People sometimes wonder why is it important to investigate the alleged hijackers and others officially accused of committing the 9/11 crimes. After all, the accused 19 hijackers could not have accomplished most of what happened. The answer is that the official accounts are important because they are part of the crimes. Identifying and examining the people who created the official 9/11 myth helps to reveal the ones who were responsible overall.
The people who actually committed the crimes of September 11th didn’t intend to just hijack planes and take down the buildings—they intended to blame others. To accomplish that plan the real criminals needed to create a false account of what happened and undoubtedly that need was considered well in advance. In this light, the official reports can be seen to provide a link between the “blaming others” part of the crimes and the physical parts.
Pushing the concept of “Islamic Terrorism” was the beginning of the effort to blame others, although the exact 9/11 plan might not have been worked out at the time. This concept was largely a conversion of the existing Soviet threat, which by 1989 was rapidly losing its ability to frighten the public, into something that would serve more current policy needs. Paul Bremer and Brian Jenkins were at the forefront of this conversion of the Soviet threat into the threat of Islamic terrorism. Both Bremer and Jenkins were also intimately connected to the events at the World Trade Center.
The concerted effort to propagandize about Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (OBL) seems to have begun in earnest in 1998. That’s when the African embassy bombings were attributed to OBL and the as-yet unreported group called Al Qaeda. The U.S. government responded with bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan and, with help from the New York Times, began to drum up an intense myth about the new enemy.
“This is, unfortunately, the war of the future,” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. “The Osama bin Laden organization has basically declared war on Americans and has made very clear that these are all Americans, anywhere.”
In retrospect, it is surprising that this was the first reference to Al Qaeda in the New York Times, coming only three years before 9/11. More surprising is that The Washington Post did not report on Al Qaeda until June 1999, and its reporting was highly speculative about the power behind this new threat.
“But for all its claims about a worldwide conspiracy to murder Americans, the government’s case is, at present, largely circumstantial. The indictment never explains how bin Laden runs al Qaeda or how he may have masterminded the embassy bombings.”
Despite this skepticism from The Post, the reports about Al Qaeda continued in an odd mixture of propaganda and doubt. For example, The Times reported on the trial of the men accused of the African embassy attacks in May 2001. That article contradicted itself saying that “prosecutors never introduced evidence directly showing that Mr. bin Laden ordered the embassy attacks” and yet that a “former advisor” to Bin Laden, one Ali Mohamed, claimed that Bin Laden “pointed to where a truck could go as a suicide bomber.” The fact that Mohamed had worked for the U.S. Army, the FBI, and the CIA was not mentioned.
Other facts were ignored as well. That OBL had worked with the CIA and that Al Qaeda was basically a creation of CIA programs like Operation Cyclone were realities that began to fade into the background. By the time 9/11 happened, those facts were apparently forgotten by a majority of U.S. leaders and media sources. Also overlooked were the histories of people like Frank Carlucci and Richard Armitage, who played major roles in Operation Cyclone and who remained powerful players at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
In the two years before 9/11, the alleged hijackers were very active within the United States. They traveled extensively and often seemed to be making an effort to be noticed. When they were not trying to be noticed, they engaged in distinctly non-Muslim behavior. Mohamed Atta’s actions were erratic, in ways that were similar to those of Lee Harvey Oswald, and Atta appeared to be protected by U.S. authorities.
Meanwhile, leading U.S. terrorism experts seemed to be facilitating Al Qaeda terrorism. Evidence suggests that U.S. intelligence agency leaders Louis Freeh and George Tenet facilitated and covered-up acts of terrorism in the years before 9/11. Both of their agencies, the CIA and FBI, later took extraordinary measures to hide evidence related to the 9/11 attacks. And both agencies have made a mockery of the trial of those officially accused of helping OBL and the alleged hijackers.
Counter-terrorism leader Richard Clarke inexplicably helped OBL stay out of trouble, protecting him on at least two occasions. Clarke blatantly failed to follow-up on known Al Qaeda cells operating within the United States. After 9/11, Clarke was among those who falsely pointed to Abu Zubaydah as a top leader of Al Qaeda. Zubaydah’s torture testimony was then used as the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report.
Former CIA operative Porter Goss created the first official account of what happened on 9/11, along with his mentor Bob Graham. This was the report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, produced by the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress. It was greatly influenced by people who should have been prime suspects. For example, Richard Clarke was the one in charge of the secure video conference at the White House that failed miserably to connect leaders and respond to the attacks. In the Joint Inquiry’s report, Clarke was cited as an authoritative reference 46 times. CIA director George Tenet was cited 77 times, and Louis Freeh was cited 31 times.
Therefore it is imperative that the people who worked to create the background story behind OBL and the accused hijackers be investigated for their roles in the 9/11 crimes. This includes not only those who were figureheads behind the official reports, but more importantly the ones who provided the evidence and testimony upon which those reports were built. The alleged hijackers and their associates should also be of considerable interest to 9/11 investigators. That’s because what we know about them was provided by people who we can assume were connected to the crimes and what we don’t yet know about them can reveal more of the truth.
Dig Within 
This is eye-opening. We are all indebted to you for your important work!
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/every_president_has_been_manipulated_national_security_officials_david_talbot_investigates_americas_deep_state/
“But they had this very acrimonious split over CIA-led invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, where Kennedy felt he had been lied to and sandbagged, and forced into supporting this invasion. I think that the plan all along was the CIA had wanted the invasion to fail, but Dulles hoped and was completely convinced that Kennedy would be forced to send in the full might of the U.S. military to save the invasion and to crush Castro. When Kennedy didn’t do that and refused to escalate it into an international crisis, it provoked this split within the Kennedy government that led to Dulles being forced out of power, much to his shock. He had never been treated that way by a president).”
Have not read the book yet but plan on soon
Replying to myself. Never a good sign
Half way done with the Talbot book. What’s hard to understand is the casualness that the law is broken and subverted by people in power.
Some overlap to the Bush family mentioned by Talbot and the following Russ Baker interview. Both point to a long time connection with the CIA.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/31/podcast-russ-baker-with-pat-thurston-on-rathergate/
Truth/lie dichotomy
“To accomplish that plan the real criminals needed to create a false account of what happened and undoubtedly that need was considered well in advance. In this light, the official reports can be seen to provide a link between the “blaming others” part of the crimes and the physical parts.”
This is a very interesting comment to make, Kevin, given the divisions and arguments regarding ‘official account’ and ‘bona fides,’ ie: in a deception as complex as 911, the ‘official account’ should a-priori, be considered a false account.
As we have had proven from WTC NIST and the Commission ; that is true.
It argues directly for ‘The real criminals’ ‘creating a false account’ of OCT/PENTTBOM/77, and the evidence exposing it and them presented by CIT and Pilots.
Quote: “This is a very interesting comment to make, Kevin, given the divisions and arguments regarding ‘official account’ and ‘bona fides,’ ie: in a deception as complex as 911, the ‘official account’ should a-priori, be considered a false account”.
I wouldn’t say that it needs to be considered false a-priori, but questionable, definitely. Like in any honest investigation, all accounts received need to be carefully vetted, say.
As for CIT, I believe that 911review.com and/or 911research.wtc7.net are right.
Do a Web search using, Google, IxQuick, StartPage, or DuckDuckGo, f.e., using the following for search terms:
” CIT” site:911review.com
Also,
” CIT” site:wtc7.net
Here’re a couple of articles among the many links returned with Google.
“To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show'”,
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.1, Aug 1, 2009
Version 1.0, July 26, 2009
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html
She’s right-on.
“ERROR: ‘The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'”,
page last modified: 2011-09-05
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/flyover.html
You’ll get links for plenty of articles from both websites using the search terms recommended, above. CIT has proven to be a group that I wouldn’t rely upon at all, even if they might occasionally say something right. Occasionally saying something right means often not doing so.
As for the pilots, do similar Web searches, only changing the ” CIT” term to “pilots”, and you’ll get plenty of articles to carefully read.
Both searches are important, but people need to carefully read and think about what these two websites say about CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
We even had quacks who claimed that no real airliners hit the WTC Towers, 1 and 2, and the same for the Pentagon. The Pentagon case was a little more confusing, but the two websites specified, above, provide amply good explanations for, yes, airliners did hit all three of these buildings. One thing for sure is that the airliners that hit the WTC towers weren’t fake. They weren’t holographic imagery. CIT might not have made that particular claim, of holographics having been used to try to deceive us, but some “jerks” definitely did. There’ve been many false 9/11 “truthers”, and some clearly could be secretly acting on be-half of TPTB. Others who’re like the latter might not actually have been working for TPTB, but it’d just mean that they carelessly, and I do mean carelessly, wanted to spread crap about what happened without carefully thinking about what they were saying.
I had doubts about an airliner having hit the Pentagon, at first, and Jim Hoffman, the or one of the initiators of 911review.com once told me in an e-mail reply that he also had initial doubts about what really did hit the Pentagon; but, he added that he finally gained enough evidence that the object was either AA 77 or a similar airliner. It’s explained at the two websites specified, above. It doesn’t say that he first questioned what hit the Pentagon, but there’s adequate explanation about what did.
CIT is for newbies who haven’t yet learned of good sources and, in that case, it’s not for someone who doesn’t want careless, or worse, “theories”. The Pilots for 9/11 Truth evidently had very good members, but the “elitists” of this group “screwed” everything up.
See the two recommended websites about this. 911blogger.com and “Visibility 9/11” or “… 9-11”. There’re references to both at the two websites specified, above, but I haven’t these particular articles.
“Web Resources”,
http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/index.html
Before people follow CIT et alia, check the two websites I’m recommending. It’s better to have more to consider, than it is to be lead blindly, as if we shouldn’t all carefully consider events as thoroughly as we can. Kevin Ryan is among the people who’ve been greatly helping to make this possible for us and haste is wasty. Let’s not waste the good that we’re provided.
Correction:
Wherein I said, quote, “See the two recommended websites about this. 911blogger.com and “Visibility 9/11” or “… 9-11””, that’s slightly in error, possibly anyway. What was meant is that they both are or at least fomerly were recommended websites by 911review.com and possibly 911research.wtc7.net.
wtc7.net is associated with the two latter websites, forming a sort of trio. In the past, I found little at wtc7.net, mostly just references to the other two, where there’s plenty of analysis. This might’ve changed about wtc7.net since the last time I visited though, for I haven’t checked it for a year or more. But, 911research.wtc7.net is part of or definitely and directly associated with wtc7.net, and 911review.com also is, just that the domain name in the latter case doesn’t include “wtc7”, and is .com, rather than .net. All three websites should be visited by truly sincere individuals, for these’re very good sources. It’s where I first got to learn of Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other good or excellent 9/11 analysts starting over a decade, or more, ago.
We also learn of other great contributors to 9/11 research/analysis through these two websites, and there likely are other people who’ve well contributed but who don’t have articles at these two websites. GlobalResearch.ca (globalresearchtv at YouTube as well) has some very good material from various individuals, each providing their inputs, say. CorbettReport.com (corbettreport at YouTube) has provided some relevant material. And other people also have. But, while all of their inputs can be great for anyone who has enough time to go through it all, Kevin Ryan, 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net and 911blogger.com, f.e., already provide plenty of reading and/or listening time about the 9/11 attacks; plus more.
It’s difficult to take it all in, for it’s very time consuming; but, I don’t think we need to know what all of these people have said and possibly continue to say, for what’s important is understanding that the 9/11 attacks “theory” according to Washington is hogwash, and that, therefore, Washington has been lying about all of this. There’s going to be a real (and bad) reason for such lying, … deceit, treason, ….
“Elites” want to treat us as if we’re all a bunch of dupes or dumb sheeple, but it isn’t credible that they can be successful with all of us. CIT? What is really that group? They’ve presented some very bogus “theories”, so who or what have they been really working for, I wonder.
A lot of Americans protested against the Vietnam War draft and saught asylum or refugee status in other countries. The Trudeau-lead government in Canada accepted plenty of these Americans, and plenty, like Bill Clinton, though he didn’t flee to Canada, for he went to Britain, became what? Pro-war without any justification! Their butts were saved and they ended up doing the opposite of what they ostensibly represented much earlier in life!
Captain Kirk says to Dr Spock, it isn’t logical and it most definitely is awfully inconsistent! What’s wrong with our people, for something definitely is ? !
Etc.
I’ll add that the cover-up of the 9/11 false flag with Osama bin Laden’s aerial show and fraudulent reports is a much more serious crime than the false flag itself:
* it was carried out by public servants, including in agencies with law enforcement or military power; the Twin Towers’ terrorist controlled demolition may be excused as the work of the Corleone family on steroids, but the involvement of senior staff at USAF, FBI, FAA, FEMA, FDNY, NIST, etc., is much more frightening; public agencies bow to organized criminals;
* it was a much more formidable undertaking than the false flag; blowing up the Twin Towers required the commitment of one large and reputable controlled demolition corporation, plus its network of suppliers and partners; the cover-up required an intense teamwork between a multitude of public agencies, starting with infesting them with conspirators many years before 9/11.
* the cover-up was a pre-requisite to the false flag; the necessarily very talented chief engineers who successfully directed the WTC’s controlled demolitions must have been savvy enough to understand early on that they were going to direct the largest acts of terror in history; accordingly, they were unlikely to accept the job unless they obtained guarantees of an unconditional cover-up, irrespective of how obvious the controlled demolitions would be; so analysts and activists who wish to stop false flags may want to forget about false flags and instead focus on the processes that allow them to be covered up.
Going one step further, one could wonder if there is another conspiracy that makes high-ranking public servants confident that they can cover-up a false flag as evident as the Twin Towers’ televised controlled demolition and safely trust that all opinion-makers, starting with the worldwide mass media, will promote their cover-up, no matter how transparent. But this is another story.
Love,
Daniel, may I suggest that the Kennedy assassination conspiracy (as it has been outlined by Rodger Stone and others) may hold clues as to how so many public servants joined this effort. It seems to me that the Kennedy assassination was a successful model for any “big lie” political operation. It would be logical to assume (since the 9/11 operation seems to have originated within the same Washington hallways where the Kennedy assassination was cooked up) that it provided the basic operating rules for 9/11. In particular, Lyndon Johnson (point man for the cover up, at a minimum) apparently had several “lines” that he would use on various individuals to get their help in the cover up. For example, Rodger Stone suggests he convinced Earl Warren to lead the commission and to help cover up the truth, by suggesting to him that this murder was done by the Russians and if it was exposed it would undoubtedly lead to WWIII.
If patriotism was used to bring people into the conspiracy, that would go a long way toward explaining why people participated and why covering up has become so important (i.e. now that they are already guilty of the crime they must work hard to cover it up, even though they thought there was a good patriotic reason when it was done). Having said this, I can’t guess what reason might have been given. One can’t even be certain that the reason given was a lie. (For example, what if knowledgeable people in the administration know with certainty that the world oil reserves will run out in 2019. That might–even today–be seen by some as justification for taking extraordinary measures like 9/11 to give the US a life-saving advantage.)
I thought of motive for the many thousands aware of the products used, those who loaded the buildings, etc, planners. Tens of thousands of Americans participated in the event and are now participating in the cover-up. Who can do this? Our Corp.’s, intelligence, govt. have long since adopted the ethic of the gangster -terror, violence, money. and addiction to power and wealth – the illness of the addictive disorder is the only explanation I can find that explains what we are now watching happen. And, the denial of the co-dependents who think they need the addicts production – they quietly watch the abuser continue beating the child, applaud when a truther’s question is ignored by a govt. representative. Sickness – profound chronic deeply seated sickness. And, fatal to a family, relationship, individual, or culture.
Kevin Ryan explains the situation far better.
Kevin Ryan, would you mind if I used your article The Importance of the Official 9/11 Myth as a curator article on my http://www.one-world-government.org/9-11-deception.html with link back to
http://digwithin.net – https://digwithin.net/2015/10/26/911-myth/
Delwyn Lounsbury – The Deflation Guru http://www.deflationeconomy.com
Great article – thank you in advance
I’d imagine that Kevin wouldn’t mind, as long as you make it clear that you’re referring to his work, for credit purposes. Credit must always be stated for the source, and you certainly imply that you’d be making this clear since you’d be linking back to his blog and article. As long as you do that, then he most likely wouldn’t mind, say, that you do as as you state that you wish to do. After all, he cleary isn’t trying to communicate to a hidden or camouflaged group or culture. He’s been communicating openly for plenty of years now. Maybe most people still don’t know about his writings and work, but it isn’t like he’s been trying to keep this hiden. He hasn’t been trying to create some sort of exclusive or esoteric group at all. He’s been working on trying to communicate to everyone.
A sure sign of the 9/11 myth: It has not changed or evolved in any way since the “harley guy”, Bremer, and Barak told us what the story would be within hours. We knew who, and how, and what to do about it, declared war in 3 days from the pulpit of the National Cathedral. Into our 15th year and not a single thing has changed. Whoa!
Who’re you trying to confuse? Barak, and I suppose you mean the present US President, wasn’t in any position in 2000, 2001, 2002, and for more years, to decide how Washington would act; and Barack Obama hasn’t been since he began to be “officially” President. The USA doesn’t have a real democracy and there’s absolutely nothing new about this. Blaming Bush or Obama for being the war-makers is nonsense. Blaming them for going along with the war-makers, however, is another matter, for yes, they’re both guilty ; variably, but still both guilty. Etc.
Here’s another e.g. of the striking power of myth: On 9/11 everyone who was there reported explosions. On the morning of 9/12 the term completely vanished from the dialogue. How can such an obvious perception of reality be shifted, in hours, to a myth? We are far – far behind in this science.
Mass brainwashing, perpetuated by the advances in technology and science, is an integral part in the machinations of modern societal control.
I wouldn’t say “everyone who was there”, but would, based on what I’ve gathered, say that many people who were there witnessed and spoke of explosions. Not necessarily everyone who was variably in the proximate vicinity necessarily heard explosions. A lot of panic was surely happening and when this happens, then what people can clearly recall of an incident can vary.
A college physics teacher of mechanics, optics and waves, f.e., taught my and other classes or groups that if we take an accident or indicent with ten witnesses, we question the ten about what really happened, then maybe a few, and I mean few, of the ten can accurately recount the incident, but it’s also possible that none of the ten are right; and that professor is right, “like it or not”.
Anyone who’s logical, say, and been reading and listening to Kevin Ryan for years, for another example, should be able to realize that he isn’t a careless scientist or analyst. He’s very careful in his work.
With that said, it seems to me that plenty of people witnessed explosions, and I don’t doubt that there were some that weren’t caused just because of airliners hitting the WTC towers, plus WTC 7 that was’t hit by enough debris to become totally destroyed.
Nope, there was cleary massive destruction that wasn’t caused by a couple of airliners that hit the two main towers. It’s also rather clear that Washington lied and continues to lie about this.
Many people prefer to be silent, being afraid to speak out; but that’s understandable. What’s despicabe is people who fabricate and/or spread false “science”.
Kevin Ryan and others provide true science. I haven’t yet read Kevin’s book, not being able to afford books, but I,ve read enough of his articles to be able to realize that what he says requres careful attention.
On July 24, 2015, the US National Archives released the final batch of nearly 350 classified photographs taken by former vice-president Dick Cheney’s staff photographer inside the White House Operations Center, on September 11, 2001. The photos show George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Gen Colin Powell and national security advisers having discussions inside the deep underground bunker while the New York World Trade Center(WTC) and Pentagon were hit by mini nuclear missiles.
The photographs were released on the request of Colette Neirouz Hanna, coordinating producer for the Kirk Documentary Group, which makes films for the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) Frontline under Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).
“From the first moment after the attacks on the WTC, vice-president Cheney has been at the center of much of government’s response. We knew he had a photographer assigned to take pictures of almost everything he did and have been trying to obtain those pictures – from inside the secret bunker under the White House to the ‘undisclosed secure locations’ where he spend the weeks after September 11, 2001. Now, 14 years later we finally have those photographs and American people can see for themselves what took place in those first 24 hours,” says Hanna.
But, the WTC “and Pentagon were hit by mini nuclear missiles”, is a falsehood.
I don’t know where you got that cockamamee falsehood from. You say PBS, but that’s not proof of the real origin. Where did PBS’s source really get the “story” from. You don’t really or adequately specify!
The “thoeory” Is almost as incredible as pretending that no real airliners hit the WTC towers or Pentagon and that what “really” happened supposedly was holographic images of airliners hitting the WTC towers.
You write like some sort of naive believer. PBS saying somthig means nothing. It’s always easy to repeat “word of mouth” in- and dis-information.
I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but it’s poppy crap, or whateever the expression is. You definitely seem to be “buying into” another tactic of deceit.
rehmat1,
Your post seems possibly interesting, but it’s lacking. You provided no links for people to see the photos you’re talking about. Trying to do a Web search, I began by using “Kirk Documentary Group” and 9/11 for search terms. Here’re two of the results:
“New Photos Show Bush Administration Reaction to 9/11 Attacks”,
July 24, 2015
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/new-photos-show-bush-administration-reaction-to-911-attacks
Here’s a specifically related 2-minute video published by PBS Frontline on August 2, 2015:
It’s a shame that you couldn’t do this simple work, rather than providing only words claiming what you claimed. Try to always back up what you say. After all, this isn’t about logic. It’s about photos you say were published.
From the pbs.org article, quote: “In never-before-released photographs taken on Sept. 11, 2001, the shock, horror and gravity of the terrorist attacks can be read on the faces of President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, …”.
That’s cited from the opening paragraph and the photos definitely don’t strike me as showing people particularly worried about the 9/11 attacks. Given such attacks, these people seem to be rather emotionless and some seem to be satisfied, or nearly.
Quote: “Other facts were ignored as well. That OBL had worked with the CIA and that Al Qaeda was basically a creation of CIA programs (linked) like …”.
The link is for a copy of a 23-minute Corbett Report documentary published by someone else and in case that copy is ever removed or the channel becomes terminated, for whatever the reason might be, I’ll provide three links for parts 1, 2 and 3 of the documentary published by corbettreport, which will never remove these videos for as long as the channel is maintained. The channel might someday be closed, but not likely in the near future, for James Corbett’s in good health and clearly intends to continue his Corbett Report work for plenty of time to come.
“Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist (Documentary) – 1” (10 min),
part 2 (9 min),
part 3 (5.5 or 5 1/2 min),
Wholly excellent article.
One thing that stands out for me in this piece is the use of “attributed” in the following paragraph.
Quote: “The concerted effort to propagandize about Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (OBL) seems to have begun in earnest in 1998. That’s when the African embassy bombings were attributed to OBL and the as-yet unreported group called Al Qaeda. The U.S. government responded with bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan and, with help from the New York Times, began to drum up an intense myth about the new enemy”.
I may be mistaken about your intent with the use of the word “attributed”, but my interpretation is that you mean to infer a conotation like the word “alleged”, say. Iow, Washington accused OBL and AQ without providing us proof that either was really guilty for the embassy bombings.
It’s been my view for many years, for while having heard and read plenty of times that Washington blamed OBL and AQ for these two attacks on US embassies, I never once heard or read of actual proof.
The following article is to say the least interesting in this regard, as well as with respect to the 9/11 attacks.
“September 2001 Interview with Osama bin Laden. Categorically Denies his Involvement in 9/11 | Global Research
Full text of Pakistani paper’s Sept 2001 “exclusive” interview”,
Global Research, September 09, 2014
Daily Ummat in Urdu (Translation into English by BBC Worldwide Monitoring September 29, 2001 28 September 2001
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697
It strikes me as OBL refuting accusations against him and possibly AQ by Washington. I haven’t read the transcript for quite a long time now so am not sure if it’s also about AQ.
the rubble “pile” at ground zero burned for 2 months hot enough to melt Steel 1580 degrees Centigrade. the only other fire to equal this, was the meltdown in No.4 Reactor at Chernobyl.