Official Account of 9/11: "Hogwash"
"Impossible", "Fatally Flawed", December 13, 2007 – Seven former senior engineers and scientists of the Federal government have disproved the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among a rapidly growing number of engineering, scientific, and architectural professionals challenging the government's story.
"A Bunch of Hogwash"
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman.
“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.
It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD. . With doctorate degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot. The demise of World Trade Center Building 7 is a major concern of scientists, engineers and architects. The building was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, the Federal government has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to the failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” [Video of the collapse can be seen at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Criticism of the Official Story also extends to government scientists. “The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the ‘official’ assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs does not match the available facts,” writes David Griscom, PhD, a retired government research physicist.  A highly esteemed researcher, Dr. Griscom spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers. Dr. Griscom continued, “I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who have the time, expertise, and supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals … The consequences of continued public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for every physicist and engineer to expose the 9/11 Truth!”
Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhDAnother senior Federal engineer who seriously questions the official account of 9/11 is Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 – 1990 and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Earlier this year, he wrote, “Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. ...
“When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.” 
Dr. Hirschhorn also served as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association. He’s testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Prior to his government services, he was Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.
Dr. Hirschhorn continued, “Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story I share their concerns. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building number 7.”
Palace Flunkies: The New Nuclear Waste Minister
“ Just play it by ear. Lizzy's phony consultancy bills
your ministry for fifty-million each month. For secret work at Sellafield.
You just sign the cheques. Lizzy wires your share to Zurich or Belize. Who’s
to know? Why do you think we invented the bloody Secrets Act?
More trouble at'th plute mill
The proposed sale of British Nuclear Group (BNG) is raising the hackles of environmentalists and Sellafield unions alike. Amicus national officer Doug Rooney stated.
'The proposal to privatise British Nuclear Group will set up another Railtrack.'
Gary Smith, national officer at the GMB agreed.
'Like Railtrack it will be dependent on public money, any corners cut could lead to a catastrophic mistake.'
The billions of taxpayers money given to the rail industry, after Her Majesty's
Government had sold it to asset strippers, will pale into insignificance when Sellafield is sold to private companies owned (through the usual nominees) by the royals and their cronies. These companies will receive the taxpayers money by the trainload.
Crown Thugs: May 2007
In 1990 Geoffrey Minter bought the idyllic Sandside Bay a few mile from Dounreay nuclear power plant. He made the purchase after receiving assurances from the government run United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and the management at Dounreay that rumours of nuclear pollution were untrue...
After his dog dropped dead and was found to have died of tumours Minter stopped walking on his beautiful beach and advised local people, especially those with children, that he thought the beach was unsafe.
It transpired the UKAEA had found Sandside Bay irreversibly contaminated with fatal particles of nuclear waste in 1984!
As with all things connected to the royals uranium investments Her Majesty's
Government decided to keep the contamination secret.
As an ex leader of Her Majesty's
Opposition you would not expect Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) to highlight Queen’s foul nuclear waste industry.
IDS has been goaded into action by the long running Minter case, not because of the nuclear poison that every nuclear waste station spits out! But because of the governments declared intention to silence Minter by confiscating his land!
Rewriting Britain's 800 year-old land & property laws in the process.
Minter will be given the market price for Sandside Bay and told to pack-up and piss-off.
If Her Majesty's
Government get away with this. The precedence will apply to everyone who owns land and property near a nuclear waste station.
Anyone who complains about nuclear contamination will be evicted!
The current Chairperson of UKAEA, Lady Judge, who receives £60,000 per year plus expenses for her two-day-a-week, has written to Minter saying 'UKAEA intend spending no more time' on the case. Lady Judge like every passing puppet for the nuclear filth trade has no intention of starting a nuclear clean-up of the Dounreay environment. Such a multi-billion operation would lead to people demanding an even more expensive shoreline clean-up at Sellafield.
Both these clean-up’s would prove utterly impossible to complete and show nuclear apologists up as the Zombies they really are.
Anyone promoting the absurd notion of building more nuclear waste stations to poison our green and pleasant land, even further, can only be described as dead from the neck upwards.
Full Debate: Hansard Westminster Hall May 9, 2007. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-05-09a.69.0
The Safe Way
Near-shore 100ft high turbines cost £M2 each. The £M348 slated for safe energy (White Paper 24 Feb. 2003) would be well spent on 174 of these.
This would reduce the price of turbines. But this will not happen. Passing prime mouthpiece Blair was ordered to spread the money between a assortment of energy saving initiatives & safe energy schemes. And. To make extra sure the royals oil and nuclear profits are in no way reduced, Her Majesty's
Government will spread the money out over a period of four years. This will guarantee no real progress towards much cheaper and infinitely safer power supplies. In the meantime should the Suicide Club pay a flying visit to Sellafield. The royals will be more than happy to do a Lucan. The Queen’s personal fortune (in Swiss & US Trusts) makes at least £M4 every 24 hours. That’s £M348 every 87 days. The royals fortune, rooted in the Arm's & Ammo and the Slave Trade, will continue to grow at the same obscene rate irrespective of any British Nuclear disaster. The fact that a Sellafield accident could end British history has never worried Queen Lizzy. Would you worry if you owned land and property all-over the world and had hundreds of billions in foreign banks?
No matter how many times Her Majesty's
Parliament is told how insane nuclear power is, the Queen Lizzy intends to ignore common sense, as she always has done, in favour of more profit from building more Chernobyls. One of which could be on your doorstep.
Her Majesty'sApril 19, 2007
"A cap on liability is a massive subsidy to the whole nuclear industry. If the industry had to bear that liability itself, it would make the industry uneconomic. That fact cannot be denied. Nuclear plants are not as reliable as the Hon. Gentleman has implied. Last year, four Swedish plants had to be turned off at the same time because of an accident in one of them. That is a warning to those who propose that the Government should help the industry by ensuring that a single design for the new nuclear fleet is brought forward. That is one of the biggest threats that one could imagine to security and continuity of supply. Similarly last year, a Spanish plant, which was responsible for 20 per cent of the country's electricity demand, had to be turned off because it overheated in the hot weather. Even the French had to turn off the Dampierre plant this month. Members might remember an incident last year when the whole of northern France lost power for days on end. That happened because the connection between France and Germany was damaged. The French electricity system is predominantly nuclear-powered. It is massively inflexible and cannot cope with having its connection with another country broken. The French grid exports and imports vast amounts of electricity. Therefore, the claim made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that the French independent grid system is the best in the world is quite false. The French depend on import and export because nuclear power is so inflexible."
David Howarth, Cambridge, Liberal Democrat
Hansard 19 April 2007. David Howarth.
photo 2April 25 2008 Scarborough Evening News
As far back as 1976 The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, made it abundantly clear. The Defence Of The Realm is best served by decreasing our nuclear risks. Not increasing them. After the near catastrophe at Sellafield - 1957.
After her own Royal Commission - 1976.
After Three Mile Island - 1979.
After Chernobyl - 1986. Who? Other than a greed-stricken billionairess, could have ordered Sizewell B in 1989!!!?
Clearly, Sizewell B was ordered for no other reason than shovelling £Billions of taxpayers money into the Queen's nuclear cartel.
1979-1997 Public Records clearly show how Ministers Of The Crown fed your money into their nuclear outfits. For every £80,000 taxpayer’s money Mrs. Thatcher & John Major poured into “nuclear waste research.” They spent just £1 (one) on research into safe-cheap-energy! Blair's record will show similar diversions (thefts) of Public Money.
Wave Power: Not Wanted By Nuclear Lizzy
Salter’s Duck is an electricity generator anchored to the seabed. The perpetual motion of the tide makes the power. Tested to extremes off Norway the Duck’s passed with flying colours proving they can create limitless safe, cheap, pollution-free power.
The system could have gone into mass production in 1986. At that point Her Majesty's
Government pulled all funding (trivial though that funding had been).
Given adequate funding in the 1980’s Slater’s Duck would now be a multi-billion-pound domestic & export business. Supplying much cheaper, cleaner power than we have today. Cheap, clean power is of course the opposite of the Queen’s oil, gas and nuclear policy to increase the royal family fortune.
We now know the Queen’s placemen, directed by passing Prime Mouthpiece Margaret Thatcher, committed their usual royal treason against Britain. The cost of Salter’s Duck was fraudulently altered to make sea power seem as costly as nuclear power!!! Which is at least 1000% more expensive. And that's assuming no accidents! also see Environmental Maths
Yet Another Accident @ Sellafield
Between August 2004 and May 2005 twenty-odd-tons of dissolved nuclear fuel rods containing enough plutonium to make twenty Nagasaki size bombs was nonchalantly sloshing around the floor, unnoticed by the 'highly trained' staff, at the Sellafield Thorp reprocessing plant!
The liquid waste had escaped through a broken pipe. This latest accident, to close the nuclear fuel plant, and the ongoing clean-up will cost appox £180 million on top of the £74 BILLION TAXPAYERS MONEY already allocated to cleaning-up the unholy mess nuclear waste stations have already made in Gt. Britain. A little research into the amount of taxpayers money the Queen has gleefully signed over to her nuclear waste industry in the last forty years will show you why her pensioners are given a pittance. March 2008. The above £180 million has now reached £600 million. Can you wonder why Lizzy's "government" never have any money for a decent state pension?
Safe Power means Cheap Power
Politicians, mad scientists and rent-a-gob television pundits who promote nuclear power stations have usually been onboard a few executive Lear jets for a few fact-finding-freebies funded by the worlds richest nuclear outfits Bechtel, Halliburton and Westinghouse.
Fact finding usually takes place around the tables of Las Vegas. Fact finders stay in the finest penthouse suites, sleep with the finest of Vegas school age waxed whores, see the best shows in town and receive stacks and stacks of slush fund chips to play with and/or simply cash-in and wire from the casino bank direct to their new account in Zurich.
The billions of taxpayers money Dubya & Cousin Lizzy intend to waste on new nuclear power plants will lead to more Targets of Mass Destruction and more fatal nuclear waste for the taxpayer to pay for. The same money invested in under-sea-power, wind-power and solar-power would have made the world a safer place, saved untold billions in the future; simply by not producing nuclear waste and given the UK and USA safe, clean, cheap, reliable electricity supplies.
Britain’s worst nuclear accident, thus far, happened in the core of Britain’s first nuclear reactor at Windscale, now called Sellafield. The small fire, that started on October 10, 1957, illustrated the insanity of building nuclear reactors anywhere near towns or cities. As the fire intensified. Those in charge were faced with two choices. If they allowed the fire to burn, in the hope it would burn it-self out, the nuclear fuel could melt into a super-critical-mass causing a nuclear explosion, larger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
If they attempted to put the fire out by flooding the reactor. The increasing temperature could flash the incoming water into super-heated-steam. Causing a non-nuclear explosion (as at Chernobyl) Either type of explosion would spread fatal fall-out over the homes of millions, leading to mass evacuations - and a much-devalued £. Rather than do nothing. They flooded the reactor. The gamble paid off.
Ministers Of The Crown, who knew how close the North of England came to becoming a nuclear desert, were also faced with two choices. They could tell the truth: A Sellafield accident will destroy the lives of millions. Therefore, nuclear waste (read bomb) production should be moved to the wide-open spaces of America. Or, they could keep quiet and continue feathering their offshore nests by pouring the taxpayer's billions into Establishment companies supplying and operating Sellafield. Accountable only to the Queen and her ministers.
1979 - 1997 Public Records clearly show how ministers of the Crown fed our money into their nuclear outfits. For every £80,000 taxpayer’s money her Majesty's
Government, under Thatcher & Major, poured into “nuclear research.” They spent just £1 (one) on research into safe-cheap-energy! Blair's record will show similar thefts of public money.
As far back as 1976 The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, made it abundantly clear. The Defence Of The Realm is best served by decreasing our nuclear risks. Not increasing them.
After the near catastrophe at Sellafield - 1957.
After her own Royal Commission - 1976.
After Three Mile Island - 1979.
After Chernobyl - 1986. Who? Other than a greed-stricken billionairess, could have ordered Sizewell B in 1989? Clearly, Sizewell B was ordered for no other reason than shovelling £Billions of taxpayers money into the Queen's nuclear cartel. Her Majesty's
Parliament is now discussing "a fleet of nuclear new stations." Proof as if we needed proof, the loonies have taken over.