Torture

The last few days have been extremely traumatic for everyone going through the MTAS process this year. Jobs have finally started to be offered to candidates, however the never ending torture is continuing for the majority.The offering of jobs by deaneries has been a bit of a disorganised muddle to say the least. Candidates have had no idea on which day their email should arrive if they are

Labour lack logic

Tony Blair attempts to justify Labour's latest anti-terrorism legislation, quoted from the Telegraph:"We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong." Note the sudden change from 'we' to 'I'; pretty typical of Mr Blair isn't it, only he knows what's best for us."Do you know why only 40 per

The protocol paradox

I felt an urge to follow up on the excellent Dr Grumble's musings on medical protocols, as throughout my practice as a doctor I have encountered numerous problems with these brain dead devices.These days there are so many protocols available that one has to be very knowledgeable in order to decide which protocol to use, however if you are that clever that it is likely that one wouldn't need the

WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist"

The “anonymous physicist” has new ideas on the nuclear demolition of the towers of the WTC. In destroying the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, the U.S. regime (and those who control it) once again wanted to employ a plan that allowed for their coveted “plausible deniability.” As an aside, the plausibility is usually for the American masses. Anyone who is able to think and change usually has more than enough clues to get pretty far into the truth. Now only nuclear devices and their concomitant EMPs fit all the evidence—along with conventional explosives used in a subordinate manner. But this ultimate truth must be hidden. Just as the regime still hides the likelihood that it nuked its own sailors in the Port Chicago explosion in 1944.


The "Powers That Be" (PTB) knew the “plausible” ruse that they would put out. It would be the pseudo free fall time for the bogus planes/fuel/gravity/pancake hypothesis. The perps desired that WTC1 and 2 have top-down “collapses” to go along with the bogus plane hits. The PTB also always have their disinfo agents waiting in the wings to come out when enough people see that the official ruse is NOT plausible.

With the analogous JFK assassination, when enough people saw that the patsy Oswald (himself CIA/ONI) could not be the culprit shooting from behind, as the fatal shot was from the front; the PTB put out a "Babel" of CONTROLLED alternatives: Mafia, LBJ, Cubans, Grassy Knoll, rogue elements, etc (some of which were involved). All of that was to hide the horrifying, ultimate truth that the alleged government protector did it—- as has been discussed by Spooked previously.

With 9/11, the Babel of planes/fuel/gravity, thermite/thermate [etc.], DEW, car bombs in the basement, and surely more to come, was waiting when a critical mass of people rejected the (always) ludicrous, official, “investigation” conclusion. The massive, rapid outward—as well as downward and upward—explosions of the two towers, the toasted cars (but not paper), and popping ceiling lights (Ondrovic—see below), the micron-sized dustification of tower contents, the levels of tritium and heavy metals, the underground molten steel and high temperatures weeks and months later, all can only be accounted for by nuclear devices and their EMPs. The fact that the explosions are simultaneously outward, downward and upwards means we have a spherical blast wave, such as occurs with a nuclear device.


The anonymous Finnish military expert—- to whom all real 9/11 truth seekers are indebted—- appears to believe that only one fusion device in the 1-kiloton range was used in each tower. This may be so, but it should be debated. I believe the evidence indicates several fusion bombs went off during the destruction of the two towers.

In fact, the dimensions of the towers likely required several nukes. The towers are much taller than their other two dimensions. A single large nuclear, spherical blast wave large enough to destroy a tower's complete height would have been too powerful to be contained in its other two dimensions. The results would have been seen and (more) catastrophic. So several smaller nukes likely were needed, and used. I believe also that there is much evidence that WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 also were taken down with internal nuclear devices.

WTC7 appears to have been imploded with conventional demolition methods as videos show no concomitant vaporization, nor massive chunks expelled outwards during “collapse,” nor any internal spherical holes as in WTC6 and WTC3 (in between the “collapses” of the two towers).




Accurate analysis may forever only be possible by the perps themselves. This is because of many factors including the immense variation in the possible power, number, and type of nuclear devices used, false evidence (doctored videos, photos, witnesses, media, government reports), complexity of a nuclear explosion, inclusion of non-nuke elements in the “collapses” etc. For completeness, I note that William Tahil, a technology consultant, claims that his research leads to the conclusion that each tower had a nuclear fission reactor underneath it that was forced to criticality. He has a free summary, and offers a full report (for purchase) that I have not read.

In initiating discussion of the possible details of the nuclear devices used on 9/11, I note that the number and energy release of these devices are perhaps the most relevant parameters. Spooked has published government documentation of nukes as small as just pounds of TNT, or about a millionth of a kiloton.

I go along with the Finnish expert that fission-free fusion devices were likely used. The Finnish expert states that a 1 kiloton (TNT equivalent) basement fusion device was used on each tower. I believe that a total of 1/10th of that amount was more than sufficient, including the power needed for vaporization/dustification of each tower’s contents. I believe this 1/10th kt total energy per tower occurred in several blasts (per tower), and in just one per other WTC buildings (possibly 3, 4, 5, 6). I believe that WTC7 did not have a nuclear device used during “collapse,” but could have had one just afterwards to vaporize evidence as all the federal alphabet agencies were in that building, and it would have been a likely planning/command center for 9/11 with a lot of evidence to definitively “lose.”


What would have been the right range of energy for the desired events while maintaining “plausible deniability?” Or the illusion of that-- many people go into a deep state of denial, just begging for any ludicrous “big lie” from their government (as Hitler noted). Too large a nuke and you would instantly vaporize the towers and maybe surrounding areas (and lose the bogus gravity/pancake theory). Too small a nuke and you wouldn’t have “shock and awe,” nor insure total (pseudo free fall) collapse and vaporization of the buildings’ contents which was apparently desired—- always destroy the evidence, and kill the witnesses. This was apparently aided by the taking of much (radioactive?) material by China—- a supposed adversary—but another indication of the actual, global control of the PTB. Other material including human remains went into road pavement. Was all this, including the human remains, radioactive?

The fission devices that went off at the Trinity/Alamogordo site, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were said to be of the order of 10-20 kilotons of TNT. Such devices yield great fluxes of neutrons and gamma rays. Also resultant are air pressure blasts, and tremendous heat of the order of 100 million degrees. Modern devices are “steerable” in terms of desired percentages of these output parameters. The “radius of total destruction” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about one mile in each city. Total destruction includes vaporization of buildings and people nearer to the hypocenter or ground zero. The fate of buildings and people near the hypocenter of a nuclear device is indicated by this: “The Shima hospital, the hypocenter of the [Hiroshima] atomic bomb was vaporized, along with all her patients.” Farther away from the hypocenter, the so-called shadow people left their shadows on buildings as the people vaporized, but not the buildings. Other people still further away, but not vaporized, were left in a charred condition. Farther away still, survivors had burned, or torn away skin. Are all these reasons why we are not allowed to see any photos of any human remains from 9/11? We cannot expect every single, murdered person to have been completely vaporized. Photos of body parts in morgues have also not been allowed to be seen by the public. Indeed EMT Patricia Ondrovic has seen the body parts in the city morgue. Is this part of the redactions to her statement?


Returning to the parameters of the nukes of 9/11, given the energy, the destruction radius and other parameters of Hiroshima and its comparison to WTC1 or 2, the Finnish expert concluded that a single 1-kiloton, underground nuke was used. I conclude that likely several nukes per tower were used—- but totaling 1/10th of a kiloton per tower. One key in my analysis is the number of times we suddenly see massive chunks of building expelled outwards like the trajectories of large chunks of earth seen in (above-ground) photos of underground test nukes. Remember WTC 1 and 2 destruction events look more like the Nevada nuclear tests than the Hiroshima bomb. This video even appears to show a central mushroom cloud at the end of it. The similarity to underground test nukes means that any and all nukes were set off at least several floors below any extant levels. A nuke per floor was not needed or desired. Rather I see this tremendous outward exploding of large chunks of WTC 1 and 2, about two or three times per tower. But remember, what we see is soon obscured by dust/debris, and that other buildings also prevent us from seeing much of the bottom half of each tower’s destruction. In discussing this aspect, it is important to realize I write now of powerful outward explosions of massive chunks—- often appearing to emanate from the center which indeed was the likely location of the nuke(s). These outward explosions need to be distinguished from the “peeling away”—- and then falling-- of the outer structure (sometimes in very large chunks) of the towers. IMO, this peeling away occurred because there no longer was any inside structure at that level at that time! (The remaining, succeeding, inside top portions looked like the final photos of the inside of WTC6.) There would still be some outward-vectored force all along the outer structure at all times due to heat and over-pressure inside, causing the peeling-away of the outer structure observed. But I refer to the large chunks that suddenly were flung to great distances. The videos seem to indicate that this happened 2-3 times per tower, and again we do not see most of the bottom half.

However I note that the well-known collapse/vaporization of the remaining steel core after WTC1 fell is seen at the same time that we see the so-called “nuclear glow.” Notice how this glow from the WTC1 (nuclear) demolition (seen on the left side) causes the whole background to brighten at one point, and then how the camera is panned to the right so as to no longer video what they were showing in the first place! Was this a “cleaner nuke”—see below—inadvertently captured because there was no building to contain it? Again it would be good (from the perps’ viewpoint) to vaporize any remaining people and building contents (evidence) just after final “collapse.” So I believe about 4-6 nukes per tower were used. Each one would have a radius of about 10-15 floors, or a diameter of about 20-30 floors. Nukes would be placed strategically (centrally?) to try to vaporize the strong 47 beam steel core—- the sturdiest and most heat-resistant part of the towers’ structure—- and therefore likely the last to get vaporized. However I now make the assertion that completely doing away with the 47 beam steel support core was not necessary! Why? With a nuclear device that vaporizes most of the inside [which will soon be micro-particles floating around outside], there would be little left of the inside to need support! While preferable to do away with as much of this 47 steel beam support as possible without “over-nuking” everything, it was therefore not essential for its entirety to be vaporized. Indeed we may see that some of this support--up to about the 60th floor (the "spire")-- remained after “collapse” of WTC1-- and was then itself likely nuked/vaporized, during the “nuclear glow”. Why was there a need to vaporize the left-over support beams? Because, as my argument above asserts, 100% obliteration of these beams is more necessary for the bogus “collapse” mechanism, than for the actual, nuclear destruction mechanism!


The perps would want maximum use of each nuke for its full diameter. Pre-planted conventional explosives (thermite/thermate/other, or very tiny nukes) were used to initiate each tower’s visible collapse, at the appropriate floor (where earlier conventional, shape charges had simulated plane dimensions, and provided initial shock and awe in their fireballs)—- for public consumption. A properly, pre-placed nuke subsequently went off in each top part, centered in each separated top part after initial demolition began at the appropriate floor. Remember the floors that were “hit” were in fact just exploded as part of the plan, so nukes were pre-placed in the centers of the pre-known dimensions of the top tower parts for their subsequent vaporization. These nukes and top vaporizations were initiated shortly after the demolitions began at the “plane-hit” levels. This could explain the kinking noted by Spooked in the WTC2 top corner. The nuke has caused some loss of integrity (from neutrons or even direct heat) in the structure at that point (and other less visible points), shortly before vaporization. Kinking is also a sign of wave interference as wave energy builds up at corners, and the kink is near a corner. The fact that there was a 30 story part of the tower that was tilted and about to fall “badly” is part of the “beauty” of the nuking of the towers (from the perps’ viewpoint). This was not likely supposed to happen. But they simply vaporized their error! This is also analogous to the dipping of the radio tower of WTC1 before the top piece accordions into itself, then vaporizes.

The radio tower is in the center, and a centrally placed nuke’s spherical blast wave (causing loss of structural integrity) will reach a point directly above it before it would reach all around the building to start the “accordioning” of the entire visible circumferences. This is part of what I call the inside/out effect which occurred along with the top/down effect. Now the two tower tops had vertical lengths of about 18 and 30 floors, not counting the radio tower (very little of which was found at Ground Zero, like a great deal of the towers). A key factor is that the nukes (not counting any underground ones) are always several floors beneath remaining building levels when they go off. Otherwise—if the nuke was at the surface of the remaining building at that time—- building parts would have been expelled to great distances, perhaps many miles away. Also we might have seen more visual evidence of the nuking. Perhaps this is consistent with the “nuclear glow” seen at the end of WTC1 “collapse”, as there was little or no building left (only debris clouds) at that time to obscure this. Was the glow from a final nuke that also collapsed/vaporized the remaining/standing steel core? A decision as to whether, or not, to use more nukes towards the end of each tower’s destruction—- when smoke and debris would shield the state of the remaining building could have been facilitated by helicopters, planes, even satellites overhead, which could have scanned the site—- using wavelengths that see through smoke—- and directed more nuclear (or conventional?) explosions (especially at the lower levels or ground), as needed.


Because there was no plane crash excuse for WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, probably “underpowered nukes” were used inside these buildings. WTC 4, 5, and 6 were each 7-9 stories high. The PTB wanted to claim that these edifices were damaged by falling parts of the two towers. So these buildings were not vaporized in near total fashion, as were the two towers. Their outer shells were left over. But the large, nearly, spherical hole in WTC6, and its deep underground hole, are indications of a likely internal, nuclear spherical blast. In particular, I think that on-scene, EMT, Patricia Ondrovic’s statements to Killtown and her heavily redacted interview with the WTC task force indicate that she saw—- right next to her—- EMP [Electromagnetic Pulse] effects from a nuke set off in or near WTC6. I refer to her observations of ceiling lights popping in the lobby of WTC6, and the cars just outside catching fire at this same time. Indeed the EMP-induced heat on one car door near her, caused it to rapidly expand and explode off the vehicle and hit her. Her interviews indicate that the overheard, commencing, rumbling collapse of WTC2 (further away from her) occurred just as she saw WTC5 and 6 start to explode (”collapse”) right near her. The timing Ondrovic states here indicates that WTC2, WTC5, and WTC6 had nukes go off inside each one simultaneously. Fortunately for her, as I noted above, these (WTC 5, 6) explosions were “underpowered,” and left much outer structure standing, and she was far enough away from WTC2 to be able to run away from the area and survive.


WTC7, the possible planning/command center with its plethora of federal agents, was special. No nukes, at least not above ground. I suggest that it was NOT a faux pas that Silverstein, on public TV, admitted they “pulled it” with conventional demolition! But the regime tried to “take it back” when a public outcry began over that admission!


WTC3, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, may have also had a nuke vaporize most of its top floors, or this one may have been destroyed by falling debris? Let us analyze this. A picture of WTC3 after the first WTC2 collapse, but before WTC1 collapse, indicates WTC3 had its own “underpowered” internal nuclear spherical blast wave damage it, a la WTC6:



The final state of WTC3 reveals about three floors remaining and does not show the massive parts of WTC2 that allegedly fell on WTC3:




Did the nukes going off in WTC 2 vaporize these chunks before they hit WTC3? Did the nukes of WTC1 cause the outer shell of WTC3 to later vaporize? Did after-collapse nukes do this? Should we call these “cleaner nukes” in analogy to how the regime sends in its “cleaners” to remove evidence after one of their agents has performed some nefarious deed?


Now I must include some related and important issues. Were deep underground nukes set off a few seconds before the start of visible “collapse” as audio and video indicates? Included herein is the supposed vaporization of the underground 50 ton steel press. Some of the testimony on this however comes from William Rodriguez who I cannot trust because of his apparent deep background. He was a TV magician cum janitor cum press agent cum janitor—cum hero! And he was not in his usual place (high up) at his usual time that morning.


What happens if a large flux of neutrons, gamma rays, pressure, heat etc. reaches another, unexploded mini-nuke? Will the latter still go off somewhat as planned—- i.e., have its own chain reaction-- or will it fizzle? If it goes off, what percentage of its maximum potential will be realized? Would it at least be interfered with and compromised, probably to a significant level? Or could it have been sufficiently shielded? Is it not likely that only non-interfered, or “virgin” nukes would be used? The perps would want to have things go as much as possible exactly the way they want. This would be unlike conventional charges which could have one trigger the next etc. I would imagine that the placement of mini-nukes would be such that one would be out of the range of affecting the next one. But I cannot know this for sure. But this is what I have assumed in this discussion.


However we need to examine this matter of “left-over” nukes that may have been “compromised.” What if some nukes, maybe even one or more final “cleaner nuke(s)” destroyed the integrity of the shielding of “left-over” nukes? It is indeed possible that sub-critical components subsequently interacted and would then release significant energy for some time! They could well act like the nuclear reactor proposed by William Tahil (above). This idea seems to be far more likely (and feasible) than his hypothesis that the perps had surreptitiously built two underground nuclear reactors there. One or more compromised nuclear fusion (or possibly even fission—if Tahil’s take on the government’s report is correct)—- bombs, with their sub-critical, but now interacting, components releasing significant amounts of energy and heat at their locale(s) could indeed be responsible for the high temperatures (and molten steel) seen at the WTC weeks and months after 9/11. This also dovetails with reports of “unexploded micro-nukes” being removed from the Oklahoma City bombing by federal agents—after being placed there and used by other federal agents! Bill Deagle, M.D. has reported that one military agent, and patient of his, told him: “We removed two undetonated softball sized micronuclear bombs [from the Murrah building].”



Perhaps even the “nuclear glow” seen in the CNN footage—which I note is sustained for some time, as the camera pans away from it—- is the initiation of a nuclear reactor-like event (caused by a “cleaner nuke” or earlier demolition nuke, or even conventional explosives) and undergoing a limited criticality event like the “tickling the dragon’s tail” experiments—performed at Los Alamos. Massive visible blue light emission (as well as neutrons and gamma rays) resulted when criticality was attained in this limited fashion. I believe that with all the other materials exploding, some could even have acted as “control rods” yielding a sustained, pseudo-nuclear reactor. And there could have been several unexploded nukes “left-over” in each tower. Or even a single nuclear device could have had its components blasted to several locales. But never forget, the massive heat released when a nuclear reactor goes awry is why they called it the “China Syndrome.” The heat released (in theory) could melt all the way down to China!


The above discussion of possible interactions of pre-planted, mini-nukes leads to the matter of the outer structure demolition. With this aspect, there may well have been interacting conventional (or other) explosives. But before we delve into this, it must be noted that what occurred, or was observed, in this regard was likely done for public consumption. What happened inside was not directly observed—- with the possible exception of some events like the “nuclear glow” that shone through. We must also realize that the videos and photos promulgated of the outer destruction of the two towers may be as doctored, as are nearly all the videos of the two alleged “plane hits.” The regime wanted to make it “plausible” that a rapid, pseudo-free fall, pancaking occurred. People who have analyzed the public videos of WTC 1 and 2 outer structure “collapses”/demolitions report a 10 floor per second “collapse.” This is presumably for that first second. I note that this is much faster than simple, gravitational collapse would allow in that first second (16 feet.) After the initial “collapse” has started, dust and debris and other buildings soon obscure things. Those right there videoing had to stop and leave as fast as they could. But if the times for total collapse of the towers are about 10 or 11 seconds, and we have about 100 floors involved (as I am not counting separated top parts of the towers which seem to be disappearing shortly after initiation of final events.) Thus we apparently have an approximately constant outer floor demolition rate of about 10 floors downward per second throughout.


We need to examine the possible mechanisms for this and how this outer structure demolition dovetails with the inner, nuclear demolition hypothesis. Were pre-planted conventional (or even tinier nukes?) used to blow out the (visible) outer structure of each floor while the inside was being vaporized with nukes? Did these presumably outer building conventional explosives interact with each other, or the nukes? One possibility is that an explosive in the outer structure of the floor above reached, and then triggered, the explosive in the outer structure of the floor just below it, and so on. Could these charges have been placed in or at the outer structure soon before 9/11/01, or even when the buildings were erected–- for those who know “ultimate truths”? There are so many possibilities—- including a visible (yet “disconnected”) “standard” demolition for the outer structure. But always remember, my central hypothesis here is that the towers were demolished primarily by hidden, internal, nuclear devices. The outer structure demolition events were created-- or faked-- for public consumption and “plausibility.” One could even argue that this issue is a side-show to distract from the nuking of the towers, and likely several other WTC buildings. There may even have been precedent for this. Dr. Deagle's military expert's revelation to him even indicates that the OKC bombing may have been, in a way, the blueprint for the WTC bombing, as follows: The expert indicated that the truck's conventional bomb went off at the same time the micro-nukes were detonated, and acted as cover for the micro-nukes. Numerous explosives experts had separately stated that the truck bomb could not have had sufficient explosive power to do the damage observed. My hypothesis for the WTC tower bombings also has conventional explosives being used as cover for more massive damage done by simultaneous nuclear devices. I assert that what was happening inside—- nuclear detonation(s)—- caused the collapses, regardless of what any outer explosions did, or were faked to appear to have done. This may even be consistent with the towers’ demolitions actually beginning with the large explosions-- apparently in the sub-basements of the towers-- recorded several seconds (see above) before the visible “collapses” began near the tops. In the final analysis, I assert—- as per the above detailed nuclear mechanism—that even if there were no outer structure explosions, the outer structure would have “peeled away” anyway because of what was occurring inside.


Finally in writing this WTC nuke hypothesis, I have left it somewhat in the chronological order that it was written. In this light, I have seen video evidence that appears to clearly supersede some of the ideas above. However, I will leave those in, as it is still possible that numerous things were used by the perps to confuse the issue, or for later release when the time suits them, and for completeness for future researchers. But this video—- which also fits the geometry of the situation—- is one of the clearest of the initial destruction of WTC1, and appears to fit a nuclear demolition only—- i.e., conventional explosives appear not to have been needed or used. This video (if genuine) indicates that a central, nuclear, spherical blast occurred at the central level of the bogus plane hit—- about the 98th floor or so. Now imagine many lines (representing blast energy) radiating away from this nuclear bomb center at the same time. The shortest distance—- or time—- to the outer structure occurs occurs along the horizontal level with the bomb, which is, as per the above, about the 98th floor. (This can also be imagined as a sphere inside WTC1 whose horizontal diameters just touch the inside of the tower at the 98th floor.) Next to reach the outer structure would be the radii just above and just below this floor. Again, the next radii after this to simultaneously reach the outer structure would be two floors below and two floors above this 98th floor. Thus we would have succeeding downward exploding outer floors at the same time that we would have succeeding upward exploding outer floors. But (rising) smoke, and debris quickly obscure things. As the visible “wave” of exploding outer floors travels downward, the top piece of WTC1 accordions into itself and vaporizes. This accordioning rate appears to be at the same rate as the rate below the “hit” level. Also, gravity would not have much effect on these rapid explosions (and these ideas) if the 10 floors per second “collapse” rate for that first second is accurate. So it appears that no separate nuke was essential for destroying the top pieces. The nuke used at “collapse” initiation was sufficient to both vaporize a significant part of the tower both below and above the “plane hit” level, and the video shows this. As above, this nuke had a diameter of about 30 floors, and likely two more were needed and used, not counting any cleaner nukes. Also I believe “extras” were in place at points along the height of the towers, and near the base for use as needed.

Summary and Conclusions

This article has attempted to elaborate on how nuclear devices demolished the WTC towers, and to explain related phenomenon observed at that time, and afterwards. While the immense complexity, removal of evidence, and alteration of evidence makes certainty quite impossible, the above analysis indicates the following scenario may be the most likely. Bogus plane hits (perhaps accompanied by genuine plane/missile fly-bys) were really explosions of pre-planted conventional shaped explosive charges simulating plane outlines. After a certain amount of time for (the bogus claim of) melting the steel support, the towers were demolished (as were other WTC buildings with concomitant EMP evidence), with internal nuclear devices, most likely mini-fusion bombs. The demolitions began in each tower with a nuclear device going off at the “plane hit” level. The geometry and the video evidence indicate several more were used per tower, and that a cleaner nuke was used at the end. This article is also perhaps the first to provide a plausible explanation for the remarkable high temperatures and molten steel , observed for weeks and months after 9/11, at the WTC. The explanation given here is that one or more non-exploded, nuclear devices lost their integrity from the effects of other nuclear devices going off. These “affected” nukes attained some criticality akin to a nuclear reactor, and gave off high heat for weeks and months afterwards. This nuclear scenario hypothesis appears to be consistent and complete; and has no need for other things such as thermite (except possibly at the bogus plane hits/explosions), or directed energy beam weapons, or other exotica.


The author hopes that this article will initiate comments, corrections, improvements, and much needed discussion and action. Shills should always remember that the perps who placed the nukes were likely the first to be eliminated on 9/11. The author wishes to thank Spooked for his helpful ideas during the writing of this article, and for posting it.


It is hoped that people never forget that this horrific event was nothing less than a wanton, nuclear holocaust perpetrated against nearly 3,000 people by their so-called government. And used as an excuse to murder countless more thousands of human beings who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01.

Finally, about the radiation issue, please see this article.

Where does the spaghetti grow?

It seems that a debate has been brewing in blogosphere, Dr Crippen has been commenting on a certain blogger who has been expressing her worries about immunisations and giving space to some other standard scaremongering stories. This blogger says:"It’s arrogant for us to believe that we know everything about our physiology, our environment, the chemicals we pump into the air, our bodies and into

The Black death

There are some very interesting turns of phrase in this letter which is in the Times today. Prof Morris Brown et al do not mince their words as blame is laid firmly at the door of PMETB, while there are some veiled comments regarding a certain infamous letter that was recently in the Times 'repudiating the democratic opposition':'Doctors were then stunned by two letters, not apparently from the

Eye despair

This paper in Eye has looked at patients' preferences of surgeon for cataract surgery, it appears that if you ask a stupid set of questions then you get a stupid set of answers.The found that only 70% of patients accepted that surgical trainees should operate as part of their training, meaning that 30% of people thought that surgical trainees should not be operating. One wonders how it would be

Prof Morris Brown - nugget of wisdom

"The last week has seen people power in action. No people has had a stronger or more noble set of champions than RemedyUK. There must be, and will be, no turning of the clock back to a time when powerful organisations ride roughshod over those whom they should be protecting; when leaders of such organisations believe power absolves them from consulting those who have put them in charge. Remedy

Terror tales

The wonderful Hospital at Night team have brought us yet more cost cutting dumbing down in the form of 'Safer Care Safer Training' and the 'developing of the role of nurse coordinator'. It really must be seen to be believed. There is an extensive 56 page document that outlines the so called 'competency framework' of these nurse coordinators. 'Competency' is really such a great way of introducing

from whose cake hole?

This interesting speech has come to my attention:"Mr Simon EcclesTuesday 29 June 2004Good afternoon, or perhaps I should say Good Evening. And I’m reluctant to talk for too long for fear of restricting our debate.And as I stand here halfway through our 101st ARM, can I give full credit to George Rae for introducing more open debate and more opportunities for exploring our views to this year’s ARM

Cutting comments

The President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Bernard Ribiero, has withdrawn from ongoing discussions about the selection of junior doctors. His actions may be a little late for some people, but it is indeed better late than never. He was pretty damning in his comments:“Almost two years after first raising my concerns, there is still no recognition whatsoever by the DoH of the scale of this

He'll be coming round the corner

The latest insightful and frankly bang-on assessment of the dumbing down of medicine and the empowerment of the pseudo-doctor has prompted me to offer my two pence worth. It is simply infuriating that the same old tired arguments come out in defence of the under trained practitioner.Firstly one must distinguish between the nurse specialist and the 'noctor'. There are numerous extended nursing

Hewitt twists her vindictive blade

Despite a clear request from the judge to the opposite, Patrica Hewitt has been directly and personally involved in the decision to claim costs against Remedy UK. Just when you think she can sink no lower, she continues her downward plummet towards the fires of moral bankruptcy. The Judge had no choice to award the costs in the end but as Lindsay Cooke cleverly points out by quoting the

The NIST Model for the Destruction of the WTC

As I understand it-- and please correct me if I am wrong here-- this is the basic model put forth by NIST to explain the demise of the WTC twin towers:

1) the airplane impacts break less than 20% of the outer and core tower structural columns.

2) the airplane debris knocks fireproofing off of the steel support structures such as the floor trusses that support the concrete floors.

3) jet fuel from the airplanes cause severe fires throughout the area of impact and eventually weaken, on one side of each tower, the core and outer support columns as well as the fireproof-less floor trusses on a floor section.

4) the floor support trusses give way, and a floor section on one side of the tower collapses

5) the collapsing floor does not break away from the outer and inner columns to which it is attached, but rather pulls them in the direction of the collapse. The outer columns are pulled inwards while one row of core columns is pulled away from the core. Note, photos and videos show the outer wall buckled in somewhat prior to "collapse". This buckling is more believable for the South tower than for the North tower.

6) the floor collapse pulling the outer and inner columns on one side of the tower weakened the core structure dramatically such that the entire upper part of the tower (about 30 stories for the South tower and about 15 stories for the North tower) tilted towards the side of the floor collapse and started falling down on the same side as the initial floor collapse.

7) this upper section of tower falling down on one side puts too much strain on the floors below and the floors very rapidly gave way one by one-- leading to a global, symmetrical, progressive collapse for each tower.


Now, assuming a planes DID crash into the towers (and of course there is a great deal of doubt that Boeing 767s hit the towers), parts 1-4 of the NIST sequence are acceptable. I find it plausible that floor trusses holding up a 65 foot section of floor could be weakened by fire leading to floor collapse.

What I and others have a great deal of problem with is parts 5-7. To put it simply, these parts of the model are absurd.

There is NO evidence that the fires were hot enough to cause inner and outer structural columns to bow in towards the collapsed floor section. Further, to posit that a heavy floor section could pull and distort these structural columns, rather than simply break away from the brackets that held the floor to the heavy structural columns, is rather improbable.

But then to say that this one floor section, comprising at BEST, one sixth of the cross-sectional area of the tower, could cause the complete upper section of the tower to topple over is flat-out ridiculous. A partial collapse of the tower above the collapsed floor would be weakly plausible. But to say that the whole top section of the tower tilts as a whole and falls as a whole section-- flat-out absurd.

Finally, the idea that the upper section of the tower breaking off and falling down on ONE SIDE can drive a near free-fall global symmetrical collapse, is simply wand-waving covering up the fact of demolition. There is no precedent, no logic to explain the NIST model.

There are many reason to think the towers were demolished with explosives of some sort, and the evidence for explosive demolition of the towers is overwhelming. Of course, as I have pointed out before here, the case for nuclear demolition is quite compelling.

But it still is worth trying to understand what the official explanation for the destruction of the towers is, in order to point out simply how BAD it is.

Finally, two basic questions--

1) did I describe the NIST model correctly? (again please let me know if I missed a key part of their model or if I made a mistake)

2) does the NIST model adequately explain what happened to the towers?

Non-9/11 skeptics/official story believers-- please email me!

Let battle commence

Unfortunately Remedy have lost their case in the high court today, however the judgement demonstrates that their case was not fought in vain, far from it, it has released some purulent debris from the corridors of power occupied by our medical dictatorship:'There was no pilot for MTAS.''It is not surprising that many junior doctors feel upset, anger and a real sense of grievance.''The BMA's calls

Use this rag as bog roll

The same old rag that brought us Polly Toynbee, has now rolled another clone off their production line and she is called Jo Revill. I found it hard to spot the difference between Toynbee's praise of Blair's NHS legacy in the BMJ and Revill's similar piece in the Observer.The same luvvie style of prose flows and the same dishonest techniques are used; one is the technique of catching the reader

The abuse of statistics

I noticed this little piece that paints doctors as being dangerous because they are 'more lethal' than gun owners. This is argued because in Sweden one is 7500 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun owner. What marvellous logic.It is also true statistically that one is more likely to be killed by a family member than by a serial killer. By the same logic this would mean that

DoH - breaking the law

It seems that the DoH's behaviour goes from bad to worse, it has now emerged that they have 'broken the law' by refusing to reveal the short listing scores of junior doctors in MTAS. The DoH was trying to hide behind the excuse of pretending that the short listing process was an 'examination':“In these circumstances it is our view that the DoH cannot use this exemption to delay responses to

The remarkable successes of Foundation training

'The successes of foundation training are undeniable'- discuss; instead of repeating a statement of fact over and over and over in the vain hope that saying something enough will make it true, I shall try to argue my case in a different way to the flimsy approach used by our despotic leaders.MMC and its side arm MTAS have been rushed through without adequate consultation despite HMG's claims to

How low can the BBC go?

"However, this was a far from universal view. Some doctors the BBC spoke to expressed anger over the actions of junior doctors involved with the pressure group Remedy UK with one describing them as a "rabid mob"."The BBC have covered the resignation of James Johnson in their typically slanted manner. James Johnson should have gone a long time ago, it's embarassing that he only starts to speak

The 'independent' MMC inquiry

Following the recent MTAS shambles and the widely acknowledged farcical whitewash that was presided over by the first 'independent' review panel, Patricia Hewitt has asked John Tooke to lead an 'independent' enquiry into Modernising Medical Careers. The MMC Inquiry website explains how this process will be undertaken in a completely 'transparent' manner.The Inquiry has its own specific 'terms of

The abortion fundamentalists

Pulse magazine found recently that a quarter of GPs were refusing to refer their female patients for abortion. Shockingly it also found that one fifth of GPs wanted abortions banned completely.The 1967 Abortion act stated that '"no person shall be under any duty... to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection". This is a contentious stance in

Flexible Labour market

In the NHS life could not be better, the government are making the health labour market more flexible and things are on the up at last. What does this mean for us? I shall explain.Labour market flexibility refers to the degree in which labour markets quickly adapt to fluctuations and changes in society as well as in the economy or production."There are generally regarded to be four types of

Bite My Arse - BMA

This letter in the Times by Carol Black and James Johnson has created a storm of controversy with hundreds of doctors writing to voice their disagreement. It must be noted that Carol Black was directly appointed by Patricia Hewitt to her role, and that the DoH is refusing to release information concerning how she has been briefed to carry out this role. James Johnson is the beleaguered BMA boss

Appeasement is rife

The President of the Royal College of Physicians, Prof Ian Gilmore, has written to all consultant members:"Dear Colleague,I am acutely aware that the completion of the first round interviews of junior doctor posts now underway (so called round 1b) is causing not only a huge and unwelcome workload for physicians but also concerns as to whether they are doing the right thing in cooperating with

Astonishing DoH admissions in court

There have been some astonishing revelations from the high court today, this chunk is taken from the Remedy UK website:"The legal team for the Secretary of State for Health presented a second witness statement by Mr Nick Greenfield from the Department of Health. In it he states that the matching algorithm (that underpins the MTAS computer system) was not, and is not, functional or reliable.

The true colours of the BMA revealed

If ever a letter summed up the apologetic stance of the BMA then this is it, published in today's Times. This letter has been jointly penned by those noble warriors James Johnson and Carol Black. They start by relying on the crutch of the 'independent' review panel, a tactic used by the incompetent Hewitt as a way of pretending that there was no choice in the matter:" The Review Group examined

Judgement day looms

The MTAS judicial review began today in the High Court, and the early word is encouraging; it seems the case has been put forward in a very clear and precise manner by the Remedy lawyer, hopefully in such a way that the government newspeak will have been blown out of the water. We should not get carried away yet, there is a long way to go. There are updates available on the Remedy site.The BMA

MTAS 'ditched'?

Following Patricia Hewitt's statement in the Commons today, the story is running that MTAS has been 'ditched'. I always take what they government say with a pinch of salt, so I just wonder how much truth is there to this? Hewitt stated:"........The review group met again on 9 May to consider the process of offering posts to candidates who are successful in their Round 1 applications. The group

BMA jumps on Remedy wagon

It didn't take the BMA too long to hop on the bandwagon, here is their statement that endorses the decision to abandon MTAS. Given that the BMA was opposed to the Remedy march, this really is pretty rich. The job of union should be to lead in order to further the interests of their members, not to follow others claiming credit for acts that they had nothing to do with."However, the BMA is

Well said - let's stuff the MTAS turkey

This letter in today's Times by eighteen eminent consultants is an excellent summary of how the government continues to fail junior doctors with the botched job application process that they refuse to ditch."An independent review body was established by the Department of Health (DoH) to resolve the chaos of February, when a third of applications were randomly rejected. Instead of rapidly

Sun watch - week 1

Following my discovery of the Sun discussion forum last weekend after I had been angered by some irresponsible Kelvin Mckenzie words, I have posted thee times on the 'unmoderated' Sun forum:Post 1: "In the pre-Labour days Margraet Thatcher set aside monopoly law so that Mr Murdoch could buy the Times and Sunday Times, she also later handed monopoly-control to British satellite television.

The real legacy

A lot of hot air has been spouted on this topic over the last few days, in fact so much so that I really worry for the effect that this warm stream will have on the global climate in years to come. A man who has indeed proven over the years that he is an actor of the very highest order, unfortunately even his acting couldn't save him from his own despotic actions, which caught up with him in the

Thanks a bunch BMA

The BMA and AoMRC have released this statement, a combined work of James Johnson and Carol Black:"The current crisis around applications to speciality training requires the profession to unite in finding a better way forward. The decision that the Academy and the BMA would be part of the Review Group was both pragmatic and responsible. Some of you may have been urged to boycott the MTAS interview

Toynbee: the bullsh*t years

Even the BMJ are now allowing Polly Toynbee to repeat her tired arguments, I am somewhat lost for words. There is nothing new in this piece, it is the same old guff rehashed and cobbled together into a patchwork of propaganda. One of Polly Toynbee's tricks is the use of the pretence of conceding ground to encourage the reader to assume that a few of her 'facts' are true. She does this with

MTAS abuse of candidates

Another shocking tale of incompetence and gut-wrenching cruelty thanks to MTAS has come to light. I have obtained copies of emails that show quite clearly that some candidates had their hopes raised by being told that they had successfully got jobs, only for this to be retracted in a later email and the candidates told they had no jobs at all. This is the first email of congratulation:"Dear Dr ..

I despair

Moves are afoot to prepare the health service for any moves that Gordon Brown may make to give it independence from day-to-day political control. David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, has announced a drastic re-shuffle of the management team that will see a leadership team within the department led by the permanent secretary, Hugh Taylor, David Nicholson and Liam Donaldson. This 'top team'

MTAS - whats the point?

MTAS is now displaying the above message. Essentially applicants must now contact their local deaneries to arrange their interviews, MTAS is now being completely bypassed. Each applicant in England now has one interview that is arranged locally via direct contact with the particular deanery involved. The shortlisting process has been abandoned as it is useless psycho babbling hog wash. However

MTAS scandal - Patterson's smoking gun

Below is the evidence that shows MTAS was used a research project for Professor Fiona Patterson to help validate her ideas for selection of doctors into higher training. This is a scandal.The lives of thousands of junior doctors have been turned upside down by an inadequately researched and unvalidated selection system. I am shocked that the Royal Colleges let this happen. In fact there is

Who is Garth Marenghi?

Garth Marenghi is the legendary horror writer, or 'dream weaver', the man who penned the critically acclaimed Darkplace. Garth plays Rik Dagless MD, the medic we all aspire to be, but cannot, as we know we will never be quite that perfect. It is one of the great crime of the 21st century that Channel 4 did not commission a second series, I suspect someone was scared of the unbridled genius on

Toynbee's toss

I'm afraid to say that Polly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian again recently:"Spending has trebled, heart deaths are falling, waiting times for inpatients are at just an average 6.6 weeks and 90% of hospital patients report that their treatment was "excellent". By almost every indicator, ask any expert, there is no doubt things are very much better.""Consultants have always found a way to run the

Frankly, Jasper, your laziness is embarassing

A journalist named Jasper Gerard wrote this piece in the Guardian on Sunday. As well as being irresponsible and ill informed, it could even be argued that Mr Gerard's piece was misguided vitriol posing as opinion.Firstly his mocking of Phil Smith, the junior doctor who heckled Patricia Hewitt on question time, was remarkably arrogant and patronising in its tone; he also completely misrepresented

Blogging in 'a roaring, foam flecked sea'

I was alerted to this piece in the Guardian by Nick Cohen by Dr Crippen. It seems that someone is rather keen to go on the attack against the blogging medium in a rather clumsy and hap-hazard fashion. The piece centres around the esteemed author being one of the judges for the 2007 Lulu Blooker prize. Reading between the lines it seems that this policeman of culture concurs with the following

The Chief Medical Officer must resign

Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has been the architect in chief behind many of the most disastrous recent reforms of medical training in the UK.A large amount of blame for the shambolic MTAS must be laid at his door, while the danger of MMC is looming as it is rushed through in a most dangerous and incoherent manner.He has sold out the profession, he has helped catalysed the

Paying for failure

The Department of Health appears to think that the poor private companies that fail to win lucrative PFI contracts deserve compensation for their failure to the tune of 2% of the total contract costs.The telegraph covered this story on Sunday and pointed out that this scheme is already up and running on a trial basis in Bristol for a 374 million pound hospital. In this case the runner-up may be

Arrogance and denial - new MTAS lows

Some rather sad Internet geeks (tongue firmly in cheek) have managed to unearth some rather worrying and humorous (for all the wrong reasons) PowerPoint presentations that Sarah Thomas has made regarding MTAS in the last few years. The above image is taken from this rather embarrassing slide show. I have stored two more of her gems here and here.The more I flick through these slides, the more I

Orthopods do not mince their words

"There cannot be anyone here who is unaware of the complete chaos that has resulted from this arrogant, ignorant and mendacious government's indecent haste in its efforts to rush through the implementation of MMC despite the remonstrations of our various representative bodies.Unfortunately, the association of our College with this scheme has in the eyes of many fellows been viewed in poor light

my demon?

Brilliant heckler sums up the frustration

"I just felt upset and angry.Months of anxiety, not just for me but for all my colleagues and friends - people like me whose only aim is to be the best doctor they can. I have never seen so many friends cry and be demoralised by people who have no idea what life is like on the 'shop floor'. I was on that march when thousands of doctors turned out - a very emotional day. I have admired the hard

MTAS - Sarah Thomas must resign

This was an E-mail sent from John Black - the chair of the SAC in general surgery, to Sarah Brown in February 2006. It ominously warns of the potential problems regarding MTAS and suggests the practical alternative of selecting on a regional basis. These warnings were spookily predictive of the problems that actually occurred.The point of this leaked email is that is proves that Sarah Thomas,

MTAS- an 'exam' of sorts

It is hard to write when one is thinking of violently beheading certain individuals, but here goes; the Information Commissioner has responded to calls forcing MTAS scores to be released by accepting the Department of Health explanation that MTAS is an 'exam'! Un-bloody-believable.It turns out there are 'exceptions' in the Data protection act:"the Act also contains a number of exemptions which

I can say nothing more

What Methods?

"The Medical Training Application Service (MTAS) is the IT service that supports recruitment to medical training programmes in the UK . The performance of the service, the details of which I have already shared with you clearly do not warrant the criticisms that you are making of it. In order to protect the commercial interests of our supplier, I must insist that you do not make any further

What about these children Patricia?

In the House of Commons on the 24th of April this year a question was slipped to Patricia Hewitt that escaped the notice of the mainstream press:Greg Mullholland (Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat) "On 17 March we heard the devastating news that the proposed new children's and maternity hospital in Leeds would not go ahead, despite having been approved by the then Secretary of State for Health

Millions flushed away

It has been brought to my attention that Scotland has a national hand hygiene campaign brought to the fortunate public by those luvvies at Health Protection Scotland. Not only is money being spent on TV adverts but also on 'sonic washroom posters' that are located in not only toilets but also bizarrely at cashpoints. I'd imagine people will get quite a shock when a poster starts booming 'Clean

Deluded or just an idiot?

Patricia Hewitt has yet again been rather generous with the truth in the House of Commons. This afternoon she tried to deflect attention away from herself, the government and her useless department by blaming other people for the MTAS disasters. This is wholly unacceptable for a minister; she does seem to be developing a bit of a penchant for this kind of behaviour though.She stretched the truth