Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W.

Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issuesconcerning 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.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Mohr Non-Sense: Chris Mohr debunks Millette Kaolin Result

A reader sent an email with some questions about the latest gossip going around on the JREF 9/11 forum, including one about a particularly hilarious comment from one Rev. Chris Mohr, the commissioner of Dr. Millette´s now-defunct study of Dr. Harrit´s nano-thermite paper, where he inadvertently debunks Millette´s preliminary report in his over-zealousness to debunk Harrit et al.

On July 20, 2014, Chris Mohr stated that:
"Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was." Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released. Steven Jones then went on to do a THIRD test, as he wrote here: “After our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.”

So you see Beachnut, Jones/Harrit/Ryan/Farrer did the tests all right, they just didn't like the results and never published them! Gotta stay accurate about these things ya know..."
Part One: The XRD could not conclude if the aluminum is elemental or in a compound like kaolin.

The XRD testing is about establishing the EXACT form of the aluminum seen in the XEDS graphs in Harrit et al. The MEK test reveals indirectly that the aluminum is in elemental form, as figure 17 shows there is no other element present for bonding the aluminum in a compound.

But Dr. Jones apparently tried to confirm this finding with more sophisticated XRD analysis which can potentially allow the DIRECT identification of the structure and form of crystalline materials. The XRD records the pattern of your material and compares it to a database and matches it to a known material, if it is on file, sort of like a fingerprint can be matched to a known print on file. If you think there is aluminum-oxide present, the XRD can confirm it and tell you exactly what form of an oxide you have, and if you think you have kaolin it can confirm that.

BUT in this case the XRD was not able to match the pattern to ANY KNOWN form of aluminum. This does not mean the aluminum signals observed by the XEDS are not there as Rev. Mohr seems to think. Of course not. The XRD result is in other words INCONCLUSIVE since it cannot answer the question whether or not the aluminum in the chips is in elemental form or bound in a compound (such as kaolin)...there was no identification of any material and hence no conclusion. The XRD does not rule out elemental aluminum or aluminum compounds; it simply could not identify the form/structure of the aluminum.

Part Two: No aluminum-bearing compound = no kaolin = Millette debunked!

Chris Mohr has managed to not only misinterpret data he does not understand to support his faith, but also accuse Harrit et al of hiding the data to protect their conclusion. The funny and sad thing is that Rev. Mohr does not understand that IF he wants to continue to interpret the XRD data as some sort of an ultimate debunking of Harrit´s aluminum data, he will also debunk Millette´s preliminary report which says the aluminum is in the aluminum-bearing compound known as kaolin. That´s right, the XRD detected "no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound"...NO ALUMINUM COMPOUND = NO KAOLIN!

Reverend Mohr may have made an honest mistake but he had already been warned about this little predicament via email correspondence some time ago.

The evidence for Harrit´s aluminum is covered in this recent article, which is basically one chapter of an extensive essay covering the Harrit-Millette debate: It covers that quote by Dr. Jones and Rev. Mohr had of course read this essay.

Part Three: But what does that XRD result really mean?

Rev. Mohr refers to a comment that Dr. Jones made on 911blogger, but Mohr omits other comments which are needed for context:
"Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example"
 And Jones clarifies what is meant by "no aluminum found in a form recognized by this method" in a comment:
"The reference here speaks of amorphous aluminum alloys; I have found that even the existence of this amorphous form relating to aluminum is surprising to some scientists who somehow had not heard of it."
And then comes the comment that Rev. Mohr cites, but he has taken it hopelessly out of context by omitting the discussion that leads up to it. This comment actually means that the XRD just like the TEM did not recognize this form of aluminum:
"I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments."

Again, this does not mean there is no aluminum there; it simply means the XRD could not recognize the form of aluminum, and therefore it could not say whether it is elemental aluminum or a compound. It could perhaps be argued that the samples are too small to work with, but it would not make sense that the XRD could not "read" or  identify something as mundane and common as kaolin, since that is commonly done:

It makes much more sense that the hard-to-identify aluminum is something a little bit more exotic, for example a synthetic nano-material for thermite. Dr. Jones pointed out that the aluminum might be in an amorphous form, which means it lacks an ordered crystalline structure. This is because the XRD is mainly a technique to detect crystalline materials, but if the sample is amorphous or coated in hue of amorphous film, the XRD may not work:

Part Four: the FTIR

Rev. Mohr also states that, "Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released."

We already know from the comments by Dr. Jones discussed above that the TEM results were inconclusive just like the XRD, meaning they could neither support nor refute direct and conclusive identification of elemental aluminum. And Chris Mohr knew this before he posted that comment because I discussed the XRD issue with him via email. Chris Mohr also knows that Kevin Ryan has shown his FTIR results in public and that we have discussed them in several articles, including:

Chris Mohr also knows about this data because I discussed it with him and his fellow JREFer Ivan Kminek via email, and they even discussed the FTIR on their beloved JREF forum:
Chris Mohr also knows that Ryan´s FTIR data does not match Millette´s FTIR data, and that we have argued that this means Millette did not study the correct chips (same chips as Harrit et al). This would explain why Millette did not get the same results as Harrit et al when he soaked his chips in MEK solvent, and also why Dr. Jones´s XRD test did not detect kaolin: If Millette is right about finding kaolin in his chips, and if Harrit et al are testing the same chips, then the XRD should have easily identified the kaolin.

It is patently ridiculous that Rev. Mohr is trying to pretend that he does not know about Ryan´s FTIR data and what it implies.

Reverend Mohr probably also known that Kevin Ryan himself showed and discussed his FTIR data in an article that has been published by GlobalResearch ( and the Foreign Policy Journal ( And just like us, Kevin Ryan notes Millette´s FTIR data and that his own FTIR testing concluded "with a much different result."

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Mohr Non-Sense: Adiabatic Flame Temperature

Every now and then I get an email about the latest non-sense that is being passed around on certain forums where the so-called "debunkers" get together to talk trash. These days, this sort of forum chit-chat has become so obviously sad and wrong that people don´t bother mentioning it most of the time, but sometimes the BS is covered with enough sophistry to hide the worst of the stench.

For example, Rev. Chris Mohr posted a comment on the JREF forum on July 11, 2014, where he actually cites authentic scientific papers! He does believe they back-up his faith in the fairy-tale that says office fires melted rust-flakes in the Twin-Towers on 9/11, and formed iron-rich spheres.

Part One: Macroscale temperature vs the microscale.

 Rev. Mohr has up until now refused to accept the concept of the "melting-point" and refused to believe that metals (iron for example) do not melt until they reach the designated temperature point at which they begin to melt. This concept has messed with his faith because the melting-point of iron is around 1500C, while the maximum temperature of a building fire is about 1000C, and the realistic temperature to be expected is less than 650C, which means an office fire cannot melt iron.

Rev. Mohr has finally implicitly admitted that the "melting-point" of a metal means exactly what you would expect it to, but he has managed to use his imagination to find a way around it:
"...a typical office fire might burn at, say, 1100-1800F bulk temperature. But, the adiabatic flame temperature, the theoretical upper limit of burning materials starting at room temperature, is much higher. For hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. If you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in these published papers (below), observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron."
He essentially claims that although the temperature of the "bulk" of a fire might be less than 1000C, you can find microscopic spots at double that temperature, if you have equipment sophisticated enough to detect those spots. You might want to ask how microscopic those spots are and for how long they remain so hot, but you would get no answers because the cited papers in support of this phenomenon do not actually feature, describe, or mention it at all, and are therefore utterly irrelevant (more on that below). Rev. Mohr may not be intentionally lying; he just does not understand technical papers or know what he is talking about.

The other problem with this theory is that even if true, it would have no relevance to the "real world" or the potential of an office fire to melt iron or rust flakes. If you research things on a small enough scale, you can start to feel like Alice in Wonderland, but careless researchers can really humiliate themselves by making silly assumptions based on the nano-world.

Part Two: You may be wondering what Rev. Mohr´s cited papers actually talk about? 

Before we go into that, let´s quickly review the topic at hand: the adiabatic temperature of a carbon-fueled fire vs the actual temperature of an open-air fire, as explained by Dr. Thomas Eagar in 2001.

The adiabatic (the theoretical maximum) temperature from a carbon fuel (like jet fuel) is about 3000C, but that requires the fuel to be premixed to contain pure oxygen in the perfect ratio. Normal fires, however, rely on the same external air supply that we breathe, not pure oxygen mixed into the fuel, so the actual maximum temperature of an open-air fire is about 1000C, even with jet-fuel. In-between those two extremes, there are jet-engines and various other burner/furnace/torch designs that involve multiplying the supply of air with turbines etc, or adding a stream of pure oxygen. Using various techniques, blast-furnaces, burners, jet-engines, and torches can achieve temperatures way above 1500C, and torches with premixed pure oxygen can achieve over 2500C. This is old news, but normal fires in open air are still limited to the 1000C, and the only thing any researcher has to remember is to not confuse open-air fires with jet-burners and torches etc.

You can probably guess now what mistake Rev. Chris Mohr made? His first source is a paper on "piloted methane-air jet flames stabilized on a burner" which is basically a pressurized gas burner that yields a blue-hot flame. This burner also happens to be a hybrid design that burns air and the fuel is also partially pre-mixed with oxygen: the jet fluid is 3/4 air for "a more robust flame." Again, this is a known technique to increase the temperature, and one should not confuse gas-burners and torches with open-air flames.

Rev. Mohr goes on to say that "You can also use as a reference showing temperatures in the vicinity of 2000C a paper out of Purdue" and this is another paper on a gas burner. This burner can indeed achieve close to 2000C at the optimal distance from the nozzle, and even close to 2500C when run on pure oxygen.

- Note that these are the actual temperatures of the "bulk" of the flames at the optimal distances from the jets or the nozzles, not some microscopic points in the flame - these burners really are this hot. This is impressive, but again utterly irrelevant to a normal open-air fire, which is still limited to about 1000C.

Part Three: Flatulence along with the stinker.

Mohr´s forum buddies did not notice that his cited papers do not support his premise in any way, or even touch the subject for that matter. The premise that his cited papers show normal fires achieving adiabatic temperatures is completely bogus, and the papers are not about temperatures at the micro level at all either. Mohr´s theory is all non-sense, but this does not stop the flatulent and rambling comments from people who seemingly never verify "information" purported to support their faith:
"Only that we need to remind ourselves that behavior on the macro level is not necessarily reflective of behavior on the micro level. And that's a mistake I think we all commonly make - myself so very included - even outside this issue. This post helps remind us of that"
"Thanks, Chris. I fully expect the Trust hers to focus on "Sandia National Labs" instead of the truth of what is being said."

"In other words...AE Truth is full of it!"

"Thanks Chris, let's hope MM forwards this information to his super hero Neils Harrit ? although I expect the peer reviewed article will be ignored due to it not being presented in a court of law"
Part Four: Rev Mohr also talks about iron reduction at low temperatures, trying to tell himself that the fires at the WTC could have melted iron and reduced it:
"There are several oxides of iron, and each has a different melting point. The lowest of these is FeO (also called w├╝stite) at ~ 1377 C, i.e. lower than the melting point of Fe (~ 1535 C). Rust (Fe2O3, or hematite) decomposes/reduces around 1566 C in air, but under partially reducing atmosphere this can shift to much lower temperature. For instance, in an incompletely-burned fuel fire with hydrocarbons and CO, reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron can occur << 1000 C (I’ve seen it at 600 C under a dilute hydrogen stream). Stating from hematite the reduction sequence would be as follows: Fe2O3 – Fe3O4 – FeO – Fe, thus as rust is reduced it reaches FeO (lowest melting phase) before Fe.Could it be that the “iron rich” microspheres are FeO, or a mixture of Fe and Fe3O4 from the disproportionation reaction of FeO (4FeO = Fe + Fe3O4)?"
No, the iron-spheres featured in Harrit et al are not FeO as even the "typical" ones have a 2:1 Fe-O ratio (see figure 21), meaning if you want to assume the one part oxygen is bound as FeO, the other part Fe is still oxygen free; you began with two parts iron and are still left with the other half of the Fe without any oxygen to bind with, meaning at least half the iron is pure iron. Harrit et al also observe that their iron spheres have Fe-O ratios "up to 4:1" so the conclusion that there is substantial amount of pure iron in the observed spheres is quite solid. Not all of the iron is pure iron and that is to be expected in thermite reactions: some of the iron will be bound with oxygen, perhaps as Fe3O4 or FeO, or as inter-metallic aluminum-iron-oxygen compounds (see Harrit et al figures 24 to 26).

Partial carbon-reduction of iron-oxides can take place well below 1000C but full reduction to pure iron requires about 1200C. Again, it may be possible to do this at lower temperatures in controlled lab conditions in the presence of special elements and specific conditions such as "under a dilute hydrogen stream" but such findings have no relevance to an open-air building fire.