911 - Proof of Extremely High Temperatures at Ground Zero

Proof of Extremely High Temperatures at Ground Zero

From the Anonymous Physicist:


The DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) theory for destruction of the WTC, has had its proponents stake their claim on the idea that destruction from DEW is cold-- or “cool” (in contrast to heat-forming). DEW supporters have stated that the tower demolitions, the pyroclastic clouds and their “molecular dissociation clouds” were cool, and that there was no molten metal, no high temperatures after tower destruction in the rubble at Ground Zero.

To counter this, first, chronologically, we have WTC Fireman Peter Critsimilios reported his boots melting while trying to dig for survivors. “Our boots melted from the heat — we dug until we were exhausted.” 

Next, this video should permanently lay to rest all the shills who say there was no high temperature, or molten metal at the WTC. Eight weeks after 9/11, here is an eyewitness video where the witness says, “Steel-toed boots is one of the biggest things. Out still on the rubble, it’s still 1100 degrees, the guys’ boots just melt within a few hours.” Note all the smoking rubble shown, eight weeks after 9/11. As we have Ed Bradley interviewing, this is clearly an old CBS “60 minutes” broadcast.

Ed Bradley died in 2006, at the age of 65, from “chronic lymphocytic leukemia”. We know that Ed Bradley was at the WTC in November 2001. So I must ask, is he too a victim of cancer from the radiation at the WTC? His cancer was first officially diagnosed in 2004, some 2-3 years after his WTC exposure. So this “60 Minutes” broadcast--and perhaps even the cancer death of its reporter--helps close the lid on the coffin of DEW.

Keep in mind, the 1100 degrees temperature is at the surface of the rubble. The source of heat under the surface must be greater still. As this is 8 weeks later, and documented, only the China Syndrome of nuclear criticality fragments (non-oxygen needing) could do this.

The DEW proponents staked much of their claim on “no high, molten temperatures.” This new evidence shows the DEW theory is dead.

Likewise, Ed Ward, M.D. has revealed that Thermite does not have significant explosive power, and couldn’t have been the explosive agent seen blasting massive chunks--some weighing hundreds of tons--of the towers hundreds of feet outwards on 9/11. Furthermore we demonstrate that the aim of Steven Jones, PhD—the thermite proponent-- has always been the same as the DEW proponents: to desperately hide the truth of the nuking of the WTC on 9/11.

Here Wood was right to point out how Jones “orangifies” the picture of the Firemen “peering into the hot core” [Page 18]. But, Wood does not accurately tell us why Jones apparently altered the color of the picture-- he needed to “get the blue out of the picture.” The blue is likely the blue light known to occur during nuclear reactions. Curiously, Jones has apparently removed this picture from this article now up at his site. There are now different molten steel pics up now. So it is clear that the regime has tried to prevent, remove, and deny all evidence of nuclear explosions, and China Syndrome at the WTC. But the high-temperature, radioactive cat is now out of the bag, and can never be put back in. The melted firemen’s boots is one of many proofs of this now-- as are all the cancers.

We have exposed and disproved both DEW and Thermite hangouts. Hopefully Rick Siegel’s September release new video, “WMD at the WTC” will proclaim that the WTC was nuked on 9/11 as his short video does (See the bottom). But for now, please inform everyone of these articles.

911 - Tritium

Tritium

In 2002, the paper "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was presented at 
the American Chemical Society National Meeting.

This paper is well known in the "911 Truth Movement" for its presentation of anomalous 
levels of Tritium discovered at the WTC site 10 days after the attacks.

Of the 51 water samples analysed from the WTC complex, Manhattan, local reservoirs and 
Brooklyn (mainly), two samples from the basement of WTC 6 showed anomalously high 
levels of Tritium activity.

The levels measured were 3.53 ± 0.17 nCi/l and 2.83 ± 0.15 nCi/l of Tritium activity in this 
location.

We will use the units of Becquerels for the rest of this analysis because it is a much less 
disingenuous unit. 1 Bq = 1 radioactive disintegration per second. 1 nCi is 37 Bq.

In Becquerels, the WTC 6 basement Tritium levels equate to 130.6 Bq/l and 104.7 Bq/l.

The WTC storm sewer also showed somewhat raised levels of 0.164 ± 0.074 nCi/l (6.1 Bq/l) 
but according to figures cited by the authors this would be within normal background 
levels of Tritium in water in the US, cited at 0.1 - 0.2 nCi/l or 3.7 - 7.4 Bq/l.

The authors postulate that this Tritium in the WTC 6 basement came from two sources: 
Radio Luminescent Exit signs on board the two 767s which crashed into the towers and 
from Tritium night sights fitted to weapons stored at the site.

Before I comment on their very interesting analysis, I will present some key data from the 
recent report by Dr. Ian Fairlie "Cernavoda 3 and 4: Environment Impact Analysis: Report 
for Greenpeace" which "examines the existing releases of tritium, the radioactive isotope of 
hydrogen, from the Cernavoda 1 Candu reactor in Romania".

The Canadian CANDU reactor is known as a Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) because it uses 
deuterated water (heavy water) as the coolant and moderator. The deuterium atoms in the 
water capture neutrons from the core to moderate the reaction and become Tritium. 
Tritiation of ordinary un-deuterated coolant water also occurs to some extent in the 
widespread PWR and BWR reactor designs but to a much lower degree since H atoms will 
have to capture two neutrons to tritiate, while heavy water contains many D atoms that 
only require one more neutron to form Tritium (T).

CANDU reactors are therefore well known for being the most polluting reactors in terms of 
Tritium production, which is released into the surrounding environment in increasing 
amounts as time goes on from all reactors of this type.

Dr. Fairlie presents data on the levels of background Tritium present in the local 
environment around the Cernavoda reactor before it started operation in 1996 and 
compares it to the levels found in 1999. (Upper and Lower limits removed for clarity. 
Units: Bq/l or Bq/kg).

Cernavoda Environment - Tritium Levels (Bq/l)

911 - Colourless Gas Cloud in New York

Colourless Gas Cloud in New York

8 January 2007

Reports are now making the news of a (colourless?) gas cloud carrying a strange odour, 
covering Manhattan from the tip of the island to Central Park, across the Hudson to New 
Jersey. The power company say there is no leak of natural gas from the gas supply.

Could this be connected to the reactor cores that have been buried under the WTC after the 
meltdown and the extensive underground facility that must exist or have existed under 
New York that these reactors were powering?

Major products of nuclear fission include radioactive isotopes of the Noble Gases - Krypton 
, Xenon, Radon, Helium. The capture - or rather non-capture - of Kr 85 in the nuclear 
industry to prevent its release into the environment from reprocessing plants is a major 
and serious issue. As I show in the report, the favoured "fission pathways" of Uranium 
produce radioactive Noble Gases.

With the cores still buried down there, entombed like their Chernobyl siblings, intense 
radioative decay will be ongoing. As time goes on, the pressure of the Noble Gases 
produced will be building up and filling the underground spaces.

Could the pressure of those gases now be forcing their way to the surface, like Radon in 
areas of granite topography?

Recently, building work has started at the WTC site on the "Freedom Tower". Has this 
disturbed the area and allowed gas to escape?

Radon detection techniques could be used to analyse this gas cloud and identify its nature.

911 - Why they called it the Manhattan Project

Why they called it the Manhattan Project

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/science/30manh.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
This article in the New York Times illuminates some of the history of Nuclear Weapons
development that took place in Manhattan during WW2. It is well known that the HQ of the
Manhattan Project was at 270 Broadway. Over 5,000 people were working on the project
in central Manhattan from 1942-43 under the command of General Groves. The article
covers the research of historian Richard Norris, who states that "hundreds of tonnes" of
uranium were also stored in Manhattan, at the Baker and Williams warehouses at West 20th
Street.

At 233 Broadway, the technology was developed to enrich natural uranium to increase the
percentage of U235:
"We walked past St. Paul's Chapel and proceeded to the soaring grandeur of the
Woolworth Building, once the world's tallest, at 233 Broadway. A major site, it housed a
front company that devised one of the project's main ways of concentrating uranium's
rare isotope [Uranium 235] - a secret of bomb making. On the 11th, 12th and 14th floors,
the company drew on the nation's scientific best and brightest, including teams from
Columbia. Dr. Norris said the front company's 3,700 employees included Klaus Fuchs....."
This passage from the article may be revealing:
"At one point, the [Columbia University] football team was recruited to move tons of
uranium. That work, [Dr Norris] said, eventually led to the world's first nuclear reactor."
The uranium originated in the Belgian Congo. The obvious question of course is why were
hundreds of tonnes of it stored in the middle of the most important city in the world?

This article shows that an enormous scientific and logistic nuclear effort was carried out
and kept secret in the heart of New York City during the war.
"It was supersecret," Dr. Norris said in an interview. "At least 5,000 people were coming
and going to work, knowing only enough to get the job done."

"He [General Groves] was nuts about not attracting attention," Dr. Norris said.

With everything required already in one location - uranium, enrichment technology, a
highly trained technical workforce, a port and the HQ of the Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic Division, is it stretching imagination too far to conceive that they would have
naturally proceded on to the next step - the building of an "Atomic Pile"?
"Manhattan was central, according to Dr. Norris, because it had everything: lots of
military units, piers for the import of precious ores, top physicists who had fled Europe
and ranks of workers eager to aid the war effort".
What this article shows beyond a doubt is that all the conditions existed in New York to
build a nuclear reactor in complete secrecy. Even today, few people in New York have the
slightest idea that the buildings they work in were used for nuclear technology
development. For anybody who thinks it would have been impossible to build nuclear
reactors under the WTC and keep it secret, the evidence says otherwise. Not only would it
have been possible but indeed, given the confluence of circumstances, it would have been
entirely logical. With all the resources in place in New York and a war effort underway, it
would on the contrary have represented an enormous logistical disruption to break up the
teams and organisation established in New York in 1942. It may be more likely that this
continued while the "official" HQ was moved to Oak Ridge in 1943, permitting the
Manhattan operations to continue with even less attention and risk of discovery. At the
forefont of development, they could then have continued secret military nuclear
technology development throughout the Cold War with nobody the wiser. From a military
point of view, it would make perfect sense to have such a secret "non-existent" facility, this
time not hidden in a remote region of the USA but hidden in plain sight in the middle of
New York. 

911 - Underground Nuclear Power Plants

Underground Nuclear Power Plants
It may not be widely known that several Underground Nuclear Power Plants (UNPPs) have
been operated since the early 1960s.

In Western Europe, 4 small Underground NPPs have been operated at Halden (Norway,
1960s); Agesta (Sweden, 1957); Chooz (France, 1960s); and Lucens (Switzerland, 1962).

Construction of the Swedish Agesta complex started in 1957 and operations started in
1964. The underground reactor was a small CHP system (for a Stockholm district),
producing only 10MW of electricity and some 70MW of thermal energy for district
heating. It is believed it was also used for military plutonium production.
Construction of the Swiss Lucens reactor started in 1962 and it went live in 1966. This was
also a small reactor producing some 8MW of electricity. It was built in an underground
cavern and experienced a core meltdown in 1969.

In the Soviet Union, the AD-2 underground reactor was commissioned in 1964 to provide
combined heat and power (CHP) to the city of Zheleznogorsk. It is still operational and was
also used to produce weapons grade plutonium. Russia have recently been studying plans
to build more underground NPPs using small "mini" reactors based on naval technology.

The report "Underground Nuclear Power Plant Siting" by The Aerospace Corporation and
California Institute of Technology (1972) analysed different potential underground NPP
configurations and scenarios with a view "toward novel approaches to siting plants within
the State of California". 4 potential underground sites on the California coast were listed.
One of the stated advantages of underground siting was the "reduced population-distance
requirements" - i.e. an underground NPP could be situated much closer to major
population centres due to the improved containment.


It was stated that underground NPP construction was feasible because of the European
experience with 4 reactors and existing experience with large underground excavations
for hydroelectric facilities.
"The most apparent advantage for underground power plant siting is improved
containment".

"The separation distance from the plant to population centres might well be reduced from
the 10-20 miles characteristic of comparable surface plants to a small localised area".
In other words, it was seen as quite feasible to locate underground NPPs within a city
limits.

Several nuclear reactors worldwide are used not just for electrical power generation but
also for district heating - Combined Heat and Power - using the steam generated from the
NPP for heating and air conditioning (via steam chillers). CHP is desirable due to its higher
efficiency and better utilisation of power plant thermal energy.

New York has one of the largest district heating systems in the world. Starting in 1882, the
ConEdison system covers much of Manhattan (including 7 WTC) from the southern tip to
75th Street. It would have made sense for the UNPPs under the WTC to have been
integrated into the district steam heating system to improve their efficiency and to
disguise the reactor cooling system.

In his 7th August 2007 testimony to New York City Council, the President of the
International District Energy Association spoke of how "district energy recycles and
reuses the heat that is produced during generation of electricity. Standard power plants
effectively convert only about 33-36 percent of the fuel they burn into electricity. Nearly
two-thirds of the fuel used in the electricity production process ends up being rejected or
"wasted" up the smokestack, in cooling towers or exhausted to rivers, lakes and oceans.
Combined heat and power recycles this waste heat and uses it to heat buildings in a
surrounding area through a district energy system. Combined heat and power is most
feasible when there is an area near the plant that has a need for the heat – a downtown
area......"
Integration of the UNPPs into the ConEdison system would eliminate the problem of
having to discharge cooling water into the Hudson, which would lead to increased river
water temperatures, a possible radiation signature and could lead to discovery of the
NPPs. In addition, if there were or are "Manhattan Project" underground military facilities
being powered by the UNPPs, these would also require heating and cooling. Integration
into the pre-existing district energy system would be the simplest approach.

It can be seen that UNPPs had already been built and operated before construction of the
WTC commenced. The Swedish Agesta reactor could be a blueprint - a small underground
nuclear reactor used for CHP for a major city and for military plutonium production.

Where else would the military place at least some critical nuclear weapons material
facilities at the height of the Cold War other than underground? What other electrical
power generating technology would be used to provide long term power for underground
military infrastructure during and after a nuclear war?.

911 - The China Syndrome

The China Syndrome
Pictures of the Reactor Containment Structure22 September 2008
In what may be the most stunning direct evidence yet revealed for the occurrence of "The
China Syndrome" under the WTC, press articles have appeared in recent days concerning
the discovery of a "pothole" 40 feet deep in the bedrock under the site of the WTC. It was
uncovered during excavations in the South East quadrant of the site for the new "Freedom
Tower".

In August 2008 it was reported (Daily Mail, 25/08/08) that work was going on 20 hours a
day in the "East Bathtub" to prepare the foundations for the Freedom Tower. Concrete was
being poured down a navy blue funnel from the street into the bathtub. However, in the
panoramic view above there is no sign that construction of foundations for the Freedom
Tower has commenced though perhaps this is out of sight to one side. In fact, reports
commented that this "pothole" was exposed as the overlying topsoil was being removed to
reach the bedrock before construction of the Freedom Tower foundations can commence.

According to the press reports the top of the "steel grey" bedrock is 70 feet below ground
level and the "pothole" extends another 40 feet down. The "explanation" for this pothole is
that it was formed thousands of years ago by the geological processes of Ice Age glaciers.

NY Times, 21/09/08: The senior geologist of the consulting engineers Mueser Rutledge in
charge of the project, Cheryl Moss, is quoted as saying:

"There are areas in local parks that have small vertical potholes exposed but I’m not aware
of anything in the city with a whole, self-contained depression on this scale.”

Shown photographs of the rocks, Sidney Horenstein, a geologist and environmental
educator emeritus at the American Museum of Natural History, said, “You don’t find such
an array of rock types in the few places in the city that the glacial deposits are exposed.”

A closer view of the hole:

If one looks at the left hand wall of the hole, there appears to be a large space between the
central grey, very flat bottom of the hole and the smooth, vertical left hand wall. It appears
that the hole may extend further down in this area.

The central grey area at the bottom of the circular hole looks just like freshly poured
concrete. The colour is identical. Is this not a large concrete plug filling the bottom of the
hole? The metal structure at the bottom edge of the picture looks identical to construction
shuttering or formwork, used to keep poured concrete in place while it sets.

What was the function of the large steel vertical pipe set into the side of the hole? The end
of a smaller steel pipe can be seen just below it.

This photograph is of a construction worker in the hole, showing the morphology of the
side wall.

Is this smooth flowing morphology consistent with resolidification of molten rock?

Remember, we know unequivocally from the aerosol analysis carried out by Prof. Cahill,
that for over 6 weeks the temperatures under the WTC were so high that soil and glass were
being evaporated - boiled away. (The aerosol also indicated the evaporation of stainless
steel). This means the temperature must have been well over 2000 degrees centigrade.
These are the levels of volcanic temperatures encountered during the core meltdown of a
nuclear reactor, directly witnessed at Chernobyl, in which the molten uranium reactor
core, fuelled by the heat of its own radioactive decay, melts its way down through its
stainless steel pressure vessel and then the concrete bioshield. Uranium is extremely
dense and so will fall to the bottom of the molten rock pocket that it creates, further
melting the bedrock and so on. Under the force of gravity the molten mass of uranium will
then continue to melt its way on down through the Earth like a tunneling machine - the
China Syndrome.

This large circular hole in the bedrock is consistent with the space that would have been
required to house the reactor containment structure. The cylindrical stainless steel
pressure vessel holding the core of the reactor would have been of relatively limited
diameter, maybe 5 metres in diameter for a small reactor, 10 meters for a large one. These
pressure vessels are housed in a tightly fitting concrete reactor pit, which prevents the
steel vessel from expanding thermally and rupturing. Situated around the cylindrical
reactor core is a much larger reactor containment structure or bioshield, constructed of
one (or more) concentric very thick concrete cylinders. See the designs proposed in 1972
for Underground NPPs in California.

The photograph below shows the interior of a cylindrical reactor containment structure.
The red arrow is pointing at the reactor pit where the core would be installed.


The following photograph of an above ground nuclear power plant shows the exterior of
the reactor containment building very clearly - the cylindrical domed structure
dominating the complex.

It can be seen that in installing nuclear reactors under the Twin Towers, a large cylindrical
hole would have to be excavated out of the bedrock to house the reactor chamber itself. It
would have been argued that the bedrock itself provided an excellent containment
structure, except for the relatively weak concrete roof of course. Further excavations
would be required for the cooling system and electrical generation system plus all the
other auxiliary services. In the foreground (bottom left hand corner) of the photograph of
the hole in the bedrock, we can see that the metal shuttering divides the round hole from a
further deep excavation that leads away to the bottom left. The left hand wall in this area is
very smooth, vertical and the colour of old concrete - it is clearly not a natural formation.
This area may have formed the access passageway to the reactor hall for personnel and
auxiliary systems.

The following photograph of the Japanese Monju power station shows another similar
cylindrical containment building design.

At Chernobyl, a concrete "sarcophagus" was put in place over the wrecked reactor
building. One would expect a similar procedure to have been effected at the WTC. The best
one could do would be to fill in the hole on top of the core once it had burrowed down
sufficiently for protected workers or robots to access the surface. This would certainly be
one reason to pump in concrete 24 hours a day and there is no evidence of ordinary
building foundations.

The reports also state that thousands of smooth cobbles were found around the hole,
coloured red, purple and green. Rhyolite cobbles formed by igneous processes are usually
red-purple in colour.

The NY Times articles comments: "Along the east side of the pothole, the rock layers run
vertically (my emphasis)— not horizontally. The result, where the surface has been carved
away in a concave form, is an abstract canvas of swirling, concentric rings; not unlike a
gouge in a wall that reveals many layers of old paint."

On P160 of my report, I state that the excavations for the WTC foundations were officially
27 metres deep (88 feet). The surface of the bedrock itself is 70 feet below the surface. The
47 central steel box columns were set into the bedrock during construction in the early
1970s to anchor the towers. Under the WTC plaza there were seven basement layers which
at a reasonable estimate of 10 feet each reached the 70 feet down to the bedrock. This
known construction is not consistent with the presence of a 20,000 year old hole some 40
feet deep and over 80 feet wide in the bedrock itself under the towers or plaza - the
foundations or basement levels would have encountered it and been compromised.

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists "US Nuclear Plants in the 21st Century: The
Risk of a Lifetime" was published in 2004. The first subject the report covers is The Bathtub
Curve. This is the well known engineering reliability curve which shows high risk of failure
in a system early in its life (infant mortality) and near the end of its life (EOL), with lower
risk during the main operating period.

It is of course also well known that during construction of the WTC, a large excavation
known as The Bathtub was dug to house the basement structures under ground level.

911 - Polls 2011

Polls

(09/07/11) -

Americans Expect New Attack Similar to 9/11 in Their Lifetimes

Most respondents agree with the 9/11 Commission and reject the notion that a controlled demolition took place in the World Trade Center.

A majority of Americans believe that a terrorist attack similar in scope and magnitude to 9/11 will take place again in U.S. soil, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of a representative sample of 1,787 American adults also shows that respondents are divided in the effectiveness of the military intervention in Afghanistan that was launched by the United States government after the events of 9/11.

9/11

Two thirds of respondents (66%) believe that the commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11, 2001 was right in its conclusion that an attack was carried out by 19 hijackers who were members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, led by Osama bin Laden.

Only 12 per cent of respondents openly disagree with the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, and 22 per cent are undecided.

A small proportion of Americans find several assertions that have been made about 9/11 as credible, including the notion that United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down (16%), that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition (14%), and that no airplane actually crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 (11%).

Even fewer respondents believe that Osama bin Laden is alive (9%) and that no airplanes crashed on the World Trade Center on 9/11 (5%).

Terrorism

More than half of Americans (58%) think that an attack similar in scope and magnitude to 9/11 will take place in the United States again in their lifetimes. Republicans (66%) are more likely than Independents (59%) and Democrats (52%) to feel this way.

More than a third of Americans (36%) are “very concerned” or “moderately concerned” about becoming the victim of a terrorist attack, while three-in-five (60%) are” not too concerned” or “not concerned at all.” Democrats (43%) are more worried about this possibility than Republicans (36%) or Independents (33%).

Americans are divided in their assessment of the military intervention that was launched in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11, with 44 per cent considering a success and 36 per cent deeming it a failure. Republicans are more likely to see the military campaign as a success (48%) than Democrats and Independents (both at 33%).

Analysis

There has been little change in the views of Americans on the 9/11 attacks since the survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in March 2010 after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that the 9/11 attacks were a “fabrication”. The core group of Americans who question certain elements of the official story—including the conclusions of the 9/11 commission and the notion that “many people” in the U.S government had prior knowledge of the plot—does not reach one-in-six respondents.

As the military intervention in Afghanistan draws to a close, the public is clearly divided. Republicans are more likely to say that the war was a success, while almost half of Democrats and Independents claim it was a failure.
-------------------------------------------

(03/21/10) -

Most Americans Reject 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Few people in the United States agree with some of the allegations that have been made in relation to the events of 9/11, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. Only 15 per cent of respondents think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Few people in the United States agree with some of the allegations that have been made in relation to the events of 9/11, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. Only 15 per cent of respondents think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible.

In addition, 15 per cent think United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, 13 per cent believe no airplane actually crashed at the Pentagon, and six per cent agree with the claim that no airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and that the images seen on television were altered.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In July 2004, the federal commission that investigated the events of 9/11 concluded that "none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al-Qaeda plot" and pointed out government failures of "imagination, policy, capabilities, and management."

In October 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, claiming that there would be "no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them." The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden without evidence of his participation in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Earlier this month, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder discussed the fate of bin Laden, saying, "The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. (…) The possibility [of capture] simply does not exist."

Polling Data

Many things have been said and written about the events of 9/11. For each of the following statements, please say whether you deem them credible or not credible.

	Credible	Not credible	Not sure
The collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition	15%	74%	11%
United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down	15%	62%	22%
No airplane actually crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11	13%	76%	11%
No airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center—the images seen on television were altered	6%	87%	7%

Source: Angus Reid Public Opinion 
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,007 American adults, conducted on Mar. 9 and Mar. 10, 2010. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

----------------------------------------------