, aerodynamics, trigonometry, optics, perspectives and, ultimately, plain common sense. It is the sum of these considerations which allow us to conclude - beyond any reasonable doubt - that virtually none of the 9/11 images are real: they are but a series of fabrications designed to replace the real-life events that unfolded in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001.     "THE NOSE-OUT FIASCO" This is the only LIVE clip which you will not find in the TV archives: the infamous "Nose-In/Nose-out fiasco" is featured in September Clues and comprehensively analyzed in NOSED OUT. It was broadcast live by WNYW-FOX5 and replayed by CNN 6min later (albeit with a large CNN-banner covering the "plane"). The fundamental question this shot raises is : "Can a passenger airplane crash into a steel tower and emerge from the other side with its cockpit intact?" No - but this of course raises another question mark: Why, if the 9/11 imagery was pre-fabricated, would such a 'cock-up' have occured? Now, here's where we must put our questions on hold and appeal to common sense. The bottom line is that whatevever the reasons, the fact remains that it cannot be real footage of a crashing airliner. Since this is what we have (an impossible depiction of an "airplane crash") we should stop right here - and ask FOX TV for explanations. Undeniably, FOX has actively attempted to remove this shot from public view. In fact, shortly after the release of September Clues in June 2007 - the WNYWFox5 video I had found on Youtube (containing the "Nose-Out fiasco") was removed with this 'candid', unambiguous message:           THE AIRPLANE ANIMATIONS credited to "AMATEURS" With the "LIVE SHOTS" out of the way, we are left to analyze the alleged "AMATEUR" shots which emerged only later: some within 12 hours of the event - and some as late as 2008! The sheer amount of "amateur" shots (around 45) is ludicrous in itself : we are asked to believe that 45 amateur videographers were able to get a clear panshot of the "550mph airplane"... The purpose of this 'overkill' is all too evident : by flooding the public with huge numbers of alleged "amateur" videoclips, the 9/11 plotters hoped to raise a wall of 'undeniability'. This has miserably backfired; simulating such a complex, real-life event involves a vast number of variables - all of which are difficult enough to reproduce realistically from two/three different angles - let alone 45! By contrast, only 1 video exists showing the first event at 8:46AM ("Flight 11 impacting WTC1"). Let us first have a look at this most "iconic" videoclip of 9/11. Barely two frames are needed to expose it - incontrovertibly - for the fraud that it is. "THE NAUDET BROTHERS' 1ST HIT FIASCO"          These 2 frames are extracted from the original DVD of the French Naudet brothers' movie "911". In the frame at left we may see that, 6 seconds after "plane impact", there simply is no right wing gash to be seen. Obviously, no BOEING 767 has entered that tower! Somehow, at the 20-second mark, and after much camera shake, a distinct gash appears. In the full video clip, one can clearly observe the gash being 'painted in'- and no - it is not a smoke plume. Once again, we don't need to pinpoint exactly how this video was forged: the inescapable fact is that this simply cannot represent real footage of a crashing airliner. Full video analyses here: THE PLANE FACTS (1min12") * 911AMATEUR part2 (7min18") CONFLICTING SUNLIGHT One of the unshakable certainties we have on this planet: The sun does not lie. Here we have two different "amateur" pictures depicting practically the same moment in time. All we have to look at are the North sides of the WTC towers: In one shot they bask in sunlight - in the other they are in shade. Both cannot be real. Note: As these analyses unfold, I will use the fair and objective 'both-cannot-be-real' conclusion (in the case of back-to-back comparisons). This, solely for reasons of academic correctness. However, it is hoped that the reader will ultimately realize that the countless observable discrepancies call for a more severe, no-nonsense assessment of the entire 9/11 image pool. IMPROBABLE TRAJECTORIES  Here we have an "amateur" shot credited to one "LUIS ALONSO". The two compared sections of his shot show why his video cannot be real. The "airplane" is seen passing behind the Woolworth building, after which it drastically changes trajectory. This can only be a poorly crafted video composite. In fact, trajectories were a constant problem for the 9/11 fakery crew: their 3-D simulation skills were evidently rather limited. It should be noted that the plane looks ridiculously slow - if you consider it should be travelling at 550mph (900km/h)! And yes, there are ways of verifying (subsequent expansion of the fireball) that this notorious clip is not meant to be in slow motion. (The 2 loops at left have been stabilized - that's why the MSNBC logo moves around) IMPOSSIBLE AERODYNAMICS Only 1 second separates these two pictures ( extracted from video by alleged "amateur" Devin Clark ). A Boeing 767 cannot bank (or 'roll'- in aeronautical jargon ) at a rate of 12°/second. It just cannot do it - at any speed. Full "Devin Clark" analysis here : 911 AMATEUR part1 RIDICULOUS REFLECTIONS This shot credited to "Evan Fairbanks" was repeatedly aired on ABC in the aftermath of 9/11. At the bottom of this shot we can see what is meant to be a reflection in a car windshield. The utterly ridiculous nature of this shot is for all to see. Film & video professionals will instantly recognize this classic 'trick' of the trade : 'Reflections' are all-too-common, special-effect gimmicks used in cinema production to 'enhance the reality' of digital sceneries. Full "Evan Fairbanks" analysis here : 911 AMATEUR part3 MAGICAL OPTICS This shot is credited to "Jennifer Spell": One may wonder if she cast a spell on her camera lens, allowing it to focus both the wire fence and the distant towers as she caught this 'lucky' shot of the "planecrash". In any case, her magical lens must be the envy of every photographer in the world. Her shot also features - like so many other 9/11 'lucky shots' - a miraculous zoom-in just as the "action" unfolds. Note the hypnotizing, meant-to-be-found "laser light" for generating controversy; there are many such distractions in the 9/11 videos: • birds, sparkles and Unidentifed Objects • flashes at "plane impact" • "squibs" in the tower collapses PREPOSTEROUS PHYSICS As a former motorsport photographer, this was the TV-shot that made me scrub my eyes in the days following 9/11. The sight of that airliner disappearing integrally into the steel tower simply didn't look right. Racing cars, to be sure, do not slice right through guard rails in head-on crashes. They shred into many small pieces. I remember friends quipping : "Well, nobody has ever witnessed such a unique planecrash, so who's to know what it should look like?" We now know it is a (poor) computer animation but, at the time, this was of course quite unthinkable. Start/Stop Animation FLAWED GRAPHICS Start/Stop Animation Yes, it is indeed a crappy animation. Case closed for this shot. For further insights into the fakery evidence, view the other imagery analyses and articles on this website. Please realize that the "planecrash shots" were not isolated, fake videoclips: the (approx) 102min-long TV-programme broadcast on the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001 was but a fully pre-fabricated movie designed to replace the real-life events in Manhattan. Why was it done? 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme - the scale of which is beyond most people's imagination. Please read on.

911-Collapse Animations

... Collapse Animations

Please allow time to download graphics. (45 MB) - Be patient, and if some images don't show up - please click "refresh" on your browser. THE WTC2 COLLAPSE AT 9:59AM (as seen on TV) "WTC2 COLLAPSE" LIVE ON NBC This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation. Just as the "FOLLOW-UP SHOT" aired by CBS, it features black linings/ghost edges around the WTC. Of course, the absurd, dark-yellow hue of this "daylight shot" is unprecedented in the history of photography: Critics wishing to prove the contrary should provide samples to back up their contentions. In case you should wonder, the slight 'bobbing' of the picture is supposed to imprint the idea of this being filmed from a helicopter (NBC's "Chopper4"). Ironically, this tilt motion is precisely what gyroscopic cameras will not allow: To the makers of this poor animation, we may say : "Fail". FAKE SMOKE Another horrendous cock-up by the "9/11 animation crew": White smoke is seen covering the West side of WTC7. It is inexplicably 'cut' along the edge of WTC7. Could it be a reflection? No: The sun being where it is, any 'reflection' would have been that of a shadow. The animation crew probably mistook the WTC7 NORTH FACE for a separate building and decided to make smoke emerge from behind it. Note also the impossibly white smoke emerging from WTC1 in the small, central picture. NO lighting issues/camera angles may account for the black/versus white smoke aberration: All 3 shots have similar blue skies. Lastly, WTC7 was a red/brown building - not grey. None of these three shots are real. The WTC2 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in SEPTEMBER CLUES addendum CHAPTER1 The WTC7 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in WTC7 STUDY THE WTC1 COLLAPSE AT 10:28AM (as seen on TV) THE CNN LIVE SHOT (part1) RUN-UP TO COLLAPSE : • "Chopper camera" performs an 18-second zoom-in just prior to collapse start. • Two seconds after collapse initiation, the feed switches to "camera 2". This fact alone must ring an alarm bell in any rational mind: what are the odds for this to occur? Did the "chopper cameraman" anticipate the collapse by sheer luck, zooming-in just in time to catch its start? Did the producer then - with Superman vision & reflexes - decide to switch the feed to "camera 2" within two seconds - perhaps for more 'drama'?... THE CNN LIVE SHOT (part2) FULL WTC1 COLLAPSE SEQUENCE : The collapse proceeds and yet more camera switches are seen during this short time span. The switch from "camera 3" to "camera 4" is quite surreal: it is clearly the same camera - at two different zoom levels. And what about the final brightening of the picture? Did the 'ace' CNN producer notice "cam4" was too dark at that precise moment? Another extraordinary aspect of this LIVE CNN shot: the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) claims that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds. Yet, what we see on CNN is a collapse which clearly lasts for at least 18 seconds. The whole "9/11 commission" was a joke -but of course- that's now common knowledge.  Note: The "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" organization had until late 2009 an article on their site describing, in finely detailed manner, the timeline of the WTC 1 "11 second collapse". When I pointed out to them the approx. 18-sec collapse from the CNN live feed (as seen above), I received this succinct reply from their webmaster: "Thanks for your message, we have now removed the relevant article from our website." The "A&Efor9/11TRUTH" organization is up to no good...  THE "CLONED" WTC1 COLLAPSE SHOTS ( ALL apparently "filmed" from Westside Highway ) The three shots below (we are meant to believe) were captured by 3 different cameramen, all placed somewhere north of the towers, on Westside Highway. Let's have some fun here and rate their respective performances, catching these crucial & historical seconds on film... ZOOM OUT just after collapse start: Well done!_______ZOOM OUT just before collapse: Magic done!_______ZOOM IN precisely at start of collapse: PRICELESS !    Of course, the "CUT" seen in the third shot is totally absurd - yet this is the way this shot was aired on French National TV (Antenne2). Now, let's have a look at more available clips/and pics from the same area. We will start with a TV shot featuring a woman ABC7 reporter. This should tell us (if these clips are real and legit) that ABC TV was placed right there - on Westside Highway - and that this shot was caught by an ABC camera placed on a tripod by a pro cameraman at safe distance from the WTC. He's still there when the WTC1 collapses... ABC7 reporter announces WTC2 collapse (shortly after 10AM)________________WTC1 collapse (at 10:28AM) - clip shows between secs 12 and 16 from collapse start.  The following two shots show scenes of the WTC1 collapse. Timeline : Approx. 30seconds after the WTC1 collapse start. Not many folks walking/cycling by seem to be paralyzed, taken aback or even much worried about the disaster. NewYorkers are ostensibly a laid back lot, wisely turning their back on their problems and getting on with their business...In the righthand clip, the "sure" man's elbow is seen slicing through the gesticulating man in blue shirt, in ghostly fashion : these people are not real, they're just a computer-animated synthetic crowd. Anonymous photographer snaps end of WTC1 collapse______________________End of WTC1 collapse (same vantage point as "ABC shots" above).  It should be evident now that the 9/11 imagery was concocted by an incompetent crew of animators. What we are left to analyze is a bunch of animated images unworthy of version 1.0 of our kids' Playstation. Please compare the two below shots with the four posted above.   THE LOGIC BEHIND THE TOTAL 9/11 TV SIMULATION: The tower collapse videos are all 'plagued' with irreconcilable discrepancies - as further demonstrated below. Naturally, most people will ask: "Why also fabricate the tower collapses, since they collapsed in reality (and were obviously rigged for demolition) ?" Please concede to my proposed answer the most careful consideration: to "prefabricate reality" on film was by far the safest way of staging the entire operation which involved the highly explosive, unpredictable dynamics of the destruction of the WTC. Surely, the very last thing the 9/11 planners would have risked was to show the real-life action on LIVE TV with all its unfathomable, visual variables - and ugly fireworks. Thus, as seen from the 9/11 planners' perspective, the logic behind airing simulated imagery on TV is founded in solid common sense. As hard as this may be to come to terms with, to dismiss this conclusion offhand is quite unreasonable: one cannot simply ignore the flawed, absurd and - ultimately - incontrovertibly counterfeited 9/11 imagery.

More evidence of FAKE TOWER-COLLAPSE IMAGERY :



This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?


Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!



Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ? 
Objectively speaking, they don't. Yet both "cameras'" vantage points feature similar Northern vantage points. It is safe to say that these "tower-collapse" videos cannot both be real. More likely, none of them are: the towers collapsed behind a thick smokescreen - and were never captured on film. Also, consider this: The alleged author of the top left shot, one "Etienne SAURET", is credited with much 9/11 imagery shot "as he speedily roamed about the area". So where was Mr.SAURET when he caught this head-on shot of the 110-story WTC ?


In March 2010, the "SAURET-shot" was used again in a fanciful documentary by one "DIMITRI KHALEZOV". This man claims to be a "former soviet nuclear expert" and he uses - once again - the fake 9/11 imagery to illustrate why he believes the WTC was demolished by some nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Dimitri's version of the SAURET-shot is a sorry disaster: his WTC tower only shows 39 out of 59 beams ! Evidently, the 9/11 fakery-team provided poor Mr. Khalezov with a scrap copy of the various test-runs of their computer animations... Note also that the 39 beams are askew in relation to the building's frame. This formidable cock-up establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 imagery. Here's a link to our forum for all details and references to this conclusive proof of foul play.




These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :

911-Visual Control of 9/11

The Power Of Imagery

http://www.septemberclues.info/ Television is - and has always been - a Weapon of Mass Distraction. The power of TV-imagery was the driving force behind the 9/11 deception. Whenever a major news event is reported by the mainstream media, it will invariably be illustrated with photographs or videos in order to convey to the public some visual impressions of the event. Undeniably, the imagery connected with any given news story enhances our emotional relation to it. The way we relate to news imagery has an almost hypnotic effect on our psyche: we have come to consider the visuals of any given news story as proof of that news story’s authenticity. This is truly a ‘weak spot’ of our brains’ readiness for critical-thinking. Thus follows, unfortunately, that to challenge the authenticity of a catastrophic event shown on Live TV is way beyond what most people are willing to contemplate. However, the time has come for everyone to call television by its most appropriate, military-sounding name: "Weapon of Mass Distraction". The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that ‘weak spot’ of ours. We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time – understandably so, as the sheer horror of the proposed imagery generated a wall of outrage and fear – thick enough to discourage any critical review of it. In hindsight, we can only wonder why so few questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks. The picture at left shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio. (see my audio analysis in September Clues E) WHAT TELEVISION VIEWERS SAW ON 9/11 The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. It featured for the most part what were meant to be “chopper shots” of the smoking towers - and very little else. The sum total of “Action Shots” (“Planecrash” and “Tower collapses”) amounted to little over 30secs of the entire morning's TV broadcasts ! Needless to say, much as the rest of the animation movie, none of these “Action Shots” depicted any sort of reality. Now, it may be difficult for many to understand why the 9/11 plotters needed to fake even the tower collapses; yet this was undoubtedly the most crucial aspect of the entire operation - and needs to be fully understood in its plain logic: The unprecedented WTC demolition job was far too risky an affair to be shown on LIVE TV - (or to let any amateur cameraman capture it on film). The 9/11 conspirators had no intention whatsoever to offer such a "pyrotechnical" spectacle to world scrutiny - just imagine how unspeakably foolish this would have been. Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event. Thankfully - for all normal people of this world - the 9/11 planners hired a poorly skilled animation crew : in their efforts to simulate reality, their crass 'artistry' and countless mistakes provide ample and repeatable proof of the trickery - forever engraved in the TV archives. These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence :  A REAL PLANE CRASH ?___________________________A REAL SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE ? See: Detailed Analyses of Airplane Animations See: Detailed Analyses of Collapse Animations WHY FAKE THE NEWS BROADCASTS ? The 9/11 TV broadcasts were designed to ‘sell’ a fictitious terror attack to the world– by replacing the real-life events of the day (the WTC demolitions) with fake imagery. The official story was quite surreal - as were the TV images of the day and the preposterous tale of 19 kids roundly outfoxing the US Air Defense. It is essential to judge with one's own eyes the broadcasts actually aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN. WHAT ABOUT THE "AMATEUR" VIDEOS ? All the other videos (endlessly replayed on TV) were released onlylater. They have all been extensively analyzed by scores of video analysts; each and every video snippet of "amateur imagery" [BELOW] has been methodically dissected and compared - and empirically proved to be nothing else than computer-generated fabrications. HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place. The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.    --------------------------- Visual Control of 9/11 Since the core of the 9/11 operation relied on airing fake imagery on TV (to simulate the real-life events of the day), it would be only logical to assume that a solid infrastructure was in place to ensure 'success'. To be sure, the news media has been caught red-handed many times in the past, shamelessly airing outright fake news. This time, however, more sophisticated safeguards were necessary in order to control and impede any inconvenient private footage being captured - most embarassingly leaking out and exposing the hoax. Here, we will look at some technology which conceivably could achieve these goals. Admittedly, addressing this issue requires some level of speculation - yet one may well presume that this operation would have put to good use the most advanced technology available. Why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events? Firstly, there are many indications that a blanket evacuation of Lower Manhattan took place after the first "plane" strike at 8:46AM. Few people were likely left dwelling around snapping pictures. In any circumstances, the chances for anyone capturing a clear image of an unexpected, sky-diving 550mph+ object are extremely slim. These factors alone drastically reduced the probabilites of undesired image recordings in the area. Nevertheless, one must assume that the 9/11 military-backed operation would have required no less than a 110% "safety level". It should also be safe to say that the perpetrators relied on top-end military technology. Thus, we may formulate a plausible hypothesis - based on the known objectives which had to be met. If total visual control of the wider Manhattan area was a top priority of the 9/11 psyop, it would have been essential to impede any authentic footage to be captured in NY that morning. Electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF or HPM) is routinely used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics. Read about it Dawn of the E-Bomb [NEXT POST]. Conceivably, this technology was used to prevent any private footage being recorded throughout the limited (102min) time-window in which the defining 9/11 events took place (from first "plane" strike to last tower collapse). To be sure, the research into this field has long been a top military priority: with this in mind, we may reasonably consider that this well-tested technology was employed on 9/11. It is, all in all, a hypothesis grounded in logic and (military) common sense. Do we have any indications from the day that may back-up this hypothesis? Indeed, we do: it is a well-known fact that thousands of electronic devices malfunctioned - or blacked-out altogether. As many as 4 important electronics-related disruptions were reported in the 9/11 aftermath : 1) : all New York cell phones 2) : the firefighters' NYFD radio-transmitters 3) : the WTC’s internal communication system 4) : the Port Authority's transmission repeater on top of WTC5 These disruptions caused quite some controversy - and were explained away with claims such as: 1) : “the NY cell phone network was overloaded” 2) : “the NYFD had faulty radios/was confused over new T-R channels” 3) : “the WTC intercom wiring was damaged by the crashing airplane” 4) : The Port Authority simply denied that their equipment malfunctioned. The official explanations for these four serious and (apparently) unrelated disruptions, all seem appallingly contrived. Now, even though EMP/HERF beams can be calibrated to disrupt a specific Hz range, one may reasonably surmise that some ‘bleed’ may have occurred - thus affecting more than the targeted videocamera circuitries. In any case, an electromagnetic "storm" would keep any private cameras from operating. Only special cameras shielded in protective faraday-cages would function. ---------------- testimonies Letter from Quentin (aka youtube user Qmorsol) - Sept.16,2009 Hello, Simon My apologies for having been MIA for so long. Sorry man. After returning from vacation in July I took an even longer break from the internet...cuz I needed it ;O. (I might have succumbed to a little paranoia...but anyway it's all good) I told you I'd provide you with as much detail as I could regarding my cousin's camera issue on that day... My cousin Stephen's PVDV401 Cam failed to turn on but assumed it was the battery; he blames Panasonic for "making unreliable shit". But it was in the charger for more than 4 hours the night before. So he claims to had been somewhere on Broadway heading North when it happened. The incident actually happened closer to the second hit - before 9 am (this info he just gave me in an email). He did not immediately think of pulling out the camera until he approached as close as possible the WTC for a better view. He pulled it from his bag only to struggle with it for a bit, releasing the battery then hooking it again, he did this several times - checking everything else he knew to check - to no avail. (Mind you, he had been bringing his new camera to work almost everyday and never encountered a problem with the power). At this point he says one cop approached him aggressively because he wasn't moving fast enough or whatever (something interesting that I guess helps support your hypothesis : Stephen claims a rather fast evacuation was in effect minutes into the event, people being directed out of there in a jiffy - being pushed up Church St and Broadway). The group in the area questioned why the 'accident' would warrant such an aggressive evacuation on the ground. He had given up on the cam - looking around to see if anyone was filming but saw NO ONE at it. He joked to me he would've tried to snatch someone's cam... just his dark sense of humor. He also says he saw trails of ground fire from afar as he was leaving the area. He was kinda happy to get the fuck out as he was having major runs all morning. So he gets home (at his girlfriend’s apartment) tosses the Panasonic down safely and didn't feel the need to test the cam until giving it another charging session hours later. The power indicator flashed on and off each time he put the battery in, one time it stayed on a few seconds - it just didn't give any juice to the camera. Anyhow, 3-4 hours later it was fully charged again. At first it stalled, powered-on-off, then worked fine! He gave it a little punch out of aggravation, especially after seeing all the 'amateur footage' emerging in the following days …" I don't know how much this helps you, but that's his account of his experience. I meant to ask you before, are you going to need some kind of digital signature :o ? Quentin Now, I didn't ask Quentin to provide a digital signature of his letter, knowing full well that it wouldn't help convincing anyone questioning Quentin's sincerity/legitimacy. I, for one, have no reason to do so. You are free, of course, to do so - and even suspect that I made up this letter myself. Let's face it: until we have a real 9/11 courtcase with people submitting testimonies under oath, there is no way to get around this problem. By the way, if you wonder why Quentin's cousin didn't contact me firsthand, Quentin explained in a separate mail that his cousin didn't want to have anything to do with 'crazy conspiracy theories'- and that he was a Bush fan... ------------------------- Here is another testimony to camera failure which I have bumped into. Unfortunately, this person never came back to me as I asked for more details about his/her experience on 9/11: Message from "SassyMami"-youtube user - october 2009 "My camcorder at the time wasn't perfect and I don't know if it was momentarily powering on and off due to some defect. The litte red button on it would get stuck sometimes, or not work." ---------------------------------- Here is a third testimony of an electronic dysfunction - although this time concerning a VHS recording of the TV broadcasts of 9/11. I am adding it to this list even though it concerns a fairly different matter. Suffice to say, lots of strange things happened regarding video-capture issues on 9/11: Message from 'Aliendear'(youtube user) - december 2009 Simon, This was at home, on my vcr. On a Symphonic 4-head Hi-Fi VCR. In several states away from NYC. I was recording the various networks. When all was said and done, there was nothing on the tape. Just Snow. I do not make a mistake when recording programs. The vcr is one-touch recording. I've recorded documentaries, TV shows, news, game shows. None have failed to record. But on 9/11, all the various news networks I recorded came up blank. There was nothing but snow on the video tape. And I had rewound it to several spots to make sure I was recording, or to look over an event. This Symphonic records a superior picture. But on 9/11, it was nothing. ------------------------------ The next one also an interesting comment, from yet another perspective, still related to electronic disruptions - (all the way from Florida!). What on Earth was going on that day in the US ether? From the 'Daily Paul' website - http://www.dailypaul.com/node/120138 Message submitted by Maeve - on Sun, 01/17/2010 - 19:55 I was in FL when 9/11 happened. We had no cell, landline, or internet service for nearly an hour. The TV still ran, but communications were cut off. I remember that very clearly.  ====================================== FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°2: Q: “What about the many private videos of the 9/11 events showing the plane crash?” A: All the alleged “Amateur” stills and videos depicting crucial moments of the day (“planes”/“tower collapses”) are forgeries - and demonstrably so. The “9/11 plotters” manufactured a large image-pool to be attributed to private cameramen for three main purposes : 1: To imprint the notion that many bystanders captured the event on film 2: To supply more shocking and memorable close-up views of the event 3: To outweigh the poor LIVE TV show with a great number of shots The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake ...”Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing 'airplane' images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released - inexplicably - as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight”: ================================  The Eye-Witnesses FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°4: Q: “What about the thousands of eye-witnesses in Manhattan ?” A: There is no denying the existence of a large amount of eye-witness testimonies reported by the mainstream media - and even by more credible, independent sources. The vast majority refer to the sightings of the 2nd event at WTC2 - while strikingly few refer to the 1st event at WTC1. With this in mind - and permitting that witness reports might be a reliable source of information - we should concentrate on the available witness reports. Of course, eye-witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, particularly in the case of brief, rapidly unfolding events. In spite of this commonly-accepted fact, many people seem to be strongly attached to what (they perceive) was reported by "thousands" of eye-witnesses in Manhattan. A key question should be raised: Did most people report a “large passenger airliner?” The firm answer to this is: No. Of those people who provided details of the object they saw, the majority reported anything but a large airliner. I submit below a cross-section of such testimonies: Of course, this selective list is only meant to get an idea of the variety of the 9/11 eye-witness reports – and is not intended to establish any conclusive proof. However, it goes to show that there was no general consensus on what precisely hit WTC2 : SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2: A SMALL PLANE 1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...

911 Book: We're Serfs on the Rothschild Estate

911 Book: We're Serfs on the Rothschild Estate
January 11, 2012 

This unpretentious book shows how humanity is under constant covert attack from Cabalistic (Masonic) Jewish bankers, their allies and dupes. They contrive all wars to degrade, disinherit and ultimately destroy us. If we heed the call of war, we are complicit in our own destruction.  

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

Edward Hendrie is a lawyer. His book,  "9-11 - Enemies Foreign and Domestic" builds an irrefutable case that 9-11 was an egregious fraud and act of treason perpetrated against the American people. Clearly, a large segment of the US political, military and media class is complicit in the mass murder and/or cover-up, from the President on down. 

The book carefully dissects and discredits the official story and places the attack in the context of numerous other Zionist false flags against the US (Beirut Marine barracks, USS Liberty) designed to change US policy. Hendrie effectively explains the broad religious context, i.e. the Cabalist Jewish vendetta against mankind. I haven't read anything for a while that so vividly exposes the control Illuminati bankers have over our lives.

Their ownership of the mass media is a large part of this control. Hendrie shows how the media was an active collaborator in the 9-11 fraud. As I suspected, no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. The plane images were computer generated and synchronized with explosions in the buildings.

Hendrie shows that many of the "eye witness" accounts were employees of the TV networks and that real eye witness reports of no planes were ignored. Furthermore, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-floor building, 20 minutes before it occurred. AP and CNN prepared obituary pictures for the 9-11 passengers three days before the attack occurred. 

Hendrie shows that the "news" suppresses the truth and literally creates reality according to the Illuminati script.

The truth is that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand hits by large passenger planes and that supposed fires ignited by jet fuels could not reach temperatures necessary to melt steel girders. Hendrie attributes the fact that the two buildings and their contents became dust to a "direct energy weapon" related to HAARP.  This weapon reduced almost everything to their molecular level. Cars and file cabinets melted but trees and paper were unaffected, let alone burned.

Hendrie reveals that Category Three hurricane "Erin", packing 120 mph winds was about 200 miles from NYC at the time of the attack. He cites physicist Dr. Judy Wood who theorizes that the hurricane "acted as a massive Tesla coil creating field effects used by directed energy weapons on 9-11."

The purpose of 9-11 was to create a Zionist police state and to justify wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Hendrie believes the Iraq war was prompted by Sadaam Hussein's decision to stop trading oil in dollars. Apparently, the bankers need petrodollars to support the burgeoning US debt.

Hendrie believes no planes crashed on 9-11. He speculates that the passengers of UA-93 were unloaded in Cleveland and murdered at a NASA facility at the airport. The damage at the Pentagon, which killed 125 people, was caused by explosions. The attack targeted offices where accountants were investigating the disappearance of $1.2 trillion.

Osama bin Laden died in late 2001 of Marfan syndrome. The recent "assassination" by Navy Seals was designed to rescue Obama, who was embattled by "birther" and other issues.  

CONCLUSION

This 300-page book is carefully documented and throws our common dilemma into stark relief. We live in a theater of the absurd where psychopaths and their enablers have taken control.

Hendrie makes clear that Cabalist Jewish bankers are at the heart of the conspiracy and Zionism is its most powerful instrument. He makes an irrefutable case that Mossad organized and executed the 9-11 attack. Senior members of the Bush administration were active collaborators.

Clearly, the Illuminati bankers depend on the collaboration of millions of Freemasons and other non-Jews willing to sell their soul to the devil, and betray their country for personal gain.

Our situation is analogous the movie "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where an alien force has occupied the minds and souls of the people. The nations of the world have been profoundly subverted by evil. 

But the truth remains the truth. Edward Hendrie has made a huge contribution to it by writing this book. I thank him.  

 ----

From the Introduction:

"The official government conspiracy theory is that on the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Arabs nearly simultaneously hijacked four planes using box cutters and purposely crashed one plane into the Pentagon, crashed two others into each of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, and the fourth plane crashed in Shankesville, Pennsylvania as a result of the passengers rising up and trying to get control of the plane from the hijackers. This book will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the government’s conspiracy theory is a preposterous cover story. The truth is that the attacks on 9-11 were perpetrated by Israel, aided and abetted by high officials in the U.S. Government."
Table of ContentsIntroduction
1   Seven Alleged Hijackers are Still Alive
2   American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 Did Not Exist
3   No AA Flight 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon
4   Decoy Plane
5   2.3 Trillion Reasons for the Pentagon Attack
6   A Patriotic Witness Steps From the Rubble
7   What Happened to UA Flight 93?
8   Impossible Speeds
9   Rock, Scissors, Planes
10   Media Participation in 9-11 Attacks
11   Eyewitness Accounts
12   The Man Who Knew Too Much
13   Evidence of Directed Energy on 911
14   The Destruction After the Destruction
15   What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?
16   Mossad Involvement in the 911 Attacks
17   Able Danger
18   A Nest of Spies
19   Israel is Our Enemy
20   Silverstein and Friends
21   Osama Bin Patsy
22   The Real Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
23   Is Iran Next?
24   The Media Lap Dogs
25   The Core of the Conspiracy

ExtractsThey need torture as a tool to produce confessed patsies for future false flag operations. Torture serves their depraved need to persuade innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit and convince those patsies to accuse other innocent patsies of being their co-conspirators.

Why Are Modern Guillotines on Military Bases in America?

Why Are Modern Guillotines on Military Bases in America?

[Editor's Note: There is no doubt in my mind that guillotines are being stored on selected military bases in America. Pam Schuffert had first hand conversations with people who have seen them. I'm equally convinced that crematoriums have been installed on many of the larger FEMA concentration camps, both here on the mainland and in Hawaii. Pam Schuffert accurately foretold of coming events when she titled her web site "American Holocaust" from its inception in the 1990s. Ronald Reagan, New World Order Bedtime Bonzo that he was, sold us out by signing away our fate to the dictates of Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis with the Talmudic interpretation of the "Noahide Laws" enshrined in Public Law 102-14, signed in 1983 by Bonzo. This federal statutory "law", which can be invoked at any time, established the legal grounds for EXECUTION by decapitation, anyone who is found guilty of "avoda zara" (idol worship) which according to halachic Judaism authorityMaimonides, includes anyone who worships Jesus Christ (source: Michael Hoffman's impressive 2008 tome, Judaism Discovered).

I do not concur with the Christian fundamentalist belief in The End Times, the Rapture, the physical return of Christ, Armageddon, or the Millennium which I have identified as British Israel, however, I have no quarrel with those who do just as long as they aren't aiding and abetting the New World Order, as exemplified by the so-called Christian Zionists of the John Hagee variety.

Our shamefully dumbed-down American public refuses to take these warnings seriously because they cannot imagine that the betrayal is as huge as it actually is and they are so utterly dependent on what they witness locally, meaning that since they don't see the the 12 foot high barb wire fence around FEMA concentration camps in their neighborhoods, they must not exist and this woman is merely making up wild stories! Woe be to you Foolish America when they come for you and your family...Ken Adachi]

by Pamela Schuffert <truth-4-all@hotmail.com>
http://educate-yourself.org/ps/guillotinesinamerica15feb09.shtml
February 15, 2009

Why Are Modern Guillotines on Military Bases in America? by Pam Schuffert (Feb. 15, 2009)

The GUILLOTINES (modern military/metal, both imported and made in USA, present in many of our US military bases, and also installed in certain varieties of PRISONER BOXCARS WITH SHACKLES prepositioned nationwide for martial law according to eye-witness accounts)are here for only one purpose, in today's modern society.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=boysel+guillotines+fort+lewis&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

They are here to fulfill the purpose of THE NOAHIDE LAWS legislation signed by George Bush Sr., as part of the procedure of implementing the coming WORLD GOVERNMENT OF ANTICHRIST (NWO), and that is TO BEHEAD ALL OFFENDERS OF THE NOAHIDE LAWS provisions for EXECUTION of people (Gentiles) guilty of "IDOLATRY" and "BLASPHEMY AGAINST GOD."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=noahide+laws+jews+behead+christians&btnG=Search

Being interpreted, "BEHEAD CHRISTIANS who believe that Jesus Christ is GOD IN THE FLESH and DIVINE."

In this day of modern technology and advanced methods of execution available, there can ONLY be one purpose for the millions of modern guillotines present not only in US military bases, but uncovered through in-depth research to be in various locations worldwide, and that is to fulfill the MANDATES OF THE NOAHIDE LAWS against those who will not conform to it's Jewish religious dictates.

EXECUTION BY BEHEADING is dictated for those who break THREE of the 7 NOAHIDE LAWS.

CONFORM in this case means for CHRISTIANS TO RENOUNCE THEIR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST as the SON OF GOD and DIVINE...something which is utterly hated by the Jewish community and HAS been, obviously, for 2000 years now.

In fact, Bible prophecy even refers to this aspect of the coming WORLD GOVERNMENT being ANTICHRIST.

The Bible speaks in Revelation 20:4 of the souls of those who are beheaded for their witness of JESUS CHRIST and the word of God, who essentially will not go along with this satanic world government (NWO) under Satan and it's "cashless society" and apostate antichrist religious system.

The Bible declares, in fact, that all those who are beheaded for their faith in Jesus Christ under this upcoming antichrist world system, will be resurrected to REIGN WITH JESUS CHRIST OVER THE WORLD during the genuine THOUSAND YEAR MILLENNIAL REIGN of God on the earth through His Son, Jesus Christ.(Revelation 20:4)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Revelation+20%3A4+christians+beheaded&btnG=Search

And speaking of "the spirit of ANTICHRIST," it ORIGINATED with the Jews 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ was rejected by His Jewish people, condemned to die on a cross, and declared to be NOT THE MESSIAH by the religious leaders of His day.

This spirit of antichrist and Jewish persecution of the Christians has continued for 2000 years now, taking various forms, most notably under the twentieth century persecution/martyrdom of millions of Christians, initiated and carried out under JEWISH BOLSHEVIK COMMUNISM.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jewish+bolshevik+communism+origins+founders&btnG=Search

Christians continue to this day to be persecuted, imprisoned,tortured and martyred worldwide under this ongoing communist attack against Christianity, with historically confirmed Jewish origins, founders, financial funders, and those who carry it out.

The Bible declares that this spirit of antichrist, directly under SATAN'S POWER (Revelation 13) will ultimately RULE THE WORLD completely, authorizing Christians to be PUT TO DEATH worldwide.

Enter the NOAHIDE LAWS and provision for the BEHEADING OF THOSE WHO CONFESS JESUS CHRIST, as Bible Prophecy declares is to come. And this is why UN (NWO)prisoner boxcars often have eyewitness sightings of modern guillotines installed in them, besides shackles and benches.

I personally have interviewed two people who were eye witnesses to the modern guillotines in the prisoner boxcars, Marie McCullough of SC (Christian missionary who witnessed these boxcars with 4 other people traveling with her) and Jericho of FL (former NWO agenda participant who personally confirmed to me at Bradenton Christian Retreat, FL, that the prisoner boxcars and shackles in Asheville, NC, contained NOT only shackles, but a modern guillotine in each one.)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=montana+boxcars+shackles+guillotine+marie&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Asheville+NC+boxcars+shackles+guillotines+schuffert&btnG=Search

CIA sources have also abundantly confirmed the GUILLOTINE PRESENCE in America and their NWO/Noahide Laws purposes as well.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Elaine+cia+assassin+guillotines+nwo&btnG=Search

The spirit of ANTICHRIST originated with the Jews 2000 years ago, has been passed down throughout history for 2000 years now, and IT WILL BE FULLY CULMINATED with the Jews through their antichrist world globalist (communist) government that will indeed put Christians ( and all other NWO resisters) to death...just as Bible Prophecy declares clearly.

NOAHIDE LAWS require numerous tools for MASS BEHEADINGS just for America alone. Hence, THE GUILLOTINES.

At least 80 percent of Americans claim to be "CHRISTIANS."

Well (heh-heh) we shall someday SEE just how "CHRISTIAN" these people who profess to be, REALLY ARE, as martial law is declared, the GUILLOTINES ARE PUBLICLY DISPLAYED, and supposed "Christians" (NWO resisters, etc) are arrested and lined up and the guillotine operators are crying out..

"NEXT...!!!"

Hmmm...talking about a future separation of THE SHEEP from the GOATS. Persecution somehow always seems to do this.

The good news is, READ REVELATION 20:4. WE CHRISTIAN NWO RESISTERS WIN. SO bring on your guillotines, boyz!

"NO FEAR."

-Pamela Schuffert