Q: Has Anyone Ever Found Out Who That "Young Man" Was That Mineta Was Referring to? And Were the Orders for a Stand-Down or a Shoot-Down?

During testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta had the following exchange with 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton regarding the plane coming into the Pentagon:

MR. MINETA: ...There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"...

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

The 9/11 Commission would assert that the military "had at most one or two minutes to react" to Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon, however, Mineta's testimony indicates that they had 10 to 12 minutes, leading many to suspect the orders were stand-down orders. They omitted Mineta’s testimony from both their final report and the official version of the video record, however, they did imply Mineta was mistaken, stating that the discussion between Cheney and the aide occurred later than he claimed, and that it was referencing a shoot-down order for Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

Q: Has anyone ever found out who that "young man" was that Mineta was referring to?

This question was posed to David Ray Griffin in the following video at the 45:40 to 47:00 mark.



The basis for his answer, "CIA-veteran Ray McGovern speaks about a personal encounter with Norman Mineta, where Mineta should have said, the young man was a 'scared civilian'. This would exclude [Douglas] Cochrane, because he was a 'naval aide' and must have been wearing an uniform."

But the problem with that is, we people who "suspected" it was a military man in the room that day taking those orders did not just base our opinion on the logic that it is is not the job of a scared civilian or a Secret Service agent to be taking military orders, but on empirical evidence uncovered by 9/11 researcher James Dorman AKA jimd3100 indicating this is the case.

"March 2, 2004
New Requests:
(2)VP Military Aide (I believe his last name is Cochrane): The person at the Vice President's side in the PEOC who should have been intimately involved in the military communications chain is his military aide."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15740811/DM-B8-Team-8-Fdr-Email-From-Hyde-to-F

Furthermore, when researcher Jeff Hill spoke to Cochrane and posed his first question, "When you were in the PEOC with Cheney and you asked him, if the orders still stand?... What orders were you referring to?" Cohrane replied (Note: his testimony is sealed so he can't say much) that he was "really not prepared to talk about this subject at all." However, he could have easily said: I'm sorry you have me confused with somebody else. I never asked Vice President Cheney if any orders still stood.

If this were the truth it only makes sense that he would make such a statement, as opposed to offering numerous non-responses to Hill's continued questioning, along with providing Hill the cryptic statement, "Like I said I appreciate your inquisitive nature, ah, I am somewhat of a history buff myself. I appreciate your quest for knowledge, but I don't have anything else to add. And, and frankly this is kind of an imposition to call me on my government cell phone. I'm really not, I don't think it's appropriate, certainly not appreciated."

Why go on approximately 7 minutes like that, when it could have ended with:

I'm sorry you have me confused with somebody else. I never asked Vice President Cheney if any orders still stood. You'd have to track that person down to get your answers, thank you.

As Kevin O noted on 911blogger.com:

WOW

At 4:00 in the video, Cochrane says 'Oh, I DO remember Secretary Mineta,' like his memory had just clicked and it surprised him. I would take this to mean Cochrane was almost certainly present at the events in question.

Then he goes back to refusing to make any meaningful comments. But he NEVER DENIES that he was the 'young man' in Mineta's story. It sounds like he is very averse to lying, and so he just blocks out any real reply to that question. He never says "I don't know what you are talking about."

With him 'remembering Mineta', and then avoiding the real issue, I would guess he knows more than he is saying. He could easily be Mineta's 'young man.'

Now the million dollar question, were the orders for a stand-down or a shoot-down? As pointed out to me by James Dorman:

It seems very clear from the evidence that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the military until 10:31. If an order was given before 10:20 by the President, then there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down. But this would be given in private (to Cheney during one of their conversations-or Rumsfeld when they both can't remember what they talked about.)

Either that, or Cheney just issued a shoot-down order on his own before talking to Bush at 10:20, but that doesn't make the situation any better actually, as only the President and Secretary of Defence could issue such an order. As "SnowCrash" recently reported at 911blogger:

Breaking news: Jimd3100 vindicated

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/

Like clockwork, saw this right after writing this:

* We already know that 'officially' a shootdown order was never given and couldn't have been given by anybody else but the NCA.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46090#46090

And Jimd3100 added:

It took about 10 years, but the MSM is finally starting to understand that Cheney giving shoot down orders is the same thing as a stand down.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46104#46104

Then.. browsed to Rawstory and there it was... They acknowledge it and try to cover it up with excuses of "chaos"..

This was Jimd3100's article exposing this in July 2010:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-28/do-orders-still-stand-who-was-he

Thank you James.

All that Pat Curley could come up with as a defence at the Screw Loose Change blog in his post "Truther: Cheney's Order Was Shootdown, Which Proves.... Standown!" was, "One obvious question: If Bush and Rumsfeld 'knowingly' stayed out of the loop, why was Cheney's order issued too late?"

If Cheney knew they were purposely staying out of the loop then maybe he didn't want to issue an early order and make them look even worse.

Dorman responds:

If he can't look at this......

Jets had orders to shoot at airliners
Bush made move to defend District

Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, President Bush ordered military jets into the air around Washington with orders to shoot down any airliner that refused to turn away from the city, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EE9861D0C1AD826&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

And then hear for himself how this is an obvious outright lie........because

1 hour after the second plane hit the wtc we hear this........

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/special/911/Audio/%28104%29%20100901%20UA93%20Negative%20Clearance%20to%20Shoot.mp3

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/full-audio-transcript/

Then he is a waste of time.

The bottom line is that no shoot-down orders were issued until after the attacks were already over, a timespan of over two hours.

Related Info:

Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics

Thought I'd post these two excellent videos of Popular Mechanics being (once again) debunked and exposed.

Classy… Truthers Constitutional Right to Peaceably Assemble Denied at Ground Zero on 10th Anniversary of 9/11

This past Sunday Jim Hoft of www.thegatewaypundit.com ran the headline "Classy… Truthers Chant “9-11 Was an Inside Job” Outside Ground Zero Memorial." This makes it sound as if we were disrupting the memorial ceremonies taking place. I was there and this is not true. The truth is anyone wearing a 9/11 truth t-shirt or holding a sign who tried to enter the Ground Zero site were escorted to a barricaded area set up by the city away from the memorial site. It was in the vicinity, but not close enough to where we could be heard at the ceremonies.

As Michael J. Hampson of Rutgers School of Law has argued "...the practice of moving political protesters into free speech zones at presidential appearances is an unconstitutional restriction on free expression. Such a procedure violates the protesters' First Amendment rights..."

Also see the May 2003 ACLU report: Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America.

In any event, had truthers been allowed their constitutional right to peaceably assemble instead of being herded into a free speech zone the plan was not to be disruptive.

As The New York Times reported on September 9th in the article "9/11 ‘Truthers’ to Tone Protests Down, for a Day":

“No bullhorning during the memorial.”

That’s always been the rule of thumb among “truther” demonstrators at ground zero on Sept. 11, out of respect for relatives of victims of the terror attack, said Mike Skuthan, 32, a Web designer from Long Island who attends the demonstrations every year.

The demonstrations may be more subdued this year, said Luke Rudkowski, 25, a journalist from Brooklyn...

...When Mr. Rudkowski gathers with other activists at ground zero on Sunday morning near the official, private memorial service, he says, he will be in nonconfrontational mode.

Other activists agreed that Sunday calls for a subdued approach.

And as the site groundzero2011.com noted:

The early birds will start arriving around 7am, and at this time we usually line up peacefully along the black fences of St. Paul's Chapel on Vesey Street between Church St. & Broadway. The official MTA/Port Authority 9-11 memorial service usually lasts from 8am - 12pm with two moments of silence at 8:45am and 9:03am. During this time it is important to show the utmost respect for those who lost their lives that day and their grieving families so there is usually no bullhorns, shouting, screaming, yelling, etc...

Next we normally gather at the 'Remembrance Fountain' in front of Building 7. This is where we read aloud the names of our 'Forgotten Heroes'. The First Responders who lost their lives after 9/11 and are not acknowledged during the "official" remembrance ceremony at Ground Zero. From here we usually line up and march to other important areas such as Police Plaza, City Hall, Union Square, Times Square, the CFR building, the Federal Reserve, etc.

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit also noted that someone was holding a sign near Trinity Cathedral reading "Google: Jews control the USA!," but this person was not with the 9/11 protesters.

Hoft may think we were being disrespectful just by being there and expressing our freedom of speech in any capacity that day, well here are some people who disagree, just to name a few.







Here is a related little incident that happened to members of a WeAreChange group I helped start back when I lived in Indianapolis.



Another event that took place that evening in NYC was the premiere of the film, 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, (attended by truthers who came all the way from Denmark) which can now be viewed for free online.

Massachusetts 9/11 Ballot Initiative Press Conference

911truth.org
September 16, 2011

Former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney:


Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel:

Senator Mike Gravel, a native of Massachusetts, along with Massachusetts 9/11 Truth activists, launched its campaign for a 2012 ballot initiative which seeks the creation of a Citizens' 9/11 Commission, by holding a press conference held on September 13, 2011 on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston. The ballot question was submitted in August and was certified by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on September 7. According to the Massachusetts initiative law, supporters must collect a minimum of nearly 70,000 valid signatures from registered voters by early December of 2011.

Gravel will be working closely with the statewide alliance to create awareness of the initiative. The Senator will personally head the funding effort, which will be a worldwide campaign.

Senator Gravel will be supported in the state by a coalition of Massachusetts 9/11 advocacy groups and local concerned citizens led by Rich McCampbell, a Cambridge-based biotech engineer, and Rich Aucoin, former Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor who has worked in senior positions in three previous initiative campaigns. The group's slogan is "9/11--Never Forget."

If the 9-11cc petition campaign succeeds in getting its measure on the Massachusetts ballot, and if it is approved by Massachusetts voters in November of 2012, the primary work of the "Citizens' 9/11 Investigation Commission," once it is funded and seated, will be to engage in a fair and impartial investigation of the circumstances of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Commission, supported by its staff, will call or subpoena witnesses and hold evidentiary hearings under oath. It will also be empowered to inquire into events leading up to 9/11, as well as those occurring in its aftermath, and will re-examine the findings of any previous investigations.

The Commission established by the initiative law will consist of at least 15 members. Commissioners will be selected by the Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign steering committee from a screened list of nominations submitted by the public and also from among its own internally compiled list of distinguished citizens. The newly seated commissioners will then elect an executive director who will hire staff. The final report on the Commission's findings, due no later than January 1, 2015, can be used by a state or federal prosecutor to issue indictments if and when appropriate.

"The previous 9/11 Commission report," noted Aucoin, "did not hold any U.S. government officials responsible for possible negligence or for intended or unintended missteps that led to the events of 9/11. Well-established rules of evidence were never applied to the original Commission's finding, which alleged that Osama bin Laden and a list of co-conspirators committed the crimes. The intent of our approach, by contrast, is to hold all parties to this tragedy accountable under the criminal laws of the State of Massachusetts or the laws of any other state that joins our effort."

Notably, other states and even cities and towns may enter into a "joint-powers' agreement with Massachusetts if the initiative law passes. The authorized powers of the new commission can be extended to any state, city or town that enters into this agreement for cooperation. "The Citizens' 9/11 Investigation Commission created by the Massachusetts law may exercise all investigatory powers of each state that has entered into the joint powers agreement," explained Gravel, "including but not limited to the power of subpoena in that state and the power to take testimony under oath."

Using several different state initiative laws to create one citizens' commission, thereby creating a de facto national effort, is without precedent, but has already been legally accepted in principle by the offices of legislative counsel of the states of California and Oregon. "The law now submitted to Massachusetts," said Gravel, "was in fact drafted by me in cooperation with Oregon's State Office of Legislative Counsel. I then slightly altered it for introduction in Massachusetts. We will file the Oregon document shortly. Our intent is to keep the Oregon and Massachusetts texts -- and that of any other state initiative that we file -- as similar as possible."

Massachusetts Media Contact: Rich Aucoin, 781-956-6013, RichAucoin@comcast.net

Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions

9/11 Disinfo Road Trip
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/09/911-disinfo-road-trip.html



“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip BBC show” – A Participant’s Perspective
http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-roadtrip-a-participants-perspective/

MistrBrit Reviews BBC 9/11 Show & Interviews Participant
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/resistanceradio/2011/09/09/the-mistrbrit-show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZCtHanJe4g

9/11 Disinfo Road Trip

In my Charlie Veitch, WTF??? post I wrote:

He also said he spoke to a demolition expert, who I assume was probably someone like Brent Blanchard, and I'm guessing they told him it would be impossible to demolish those buildings.

I called it! The demolition expert they spoke to on the top floor of the new Building 7 was Brent Blanchard. Strangely enough though, WTC7 was not mentioned at all in the Conspiracy Road Trip program.

Instead they showed Charlie asking him why the upper floors of the south tower didn't fully topple over. Brent Blanchard's response was that a slight tilt would drastically lower the support and so there was no way to go but down. Really? What about the conservation of angular momentum? You know, that principle of physics that keeps spinning-tops spinning?! Also, how does a 'pile driver' impacting the lower floors at a 20 degree angle crush them so symmetrically, as observed in this video?



Next we have probably the only good thing about this program. Tony Szamboti shows two of the British truthers the Active Thermitic Material paper and mentions that the red chips react. He also mentions free fall but again no mention of WTC7 is made.

How does the program counter this? The same way Nat Geo did - by supposedly proving thermite can't cut steel. This program was filmed in June - 6 months after Jon Cole demonstrated that thermite-based incendiaries, if used the right way, can cut through steel.

What's interesting though is the demonstration they were given was of ordinary thermite, not nanothermite. When Charlie Veitch explained why he no longer believed in controlled demolition, he said he was given a demonstration of nanothermite.

Also ... that thermite expert ... could he have a more stereotypical geek voice?!

As it turns out, the program didn't mention all the hate Charlie received after changing his mind so that's a plus. This program was more of a documentary about the five British truthers than 9/11 itself. It kind of reminded me of IFC's New World Order film. It was still a hit piece, but more subtle. Like the other BBC pieces, it wasn't so much what was in the program, it's what wasn't in the program that annoys me.

Related Info:

Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions

Building 7 Explained?

I was recently told about this video by someone on YouTube.



My thoughts:

0:35 "Steel loses half of its strength when heated to just 1200F."

True. But there is no evidence that the fires in WTC7 reached those sorts of temperatures. And scientists on both sides of the argument have shown that the fires could not have reached those temperatures anyway.

"[R]aising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams." -Kevin Ryan

"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening

Also, the experiment shown is from the National Geographic documentary, which is addressed here and here.

1:11 "No water to fight the fires."

According to NIST, this apparently was not a "meaningful point of dissimilarity" to other skyscrapers that have been engulfed in fires.

“[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.” -NIST WTC7 FAQ

1:29 "Firefighters knew the building would collapse."

Addressed here and here.

1:39 "NIST modeled the collapse, and the models are consistent with the videos."

Actually, NIST's models of WTC7’s internal failures are completely inconsistent with videos of the building’s collapse, as pointed out by Dr. Frank Greening.

"According to NIST, the global collapse of WTC 7 began 6.9 seconds after the East Penthouse collapse or about 23 seconds into the simulation. Now consider NIST’s Figures 12-66, 12-67 and 12-69 and in particular the images showing the alleged state of the core 17.5, 19.5, 20.7, 21.8, 24.1, 26.8 and 28.8 seconds into the collapse simulation. These images represent NIST’s view of what the core looked like at ~1-2 second intervals following the collapse of the East Penthouse. What is most significant about these images is that around the time of global collapse initiation NIST’s simulation shows that the eastern half of the core had completely collapsed while the western half of the core remained standing and relatively undamaged. This is quite remarkable since videos of the collapse of WTC 7 show that up to and well beyond the moment that the roofline of WTC 7 exhibited its first downward movement, the exterior of the building revealed absolutely no signs of NIST’s proposed partial collapse of the core even though the core was connected to the exterior walls of Building 7 by dozens of horizontal beams on every floor." [Source] pg. 315

2:11 "Conspiracy sites don't acknowledge the penthouse collapse."

Actually they do. Here's one site that examined it extensively.

2:18 "Free fall speed collapse."

The building DOES fall in complete free fall for eight stories.

2:34 "Steel can fail due to fire, like the collapse of a steel overpass."

Steel can certainly fail due to fire, but the issue is whether or not the fires were severe enough in Building 7 to cause collapse in the first place. And the collapse of the Interstate 580 is hardly comparable to the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.

3:06 "Building 7 is the only skyscraper to burn uncontrollably for seven hours."

As we have already seen, other buildings have burned uncontrollably as well, yet none of them have ever collapsed from fire.

Answers to Chris Mohr (Parts 8 - 11)

#128 - Pre-collapse molten metal from WTC2 was aluminium from the plane mixed with office furniture, paper, carpet etc.

For the millionth time, Steven Jones has done experiments to rule that out!

#131 - NASA thermal images show only 1400°F, not 2800°F

These were the temperatures at the surface. Underneath, the temperatures would have been higher.

#131 Part Deux - Abundant aluminium in debris to melt at 1200°F

Some of it was definitely iron:



Richard Gage features this in his presentation. Considering Chris Mohr claims to be 'respectfully rebutting' Gage, he sure does ignore alot of the evidence he presents.

#132 - Claw Picture

Better picture:



"Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F." ~ LiRo newsletter, November 2001

Possible video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wwbOUR-sxI

John Gross' denial and witnesses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg

Leslie Robertson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto

#133 - Regular fires can burn for months



As Andrea Dreger writes:

(2) The persistence of hot-spots at the same locations for days and weeks

If you compare the 25 thermal images by EarthData that are published on their website you can see that the area covered by hot spots becomes smaller over time, but the general location of the hot spots does not change. You have hot spots at the same places for weeks. This seems to be inconsistent with the assumption that the hot spots were due exclusively to underground fires. Any fire at a given location will have consumed all burnable matter at some point and will stop burning at this given spot. Even if you consider that fires might have burnt at different levels at different times under the surface at any given spot, and that a single spot that seems small on the image in fact covered a relatively large area it seems impossible to explain how the heat persisted for weeks at the same spots due solely to burning fires.

#136 - #137 - Vincent Palmieri testimony

No planer logic. The fact that some firefighters etc. didn't witness molten metal or extremely high temperatures doesn't refute the fact that others did!

#138 - Steam Explosions

It turns out they were concerned about such a thing...

Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/WTC/dangerous_worksite.html

#146 - Fly Ash



Typical Concrete Mixture [Source]:

Coarse Aggregate: 1089 kg/m³
Fine Aggregate: 747 kg/m³
Portland Cement: 251 kg/m³
Fly Ash: 84 kg/m³
Total: 2171 kg/m³

Fly Ash, % of cementious: 25%
Fly Ash, % of concrete mix: 84/2171 = 3.87%

Iron Oxide, % of Fly Ash: ~10%
Iron Oxide from Fly Ash, % of Concrete: ~10% of 3.87% = ~0.4%

Concrete, % of WTC dust [Source]: ~25%
Iron Oxide from Fly Ash in Concrete, % of WTC dust: ~0.4% of ~25% = ~0.1%

The RJ Lee report estimates that iron spheres made up 5.87% of the World Trade Center dust. The fly ash from pulverized concrete theory doesn't explain the abundance of the iron spheres.



Spheres in fly ash (cenospheres) are hollow and predominantly alumina and silica. Iron oxide typically makes up only about 5-10% of fly ash used in cement. While the WTC microspheres also contain aluminium and silicon, and while we also find silicon-rich spheres, iron-rich spheres are the most common. Fly ash may be the source of the alumino-silicates also abundant in the WTC dust, but that doesn't explain how they were vapourized to a 'Swiss Cheese' appearance, something which requires temperatures in excess of 5000°F!

Also in the dust are relatively low-oxygen iron microspheres:

The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle.” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres, which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Many of the microspheres also contain sulfur:

XEDS spectrum for the largest metal-rich spherule found in sample 2. K and L lines for noted elements are labeled after the element symbol. Elemental contents in atomic percent are approximately: Fe (65), O (18), Al (11), S (4), Cu (0.6), Mn (0.6), Ni (0.4); the small C peak is likely from the carbon conductive tab used to hold the sample. The Fe-S-Al-O signature is striking, nothing like the signature of structural steel. Note also: Sulfur peak without a calcium peak, so the sulfur is not from calcium-sulfate contamination (gypsum).

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

I can't find any references for the presence of sulfur in fly ash. Also, some of the iron microspheres are hollow with sulfur on the inside:

Some of these microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur. The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces.

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-06-20/journal-911-studies-some-physical-chemistry-aspects-thermite-thermate-iron-aluminum-rich-microspheres

Steven Jones tested a sample of concrete for iron microspheres and found none:

PS -- some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3279843&postcount=115

Any ambiguity there may have been regarding the iron microspheres has now been eliminated thanks to the discovery of active thermitic material. The spheres in the WTC dust are identical to spheres produced during the ignition of commercial thermite and the ignition of the red-grey chips.

#146 - #155 - Eutectic Steel/Thermite Cutter BS

See John Coles videos:

The Mysterious Eutectic Steel
The Great Thermate Debate
Eliminate the Impossible

#158 - DSC of red chip ignition doesn't match documented nanothermite ignition

Neils Harrit: "IT IS BETTER - FASTER."

#166 - It's paint!

*Facepalm*

Maybe with Some Goading Keith Olbermann Will Flirt with 9/11 Truth a Bit More

Send tweets to Keith Olbermann:

@KeithOlbermann -- Richard Gage from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth AE911Truth.org : in New York around 9/11. PLEASE interview him!!!

Also, Thumbs Up this Current TV request:

http://getsatisfaction.com/currentcom/topics/please_have_olbermann_inteview_richard_gage_from_ae911truth_org_re_9_11

Maybe he will do it now that he's on a smaller network and more in charge.

Spread the word so we get as many people tweeting him and voting for the CTV request.

Then cross your fingers and/or pray.

Source:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-02/get-richard-gage-countdown-keith-olbermann

As Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has pointed out, Olbermann has flirted with LIHOP.



Olberman has stated that it is the Bush administration's "criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur."



And he was the only major U.S. media source to cover the Cheney Iran false flag story.



Olbermann has stated that the idea that the Twin Towers were blown up "may be a lot stronger stuff than most Americans can contemplate," but that was back in 2006. In late 2010, when FOX News host Judge Andrew Napolitano made comments supportive of the demolition hypothesis, Frances Martel of the Mediaite blog noted that Olbermann didn't "take any particular issue" with Napolitano's comments. So maybe with some goading he will flirt with 9/11 truth a bit more!

Related Info:



NEW YORK PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY '9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out' By Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Propaganda Wars, Episode 2: The BBC Strikes Back!

9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip - Sept 8, 2011, 21:00 GMT, BBC3

This September marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, one of the biggest terrorist atrocities of the 21st Century. Nineteen hijackers, all members of Al Qaeda, crashed four planes on American soil, leading to the deaths of 2,973 innocent people.

This horrific event has generated a multitude of conspiracy theories that contradict the official findings of the US government's investigation into the events of that day.

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

Each of them believes different elements of the conspiracy theories. Charlotte, a North London nanny who witnessed the attacks, thinks the American government is responsible. She can't believe the hijackers, barely out of flying school, could have steered jetliners into the Twin Towers with such deadly accuracy. Rodney a health worker who studied biochemistry suspects the collapse of the towers was not caused by the planes that went in to them and he wants to get to the bottom of the science. Student Emily, an active member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, thinks the US government was forewarned of the attacks and yet ignored the intelligence allowing it to happen. Shazin, a qualified surveyor, wants to find out how the passengers on United 93 could have made phone calls to loved ones from a plane. And Charlie, an ex-banker thinks 9/11 was an excuse for the US Government to go to war with Iraq.

Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face. In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.

Finally they meet a mother who tragically lost her son, to listen to her account of what it was like to live through this monumental tragedy. Andrew believes it is easy to judge world events from the safe distance of a computer screen in your bedroom but not easy when you are brought face to face with the real human stories behind them

Andrew Maxwell fights an exhausting battle for the truth and in his mission to convert his fellow travellers there are rows, falling-outs and tears. But there are also moments of tenderness, empathy and warmth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gpjx

---

This is the documentary that Charlie Veitch took part in and was supposedly converted during the filming of. Apparently, they do an experiment with 'nanothermite', which will be interesting. I've got a feeling though the negative reaction Charlie received is going to feature in the program and they're gonna make the 9/11 truth movement out to be a cult. This one might be a propaganda win for the BBC. All their Conspiracy Files pieces have been so bad they've woke more people up but this one could be very dangerous.

See Also:
Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions
Charlie Veitch, WTF???
Charlie Veitch Parroting Outdated Official Claims Regarding WTC7
My Top 10 Debunker Fails
The Eleventh Fail: The BBC & 9/11 Truth ... Four and a Half Years On