From Jim Stone

July 27 2014

Andy wrote:

Hi James

your article about the 2 planes as stated in the subject, is really interesting. but i am confused. You say that the window configuration of these 2 planes are different. I found plane spotter videos, which shows similar window configs. any clue on this?

Andi Flight mh17 was 17 years old and had many modifications. The latest modification matched flight 370. That is the cause of confusion. Therefore, since the body was identical, only the paint can tell the story. On flight 370, the flag was in a different position, and the rubble clearly shows the flag for flight 370. MH17 had the flag farther forward on the plane. Now fakes are quickly being made to muddy the waters, and the old window configuration for MH17 is getting photoshopped into the wreckage and published by the MSM to make it look like MH17, yet even minimal fact checking will reveal that when crashed MH17 really did look identical to flight 370 with only the flag to tell the difference. Scroll down to July 25 to see this. The fact they are attempting to make the wreckage look like an older modification that did not match proves beyond a doubt that it really is flight 370, and that the flag is the detail they expected everyone to miss. Either that, or they missed that detail themselves and now (way too late) they have to try to edit it in with outright fakes that are easily proven with historical data.

Flush Gordon Duff, this is NOT a joke

Roland wrote:

Hi James, I was listening to GD on Stew Webb's radio show last night. On the show, GD said that the idea that MH17 was actually flight 370 was a complete hoax. I'm confused here because I think you are an honest person and doing a good job, and to hear this from Duff makes me wonder just what is going on here. Is this just a case of VT wanting to get more hits and followers? GD himself has said that about 40% of what he writes/says through VT is propaganda. He was also saying that "no one is coming to take your guns" and that Obama is trying to do a good job but the republicans keep stopping him. These last two statements really gave me a bad feeling in my gut like he is not being truthful, but he has seemed honest on many subjects so this whole thing is really throwing me.

I have zero intelligence experience, I only try to piece together what I can through various sources. I'm a concerned American who wants to contribute in some way to getting this country out of the clutches of the Israeli lobby and the London banksters. Thank you for all your efforts and I would like to know your thoughts on GD, who I generally like, but sometimes distrust. Hope you yours are well and safe.

My response

Gordon Duff is self-stated disinfo, and even on reports he stands behind as "peer reviewed" and 100 percent truth, he lacks the knowledge he needs to filter out that which is false, and is completely unqualified for any type of technical analysis of many topics he speaks about. Gordon also admits to publishing 40 percent disinfo, so when this is combined with a complete inability to get facts straight, it is devastating for the truth.

If you like Gordon Duff and feel offended by what I just said here, at least try to keep an open mind and take a look at what I do to one of his reports, this is NOT JUST A LITTLE DEBUNK, IT DESTROYS DUFF ENTIRELY with SUPER SIMPLE TO FIND PROOF HE IS FULL OF IT. VERY BAD.

Gordon Duff, of Veteran's Today posts ridiculously impossible and technically flawed report about "micro nukes"

My corrections are in bold. It may be hard to take if you like Gordon, but see this out, it is VERY BAD and SPOT ON. Gordon Duff's micro nuke report is SO BAD that there is not a single statement in it that is even partially true, which is impossible unless it was intentional and Gordon's real goal was to generate raucious laughter in an intelligence chamber somewhere while making the alternative media look completely ROCK STUPID in front of people who actually know what he is talking about.

Why am I posting this? Because irresponsible journalism will sabotage 911 truth. If you want to know why 911 reality has not taken off and crashed a majority of Americans in the head, take a look at this report by Gordon Duff. Such ridiculous drivel will instantly be rejected by ANYONE with ANY knowledge at all with regard to the subject at hand, and will lump the 9-11 truthers who are rooted in real science with the wackos. It's a brilliantly written report SIR DUFF, and because it is a little bit technical and so well worded it will bamboozle many people and spread like wildfire, only to be laughed at and ridiculed by intelligentsia, the segment of society that really can make a difference.

And now it's time to put a band aid on an information wound

Keep in mind that Gordon Duff actually published this as an "Intel disclosure"!!!

First, an excerpt from the report,

"According to government nuclear weapons designers, this is the size of a typical thermonuclear weapon available after 1991, shown in representative size only as a popular consumer soft drink:

This, according to government scientists is the current size of a thermonuclear device, a hydrogen bomb, containing a small amount of uranium or plutonium, no larger than a coin, a supply of deuterium, tritium and a highly classified “nano-laser,” probably chemically fired to replace the otherwise required fission reaction.

Such weapons have existed for over 20 years, multiples of which were deployed on “ground zero” on 9/11 and have been used repeatedly as “very large conventional munitions” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Radiation is only 3% of that of a normal weapon, undetectable by Geiger counter, unable to penetrate skin, with a half-life of under 48 hours but fatal if irradiated materials are ingested.

Temperatures reach over 1 million degrees Fahrenheit and structural steel, concrete, human bodies or anything within 1-300 yards of “ground zero” is vaporized.

What goes on inside the coke can is described thusly: Abstract

A consistent conventional theoretical description is presented for anomalous low energy deuterium nuclear fusion in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles.

The theory is based on the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions. Experimental tests of theoretical predictions are proposed. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions."

My comment: Sounds great, /strong> . . . . . . .now let me shred this

1.

These are the nuclear materials he claims are used:
"a small amount of uranium or plutonium, no larger than a coin, a supply of deuterium, tritium"
He states the weapons design uses URANIUM or PLUTONIUM, yet claims the materials have a 48 hour half life. Yet reality puts the half life of even the most radiologically active form of uranium at tens of thousands of years which is a LOT longer than the 48 hours he claims. Tritium has a half life of 7 years, thus making his "half-life of under 48 hours" a technical impossibility.
It is EXTREMELY important to note that he claimed this report was peer reviewed, which is an OUTRIGHT LIE unless the "peers" were a bunch of drunks from Joe's bar who fix rear axles and never got to algebra, let alone physics. It is a critical failure that CANNOT BE FORGIVEN, IT IS JUST TOO BASIC AND TO CLAIM PEER REVIEW IS FRAUD.

2.

When he states : "Radiation is only 3% of that of a normal weapon, undetectable by Geiger counter, unable to penetrate skin, but fatal if irradiated materials are ingested" he is giving a description of Beta and Alpha radiation which are unsuitable for any type of weapons type nuclear reaction. Because beta and alpha are the only types of radiation that could be blocked and rendered "undetectable by a geiger counter" by the shielding around any device small enough to fit in a coke can. This is a well known beginner physics topic called the Cookie question" nukes use GAMMA RADIATION TO FUNCTION AND THEREFORE NEED TO HAVE GAMMA EMITTING MATERIALS, WHICH IS ALWAYS DETECTABLE BY EVEN THE CHEAPEST EBAY GEIGER COUNTER and something as simple as the cookie question will answer this.

3.

What is worse? HE SAYS URANIAM AND PLUTONIUM, WHICH ARE ALWAYS KNOWN GAMMA EMITTERS, WHICH ARE ALWAYS DETECTABLE VIA GEIGER COUNTER AND ALWAYS THE EXAMPLE GIVEN IN THE COOKIE QUESTION UNLESS IT IS DEPLETED URANIUM, WHICH HAS NO NUCLEAR APPLICATION WHATSOEVER.

I guess in Gordon's "peer reviewed world, uranium and plutonium emit no ionizing radiation; they are beta and alpha only ya know. And he can't back out and say "depleted Uranium" which is a beta and alpha emitter because he states "plutonium" which has no isotope that is beta and alpha only, Plutonium is ALWAYS gamma.

4.

He then goes on to state : "Temperatures reach over 1 million degrees Fahrenheit and structural steel, concrete, human bodies or anything within 1-300 yards of “ground zero” is vaporized," which is ALSO B.S. because any device that had materials with a half life of two days that could vaporize materials out to 300 yards would melt in a tenth of a second if it was ONLY THE SIZE OF A COKE CAN, half life means rate of radiological decay to half potential, which is always accompanied by decay heat, and in this case, HALF THAT HEAT WOULD BE EXPRESSED IN TWO DAYS INSIDE THAT COKE CAN. It would simply not exist long enough to even take a picture of it.
"Radiation is only 3% of a normal weapon, undetectable by geiger counter" is pure BS, with a half life of only 48 hours radiation will be EXTREME, and it has to be ionizing radiation (which is easy to detect) or it won't trigger a nuclear weapons style chain reaction. And since ionizing radiation which is easy to detect can penetrate lead less than two inches thick, and a coke can being three inches across, even if the entire device was a nuclear shield it would not be big enough to block radiation from any plutonium or gamma emitting source at its core, and once again BETA AND ALPHA emitters are not suitable for nuclear weapons so his "harmful only if ingested" line is pure bunk.

5.

And this next blooper by Duff is the ultimate shred, such a laughable slap in the face because it is a quote from Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion, which despite the fact that it works, does not apply to nukes AT ALL:

Gordon stated:
"The theory is based on the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions. Experimental tests of theoretical predictions are proposed. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions."
Now THAT sounds REALLY COOL, does it not? Want to know where that statement came from? Fleischmann and Pons, with their COLD FUSION!!!! It sounds cool, but does not apply to Nukes AT ALL!!!
The errors are so extreme they make me wonder if this is a clandestine attempt to undermine the 911 truth movement, in fact all truth including the Fukushima report, where I state that a large device had to be used to conceal the decay heat. You can't EVER put a nuke in a coke can no matter WHAT the form; the size limits are more on the order of a coffee can. Veterans Today has an enormous readership that posts everywhere thus making Duff's report PURE DAMAGE to truth.

There are some cases where technology will NEVER overcome the laws of physics, we are NOT talking the latest "Ipod" when it comes to nukes!

Gordon, if you don't know when a topic is over your head, GET OUT of the business.

This was posted because I am now seriously questioning whether or not Gordon Duff is a good guy at all, I initially forgave him for this but now that he has come out against this web site I doubt he is for real, and if you still think so, READ THE ABOVE AGAIN, MORE SLOWLY, AND THINK. The errors are not innocent, they really do seem to be intentionally done to totally discredit the alternative media, it could not possibly be any more stupid. "peer reviewed?" what a horrible lie to tell and subsequently have echoed across the web.

Gordon himself admits to publishing 40 percent disinfo ON PURPOSE. Dear Gordon: Just try to do what I did to your report with one of mine, while quoting solid scientific sources.