Saturday, February 28, 2009

Honest Mistakes Are "Big News" to Mark Roberts

9/11 "debunker" Mark Roberts states that he has "only spent a few hours updating" his site "since early 2008" and that he "won't be updating it in the future unless big news arises." Apparently, an honest mistake constitutes big news to Mr. Roberts:

February, 2009: Truther competence at its finest. A guy who who runs a blog titled "Debunking the Debunkers" trumpets that he's debated me, publishes the debate, and spreads it around the internet. The problem? He wasn't debating me or anyone who claimed to be me. I guess the question "Are you Mark Roberts?" never occurred to this person, who bills himself as an "investigative journalist."
First off, Stewart doesn't run this blog, I do, I'm sure that was just an honest mistake though. When I made Stewart aware of this he stated:

"I do like the fact that Roberts assumes that I run 'Debunking the Debunkers' when I am clearly listed as a 'Contributor'. See how easy it is to make false assumptions?"

After being informed that "a correction and apology has now been posted," Roberts stated:

That's good. He was going to keep the post pulled, but I asked him to restore it and add the correction. Otherwise no one who was linked to it from other blogs or sites would know about the error, and would assume that I'd been "pwned" as described in the comments at those sites.
The fact of the matter is Stewart offered to have the post removed, but Roberts requested the post to remain with an apology as the headline. Stewart didn't say he was definitely going to keep it pulled, and of course in the end that would be my decision, as I run the blog.

After seeing Robert's statement I informed him that:

I was always planning on putting it back up with a correction and apology from Stewart. When I first heard about it on Care2 I posted...

'Thanks for the info RU. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, I'll get more info, and pull the blog post until I know more.'"
Again, this is just an honest mistake based on his previous mistake of assuming Stewart runs this blog. Furthermore, Stewart pointed out:

"He did seem very understanding and gracious at the time, but I find it curious that he brags about this as an example of incompetent 'Truther' research without a word about 'Clunkity' falsely posting Robert's website as a contact source."

What all of this teaches me is that my idea of "big news" must be different than Roberts.

For instance, I think it's big news that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth now has 613 members, including at least 30 structural engineers, 3 high-rise architects, and over 3000 other petition signers, including A&E students, metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

I think it's big news that former President Jimmy Carter recently stated that he supports calls for a new 9/11 investigation.

I think it's big news that a former fighter pilot for the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force, have called for a new 9/11 investigation this year. As well as a commercial airline pilot, a Boeing 747 Senior First Officer, a FAA certified airline transport pilot and flight instructor, a NASA electrical engineering technician and U.S. Marine Corps veteran, among others.

In closing, was this all worthy of a correction, apology, and forum discussion, sure, big news, hardly, especially considering that Mark has recently had his own problems with mistaken identities.

Related Info:

Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":
The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.

Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.
Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:

Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.
He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?



Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Beyond 15 Questions; Historical Context of 9/11


Recently I received an email informing me that Joseph Welch has posted his rebuttal to my reply for "15 Questions 9/11 Truthers need to Answer", and was dared to respond.
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/

I cant imagine this would be for Mr. Welch's benefit. In the week I spent debating Joseph and his loyal clique at "CounterKnowledge" they made it perfectly clear they had their minds made up in support of the "official version" of 9/11 and were unwilling to seriously consider any information that contradicts that version.
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/

Not only would a response to Joseph's rebuttal to my reply to Joseph's questions be redundant, but I can already tell you the outcome: Any news source I cite will be dismissed as biased, any witness testimony will be considered hearsay, any official documents will be deemed irrelevant, and any expert I quote will have his credibility attacked. Ironically, the debunkers will use similar "disputable" sources to demonstrate their case.

The fact remains that you cannot force someone to understand what they do not want to understand. It is an exercise in futility to try. And yes, the same could be said of 9/11 Truthers.

So I am left to try to formulate a reply that would be constructive to both Mr. Welch and anyone who may read this article with the slightest bit of objectivity.

I'll first say that I do not resent Mr. Welch or any debunker for their beliefs. The job of any good debunker is to pick apart information and find some kind of plausible deniability to discredit the argument. In this regard Mr. Welch is very good at what he does and I have learned a lot from our interaction.

In fact, after taking some time to read about other topics on "CounterKnowledge", I tend to agree with almost all of their views on Creationism, Scientology, Holocaust denial, Astrology, etc. I would even go so far as agree that there are way too many ridiculous claims and misinformation about 9/11. I refer here to things like "no plane" or "space beam" theories that are so far fetched that many 9/11 Truthers themselves do not support them.

But I must take exception with the portrayal of all 9/11 research as false, and all Truthers as either liars or nuts. There are many of us who take this subject very seriously and, while we are just as prone to mistakes as anyone else, we struggle to separate the facts from the deceptions because we are genuinely concerned that we have not been told the truth about 9/11. I believe we are justified in this concern.

In 1986 the Iran/Contra scandal first exposed me to the reality of government corruption. Since then I've been researching "deep politics" following the work of people like James Bamford, Peter Dale Scott, Philip H. Melanson, and others who have had the courage to speak out when the public's trust is abused.

This is why I am disappointed that 9/11 is the only political conspiracy addressed on "CounterKnowledge" because I would be very curious to know their views topics like:
1. Whether Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and allowed it to send America to war,
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
2. American involvement in the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhaBSPGBXco
3. The CIA's history of political assassinations, election rigging, and terrorism,
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/history-cia-atrocities.htm
4. And many other stories of conspiracies that don't officially exist because the mainstream press, both left and right, refuse to report them.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2008/

Of course the most easily comparable conspiracy subject is the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Despite overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, the Warren Commission concluded there was only one lone gunman and hence, no conspiracy. Similar to 9/11, when people spoke out at the time questioning the validity of the "official story", they were labeled as crackpots and publicly shunned.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html

Yet 15 years later the House Select Commitee on Assassinations concluded there had to be at least two shooters and that the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice had intentionally withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission. Despite these findings there was no public acknowledgement of the Warren Commission's failure and to this day those who question it are still publicly mocked as "conspiracy nuts".
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/jfk.html

Now I'm not suggesting that the history of American conspiracies is any kind of proof that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy as well, but it should justify a healthy skepticism of the "official story". The belief that covert power and profit driven elements of the American government would not be involved in an attack like 9/11 over ethical reasons is historically incorrect.

The strongest reasons I cite for a new investigation into 9/11, some of which Joseph Welch responded to, I still believe need further clarification:

1. NSPD-9, Afghanistan War Planned.
Whether the motive was the construction of an energy pipeline, the PNAC's goal of a "Pax Americana", or the elimination of Al-Qaeda, the fact remains that the plans to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 were finalized before 9/11. This was not a "routine test scenario" as many debunkers claim. According to the White House's own description of NSPD-9, " It was the first major substantive national security decision directive issued by this Administration. It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001 – 7 days before September 11th."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-9.htm

The reason I believe this is a "smoking gun" is that as of September 9, when the plans were submitted for presidential approval, there was no legal justification for any military action against the Taliban. For the war plans to proceed as scheduled in October, the White House had only one month to convince both Congress and the American people that Afghanistan posed such an immediate threat that a military invasion was necessary. If it were not for the 9/11 attack then what would have been the Bush administrations justification for the invasion in October? If there was one we never heard it.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

2. The Intelligence "Failure".
It is also important to note that as the Bush administration was drawing up these war plans, they were ignoring dozens of messages from both foreign and domestic intelligence agencies warning of an impending Al-Qaeda attack. While Mr. Welch asserts that these warnings were,"short on specifics", if he would have looked at the page I linked he would have seen a listing of over 50 warnings received from June to September 10, 2001 which repeatedly specify, "Al-Qaeda attack, suicide hijackers, target in NY - WTC." Yet not one of these warnings was passed on to the FAA by the Bush administration. http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm

While Mr. Welch claims the obstruction of the FBI is a myth, he refers to a debunker site that attacks the validity of an FBI case file stamped "Executive Order W199I". But my evidence of obstruction is not just W199I, but rather the eye witness accounts of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, FBI informant Randy Glass, and prosecutor David Shippers which all indicate a concerted high level effort to hinder intelligence warnings and investigations of an impending Al-Qaeda terror attack. Does Mr. Welch believe all of these whistleblowers are lying?
http://www.takeoverworld.info/fbi_hijacker.html

Welch also repeats the official "Looming Tower" story that rivalry and incompetence at the CIA and FBI prevented these warnings from reaching the White House, but if someone within these agencies were responsible for not passing on vital information or obstructing investigations they certainly would have been dismissed or reprimanded. Instead those responsible for these "errors" were rewarded with promotions and medals such as David Frasca, Mike Maltbie, and Marion Bowman.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/091304c1.htm

3. Air Defense Failure
There are several suspicious factors concerning the failure of our air defenses to follow Standard Operating Procedures for hijackings on 9/11, the most obvious being the three conflicting versions of the "official story" given to us by NORAD, the FAA, and the 9/11 Commission. Who is telling the truth?:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478

There was also the June 2001 changes in Standard Operating Procedures which were altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call:
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/russell/standdown.html

It was revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001, although military officials refuse to confirm who scheduled these drills during the very time of the real attack. Again the debunkers try to dismiss this by refusing to address all the drills going on and their direct effect on air defense response:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/080406_one_wargame.shtml

And according to the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Dick Cheney not only lied about the time he arrived at the PEOC bunker, but he knew for at least 10 minutes beforehand about Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon yet refused to try to warn the Pentagon or intercept the Flight. While debunkers and the mainstream press continue to misquote Mineta, saying he was referring to Flight 93, Mineta has repeatedly clarified he was speaking of Flight 77. Many believe this to be evidence of a "Stand Down" order.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871

4. Molten Steel
In their initial investigation FEMA sent samples of steel from all three collapsed buildings to Worchester Polytechnic Institute, WPI, for limited metallurgic testing. The WPI study confirms the steel was melted by an “eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Debunkers are correct in assessing this could not be the work of thermite, but thermite is not the only possibility. There are various engineered forms of aluminothermic materials, called nanothermite, that have explosive power without the concussion of conventional high-explosives, and the addition of sulfur lowers the melting point of steel. These mixtures also contain high amounts of zinc and barium, materials unlikely to be abundant in an office building, which were found in WTC dust samples.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html

Regardless, the NIST investigation totally ignored the recommendation of WPI to further explore this phenomena and refused to test WTC debris for “exotic excellerants” in direct violation of National Fire Protection Association order 921 18.3.2 on High Order Damage. NIST also claims to be ignorant of nanothermite technology despite NISTs own contributions to nanothermite research:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

My apologies to Joseph Welch if this was not the response he had hoped for. I'm sure this won't stop Mr. Welch and his followers from declaring "another victory for the good guys" and commence the attacks on my character that are now standard in debunking work. Or could it be that you may now actually see 9/11 in a historical context and cede that maybe, just maybe, a new investigation is warranted.

Nah, I didn't think so.

Respectfully....... Stewart Bradley

Related Info:

15 Answers: An open response to Joseph Welch

Conflicting Sources: Another Final Note to Joseph Welch

Master Debaters: A tribute to Joseph Welch

Radio Liberty: John-Michael Talboo - Debunking 9/11 Debunkers

Date: 02-25-09
Hour: a - 1 hr.
3:00: John-Michael Talboo - Debunking 9/11 Debunkers

Standard Player
Save

Related Info...

http://www.radioliberty.com

This interview is also posted on 9/11truth.org.

Slight Correction...

Max Cleland didn't resign specifically due to objections over Zelikow, although from looking at press reports, he wasn't happy about it. When asked about Zelikow by Amy Goodman, Cleland stated it was "not the staff director’s fault, it is the White House’s fault, it’s president Bush’s fault." Seeing as how Zelikow had "deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II Administrations," what is the difference really? Regardless, he did call the investigation a "white wash."

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries

These two viewers guides were written by debunkers:

Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

9/11 Mysteries Viewers Guide

These two were written by a debunker as well, the difference is, this debunker not only debunks false claims of the 9/11 truth movement, but the government too. Compare and contrast:

Sifting Through Loose Change

911 Mysteries AND Facts

Friday, February 20, 2009

Demand a Truth Commission

NIST on Practicality of Thermite Controlled Demolition

"On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them."

Let's focus in on number 12:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions. -http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

However these problems are easily overcome by the usage of nano-thermite (metastable intermolecular composites)

1. Amount of thermite and Speed of reaction

Overall though, certain key Metastable intermolecular composites characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K."



A Look Inside Nanotechnology
Page 45









http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1.pdf

2. Holding in direct contact with the surface of steel.

2.5.2. I The Thermite Cutting Technique

"The products resulting from the combustion of a thermite compound must be generated in the form of a directed jet and must possess a large store of heat and kinetic energy."

"The application of this cutting technique to nonmetallic materials also seems feasible, especially the dismantling of the reinforced concrete structural elements."

"Almost any metal or nonmetallic material can be subjected to thermite cutting. The thermite cutting process can be petiornied in different attitudes (i.e., without manipulating the articles being cut)."

"The thermite cutting technique is characterized by maneuverability and the small dimensions of its devices, which allows use of the technique in hard-to-reach locations. The pyrotechnic cutting torch can be used with automatic and remote-control systems."

Joint U.S./Russian Study on the
Development of a Decommissioning
Strategy Plan for RBMK-1OOOUnit #1
at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant:
Appendixes
From OSTI.GOV

One might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

I highly recommend Kevin Ryan's paper of the top 10 connections between NIST and nano-thermites:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Related Info:

Statement Regarding Thermite: Part 1 - In Response to some issues raised in Questioin 12 of NIST's Fact Sheet

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ -A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Compendium of ST911 Member’s Responses To NIST “QUESTIONS & ANSWERS"

9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Cryptic handouts circulate Kennard

Click to Enlarge
THIS IMAGE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AND FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH appeared on the bills distributed in Kennard.

Page A-1:
TUESDAY, FEBRUARAY 17, 2009

KENNARD - James Dudley found something he didn't expect when he walked out to get his Monday edition of The Courier-Times.

Sitting on top of his paper was a fake, oversized bill bearing the faces of former Vice-President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush. Instead of a dollar amount, the bill was marked "9-11."

The realistic feel and color of the note impressed Dudley, who said it felt like a new bill freshly released from an ATM. It bore words at the top reading "Fraudulent Event Note," ones at the bottom saying "One Deception" and several Web site addresses.

Page A-2:

FLIERS:
Cause stir in Kennard

Charles Millis, another recipient of the bill, was moderately impressed by its realism. "It's fairly realistic," he said. Millis called a couple people he knew who lived on the south side of town, but they hadn't gotten anything like the "9-11" dollar with their newspaper.

Managing Editor Randy Rendfeld said the newspaper didn't deliver the bills, which had also found their way into several other newspaper boxes in Kennard. So where did they come from?

John-Michael P. Talboo is one of six organizers from Indiana of a Web site focused on the official and unofficial versions of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

He lives in Kennard and said he had delivered 10 or 12 of the bills - which are sold online - while out on a morning walk. "I don't claim to really know what the truth is," he said. "I just don't think I have been told the whole story," he added.

Like other skeptics, Talboo says, he questions the official account that hijacked airliners brought down the towers by flying into them. "I had questions from day one," he said.

Unofficial theories allege the federal government was complicit in the attack or allowed it to happen to align public opinion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talboo said he strongly suspects government involvement or awareness but isn't convinced.

Talboo and other skeptics often criticize the conclusions of the report prepared by the 9/11 Commission organized by Bush and Congress in 2002.

The Kennard man hopes to move to Columbia, Mo., in late February, he said, and resume organizing there.

He runs a blog with several other writers. The address was written on the back of at least one of the satirical bills delivered on Monday.

"If it was before the election," Dudley commented, "I would just say it's a political ad, but the election's over."

Monday, February 16, 2009

WACCI - Free Speech Zone Indy remix

WACCIMark
YouTube.com
February 15, 2009

http://www.wearechange.org WACCI Free Speech Zone Indianapolis, Indiana July 1, 2008. John McCain in Indy for the National Sheriff's Conference. We Are Change Indy

Related Info:

WeAreChange Indy - 9/11 Truth Street Action

We Are Change Central Indiana End The Fed Protest in Downtown Indy

Scorpions - Wind of Change

WACCI - Iran War Protest

Hitting the Streets With 9/11 Truth

Saturday, February 14, 2009

No-Planes / Tv-Fakery theory demolished!

WarCrime911
YouTube.com
February 08, 2009

Related Info:

Debunking "September Clues" and "No Plane" Theories

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Debunking Molten Aluminium Flow From South Tower

Debunkers such as RKOWENS and disinformationist Judy Wood have tried to discredit the truth movement with lies or misunderstandings on basic laws of physics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&feature=channel_page

I think we all can agree that the material flowing from the south tower has a orange-yellow appearance.

This indicates a temperature of 980C - 1050C leaning on the heavy side as it looks more yellow than orange.

























This is due to two laws of physics

"Emissivity—This is a dimensionless constant, the ratio of the energy radiated by a material to the energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. This is the total energy across the emission spectrum. Emissivity is a number less than or equal to 1."

"Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency."

Some claim that its possible for the material flowing from the south tower to be aluminium, they claim the aluminium is heated to 980c thus giving it a orange yellow colour.

Aluminium melts at 660C at which temperature is looks silvery

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron.

Here is a video example of aluminium being heated in a container to 980c or 1800 F...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ&feature=channel_page

As you can see the aluminium cools rapidly to a silvery colour, as metals are a great conductor of heat.

The molten material flowing from the south tower even remains orange yellow during its whole descent.




















Ironically for debunkers NIST knows this and agrees that the molten material is not pure liquid aluminium, and have hypothesised a different scenario to make the aluminium orange yellow...

"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

However as Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.
The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron...

If any debunkers can show how to make aluminium orange yellow while getting it to flow from a building. Then officially this will be debunked.

Its not to hard to find aluminium it can be readily bought in the form of soda cans.

Good luck to you debunkers!

Related Info:

The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

DEBUNKING "9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven" rkOWNED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do
This is a response to a video created by YouTube user RKOwens4 which attempts to debunk Steven Jones. Hilarious coming from someone with no degree or experience in physics or chemistry.
Yet a lot of people automatically assume it's true because it's debunking. And conspiracy theorists are tin foil hat crazies, with no scientific knowledge.

Well they're in for a surprise if they actually read professors, engineers and chemists like Steven Jones' papers.

So let's start with the misconceptions this rkowens displays.

First off
Debunkers are confusing WTC dust with IRON SPHERES found [IN THE DUST].
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.
The Spheres show that the chemicals were formed due to melting and/or vapourisation, this is due to surface tension. When a liquid is formed the surface tension of the liquid forms a sphere.
Just like when you spray water you will notice many small spheres forming.

This is important as the SPHERES not the dust has the chemical signature of a variation of thermate.
This indicated the various chemicals found in the spheres were melted at the SAME TIME. Forming spheres. The spheres found had chemical signature of FE, AL, K, SI. And various additives and variations of the thermate was found.
Including sulpur, copper, manganese.
Different aluminothermic reactions have different properties, some are faster reacting, like sulpur which reduces the melting point of steel.

What other mechanism can make fe, al, k, si melt at the same time to form spheres?
Debunkers like to beleive the iron came from steel, the aluminium came from cladding and silicon from glass, etc.

Forming from office fire is impossible, for a start iron cannot melt in office fires and the melting points of these metals are so different, there would be a sizeable time delay from heating WTC common materials. Then they also have to cool together at the same time to form a sphere.
Thermate however provides the solution to this question because the reaction is very fast. No other mechanism is known to provide spheres such as these.

Secondly rkowned is confusing Steven Jones arbitrary usage of the word thermate with military grade (Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur )
There are a wide variety of different types of thermate, thermite, and other aluminothermic reactions. In fact all you need is a metal oxide whose metal is lower in the reactivity series than aluminium to create such a reaction. As the aluminium steals the oxygen from the oxide.
Iron is the most common form of aluminothermic reaction, this is known as thermite.

So finding barium nitrate in spheres is not at all necessary for a thermate reaction.
Finding aluminium oxide and iron or other metal as a single sphere is.

It turns out nano-thermite and thermate was used, the chemical signature found in unexploded red chips of nano-thermite, DO MATCH known government combinations.

RKowned claims aluminium oxide was not found, but he obviously has not looked at the WTC iron spheres X-EDS which clearly all show aluminium oxide.

Another bunk claim of rkowned is his claim that sulphur was from gypsum.Gypsum however is used as fireproofing because of its molecular stability.
However the chemical signature of gypsum is not found in any WTC iron spheres as there is NO CALCIUM.

gypsum
As you can see Gypsum CaS04 is not responsible for sulphur found in the iron microspheres.

Related Info:

Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens

Debunking Molten Aluminium Flow From South Tower

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

9/11 Debunkers: Meet RKOwens4

RE: What the Heck is Jason Bermas talking about?

The 9/11 Un-debunked Series

Debunkers Claim WTC 7 “Hit By A 757″

Respondents to Beijing skyscraper fire ludicrously argue against controlled demolition on 9/11 by claiming building was struck by a plane

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Respondents to an article about the Beijing skyscraper fire linked prominently on the Drudge Report argued against claims of controlled demolition of WTC 7 on 9/11 by stating that the building collapsed because it had been “hit by a 757″.

Following the devastating fire in the 44-story building that housed the Mandarin Oriental hotel, a blaze that consumed every floor of the structure but failed to bring the building down, we made the comparison to WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just 8 floors on 9/11 and yet collapsed into its own footprint within 7 seconds.

Similar points were made in response to a Breitbart.tv video story about the Beijing fire, which was prominently linked from the ever-popular Drudge Report website.

In response, debunkers argued against WTC 7 being a controlled demolition by claiming that the building collapsed because it had been “hit by a 757″.

Of course, as anyone with an iota of knowledge understands, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane on 9/11.

After a respondent named BIll raises the issue of WTC 7, ‘JackieO’ responds, “Bill, your a stupid idiot leftwing scumbag. WTC7 was hit by a 757 you inbred idiot!”

Later in the thread, another respondent, ‘JefoRW’ states, “Bill, you my friend, and retarded. wtc7 was struck by a plane you fool. Go back to your cave.”

This blog continues below the image...

Photobucket

And so it appears as though many proponents of the official 9/11 story and debunkers of 9/11 truth actually believe that WTC 7 was hit by a plane, and those that point out that it wasn’t are ‘inbred cave-dwelling retards’.

Perhaps this gives us an insight into what kind of mental disposition is necessary for such fairy tales as hijackers’ paper passports being found, hostile planes being allowed to traverse the country unimpeded and ‘they attacked us because they hate our freedom’ to be readily accepted without question.

In reality, the only ‘inbred cave-dwelling retards’ are those unfortunate knuckleheads still unwilling to accept the fact that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and that its collapse can only be explained by controlled demolition.

Research related articles:

Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening
"Debunkers’ only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007." Click HERE to read the entire article...

Still Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
WTC 7 Collapsed at the Same Speed as Known Controlled Demolitions
Leaked NIST Docs: “Unusual” Event Before Collapse Of WTC 7
BBC’s Third Tower: 30 Pieces of Good News
Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece
BBC Article: “9/11 Third Tower Mystery ‘Solved’”
CNN: Conspiracy theorists ‘not swayed’ by WTC7 explanation
NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed
Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel
Newly Uncovered WTC 7 Video Betrays More Foreknowledge Of Collapse
Scandal of six held in Guantanamo even after Bush plot claim is dropped

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Demolishing Inner & Outer Tyranny

This construction photograph of the North Tower shows that the core structures consisted of bundles of columns cross-linked by horizontal and diagonal members.

By Colin D. Donoghue

Yesterday I passed by a construction site downtown, for a new high-rise building. All that was in place so far were the steel beams at the center, arranged in a tight square, piercing into the air above. As I looked I remembered the photos of the construction of the twin towers, with their same steel inner cores rising first, the rest of the floors and structure being built around them. Yet the official story says those core columns didn't even exist, because it does not fit into their ridiculous “pancake theory” of collapse. You see them in the photo above, but Big Brother says they were never there, so that's good enough for the corporate media.

There is no need to go further into the evidence here; that has been done expertly by many scientists and architects, who's work can be found on this website and elsewhere. One can read the books on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, watch the film "9/11 Mysteries", review the work on journalof911studies.com, stj911.org, ae911truth.org along with many other sources referred to on this website.

Yet one does not even need all this scientific proof, if they just had common sense! How can you watch building 7 collapse and think it was not a controlled demolition? The fact that something so obvious as the controlled demolitions of the twin towers and building 7 remains controversial today puts me in a strange mood. It's a mood of disbelief, sadness, frustration and pity.

What hope is there for humanity if mass-murderers can get away with a crime that the whole world saw, simply by telling people they saw something else?

It's like a man shooting another, plain as day, but then saying "Oh, that was just a water pistol, and the man died of a heart attack." Never mind the bullet in the other man's chest. Never mind the gunfire residue covering the murderer's hand. Let him go, simply because he says something else happened. Of course this is why "debunkers" make lousy cops...

This blog continues below the video...



The amount of evidence that 9/11 was an act of state-sponsored terrorism is so overwhelming, it makes me wonder if perhaps humans as a whole are just too stupid and gullible to end the reign of fascists and tyrants. The perpetrators of 9/11 were certainly counting on that being the case.

I hope humanity proves them wrong. But now, with the messianic deception of Obama and the current economic crisis, sure to be followed by other generated trauma-inducing events that Biden "guaranteed" us will occur soon, I wonder if this evil, today encapsulated in the phrase “The New World Order”, can be stopped. Perhaps it as many spiritual teachers say, that until we achieve self-realization, violence, oppression and tyranny will continue, century after century.

Yet one does not need to be enlightened to see something so obvious as the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings! And most people that do see the evidence, do understand it; my questioning of the basic intelligence of humanity as a whole is really not called for. Polls show the majority of Americans don't believe the official 9/11 story. So why is that official story allowed to be called “history” and taught to our children? Why do government officials and members of Congress that know the truth do nothing?

Corruption... and why are they so easily corrupted? Because they do not value human life, or principles such as freedom and love; they value wealth and power, just as fascists of one sort or another have throughout the history of human civilization. And why do they value wealth and power over freedom and love? “Because they have lost the connection to the liberating love within them”, I know many Yogis might say.

So here's the comprehensive solution:
Re-open the 9/11 investigation, find the guilty officials, put them in jail for the rest of their lives, and sign them up for a prison meditation course. Then we'll have justice for the victims of 9/11, end the tyranny and violence based on that Big Lie, and strike at the root of the evil as well.

Activism...

911proof.com - Now What?
911truth.org: GET INVOLVED
NYC Coalition for Accountability Now
Citizens' Action: 9/11 Petitions
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Action Items
Take a Stand for 9/11 Truth
A Monster List of Media Email Addresses!
TruthMove.org
Meet The Truthers
WeAreChange.org
WeAreChange Indy
IndyTruth.org
REAL CHANGE = THE PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO
FealGood Foundation
Peace Action

Friday, February 6, 2009

Gainesville, Florida gets 9 minutes of 9/11

Scroll down past the video for related info...



Gators911Truth.org members, Harold Saive, Eduardo Arenas Reyes and Bob Tuskin took their allotted 3 minutes each to update the commission and community on recent progress on the biggest unsolved crime in American History.

Each Commissioner and the City manager were given a copy of the letter to the FBI, a copy of the response from the FBI's Michael J. Heimbach and a video DVD containing the evidence submitted to the FBI. "9/11:BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH" by Architect, Richard Gage, AIA.
LINKS:
http://gators911truth.org/PDF/FBI-CD-FF.pdf
http://gators911truth.org
http://ae911truth.org

Related Info...

Architect Richard Gage Thanks FBI for Endorsing 9/11 Evidence

Thanks FBI for Endorsement of 'Controlled Demolition' Analysis - bin Laden Still Not 'Wanted' for 9/11

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was recently listening to No Lies Radio when he caught Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage trying to fool the audience; Pat states...

"Gage does one little trick that's pretty obvious and I'd like to suggest that somebody catch him on it. When he talks about the columns being ejected from the building, it's because of explosives. But when somebody catches him on the lack of audible explosions, he dodges back to thermite/thermate/nanothermate. Well, nanothermate isn't going to give the explosive force he claims is needed to eject those columns."

Of course, I was outraged! How dare Gage try to trick me! So, I took Pat's advice and I "caught him on it," here is Richard's reply...

Hi John Michael,

He doesn’t know how much explosive force nano-thermite is or is not capable of – nor how loud it is. This is speculation. We have dozens of people (refer him once again to our DVD!) reporting huge explosions at the onset of collapse – one guy from the BBC in a blue shirt ducking having heard the explosion from behind him. And nano-thermite is quieter than C4 or RDX. And the columns were ejected at 55 mph instant speed from the side of the Twin Towers.

Richard

Boy am I glad I wrote Gage about this issue, because I almost had forgotten that, as Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division Michael J. Heimbach pointed out, "Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis!" Shame on me...

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

"One thing conspiracy theorists like to ignore is that controlled demolitions make noise." - RKOwens4

Conspiracy theorists like this?

Controlled Demolition Expert, Tom Sullivan, Discusses Controlled Demolitions on 9/11.



Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Richard Gage, AIA member

Alex Jones Interview
April, 2008
Richard Gage is interviewed in this latest show with host Alex Jones

911 Mysteries (Part 5 of 10)

911 Mysteries AND Facts - MOLTEN METAL

Terror Storm 2nd Edition Pt 9/12

Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2

Immortal Technique - Bin Laden (Remix) (Instrumental)

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed

Steven Jones & David Ray Griffin on the Alex Jones Show 11/19/2008

"If explosives were used on each floor of the World Trade Center, a succession of distinct explosions would be heard miles away. Yet, even at the base of the building, not a single explosion was heard." - RKOwens4

Excerpts from 1-A/B "9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is in Your Hands"

Continuous Explosions Leveled the Towers

The towers' destruction cannot be accurately described without the word "explosion." Huge clouds billowed out from the towers, starting around the crash zones, and grew rapidly as they consumed each tower, converting them to fine powder and fragments of steel, and depositing the bulk of the remains outside of each tower's footprint in a radial pattern.

Incredibly, this stark reality has and continues to be so consistently and widely denied in government, media, industry, and academia, that few Americans have even entertained the idea that the towers were intentionally demolished. One of the key underpinnings of that denial is the fact that the explosions were continuous, extending for the entire 15-second duration of each tower's collapse. Although witnesses describe loud pops at their onsets, the extended duration and loud roar of the explosions apparently prevented most people from thinking of them as explosions. Also, the repeated description of the events as collapses by the broadcast networks must have had a powerful effect in shaping people's understanding of them, particularly given the heightened state of suggestibility induced by the profound state of shock and disbelief most of them were in. Click here to read the entire article.

16000 firecracker explosion

9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation

FOX 9 11 Explosion sound waves reached midtown NYC