Sunday, April 26, 2009

END THE FED - WeAreChange Indy April 25, 2009

http://wacindy.webs.com http://endthefed.us END THE FED - 'OPERATION REPEAL THE FED' WeAreChange Indy Downtown Indianapolis handing out info in support of HR 1207 and HR 833 and 50 copies of Alex Jones' new documentary "The Obama Deception"http://wearechange.org http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Related Info:

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

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

Source: http://www.themoneymasters.com/quotations.htm

Russell Means Addresses Arapahoe Community College

"He was introduced as a libertarian by a UCD [University of Colorado, Denver] professor of Indian studies (who said at first he thought Russell was crazy for it, but later understood what libertarianism means to him and now understands the logic and why the Indian movement and the libertarian movement are compatible in the eyes of Russell Means).

Russell started off with a bang discussing individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution, which he claimed was written to be similar to the constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy. He spoke very favorably about the Constitution, but reiterated what Thomas Jefferson had said about needing to reevaluate all laws and programs every 20 years, and thought we were overdue."

Source: http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/04/means7.html

Like many people of his time, Jefferson was both a demon and a saint, point is, he knew what he was talking about concerning many issues, among them, the creation of a central bank. Hence, me quoting him, and "one of America's best-known and prolific activists for the rights of American Indians" quoting him. Related quotes, including another from Jefferson, can be found on his website.

The Alex Jones Show - L I V E - Feb 12 With Russell Means Part 1

The Alex Jones Show - L I V E - Feb 12 With Russell Means Part 2

"Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people." - Congressman Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

I misquoted him when I said "inflammatory policies" instead of "inflationary policies," but I think both are true! ;)

Kucinich: Federal Reserve No More “Federal” Than Federal Express

John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve

Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)

UnDebunking Zeitgeist: Part One - pt.1/13

Friday, April 17, 2009

New info on Barry Jennings...

http://adap2k.blogspot.com/2009/04/dylan-avery-jack-blood-mp3-download.html
This is very interesting ... Aparently Jennings was in hospital a few days before he died. Dylan Avery recently hired a PI to investigate Jennings' death and not long after, the highly paid PI refunded his money and said "never contact me again". Also, Jennings' family seemed to have dissapeared.

Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours on 9/11 by an explosion on the sixth floor stairwell BEFORE either tower came down. The BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down ... which doesn't even make sense - I mean are we supposed to believe he waited on the 23rd floor for like an hour? Also he was on the north side of the building - the opposite side that was hit. Barry died on August 19th, 2008 at the age of 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline .... interestingly he's still alive.

Read the article...

NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEATH OF 911 EYEWITNESS BARRY JENNINGS SEEMS TO POINT TO FOUL PLAY

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Conflicting Sources: Another Final Note to Joseph Welch

As I predicted my last appeal to debunker Joseph Welch has fallen on deaf ears.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/beyond-15-questions-historical-context.html

In his latest response Mr Welch attempts to use the "Four D's of Debunking- dodge, distract, distort, and deny" against me while failing to acknowledge his own employment of these tactics. No big surprise.
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/03/15-questions-for-truthers-a-final-response-to-stewart-bradley/

I was originally going to ignore Mr Welch's rebuttal, understanding the futility of debating someone who has already cemented their view about 9/11 and closed their mind to any new information that conflicts with that view. But Mr Welch's continued refutation of available evidence included such unfair attacks upon my credibility and character that I could not let it stand unchallenged.

I will again respectfully try to explain my major disagreements with Mr Welch by comparing the source material used to back our claims. Granted this requires a fair amount of reading but I can see no better way for those following this debate to contrast our views and decide for themselves which version of reality best fits the evidence presented.

Section 1.
In the "Dodge" section Mr Welch gives a list of points that I had "implicitly conceded defeat....but not had the moral courage to admit as such." The problem is distinguishing the points I really do concede with the points I disagree. A main example here is my admission that al-Qaeda certainly may have committed the attack, but I disagree with Mr Welch's assumption that al-Qaeda could have no clandestine collaboration from within our own intelligence agencies.

1. Mr Welch claims the al-Qaeda assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud undermined US efforts to gain Northern Alliance support against the Taliban:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/europe/terror.php

http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/72-56-17674/la-belge-malika-el-aroud–l-une-des-plus-influentes-djihadistes-sur-internet.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/11/belgium

I claimed al-Qaeda could have been framed for the assassination and was consistent with US intention to install their own leader of Afghanistan:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309B.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ASMassoud.html#fn30

2. Mr Welch claims an absence of any contacts between US agencies and anti-Taliban forces:
Richard B. Andres, “Winning with Allies: The Strategic Value of the Afghan Model”, in International Security, Volume 30, Number 3, Winter 2005/06, pp. 124-160
William Maley, The Afghanistan Wars

I claim there were covert contacts between US intelligence and Northern Alliance forces:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/CIA18.html
http://www.americanspecialops.com/cia-special-operations/jawbreaker/

3.Mr Welch claims the dispersal of al-Qaeda's leaders before 9/11 proves foreknowledge of the attack:
Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358

I claim that while the movement of al-Qaeda's leaders may demonstrate their foreknowledge of the attack, it does not rule out covert US collaboration. The larger point I made was how these al-Qaeda leaders were "allowed" to escape into Pakistan:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.naylor.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1101ismailkhan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NbQiSQFFh0

Mr Welch claimed the failure at Tora Bora was due to the "improvised nature of CENTCOM’s war plan" and a reliance on Pashtun Afghan militiamen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9F03EEDE1731F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=FAZAL+AHMAD&st=nyt

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/bergen

4.Mr Welch claims the identities of the 19 hijackers has been irrefutably confirmed:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/79402/Exclusive-Remains-of-9-11-killers-found
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual93manifest.png

I claim the hijackers may have been using stolen identities and left a trail of false evidence to implicate these predetermined scapegoat identities:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10142
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101evidencetrail
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml

5.Mr Welch claims the Saudis acceptance that 15 of their citizens were involved in 9/11 proves the identities were not faked:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0753816687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Osama-Bin-Laden-Know-Al-Qaedas/dp/0743278917/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141031360/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883353&sr=1-1


I claim the Saudi 9/11 connection was downplayed at every opportunity by government officials and media considering the intimate connections between the Bush family and Saudi leadership:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bushs_saudi_connections
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

6.Mr Welch claims I disagreed that "al-Qaeda existed as a transnational terrorist group using its safe haven in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to commit atrocities":
?

I claim I never argued against that point:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/15-answers-open-response-to-joseph.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/beyond-15-questions-historical-context.html

7.Mr Welch claims "the CIA’s role in ‘creating’ al-Qaeda in the 1980s are a fabrication of the historical record":
Peter Bergen (“The Osama bin Laden I knew”, pp.60-61).
Jason Burke - (p.59)
Steve Coll - (p.87).
Lawrence Wright - “The Looming Tower” (pp.100-108).
Milt Bearden “The Main Enemy”, (Random House 2003),p.243).

I claim the CIA was not only instrumental in the creation of al-Qaeda, but the relationship between the Bush Family and bin Laden family has continued to this day:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html
http://www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

8.Mr Welch claims the US government would not have planned the invasion of Afghanistan without support from it's neighbors:
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/
Part 7 -"Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan."

I claim US forces, via people like Cheney and Armitage, did have support from several Afghanistan neighbors to stage the invasion:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html?q=preplanned.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html (Part VII)

9.Mr Welch claims the "9/11 ‘truth movement’ is infested with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers":
http://911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge
http://edmundstanding.blogspot.com/2008/11/british-fascists-and-911-untruths.html

I admit that while some 9/11 researchers question the involvement of Israel's Mossad agents on 9/11, the claims of widespread anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are promoted by opponents of 9/11 research to try to destroy our credibility:
http://www.mujca.com/georgewashington.htm
http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
http://riseuprochester.org/2008/11/06/911-truthers-are-not-holocaust-deniers/

10. Mr Welch claims that because Naiz Naik is not a credible witness means that the pre 9/11meetings between Bush administration officials and Taliban did not include pipeline negotiations:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/

I claim the Bush administration was attempting to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban giving them a clear financial and geopolitical motive for the Afghan invasion:
http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/04152002-Bush.Oil.Taliban/index.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080201rocca
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/03-10-02_Chin-Pt_2.pdf
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html

11. Mr Welch claims the Indian government's report of a link between ISI Director, General Mahmoud Ahmed and Mohamed Atta "have to be treated with caution" :
http://www.911myths.com/html/isi_first_reports.html
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12818192

I claim that while the Bush administrations meetings with ISI General Ahmed doesn't by itself imply guilt, the administrations attempt to cover up and distort this source of 9/11 funding is damning:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/armitageISIatta.htm
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP209B.html
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/05/pakistani-smoking-gun-of-911.html

12. Mr Welch claims "there is no way that NORAD could have been ‘stood down’ without Canadian complicity.":
http://www.norad.mil/leaders/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bouchard

I claim that the secrecy about the war game exercises scheduled for 9/11, along with pre 9/11 changes in hijacking interception procedures, the absence of military chain of command, Norm Minnetta's testimony, and contradicting stories from NORAD, NEADS, and the 9/11 Commission implies evidence of official foreknowledge, misconduct, and cover up:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
http://standdown.net/

13. Mr Welch claims Ed Haas "distorted the content of an FBI press conference in order to claim that the Bureau had ‘no evidence’ linking bin Laden and al-Qaeda with 9/11":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

I claim that if the FBI or Bush Justice Department did have hard evidence they would be able to get a Federal indictment holding bin Laden responsible for 9/11, which they have not:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3419.html

14. Mr Welch claims the video and audio tape 9/11 confessions of bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders are genuine proof of guilt:
http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

I claim that while the validity of bin Laden's confession videos are disputed by reputable sources, the confessions of Al-qaeda leaders does not contradict the possibility of a covert CIA collaboration:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2210.shtml

15. Mr Welch claims with certainty that "Flight UA93 was not shot down":
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html

I claim there are several anomalies about Flight 93 that need to be addressed before we can know for certain whether it was shot down or not:
http://www.flight93crash.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html
http://www.projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

16. Mr Welch claims "bin Laden had declared his intention to destroy the WTC towers as ‘revenge’ for America’s policies towards the Middle East:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm

I claim that in contrast to the numerous warnings before 9/11 attributed to bin Laden, that bin Laden initially denied his involvement in the attack:
http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2521&Itemid=107
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091301talibandenies

Section 2.
In the next section I was pointing out that the 9/11 controversy was the only political conspiracy that the Counterknowledge web site addressed and wondered what their stance would be on a few other disputed conspiracy subjects. The two refuted by Mr Welch:
1. Mr Welch states "no reputable scholar worth his or her salt treats claims of foreknowledge on FDR’s part of a Japanese attack on Hawaii as being in any way credible":
?

I claim that based on a document declassified in 1994 from Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence, that FDR provoked and allowed the Pearl Harbor attack:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html?q=McCollum/index.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/pearlharbor.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

2. Mr Welch claims the House Select Committee investigation on the assassination of JFK did not conclude that there were two gunmen involved:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7184933155238761777
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm

I claim the HSCA investigation concluded a "high probability" of a second gunman and that the Warren Commission investigation of a conspiracy was "inadequate":
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/jfk.html

I noted that these subjects do not suggest any conclusions about 9/11 but could at least explain why some people may question the ethical actions of government officials based on the historical record of past deceptions.

Mr Welch missed this point and instead interpreted this section as an attempt to "Distract" by setting up a "straw man" argument over whether he, or any contributor to Counterknowledge said the US government has never been involved in "dirty tricks". He then explains his belief "that any acts of malfeasance by a democratic government...usually become public knowledge shortly after they are committed, and that efforts at a cover-up... do not survive scrutiny by democratic legislatures and a free press."

To Mr Welch's credit he did say this was "usually" the case because if he is any kind of historian he knows that there are always exceptions to that rule. Examples include:
1. The CIA backed Operation Gladio waged a decades long campaign of terrorism and assassinations through Europe killing hundreds of innocent people, then blamed "leftist subversives" to demonize political opponents and frighten citizens into supporting government powers. Although first exposed in 1990 the existence of this program has been all but ignored by the American press.
http://911review.com/precedent/century/gladio.html

2. The 1967 to 1972 CIA Operation Phoenix program of terrorism and assassination in Vietnam that murdered over 26, 000 people and instigated the Vietnam War. To this day most Americans have no idea this program existed either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

3. The CIA trained and supported death squads in El Salvador committing atrocities like the 1982 El Mazote massacre murdering over 700 men women and children. Again, most Americans were never informed about this.
http://www.votb.org/newsanalysis/behind_the_death_squads.html

I'm sure Mr Welch will make a distinction over the US governments approval to murder foreign citizens but not our own citizens. I'm sure I don't have to remind him of the 1962 Operation Northwoods plan drawn up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a terrorist attack on US citzens, including hijackings and bombings, then planting phony evidence to frame Fidel Castro in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Yes, the plan was never used because it was rejected by President Kennedy, but what if there was a president who would accept such a plan? And nobody knew about this plan until it was declassified in 1997.

1. Mr Welch claims Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta's testimony was in reference to Flight 93. Relying on the word of an aide to Mineta, Admiral James Underwood, Mr Welch claims there is no way Mineta could have heard the supposed "stand down" confirmation:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf

I claim the 9/11 Commission admits the 9:37 entry time for Cheney was based on the Secret Service report alarm data and is undocumented, while Mineta's early arrival testimony is consistent with reports from Richard Clark, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, White House photographer David Bohrer, and ABC, BBC, and WSJ. This is discussed in great detail in chapter 2 of David Ray Griffin's book "9/11 Contradictions."
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2008050770616110

So let's listen again to Mineta's official testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Mineta still stands by his testimony that he was referring to Flight 77 nearing the Pentagon when Cheney issued his "of course the order still stands" quote. This was before the Pentagon was hit. He has clarified this many times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

Yet the 9/11 commission and the media continue misquoting Mineta saying it was in reference to Flight 93.

We can logically assume one of two things considering this contradiction. First, that if Mineta was referring to Flight 93 then his story about the "order still stands" conversation was a complete fabrication because Flight 93 was not "ten miles out" from any Washington target. This would make Mineta guilty of perjury for which he has not been charged.

Or Mineta was telling the truth which contradicted the "official story" so his testimony was omitted form the 9/11 Report and distorted by the press. In this CNN clip Josh Bolten claims the aid was asking about shoot down confirmation of Flight 93 contradicting Mineta's sworn testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7b_zofzXU

2. Mr Welch makes an obvious straw man when he claims, in reference to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A, that there is not a single reference to shooting down airliners:
1997 - http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf
2001 - http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

This was never what I disputed. I claim the subtle change in the directive is under 4. Policy, stating " The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." which was changed from "The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

What was added was the "exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d" which sites DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

This Directive allows commanders in the field to provide assistance in an emergency situation but requires approval from Secretary of Defense before responding with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ). This change effectively moved the authorization to scramble military fighters from field commanders to the Secretary of Defense:
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/russell/standdown.html

3. Mr Welch claims there were no discrepancies in the 9/11 timelines offered by the FAA and NORAD:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/index.htm

I claim they had changed their accounts and the 9/11 Commission had added their own to shift any responsibility of misconduct from the military to the FAA:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478

4. Mr Welch claims there were only 2 military training exercises on 9/11, Vigilante Resolve and Northern Vigilance, neither of which deal with a 9/11 related scenario:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95-pics.htm
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf

I claim Mr Welch is intentionally ignoring the full list of drills that relate to 9/11 which include:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence

a) CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise:
http://www.oilempire.us/nro.html

b) Vigilant Guardian:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2006/11/wargame-one-vigilant-guardian.html

c) Vigilant Warrior:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/01/wargame-iv-vigilant-warrior.html

d) Northern Vigilance
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2006/11/wargame-2-northern-vigilance.html

e) Northern Guardian
http://www.ringnebula.com/northern-vigilance.htm

f) Tripod II
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

5. Mr Welch claims the pre 9/11 warnings lacked any specifics and the military had no training drills that would prepare for a 9/11 type scenario:
http://bl147w.blu147.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=60689143
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf

I claim there were over 50 reports between June and September 10, 2001 that, taken together, clearly warn of an al-Qaeda attack by suicide hijackers targeting the WTC:
http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm
http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_warnings.html

And the military did conduct drills to prepare for possible 9/11 type scenarios:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a99wtccrashsimulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6FTkj6OEWA
http://www.911truth.org/downloads/fact_sheets/NORAD.htm
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonMascal.shtml

6.Mr Welch claims the combined testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, and Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger all lack credibility and are "long on assertion and short on substance."
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-08-12_pr.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Able_Danger
http://www.911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/robert_wright.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0DD173FF93AA25755C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3&pagewanted=print

I claim that Mr Welch also forgot to offhandedly disregard the testimonies of FBI informant Randy Glass and prosecutor David Shippers as well as acknowledge the obstructions and subsequent promotions of David Frasca, Mike Maltbie, and Marion Bowman.
http://www.takeoverworld.info/fbi_hijacker.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208B.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27876
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17135

Section 4.
1. And finally in the "Deny" section Mr Welch again asserts his belief that US plans for the Afghani pipeline were abandoned in 1998 and that there is no connection between American interests and the now proposed TAPI project:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00728.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm

As I have pointed out in Section 1-10 the Bush administration was actively trying to negotiate a new pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11, a goal that would serve US financial as well as geopolitical interests:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3103/energy_security.html
http://afghanistan-the-true-story.blogspot.com/2008/06/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war.html

The 2 obvious US links to the TAPI pipeline would be Hamid Karzai, the CIA connected leader of Afghanistan installed by the Bush administration, and the influence of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hamid_Karzai
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

2. While mocking my distrust of government sources Mr Welch falls into a paradox of his own by rejecting the White House's description of the NSPD-9 as a plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan".
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sacred-Terror-Daniel-Benjamin-Steven/dp/0375508597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236599407&sr=1-1

The paradox being that when the NSPD-9 plans for military action in Afghanistan were finalized on September 9, the Bush team still would have needed Congressional approval to implement them. So while the Bush administration planned to "use all elements of national power"to eliminate the al-Qaeda network, they simultaneously claim they never took seriously any warnings from multiple credible sources of an impending al-Qaeda attack. ( See Section 3-5)

I find it more likely that the Bush administration deliberately ignored these warnings to create a plausible deniability when the attack happen, giving them the very pretext they needed to use the waiting NSPD-9 plans:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

3. Mr Welch then provides a further evidence that the Bush administration had no plan to invade Afghanistan being the ultimatum to Mullah Omar to hand over the al-Qaeda leaders or else be invaded. Mr Welch claims this offer was rejected by the Taliban "based on its own ideological bent and also its financial and military reliance on al-Qaeda":
Frederick Kagan, Finding the Target. The Transformation of American Military Power (NY: Encounter Books 2006), chapter 8
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

What Mr Welch doesn't tell you is the Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden on the condition that the US provide evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack. It was Bush who rejected this offer saying,"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." (See Section 1-13):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

4. In response to my "pathetic insistence" that molten steel was found in the remains of the WTC, Mr Welch subscribes to the NIST canard that this molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Yet pools of this molten "aluminum" were also witnessed under WTC 7 which was not hit by an aircraft:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Oh, but Mr Welch was only addressing the glowing orange metal seen flowing from the South Tower. Although pure liquid aluminum appears silver, NIST claims it was "likely" mixed with large amounts of hot organic materials which can "display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." But if NIST had bothered to test they would find that molten aluminum and hydrocarbon materials do not mix:
http://stj911.org/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html

My "pathetic insistence" of molten steel is based on the WPI studies of WTC debris published in Appendix C of the FEMA report which "reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." This proves empirically that the steel had indeed melted:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Although the WPI report concludes with a recommendation for a detailed study of this phenomenon, NIST has refused to do this much less any testing for "exotic excellerants"despite the National Fire Protection Association order 921 18.3.2 on High Order Damage:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=221

Another "theory" often cited by debunkers to explain this evidence was that after the towers collapsed the fires were trapped underneath the rubble pile where the heat could not disperse "cooking" the steel to it's 2800 F melting point. The first flaw with this theory is how did the fires burning on the upper floors of the tower end up under the rubble pile, assuming they would have survived the collapse at all? Secondly, anyone with a high school education knows that hydrocarbon fires need oxygen to burn. But this theory proposes that the fires burned hotter than normal while being cut off from an oxygen supply. This theory is highly unlikely.

The very fact that the fires did burn under the rubble pile for weeks after the collapse implies that they were not simple hydrocarbon fires but were the result of a continuing chemical reaction. The WPI study speaks to the high levels of sulfur that lower the melting point of steel. Debunkers claim this sulfur resulted from the pulverized and burnt gypsum wallboard. This theory would only make sense if all of the buildings sulfur somehow separated itself from the gypsum, concrete, glass, and other building debris then spontaneously amassed in the basement to create the unusually high concentration needed to melt steel girders. Again, highly unlikely.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

What perplexes me is that I have repeatedly referred Mr Welch to the WPI study yet he continues to portray a complete ignorance of the topic. I can only assume he either refuses to read the report or he simply rejects it because it conflicts with his ideology. Mr Welch also demonstrates a reluctance to understand the difference between basic Thermite and other various engineered forms of aluminothermic materials that could easily explain the results of the WPI findings:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

The two papers Mr Welch cite also feign ignorance of these hi-tech forms of aluminothermics:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf, pp.55-78
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=86,pp.67-69

Which leads me to Mr Welch's closing questions:
1. Mr Welch which asks for confirmation from accredited experts on "nano-thermite."

There in fact has been a paper recently published in a peer reviewed scientific journal discussing the active Thermitic chips found in the WTC dust:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm (under 2009)

In a recent interview one of the principal authors of this paper, Dr Niels Harrit, explains what nano thermite is and it's significance to evidence found at the WTC:
http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=452

Two other related papers have also been published in the past year:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm (under 2008)

Of course I can forgive Mr Welch for not knowing about nano-technology since it is a relatively new field of science, but I must wonder if Mr Welch will even bother to examine this evidence or be able to admit it's validity.

2 & 3. Mr Welch asks how the WTC Towers could have been rigged without any employees noticing and if it is even possible.

There were employees at the WTC who did notice unusual events. Senior Database Administrator who worked in the south tower, Scott Forbes, reported that during the week before the attack that the power was down as many engineers went in and out of the buildings:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

Although Mr Welch has criticized the use of video as a source, this clip covers Mr Forbes story and other unusual events in the days before 9/11 that could have provided a window of opportunity to rig the building. This clip also mentions possible ulterior motives to have the buildings destroyed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOCdcXq4Vzw

We would like to know for certain the full official record of these occurrences but alas, they are missing and presumed destroyed too. How convenient:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/fortwayne_wtctapes.htm

If Mr Welch is interested in working theories on how the buildings may have been rigged, there is really no way for us to know for sure without further investigation but here are two hypothetical scenarios. The first is on a very informative video, and while I recommend watching the whole thing, parts 1 and 2, I refer you specifically the "Mission Impossible" section starting at 6 minutes in on part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U

The second is a hypothetical overview of the entire 9/11 scenario:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t3376.htm

I will state again, before debunkers start howling about a lack of evidence, these are purely hypothetical scenarios based on incomplete research. We can not verify any of these details without further investigation, which is exactly what we are asking for.

4. Mr Welch asks if it is credible that such an elaborate "false flag" attack could be arranged between Bush's inauguration and September 11th.

I think the plan could have been in the works for several years but relied upon Bush's election in 2000 to be carried out. Which is why I believe the theft of the 2000 election was so important to the Bush administration, but I assume the evidence of thousands of illegally blocked Florida voters and other election monkey business will also be dismissed as another "moonbat conspiracy theory" by Mr Welch:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/unprecedented.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/dec/24/uselections2000.usa2

In the summary Mr Welch launches another attack on my credibility saying I can only go so far with "rehashes of discredited claims, bad science and a lousy grasp of the historical record" and "systematically ignoring the vast mass of evidence which proves al-Qaeda’s complicity." All I can ask is that people take a look at sources I have based my beliefs on and decide for themselves if it is merely "blinkered fanaticism."
http://www.911inquiry.org/LiteratureSurvey2.html

Consider that most Truthers started out like Mr Welch, believing whole heartedly in the official story, until they found something, some fact or evidence that did not concur with the official account. Then they had to choose, whether to risk being publicly mocked and maligned for daring to question such a sensitive topic, or to just ignore the facts and go on believing in the fearful illusions and hateful stereotypes of 9/11 that have resulted in corruption, wars, and the loss of liberties. It's not an easy choice.

But I hope Mr Welch and others of his mindset, as loyal as they are to the voice of authority, eventually find that one piece of evidence that they cannot honestly explain away. And when they do, that they will have the clarity of conscience to join the movement for truth. We will welcome you.
http://911summary.com

Best wishes to all....... Stewart Bradley

This blog entry is also posted at current.com.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

BraveHeart - A 9/11 Firefighter Tribute

Eusanio2
YouTube.com
November 11, 2006

This song was written by Bobby Brexel in honor of those who went into the fire to help save others.Please contact MREStudios@aol.com for additional information on this song.
This song was written by Bobby Brexel in honor of those who went into the fire to help save others.Please contact MREStudios@aol.com for additional information on this song.

___________________________________________________________

My son is a firefighter and so was my brother who passed away from an illness 3 years ago so this tribute has a special meaning for me and the FDNY asks that we never forget those firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11.
Firefighters are a special band of "Brothers" and when my brother passed away they (Desoto County Firefighters) "carried him home".
We will not forget 9/11 nor will we let those 9/11firefighters death be in vain -I honor your sacrifice here. I also thank you for your unselfish love for your fellow man.
Please visit http://firefightersfor911truth.org
Erik Lawyer—Founder of Firefighters for 911Truth:

I went to New York to show support and attend FDNY Funerals. I was humbled by the FDNY Brotherhood, and the community support. I got angry with those who questioned 9-11. I wanted revenge for the attacks, then when I calmed down...justice. Years later, I even told my officer to leave the country if he thought we could have somehow been behind the attacks. I did everything I could to resist what I DIDN’T WANT TO CONSIDER.

Years ago I took an oath…“I, Erik Lawyer, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…” Our Found-ing Fathers knew domestic enemies were a threat. I have always believed I was a Patriot! I’d like to blame my unwillingness to listen to my Brothers who were claiming “we have do-mestic enemies” on Patriotism. I’d like to blame it on my belief that they were just “Liberals” trying to destroy our Country, or my belief that we must stand behind our President during times of war. I FOR-GOT my pledge to the Constitution…not to ANY political party or ANY President!! The blame comes directly back to me. I didn’t want to believe it was even possible we could have domestic enemies. I didn’t want to believe there actually could be a criminal element controlling much of our government regardless of what political party occupies the White House. I didn't want to believe that leaders of our own government would attack our own people in order to have a pretext to go to war. I bought into the Popular Mechanics explanations. I believed the corporate-owned mainstream media. It was much eas-ier to believe that “terrorists” from the Middle East that hate us for “our Freedoms” were responsible.

During this last year I’ve had an “awakening.” I finally calmed down, and looked at the evidence from the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial. I looked at the evidence uncovered by individual investigators, by insid-ers who have been fired for speaking out, and I looked at insurance company reports. I looked at the NFPA 921 Fire and Explosion Manual for 2001, and saw how a standard investigation should have been conducted. I re-read the article from Fire Engineering by Bill Manning, “Selling out the Investi-gation.” I saw how intolerant the media is of any one who questions 911, including military officers, FBI agents, intelligence officers, or any insiders. I was deeply disturbed by what I hadn’t “seen” for years. Now I’m asking for YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS AND OUR COUNTRY!

Thank You.

Beijing Mandarin Hotel Fire—Feb 2009
-44 Floors Well Involved
-Building did not collapse
World Trade Center 7 Fire—September 2001
-Fires on less than 10 floors
-Complete collapse at near free-fall speed into footprint
-Office of Emergency Management Coordinator knocked down inside building by explosion prior to collapse
WHY WON’T NIST TEST FOR ACCELERANTS?
Source: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/firestationletter.pdf

FaithMichaels note:
NIST did not, but someone did test for accelerants, and they found thermite.
Related Info:
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Erik Lawyer, founder of Fire Fighters for 9-11 Truth
Heated Controversy: Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a "conspiracy theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Page History
(cur) (prev) 21:40, 5 April 2009 Jehochman (talk contribs) m (55,220 bytes) (moved Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Rename article per talk page discussion) (undo)

It used to be called a hypothesis now its been downgraded to a conspiracy theory. Right around the release of the thermitic material paper aswell; which there was a debate about whether or not to mention.

hy·poth·e·sis (hī-pŏth'ĭ-sĭs) n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sēz')
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

conspiracy theory n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

By simply looking at the definitions it is clear that the proponents of the demolition theory are not proposing a "conspiracy theory", they are proposing a hypothesis. Steven Jones, Richard Gage and other technical 9/11 researchers have never directly pointed the finger at anyone. They simply criticise the official theories for the destruction the towers and look for alternative explanations. They are therefore not conspiracy theorists. Furthermore, everything about the official story of 9/11 fits the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Ever since the article was created in September of 2006, the theory has been referred to as a hypothesis. Now the new paper comes out PROVING there was a large quantity of explosive super-thermite in the towers and within a day, several biased editors, who are likely paid operatives, flood the talk page suggesting the page be renamed to a "conspiracy theory". The page was renamed hours later, despite opposition from fairer editors. They also attack the paper on the talk page, doubting the reliability of the journal and the peer review process.

Page History
(cur) (prev) 14:54, 4 April 2009 Arthur Rubin (talk contribs) (55,220 bytes) (We've gone through this before; The "peer review" seems to consist of "Yes, this looks interesting", and there are credible reports (to the point we could include them) that THIS paper was not review) (undo)

Just because a journal isn't mainstream, doesn't mean it's not credible. Compared to the corrupted, agenda driven "investigations" of Propaganda Mechanics, the British Brainwashing Corporation and the Nanothermite Institute of Scumbags and Traitors, who have been exposed as frauds several times before, i'd say Bentham is pretty reliable. And, according to Stephen Jones, the peer review process on this paper was the most grueling peer review he's ever had.

Talk Page
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


So it seems Wikipedia's definition of neutral is NIST, Popular Mechanics and the BBC's definition of neutral - AKA selective and biased.

See:
David Ray Griffin - Let's Get Empirical
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy

It is clear that there is no possible explanation for the super-thermite in the World Trade Center dust that doesn't point towards inside involvement. Therefore instead of even attempting to explain or refute this evidence, Wikipedia has evidently gone for the ad-hominen attack, a technique used time and time again by 9/11 "Debunkers".

Related Info:

Guide to Wikipedia on 9/11

Rampant Un-American Censorship of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Glenn Beck's debunking: Debunked!

politically-confused.blogspot.com
Monday, 6 April 2009

OK so first of all, Fox host Glenn Beck claimed there was no evidence for FEMA camps, and an 'expert' from Popular Mechanics (the same people behind a certain other memorable hit job) was going to show that there were no detainment centres being constructed and that FEMA camps were a 'classic Internet conspiracy theory'.

So Alex Jones decided to 'pre-debunk' Glenn Beck before his show aired on Fox News yesterday evening. The following is from The Alex Jones Show, shown live on Monday afternoon US time, hours before Beck's broadcast.

Here's a link to part 1; there are 7 parts. I didn't want to show them all here, as it would probably make the page load annoyingly slow.

And yes I know, it's really long (!), so if you don't have an hour to spare I will try to lay out where the key points are.

Video 1
0:00 - 1:20 Introduction: "There's so much evidence"
7:45 - 10:45 The 'secret' government

Video 2
5:25 - 6:25 "You want proof of martial law?"
6:45 - 8:05 Shadow Government power

Video 3
0:00 - 1:00 Nat Guard training with police for civil disturbance - local news report
10:00 - 10:59 PREDICTION of what Glenn Beck will say to 'debunk' FEMA camps
6:00 - 7:00, 8:30 - 9:50 News report: "The government's biggest problem: us"

Video 4
0:00 - 1:15, 8:45-10:57 Net Censorship, FEMA control of media, Should Obama control the Net?
1:45 - 8:00 HR645 (Emergency Centers Establishment Act) and related Executive Orders

Video 5
1:00 - 2:30 More on HR645
3:15 - 5:40 Civilian Inmate Labor Program, Censorship of Web/Criticism
10:00 - 10:59 Military Drills/Checkpoints

Video 6
0:00 - 2:40 Local radio clip about illegal checkpoints in Tennessee
3:30 - 8:30 Running through news stories about domestic military operations, mass graves

Video 7
0:00 - 2:00 'Civilian expeditionary workforce', evidence for Pentagon announcement of what basically amounts to a draft.

Click here for a relevant AJ rant about FEMA camps

Related Info:

Debunking Glenn Beck & Anti Ron Paul Propaganda

911blacklist.org: Why did we Blacklist Glenn Beck?

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Steven Jones Tells 9/11 'Debunkers' to Put up or Shut up!

Editor's Note: "Put up or Shut up" is my title.

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org

April 7 2009
Steven Jones
911blogger.com

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

Related Info:

Controlled Demolition Theories Have Passed Peer-Review

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Paper accepted by J of Engineering Mech challenges 1D fire-collapse equations, shows a >> g fall of the ST, etc:

Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant

Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Not an open journal publication: Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

The Work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed!

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

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

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

9-11 Truth has largest presence at LA Anti-War March!

WeAreChangeLA
YouTube.com
April 07, 2009

WeAreChangeLA brought our banners to the Anti-War March in full force. We had almost 50 members show up to help the 9-11 Truth stand out in a very big way. Others who attended the march exclaimed that "the 9-11 people are taking all the attention".

We all had such a great time. If you have yet to partake in an outreach, visibility action with our beautiful banners, then you gotta come out and join us!

Sunday, April 5, 2009

WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy

A half hour compilation video I made tearing apart the BBC "Third Tower" hitpiece.



Related Info:

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - A detailed look

Barry Jennings Mystery

BBC Set To Air Third Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth - Broadcaster re-hashes WTC 7 hit piece in latest desperate attempt to discredit doubters of the official story

New Footage Re-Ignites BBC Building 7 Controversy - Reporter's audio feed interrupted again as she discusses WTC 7, earlier window shot proves footage not "blue screen" as ludicrous debunkers maintained despite BBC admission

RIP Official 9/11 Story

So the red-chip paper is out, that proves that not only was there enough high-tech superthermite in the WTC towers to demolish them but there was some left over! No wonder some leaked out!

So either Osama Bin Laden had a high-tech weapons lab in his cave in Afghanistan and his Al-Qaeda elites happened to be controlled demolition experts with unrestricted access to three of the most secure buildings in America or the official story is a complete fraud.

I wonder what those reptiles at the Nanothermite Institute of Scumbags and Traitors are thinking right now...

I've uploaded a copy to rapidshare. Spread it around!

http://rapidshare.com/files/217653905/WTCRedChipPaper.pdf

3 Essays on 9/11 Research about the discovery:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html

Visibility911 audio interviews with Kevin Ryan & Stephen Jones about the paper:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3

http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Big News! Mark Roberts was debunked by a paper published today in a peer-reviewed chemical physics journal.



9/11blogger.com
Submitted by Reprehensor on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 6:25am.

Digg and reddit. (See also new interviews with Jones and Ryan here.)
From Dr. Steven Jones;

Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.

What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?

These are central questions raised by this scientific study.

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).

The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.

Some observations about the production of this paper:

1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here:
http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation

The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. http://www.dg.dk/). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.

The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”

We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.

2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg

3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.

4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.

5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html

7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.

Now read the paper for yourself, and let your voice regarding these discoveries be heard!
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm then click on “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered…”

Direct page link: (D/L PDF at source...)
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM...

Related Info:

Steven Jones Tells "9/11 Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

More About That Exploding Paint