Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and SpookyOne

By JM Talboo and SpookyOne

Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues
concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rouge criminal elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.

The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help. We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue we shouldn't have an investigation that gives credible explanations for contradictions, investigates whistleblower claims, and conducts forensic tests. If 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that lack attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here.

FAIR USE NOTICE

National Security Notice via Washinghton's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Mohr Misunderstanding: R.J Lee Did Not Say Normal Fire Creates Iron Spheres

Notice! Understand the following before you read this article:

1. When Harrit et al. and truthers refer to "iron rich" spheres they are talking about spheres that contain a significant amount of pure iron, NOT iron-oxide! This is important because a thermite reaction leaves behind iron, so its presence after ignition of the red/gray chips is evidence for a thermite reaction.

2. Truthers know that it is possible to get molten spheres with high temperature carbon-fueled fires, BUT conventional combustion leaves behind iron-oxide, NOT iron!

       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Part 1. (02/21/ 2014) Chris Mohr states on the JREF forum:

MM also quotes RJ Lee, who like many scientists knows that iron-rich spheres can be created in ordinary fires and has said so himself in his original report and in a followup email.

Rev. Mohr is most likely relying on Dave Thomas´s interpretation of R.J. Lee´s letter, as displayed on his own website, where Mr. Thomas tries to make it look as if Mr. Lee agrees that:

A. Normal fire creates molten spheres at typical fire temperatures.
B. The result is iron spheres/iron rich spheres identical to those obtained via thermite reaction.

Mr. Lee´s letter is intentionally a bit vague for non-technical readers, but upon close inspection it reveals that Mr. Lee disagrees with both statements. The pertinent part of the letter is below, with important bits highlighted:

...The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized...The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. 

Mr. Lee identifies blast-furnace conditions and states that the spheres will be identical to the fly ash spheres found in furnace residues - that is solid iron-oxide containing spheres and hollow "cenospheres". What is the significance of this in the context of the two statements above? Well:

A. A blast-furnace uses high pressure forced air to double the temperature of the fire - even compared to the hottest building fire. Lee´s hurricane reference is simply meant to infer blast-furnace conditions to explain away evidence for temperatures way above normal building fires. The blast furnace typically operates at 2000 °C to 2300 °C (3600 °F to 4200 °F).

B. The spheres that R.J Lee refers to are actually oxidized metal like all molten metal obtained via conventional combustion: these are iron-OXIDE spheres, NOT the iron or iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust and after the ignition of Harrit´s red/gray "thermitic" chips. The fact that those spheres are iron instead of iron-oxide is why they are cited as thermitic evidence in the paper!

Rev. Mohr may not care about the significance of these "details," but I suspect he still thinks all "metallic spheres" with iron in them qualify as the "iron-rich" spheres in question. In his defense, Mohr is still relying on his famously dishonest and incompetent JREF forum friends as his sources so the old adage applies: garbage in means garbage out. But on the other hand, a self-professed investigative journalist like Rev. Mohr should know better - see for example why Dr. Greening left the forum.

Part 2. On a related note, Rev. Chris Mohr has made some YouTube videos where he claims to "respectfully debunk" AE911Truth´s Richard Gage, and one of them deals with the spherical evidence. In the description of the video, Rev. Mohr complains that his opponents keep saying that he has not showed any matches to the iron spheres that Harrit et al. observe in their paper. Mohr says he disproves them by showing examples of what he calls "iron rich" spheres from a paper called Fly ash characterization by SEM--EDS, but then he cites the abstract which debunks him on the spot:

The majority of the iron-rich spheres had two components: iron oxide and amorphous alumino-silicate

Since the paper is of course about fly ash it clearly states that,

The iron-bearing phases observed, collectively referred to as spinel, were identified as magnetite and hematite. 

Note: magnetite and hematite are the most common forms of iron-oxide. And table 3 makes it clear that these spheres contained about 10 to 30% iron-oxide, but no elemental iron. The "iron richness" actually refers to bits of iron-oxide; these spheres do NOT match the "iron rich" definition that Harrit et al. and truthers refer to. Rev. Mohr goes on to point to

...an article about iron-rich microspheres (which also have aluminum in them) that were created in a regular incinerator at temperatures under 1800 degrees F. No steel-melting temperatures required! http://suwic.group.shef.ac.uk/posters...

But this is another article that actually refers to fly ash spheres from an incinerator, not iron spheres, and the "under 1800" is actually "over 1800," and that temperature refers to the "flue gas" exhaust temperature, not the fire temperature.

CSICOP´s Dave Thomas: Thermodynamic Size Effect Fraud

Dave Thomas is a well known pseudo-skeptic at the JREF 9/11 forum, being the president of  New Mexicans for Science and Reason and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

I recently wrote an article about Mr. Thomas´ YouTube pseudo-science and his amusing failures to form iron spheres by burning steel wool and paint. The latter "spheres from paint" video was supposed to be a triumphant response to an essay that debunked his earlier "steel wool" video, but instead it demonstrated another invalid and unpublishable experiment. Mr. Thomas also posts false conclusions without resorting to YouTube, as his NMSR webpage makes evident: 

The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect."

Since Dave Thomas confirmed in his "spheres from paint" video that he knows the pertinent part of our essay, he has no excuse for ignoring the fact that it also debunks the above statement:

Dave Thomas has proclaimed that the notion of melting-point depression explains the molten state of the spheres, because nano-sized particles can have a lower melting-point. But this phenomenon only applies to particles that are much smaller than the iron particles in the chips and the observed spheres...

The "thermodynamic size effect" only applies to particles that are smaller than 50 nanometers and is not significant until the particle size drops well below 25 nm, so implying that only 900° C is needed without providing some evidence for the presence of iron particles below 25 nm is a blatant display of dishonesty. Harrit´s paper does in fact describe the rhombic shaped iron grains present in the red/gray chips as "consistently 100 nm in size". No-one has even proposed a hypothesis for the possible presence of iron or iron-oxide grains smaller than 25 nm in neither the red nor gray layer of the chips, let alone physically identified even a single grain that small. This is why Dave Thomas is stuck making flatulent YouTube videos instead of publishing in reviewed journals.

 

Figure 1. A normalized melting curve for gold as a function of nanoparticle diameter. The bulk melting temperature and melting temperature of the particle are denoted TMB and TM respectively. Experimental melting curves for near spherical metal nanoparticles exhibit a similarly shaped curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

Artists for 9/11 Truth

PEACE - TRUTH - LOVE

Take a good look at what's going on in the world now please, people. Humans have great strength.
http://www.911artists.com/

Building Friendly Fences and the takeover of the Peace Movement

Click to Enlarge

 

Building Friendly Fences and the takeover of the Peace Movement by Robin Hordon 

"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen." - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor.

In addition to suggesting that the 911 Truth for World Peace Community revive, rebuild and recommit to becoming “This Century’s Peace Movement”, I am offering the concept of “Friendly Fences” to deal with: …censorship by blog sites…focusing towards the future…the efficacy of energies and resources within the various 911 Truth Organizations in general…respecting specific researchers known as Truthers…and appreciating the various “working hypothesis“ that they proffer…and to deal too many organization’s censoring under the banner of: “For the good of the movement…”. It goes as follows:

“Friendly Fences” are agreed upon neutral zones free of personal attacks, where each Truther or organization in presenting their “working hypothesis“, are allowed to offer their own opinions and to present their own “working hypothesis” which will stand as strong as is their evidence. This will apply to all people and organizations within the 911 Truth Community when differing opinions are derived from similar evidence.

This will also allow and support the many avenues of research and consideration that remains ahead for the 911 Truth Community and will also eliminate the vast majority of infighting between the various lines of research and people conducting it,. However, most importantly, establishing such “Friendly Fences” will disable cointelpro operations and tactics, which NEED such internal tensions inside the 911 Truth Community. Such activities are currently operating at “Full Cass Sunstein Throttle” and continue to have desired success.

The principal foundation of establishing the need for “Friendly Fences” is that the US Government and its various agencies and departments have NOT YET PROVIDED to the public, enough basic evidence, or trustworthyevidence, or comprehensive evidence and information about the events
surrounding 911.

With the clear exception of the science based analysis accomplished regarding the Controlled Demolition of the three WTC towers [all of which is based upon evidence gathered by civilians and supported by the laws of physics], open source videotapes, eyewitnesses, scientific analysis, and the scientific method, at this time, NO FIRM CONCLUSIONS CAN BE RESPONSIBLY OFFERED about many aspects surrounding the events of 911. This reality is again, primarily due to the paucity of evidence available…evidence that is still being withheld by the US Government and its various departments and agencies. Additionally, because of the withholding of this evidence, it is firmly concluded that elements within the US Government and its various agencies and departments are in fact continuing to cover up their actual roles in the events of 911.

Examples of building “Friendly Fences”:

Regarding whether or not there were hijackers onboard, or whether the airliners were taken over by remote control, or whether the hijackers who have been reported as still “being alive” had been replaced by more skilled suicide Mossadi pilots, here is the primary fact: nobody now alive was onboard the airliners so therefore, nobody can make a positive claim about what exactly did, or what exactly did not happen on board those aircraft. 

There is evidence that the hijackers names were not on the passenger lists nor onboard the airliners but there is some evidence that they were onboard. There is evidence that some radio transmissions were made by “middle eastern sounding men”, but its impossible to prove that those radio transmissions came from any of the specific airliners in question because such radio transmissions could have come from any airborne command and control platform flying in the region, OR from a radio transmitter on the ground near the radio antennae site. Then there is evidence that there were cell phone calls made from the various flights…and then there is considerable opposing evidence that no such cell phone calls could have been made from some of those flights. There is evidence that human piloting skills are NOT accurate enough to navigate AA11 and UA175 into the WTCs. And then there is evidence that navigation systems, navigation facilities and autopilot-flight management-flight director systems were exacting enough to navigate the airliners into the WTCs. There is no evidence [yet] that the airliners were being flown by remote control although such technology to do so has existed before 911.

Then there is some evidence presented that the speeds flown by AA11 and UA175 were too fast for those airliners…yet there is evidence and testimony that such speeds are possible without the aircraft breaking apart. Conclusion: Building “Friendly Fences” between these seemingly contradictory or “opposing” working hypothesis would BOTH: allow each avenue of research and analysis to continue without being attacked by those supporting other working hypothesis…and…that if any new information were to be developed by any researchers, this evidence most likely would become beneficial to other researchers looking at the flights and “Working Hypothesis” differently. Instead of contradicting, this evidence may end up being supportive of the “final story line” about The 911 Attacks War Game Scenario…which is what I call the HI PERPS’ 911 plan. “Friendly Fences” would thusly be more supportive than destructive in the scenarios depicted above or others.

The controversial flight of AA77 captained by Chic Burlingame [the Operation Northwoods “cooperative pilot” on 911...in my personal view], and the events at the Pentagon will continue to offer the greatest challenge in building such “Friendly Fences”…but its NOT because of all the differing “Working Hypotheses”. This challenge will sustain because so much of the evidence is still being withheld by the US Government and also because there is so little [but increasing] non-conflicting evidence that has been made available to/from the public. But most importantly, this challenge is because so much of this evidence has been “conveniently” inserted into the 911 Truth Movement by the HI PERPS when, where and how they have wanted to insert it.

The 911 Truth Movement is clearly in a defensive position regarding both: the flight of AA77, and the events at the Pentagon. So, building “Friendly Fences” regarding the AA77-Pentagon events will pay solid dividends in the future. Those who planned the event [s] and who DO KNOW what happened, are very concerned about US! The five basic positives in establishing “Friendly Fences”…

First: Establishing and maintaining “Friendly Fences” is the best disinfectant to COUNTER almost all of the cointelpro [cognitive infiltration?] ops affecting the 911Truth Movement. It would be a POSITIVE if Truthers could discipline themselves to avoid personal attacks, and thusly would look at each other’s evidence and “Working Hypotheses” as being potentially positive to their own “Working Hypothesis“. When this approach finally takes root, then we will all see that such destructive energy, and its effect, is coming from cointelpro ops.

Second: Establishing “Friendly Fences” within the 911 Truth Community would allow individuals and various research teams to offer their points of view, their evidence, and any of their “Working Hypothesis” to the public without fear of uncivil reactions from within the 911 Truth Community itself.

Third: With each avenue of investigation and analysis or “Working Hypothesis” being allowed to continue on its own tracks, merits or accomplishments, every other “Working Hypothesis” will eventually benefit from some of the new evidence uncovered, or conversely, would benefit because opposing “Working Hypothesis” may be so weak that it eliminates itself, thus strengthening their own more competent “Working Hypothesis”.

Fourth: In taking the position that the 911 Truth Community cannot yet make firm conclusions about what specifically happened on 911 BECAUSE the US Government is withholding evidence, the 911 Truth Community will now become aligned with, and share commonality with the public. 

The 911Truth will eventually be in better position to gain credibility with the public because the public’s distrust of their own government. This highly desirable and mutually supportive relationship will eventually come about because the majority of US citizens simply do not trust that the US Government has been telling them the truth about the many roles that the US Government has historically played in SO MANY of its nefarious activities. These suspicions will include the events of 911...even though many citizens are still not OPEN about the evidence we have at this time.

Fifth: Reinvigorating the Peace Communities: It is now clear to almost everyone both inside and outside of the USofA that the former Peace Communities have been both deeply compromised and infiltrated [self-admitted] and thusly are now eviscerated. Therefore, they are no longer viable entities towards their intended goals. Indeed, they are but a shadow of their former selves from back in the 1960s-1970s, and this can be seen by the fact that they are invisible while the USofA is conducting endless wars whenever they wish and wherever they want. I argue that the events of 911 are first and foremost, an un-peaceful action and that without the attacks on 911, there would be no wars. 

The 911 Truth Community is directly aware that the old Peace Communities have been directed from their leadership to dismiss, shun and avoid associations with the 911 Truth Movement. And I offer that this is the single most important cointelpro initiative that the HI PERPS had to accomplish! This because HAD the 911 Truth Community and the Peace Communities become aligned, then it would have become an uncontrollable force that would be beyond the management of the Pentagon and Intel Agencies.

Overall conclusions about the end results derived from: “Building Friendly Fences”……disabling and minimizing COINTELPRO operations……allowing more fair and open research without the fear of retribution or personal attack……that creating an environment in which more information can be shared and applied to other’s “Working Hypotheses”, this will eventually benefit the strongest positions regarding the many aspects of 911...…eventually, “Friendly Fences” will allow the general public to stand alongside the 911 Truth Community regarding the cover-ups…the lack of truth…and the flawed evidence being provided by the US Government……the Peace Communities will be REBUILT in our image as we DO deal within the “Informational Age“…These are five, very important and extremely worthy goals that will bemet by using the concept of “Building Friendly Fences” within the 911Truth Community in the next decade of research into the events of 911.

Robin Hordon
…long time political activist…
…author CI…Civil Informationing…modernizing public
activism…[non-confrontational]
…originator Puget Sound Peace Presence…
…pilot and former PATCO air traffic controller…
…surrogate government whistleblower…
…arrestee at Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Protests…
…and more…of course!

FAQ: Who was Responsible for the Controlled Demolition of the WTC Skyscrapers?

Written by AE911Truth Staff
Tuesday, 04 March 2014 21:02

World Trade Center demolitionArguably, no question surrounding 9/11 arouses more intense interest than this one. An investigation of 9/11 will certainly not be complete until we know who perpetrated the crimes and until they are brought to justice.

Crime scene investigators know that,

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err.” (Paul Kirk, Crime Investigation)

Gathering and studying the physical evidence, then, is the crucial first step. The fact that the crime scene was disturbed and that evidence was hastily removed and destroyed has created challenges for investigators. Fortunately, evidence such as eyewitness accounts of explosions, the discovery of nano-thermite in the debris, and photographic evidence of molten steel in the rubble, revealed the effects of controlled demolitions and disproved the official story that three WTC high-rises were brought down by office fires and jet plane crashes.

So who committed the crimes of 9/11? Does the evidence still point to al Qaeda as claimed in the official story? If not, then who would have had the means, motive, opportunity, and the capability to perpetrate the crime? Who would have access to high tech nanothermite? Who would have had access through security to plant the incendiaries and/or explosives? Who would have the capability to cover up the crime via destruction of evidence and the creation of falsified building reports? Who would have the capability to censor almost all of the corporate mainstream media to keep the truth from coming out? These are the questions that free-thinking journalists and criminal investigators should be asking and reporting on….. but are not.

Many in the 9/11 truth movement are convinced that 9/11 was a false flag operation, a manufactured event devised by a group within the U.S. government, with the goal of turning popular opinion against Muslims, who were to be held responsible for the destruction. The ultimate goal, many believe, was to enlist popular support for wars in Muslim countries, to enact legislation such as the Patriot Act and executive orders such as the National Defense Authorization Act in order to curtail civil liberties, and vastly increase the Defense budget. This group maintains that the events of 9/11 could only have been perpetrated by factions within the U.S. government and industry. They make arguments based on motive, access, and means to carry out the crime. Some study the written and oral history of U.S. covert operations and point to suspects within the U.S. government and business community who have had connections to covert operations over the past several decades. They look for a web of associations between and among these powerful elites. They may attempt to construct plausible scenarios to explain how the crime could have taken place and how it was carried out without detection or interference from our international and domestic security agencies.

Others believe it is highly unlikely that members of the U.S. government would have, or could have, been behind the killing of almost 3,000 innocent people, mostly U.S. citizens. They find it hard to believe that there are Americans who would do such things, and even if there were, how their actions could have escaped detection, since events of this complexity would have required a significant number of collaborators, any of whom might have spoken out or confessed. Noam Chomsky is among those holding this view.

AE911Truth does not research or speculate on these issues. We do not have a political agenda. Our mission is to educate professionals, the public, and those in media and government about the evidence – and to support the pursuit of justice. We do anticipate that any search for truth would ultimately uncover who planned and who carried out the crime committed against an entire country that day. A real investigation would be empowered to obtain sworn testimony and the release of evidence; it would offer immunity in exchange for such testimony;  it would examine all of the evidence and use the scientific method in pursuit of truth.

In the meantime, AE911 Truth concentrates on challenging the official story with scientific forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and video documentation. It offers in-depth reports and the opinion of its experts concerning the pursuit of justice. AE911 Truth also pursues legal action against agencies such as NIST in order to hold them accountable and to create momentum toward a real investigation of 9/11.

Articles Written for AE911Truth.org by Debunking the Debunkers Blog Contributors:

• ALERT: US State Department Cannot Afford Professional Advice on WTC Destruction
• Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality
• FAQ # 2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?
• FAQ #4-Sounds of Explosions?
• FAQ #6: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?
• FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?

Want a new WTC 7 investigation? I do.

Dear Friend,

My name is Bob McIlvaine. My son, Bobby, was murdered on 9/11 along with nearly 3,000 other innocent people.

I am writing you today as a member of NYC CAN and friend of AE911Truth to ask for your support of the High-Rise Safety Initiative - a ballot initiative we are sponsoring that will require the City of New York to launch a new investigation into the destruction of WTC 7.

To put this measure on the ballot, we need to gather 110,000 signatures, and to fund our petition drive we must raise $250,000 by June 1st.

This strategy is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is promising, and one we must try.

Our petition drive can only go forward if 3,000 people come together to support the campaign. So far nearly 600 people have donated.

Will you help us reach 3,000? Please go to HighRiseSafetyNYC.org to contribute.



We are counting on you.

Sincerely,

Bob McIlvaine

Why Do People Believe Stupid Things? - BFP Roundtable #04

From the official story of 9/11 to the drug war narrative to Omidyar's hope and change, people allow themselves to believe the most transparent lies and propaganda. But why? On this edition of the BFP roundtable, James Corbett, Guillermo Jimenez and Sibel Edmonds ask (and attempt to answer) the question of why people believe stupid things.



_______________________________________________

A really great discussion dealing with the issue of independently using logic and referring to hard evidence in the face of official (or mainstream) rhetoric.

The problem is that the majority of people assume most of the things they know via a 'consensus', or authority-derived, view rather than really understanding (ie working out for themselves) where their information comes from. Even highly intelligent people are as much trapped in the psychological world of mainstream opinion as everyone else. The clip also mentions the fact that there are professional faux-independent authority-figure liars out there that help hoodwink the public.**

In this situation obvious evidence can be overlooked or blithely dismissed by people to favour an existing world view, even washing over basic common sense principles. More often than not many  do not have enough spare time, or drive, to really discover the truth behind contested matters - which is compounded by a lack of imagination in realising the importance of finding the real facts when it comes to critical issues.

And although there can be varying levels of 'accepted wisdom', depending upon your level of education, intellectual aptitude or life-based experience, there is still the problem of people falling into a ridged world view that only reluctantly accepts new ideas - more often rejecting new information, even if backed by strong evidence, in favour of what they already 'know'.

Furthermore, critical thinking is unpopular. There are many examples in history where the few who have pointed to the problems faced by society were rejected only to be lauded years later as being 'ahead of their time'.

It is because people do not think too deeply, being only concerned with their immediate surroundings and not wanting to rock the social boat, that criminals in positions of power can get away with all manner of poorly executed deceptions. In the end most people cannot fathom what is happening in the wider world and are at a loss when the consequences come home to impact them - like banker caused financial crises and unnecessary wars for geopolitical advantage.

Watching videos such as the one above will help provide you with vital information, allowing you to be more self aware and more discerning, so that you will not become an unaware victim of heinous trickery. It helps to have an open minded curiosity with enough imagination to recognise independent thoughts or ideas. Share this clip with your friends!

**This is one of many good points raised in the clip - the fact that some, or perhaps many, allegedly independent defenders of the consensus, or authority-derived view, notably those who are part of 'Skeptics' organisations, like Michael Shermer (mentioned in the clip), are seemingly professional liars. Some people have a hard time contemplating this fact - that the level of deliberate lying to the public is more sophisticated than they have imagined.

A reminder that Boiling Frogs Post is having a fund raiser. Donate what you can !

Dave Thomas Pulls Iron Spheres Out Of His Hat

Originally posted September 9. 2013
Updated March 4. 2014

Part 1. Apparently, Mr. Thomas has read part two of our essay, including the concise debunking of his steel wool YouTube video which was supposed to debunk Dr. Harrit´s claim that conventional combustion has never been observed to leave behind the molten iron-rich spheres produced via a thermite reaction. Mr. Thomas failed to notice his multiple gross experimental errors and the fact that he did not yield the desired iron-rich spheres: Mr. Thomas failed to understand the difference between "iron rich" spheres and the iron-oxide spheres obtained via conventional combustion (such as cenospheres) even though we have tried for years to make Thomas et al. understand - see this example.

But Mr. Thomas does not stop at incompetence, for on his own website, he flirts with fraud and tries to make it look as if R.J. Lee agrees that getting iron spheres from a normal fire is to be expected. Mr. Thomas may not understand that R.J. Lee refers to a hypothetical scenario involving hurricane winds turning the Twin Towers into high-temperature blast furnaces, which would of course leave behind iron-oxide spheres (such as cenospheres) as R.J Lee himself notes in the letter that Mr. Thomas refers to.

In response to our debunking of his prior experiment, Mr. Thomas has posted another youtube video where he claims to have gotten iron spheres via conventional combustion. Again he has invalid data due to his incompetence - that he cannot even dream about getting reviewed and published - and he knows it, as can be gleaned from the comment section by the video. Let´s start with his premise of having countered the announcement in the second part of our essay that, "Even some of the most ardent supporters of the paint-hypothesis have admitted that no-one has ever documented examples of paints leaving behind those molten spheres." The original premise of the new video is triumphantly answering back "UNTIL NOW", but Mr. Thomas had to add a disclaimer, having received some enlightening comments:

 OK, I annotated the video to say "It would be more correct to say that no one has documented examples of burning painted steel beams and leaving behind those spheres...UNTIL NOW."

As we shall see, Mr. Thomas cannot establish whether or not the fire actually formed any new spheres at all, and his experiment is unpublishable for this reason. Most likely the spheres are filler material from the paint or external contamination. Note that we are at this point trusting Mr. Thomas for his conclusion that his two spheres are in fact solid "iron rich" spheres, not hollow cenospheres, even though this trust is unwarranted.

Part 2. My informal correspondence with Mr. Thomas on his YouTube channel speaks for itself. Editing, underlining and bolding of YouTube-comments done by author for this article:

Zugam: Results that cannot be replicated by others and published are pseudoscience. Pretty much as kawika7777 says, repeat with a clean piece in lab conditions to eliminate plentiful possible contributors of irons sphere contamination, and prove that the paint FORMS the spheres as you claim. Then publish your data if you still stand by your claim

Thomas: ..there was never any direct contact between the steel beam and the burn barrel itself. I scraped some paint from the bea[m] for examination, choosing a spot that had no ash smudges from the wood.

Zugam: No contact does not mean no contamination, as you should have figured out when you had to scrape a spot with no ash smudges. You also have to eliminate possibility of spheres as filler material in the paint. Getting iron spheres from [lead-chromate] paint is quite the trick! You actually think you got liquid molten iron which requires about 1500 degrees while not getting any molten led-chrom which requires only 850?

Thomas: ...paint DOES have other constituents, including iron, and the beam itself has lots of iron.

Zugam: "Paint" has iron? Paint in general? Your own XEDS for your paint, that is the pre-burn XEDS, does not show any iron, only led-chro.

Thomas: I've added some more SEM and EDX scans to the JREF post (see the link in About), page 2, post #65. These show very plainly that some components of the unburned paint samples most definitely have iron

Zugam: OH so u withheld data? What else u not telling us? Some components of the paint have fe, or the beams, or contamination? Maybe if someone were to take a better look, sphere contamination would be also found in your data? If you think your result can be replicated/confirmed in a lab with CLEAN samples, TRY to publish data, or lets call it pseudoscience. Now cue your excuse for not publishing.

No direct response to above post, but Mr Thomas posts new comment:
I must say it appears the Truthers are actually quite concerned that this work demolishes their revered Dr. Harrit, and are over-reacting to preserve his image at any cost.

Zugam: I was wondering what u would do to avoid talking about doing a valid experiment in a lab and publishing results - Nice distraction Dave, I guess u do what you have to, to try to preserve your image, since you can´t publish your fraudulent data. It is a pity youtube does not have a journal.

Mr. Thomas has moved the goal-post in response to his failure, but his attempt at twisting Harrit´s remark about the difference between conventional combustion and a thermite reaction into a claim that only thermite creates molten iron is transparent and absurd:

 Thomas: Now that I have the attention of aneta.org obfuscants like Ziggi, "Hello!" Don't you agree that this video shows Dr. Harrit's assertion above is simply wrong? If you don't agree, please state how and where you think I smuggled in the Thermite, and how I ignited it. :)

Zugam: Harrit is absolutely right, only thermite burn forms reduced iron. U should know by now after your stupid "steel wool" video, if you burn metal conventionally u end up with an oxide. It is of course possible to get molten and reduced iron by other ways than thermite, but that means specialized smelters and very special conditions. I should not have to spoon feed you this info since this is all laid out in the same chapter of our article that you quote. Your 2 spheres are ext. contamination

In sum, the three most likely sources for Mr. Thomas´s spheres are:

1. The spheres are already present as filler material in the paint.
2. Dave (accidentally?) made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel.
3. He carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before he lit the fire. 

Part 3. At the beginning of this article I mention that Mr. Thomas made his new YouTube video in response to the essay where I and Mr. Talboo cover the Harrit vs Millette debate. We end that essay by repeating  Steven Jones´ 2009 public challenge to people like Mr. Thomas: publish your rebuttal in a reviewed journal if you expect us to take you seriously.

Readers should note that the demand for testing in a clean lab environment is especially prudent given how Mr. Thomas and his JREF friends totally ignored the spherical evidence when truthers brought it to the table, on the grounds that the spheres were such a common contaminant in an urban environment. The fact that Mr. Thomas backs away from challenges to move on from YouTube videos to a reviewed journal is especially sad given how his JREF buddies used to ridicule YouTube science.

As we have seen, Mr. Thomas cannot deliver a reviewed paper because he has no evidence that the barrel-fire formed any new spheres, let alone that the paint formed any spheres. I have of course notified Rev. Chris Mohr, the leader of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, that Mr. Thomas is aware of the fact that his data is invalid and unpublishable. The question remains whether or not Rev. Mohr will pretend to NOT know it in yet another YouTube video?

By the way, a real scientist has tested paints in lab conditions, and so far no samples have ignited and left behind molten spheres of any kind. Mark Basile has also confirmed that the red layer of the active thermitic red/gray chips studied by Harrit et al. contains Fe2O3 and aluminum, ignites at about 430°(C) and leaves behind molten iron spheres with aluminum-oxide. Can anyone replicate that with paint?


Donate to help Mark Basile finish his work at: http://markbasile.org

AE911Truth to Present WTC Evidence in 17-Stop ReThink911 Canada Tour March 13 to April 1, 2014

http://rethink911.org/news/ae911truth-to-present-wtc-evidence-in-17-stop-rethink911-canada-tour-march-13-to-april-1-2014/