Wednesday, December 31, 7000

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 that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.
[The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

So again, these fine patriots are just dandy with controlled demolition being ruled out by skipping key forensic tests. And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense, that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fight fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the Loose Change films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, 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 have 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. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


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.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Wayne Coste - CT AE 9/11 Truth - Why 13 Years Later We're Still Asking Questions

Published on Apr 16, 2014
WeAreChangeCT met up with Engineer, Wayne Coste, a CT local from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Steve asked Wayne about where he was on 9/11, and why almost 13 years later is 9/11 still a relevant topic to focus upon.

To find out more about AE for 9/11 Truth check out their website:

Video/Edit/Interview: Steve Boutelle

Follow We Are Change CT on Twitter:
WeAreChangeCT @
Steve @
Jeff @

Check out our Website:
Subscribe & Support:
LIKE us on Facebook:


9/11 Free Fall 6/22/12 (Wayne Coste Interview)

9/11 Free Fall 4/3/14: Debunking WTC "No Planer" Theories-- Disinformation vs. Scientific Evidence

Published on Apr 18, 2014

John-Michael Talboo joins Andy Steele to discuss disinformation, particularly the notion put out by a minority on the Internet that no airplanes hit the Twin Towers, and explains why logic and the facts don't support this claim. They also share their own opinions on whether they believe this theory has been put out intentionally to distract newcomers to the issue and discredit the 9/11 Truth movement, and go over the actual evidence for controlled demolition that activists should be focusing on.

Monday, April 21, 2014

Steel-Wool Iron Spheres Debunked Again: Shame on NMSR´s Dave Thomas

Mr. Dave Thomas announced on the JREF 9/11 forum, on the 19th of October, 2011, that he had posted a YouTube video called Iron microspheres prove Thermite? Despite some controversy, Mr. Thomas still advertizes the video on his NMSR webpage, where he states that:
"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." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!"
The "thermodynamic size effect" does not apply to any materials at the WTC in 2001 because nano-sized iron was not yet commercially available small enough to benefit from the phenomenon. The video does not demonstrate it either because no melting is involved and no spheres are formed. Dave Thomas seems to believe that he has debunked the best evidence in Dr. Harrit´s 2009 nanothermite paper: the peculiar red/gray chips ignite at about 420C, and form the iron-rich spheres that several researchers discovered in the WTC dust. The spherical shape indicates previously melted iron and therefore a reaction temperature above 1400C, which is beyond the capability of conventional combustion in open air, including a jet-fueled building fire. Specialized high temperature coal furnaces can create spheres rich in iron-oxides, but the red/gray chips form spheres rich in elemental iron, and that is the hallmark of a thermite reaction.

Dave Thomas claims his YouTube experiment proves that normal fire temperatures easily form iron spheres, but this statement has three major problems: The first two problems are that the alleged "iron spheres" from his steel-wool experiment are neither iron nor spheres. The third problem is that Dave Thomas has known that his experiment is invalid since the day after the debut of the video, because his JREF forum colleague debunked it on the forum that day!

Part 1: Oystein confronted Dave Thomas on the JREF forum, the day after the initial release of the video, and debunked it from several different angles. Most notably, Oystein recognized that burning steel-wool nets iron-oxide, not iron:
  "At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what?"
In response, Dave Thomas retracted the video the same day, and Oystein boasted to Miragememories that "...the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes" And MM replied, "Nice to know Dave has some integrity." 

But Oystein was too quick to assume that the JREF forum could live up to the standard of true skeptics, and MM was too quick to congratulate Dave for having integrity, because Dave Thomas re-posted the same old video again a couple of weeks later, without retracting any claims:

None of Dave´s fellow "debunkers" on the JREF forum had a problem with that, and in 2014, Dave and friends continue to advertize the video and pretend to know nothing about the controversy. And that says all there is to say about the faithful pseudo-skeptics of the JREF forum:

Part 2: Someone noted another problem in January 2012, on the same thread that originally introduced Dave´s YouTube video. Steen Svanholm had performed the steel-wool experiment on Danish TV and received a response from Dr. Harrit, who stated that: "The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round."

By this time, Oystein had decided to toe the line and obfuscate his previous observation of iron-oxide in the alleged "spheres," and Harrit´s observation about non-spheres was simply left unaddressed by Oystein and all the others:

Harrit´s comment on the so-called "spheres" not really being spheres intrigued me, so I did some research and found a paper that explains everything: The steel-wool itself does burn without flames, but there is no melted metal involved and therefore no actual spheres. Localized internal contaminants burn within the steel-wool wire and form gas which inflates the heat-softened wire. The result is a hollow semi-spherical product that is usually confined to the wire, or burdened with left-over horns from the wire if expelled. Dave Thomas´s original JREF post that announced the completion of the experiment has a photo of one of his horned, semi-spherical, iron-oxide "faux-spheres":

Part 3: Dave Thomas happens to be the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, and NMSR states that the group,
"consists of individuals, including scientists and non-professionals alike, who share the goals of promoting genuine science, the scientific method, and rational and critical thinking....We are skeptical, however, of those groups who misuse and misrepresent science. We oppose the use of fabrication, flawed logic, distortion of facts, and pseudoscientific propaganda by any and all groups who twist science to suit their own ends..."
Yet, the president´s YouTube pseudo-science is the depiction of this kind of distortion of facts to suit an agenda. Dave´s re-posting of an experiment that has been falsified by his own colleague on his own forum is inexcusable. And a forum of proper skeptics would not tolerate this behavior, but nothing has changed since Dr. Greening gave up and left the JREF 9/11 forum in 2007, denouncing it for "smothering scientific debate". This kind of misconduct is currently known as pseudo-skepticism, and interestingly enough, it was none other than Marcello Truzzi who revived the term to describe these kinds of tactics. Truzzi was a founding member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which is currently called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. CSI is known as the original forum of skeptics, the forerunner of JREF, and the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer. Truzzi actually left CSI early on because he felt the members "tend to block honest inquiry" and "move the goal-posts" - echoing Dr. Greenings comments about the "debunkers" at the JREF 9/11 forum. Dave Thomas happens to be a member of CSI, but he is also a teacher of physics and critical thinking at New Mexico Tech, which is a much more serious matter! The misrepresentation of data is a form of scientific misconduct in the academic world, and this can have dire consequences!

Related articles:

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Debunking JREF´s Myriad and the Ferrihydrite Hypothesis for Iron Spheres

The JREF 9/11 forum is in a bit of a crisis these days, as the old excuses for the iron spheres found in the WTC dust have become increasingly transparent and ineffective as the years have gone by.  Myriad, one of the moderators of JREF´s 9/11 forum, put one such excuse on display on the 4th of October, 2010, in post #28 on the thread "iron rich spheres" - scientific explanation? Myriad´s "ferrihydrite hypothesis" states that (edited):
"... Wood, like all plant tissue, contains ferritins, iron-bearing protein complexes...It is also well established that wood fires leave behind ferromagnetic traces...The steps in between, addressing the questions of the physical and chemical forms of the ferromagnetic residues and how they form in wood fires, do not appear to have been formally studied. I hypothesize that the ferrihydrate in wood, liberated when the proteins burn, condenses exothermically into iron-rich droplets in the hot reducing environment of the flame...The process is the condensation of already separate iron macromolecules into larger droplets."
Myriad found some "iron-rich droplets" in the wood-ash, and assumes that the fire created them, despite the long standing forum consensus, even on the same thread, that iron-rich spheres are pervasive contaminants in our environment. He assumes that the iron source is the ferrihydrite from protein-complexes in the wood, which naturally occurs in spherical shapes on the nano-scale. According to Myriad´s hypothesis, the fire reduces the ferrihydrite and simultaneously "condenses" it into larger droplets - no melting required. 

Upon closer inspection of the text, the problems start to pile up:

1) The "physical form" of ferrihydrite ash residue has not been "formally studied" so the phenomenon of spherically shaped ferromagnetic residue is not formally recognized: There is no evidence that wood-burning produces spheres of any iron-bearing compound. The scientific method would dictate looking for another explanation for any observed spheres in the ash - such as external contamination - but following such a standard would negate the purpose of the JREF 9/11 forum.

2) Since the spherical phenomenon does not appear to have been recognized and studied, the hypothetical formation process has obviously not been formally studied. Myriad does not and cannot offer any description of the hypothetical "condensation" process, making it an empty phrase, so the hypothesis is quite literally nonsense.

That is the end of Myriad´s hypothesis, but for the sake of argument, let´s continue the story:

Myriad´s hypothesis is supposed to scientifically explain the "iron rich" spheres that several researchers discovered in the WTC dust. The remarkable thing about these spheres, besides the sheer abundance, is the elemental iron content, which distinguishes them from the known spherical metal contaminants in urban environments: iron-oxide fly ash spheres.

3) Even if we pretend that Myriad´s mythical condensation process is real, does it create elemental iron spheres, according to its maker? Myriad gives the answer in post #35 as "generally no" -  the only thing he can safely assume is that the ferrihydrite will transform into hematite.

The spheres would contain iron-oxide like fly ash spheres, not iron, so the hypothesis is a verbose waste of time. But again, let´s continue for the sake of argument:

4) Myriad does offer the preposterous speculation in post # 28 that "the hot reducing environment of the flame" could reduce iron-oxide. The flame burns/oxidizes materials, but the reduction agent in carbon reduction is the carbon monoxide gas (black smoke) from an oxygen starved smoldering fire. Myriad does recognize this fact in post #35 and suggests a structural fire would be likely to produce the environment for reduction to elemental iron. The problem is that Myriad omits the fact that carbon-monoxide gas is only half the requirement; the other condition is a temperature of about 1250C, which is about 200C above the maximum obtainable in a building fire, and about double the temperature of an oxygen starved building fire.

And that really is the end of Myriad´s ferrihydrite hypothesis, which is a unique display of verbose circular reasoning where all of the premises and the conclusion are false. But Myriad´s story continues, so let´s take a peek for the sake of amusement. Again, post #28:
"[The ferrihydrite hypothesis ] would also explain where the iron-rich microspheres in coal ash (fly ash) come from. (And I believe some explanation of that is needed, since unburned coal does not contain iron spheres and coal is not burned at temperatures at or above the melting point of bulk iron.)"
The US Geological Survey confirms that coals primarily have iron sulfides and oxides, so the ferrihydrite premise is invalid. And although some furnaces may burn at temperatures below the MP of iron, those that produce fly ash spheres with melted iron-oxides do so at temperatures at or above the MP, typically in the 1400C to 1800C range - see here, here and here. And of course, fly ash spheres are not rich in iron, but they can be rich in iron-oxides

Myriad, on April 1, 2014, repeats the ferrihydrite hypothesis:
His forum friend, Chris Mohr, debunks it the same day: ...but no response from Myriad.

It can be sad and amusing to observe how far certain people will go to defend a strongly held belief, which in this case is the belief that one should expect to see iron spheres formed in a fire. It will be interesting to see if the JREF forum will treasure the ferrihydrite fallacy for another four years. 

Friday, April 18, 2014

Announcement by Scientists for 9/11 Trut


There is a new Home page article on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website at  The article, “Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7 Theory,” describes the recent research and activity concerning NIST’s theory of WTC7 by engineers and others affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,  This research recently led noted attorney William F. Pepper to write a letter to Todd J. Zinser, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Commerce to seek resolution.

In addition on the Home page are two new letters on the Pentagon:  "Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate" by Frank Legge, and a "Letter to Massimo Mazzucco" by David Chandler, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham. Also, the Papers section on the Scientists’ website has been augmented with several recent papers on the Pentagon.


John D. Wyndham
Coordinator forAnnouncement:

There is a new Home page article on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website at  The article, “Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7 Theory,” describes the recent research and activity concerning NIST’s theory of WTC7 by engineers and others affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,  This research recently led noted attorney William F. Pepper to write a letter to Todd J. Zinser, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Commerce to seek resolution.

In addition on the Home page are two new letters on the Pentagon:  "Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate" by Frank Legge, and a "Letter to Massimo Mazzucco" by David Chandler, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham. Also, the Papers section on the Scientists’ website has been augmented with several recent papers on the Pentagon.


John D. Wyndham
Coordinator for Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Michael C. Ruppert Suicide Note Released

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Michael C. Ruppert Found Dead from Self-inflicted Gunshot Wound - 1951-2014

Adam Taylor has relayed that "activist, patriot, and seeker of truth," Michael C. Ruppert has been found dead.

As reported by Carolyn Baker:
IN MEMORIAM MICHAEL C. RUPPERT, February 3, 1951--April 13, 2014

Sunday night following Mike's Lifeboat Hour radio show, he was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This was not a "fake" suicide. It was very well planned by Mike who gave us few clues but elaborate instructions for how to proceed without him. His wishes were to be cremated, and as of this moment, there are no plans for a memorial service. However, I will be taking his show this coming Sunday night, April 20, and the entire show will be an In Memoriam show for Mike with opportunities for listeners to call in.

It was my privilege to have known Mike for 14 years, to have worked with him, to have been mentored by him, and to have supported him in some of his darkest hours, including the more recent ones. I am posting this announcement with the blessing of his partner Jesse Re and his landlord, Jack Martin.
Thank you Mike for all of the truth you courageously exposed and for the legacy of truth-telling you left us. Goodbye my friend. Your memory will live in hour hearts forever.

I have no more details to share than I am posting here. We should have much more information by Sunday night.
 He will be missed. Thanks for all the hard work at making the world a better place, Michael.

[And just for the record, I will never let things get me down so much, to get to the point where suicide is an option, but the stuff we as activists go through it is hard, as Jon Gold summed up so well in this comment.]

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Robin Hordon: Chris Hedges is a "Truther"...hidden eloquently...!

Click to Enlarge

To my cohorts [sp] on my email list...aka...those of import to the cause of 9/11 TRUTH..

Check this video out...

...and specifically for two amazing comrades...

To a sturdy and worthy and under supported fellow...Ken Jenkins...I say...Hedges has finally admitted that he is a TRUTHER!

[listen closely]...

To a Canadian academic of profound import and another WONDERFUL fellow...Graeme MacQueen...I croon...

"Where have you gone Mrs. Robinson..."

...or more connectivity...

"Where have you gone Graeme MacQueen..." [ Perhaps Adnan Zuberi offers a hint...]

Much more broadly...

We are making such significant progress RIGHT NOW!

...its mostly that we do not see this because us grayhairs are looking for some "1960's type" of approvals...WHILE...sitting behind our keyboards...and NOT connecting with the public-PERSONALLY! MY streets I get 100-200 POSITIVE responses for EVERY...ONE..."middle finger...go back to Canada...get a job hippie" comment...

...its AWESOME...and they are the BEST days of my weeks!!!

...and most of you do not KNOW about "the numbers above"...

...because you are NOT out on street corners calmly supporting the beliefs that you consider important to YOU!

Most in the 9/11 Truth Communities have NOT quit in their research and beliefs...but most have certainly quit "publicly"...

Lets resurrect the "11th of Every Month"...but through 911Consensus.

Present one solid issue every anniversary month...12 months...12 issues that came about IN those months...repeat annually or ADD to the message every year! We HAVE THE INFO!!!

comos is gone...we are NOT!

SD ROCKS because they are DOIN THIS!

Regarding Hedges, I actually suspect that he may be working on the wrong side himself and I have been keeping a "fair eye and ear" on his work RE 9/11 for years. I place him with Chomsky, Zinn and others in that he adopts a "payback" or the "Muslims Did It" POV...but he IS Christian and he appears to be wobbling towards the Truth more and more. In much of his other reporting he admits and challenges the USofA's "Deep State" [my words] of conducting massive atrocities all around the world...and doing so at the Deep State's whim...or...for profiteering-commercial-geopolitical-full spectrum dominance goals...and of course, on behalf of Israel.

So, Hedges has been very, very careful to MAKE CLEAR the space between himself and what we have put out there as 9/11 Truth...but in this instance he uses Jeremiah Wright's words to expose just a bit more movement towards 9/11 TRUTH...IMO!

This is a FANTASTIC SPEECH given at Northeastern University in Boston, MA [my old stomping grounds] to expose Israel's background-underground-ongoing work at stopping discussions on college campuses which expose Israel's "Apartheid" towards Palestinians. There are two other EXCELLENT speakers just ahead of him...its a FAB video.

I'm not a word smith and perhaps I'm not interpreting his words 100% correctly...but he nudges closer through quoting Wright's words as follows:

"...My friend Jeremiah Wright is not afraid to speak the truth...we bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked more than the thousands killed in New York and at the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...we have supported state terrorism..."

This is as close as I have EVER heard Hedges get to disrobing his original stance denying 9/11 Truth. And as I stated in my opening remarks...Hedges has been very "clever" in his choice of words to keep clear distance between his public persona regarding 9/11 Truth and what I see as him shifting towards us.

He closes his speech by calling out all the soldiers and other Israelis who order or support the "ethnic cleansing" as whom they are:


peace, love and progress...
robin hordon
Kingston, WA
"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.