Please send this to anyone with an interest in NIST´s investigation and a knack for making FOIA requests, in order to get more information about the object observed in this video. According to the owner of the YouTube video below, you can find the footage yourself in the NIST FOIA records, the release number is 14 (entire package is 964 mb) and you need a torrent downloader: http://911datasets.org/index.php/International_Center_for_9/11_Studies_NIST_FOIA
That thing sure looks out of place! It's positioned so conspicuously, right under where the column
seat was. Explosives spaced out along the perimeter
could hardly explain the thoroughness of the pulverization because the floors were
so huge, but if they were also placed under the
floors like this.. then it makes much more sense.
If this red blob seen in the video is an
explosive it is most likely a normal explosive not a cutter charge
because there is no container around it to direct the cut. It can be Semtex or some super-thermite material.
Harrit´s paper refers to super-thermite "matches" that do not need a detonation cord because they ignite via a little application of current, such as
a 12 volt spike. Steven Jones also mentions in one of his lectures
that he actually ignited some of the red/gray chips with a 12 volt current. So all you need
is a 12 volt battery with a remote-controlled switch.
It sure looks like the cameraman and the FBI guys were fascinated
by the "blob," so it is hard to believe that it is just a big piece of chewing gum
someone left stuck on the steel. The blob is there and we think it is worth following up
on. Perhaps a FOIA request to NIST or the FBI could reveal what people
on the scene said about this thing, what happened to it etc.
As many will remember, the pup came first, but now cat lovers like myself have a mascot for truth too. The kitty is joined by a new Ostrich who also can't see things very well.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." - http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/theory
"Conspiracy simply means multiple people working in secret to achieve a common goal. This describes the executive boardroom of virtually every major drug company, and it certainly describes the actions of the FDA and the way it works in secret to destroy natural health remedies. Conspiracies may be positive in nature — as in 'We are conspiring to teach the world about nutrition' — or negative in nature. Conspiracies are so commonplace that probably nothing would ever get done in Washington or Wall Street without conspiracies (which might actually be a good thing, come to think of it)." - http://www.prisonplanet.com/jesse-ventura-speaks-out-about-conspiracy-theories-in-naturalnews-interview.html
"Academics’ aversion to the label conspiracy theory is acknowledged by some of them. Jeffrey Bale (2007) stated that “very few notions nowadays generate as much intellectual resistance, hostility and derision within academic circles as a belief in the historical importance or efficacy of political conspiracies”. Many, perhaps most, scientists and academics consider conspiracy theorists and their beliefs irrational and are averse to being associated with them. Levy (2007) suggested that academics and other intellectuals who become associated with “conspiracy theorizing . . . [risk exclusion from] epistemic authorities”, putting their ability to engage in genuine inquiry, including that required to evaluate conspiracy theory itself, at risk.
Rather than being dismissed at the level of evidence, those questioning official accounts are frequently dismissed by being labeled “conspiracy theorists”. Their views are dismissed because they are considered outside the “sphere of legitimate controversy”. In other words, the conspiracy theorists are not engaging in the “game of truth” defined by those in power." https://www.fielding.edu/alum-presents-research-on-conspiracy-theories/
"The point I am probably labouring is that it is only a slight exaggeration to say, as the American writer and activist of the 1960s and 70s Carl Oglesby did, that conspiracy is nomal politics in which secret diplomacy and secret intelligence play major roles. Yet this banal observation would simply be rejected - and probably laughed at as too ridiculous for consideration - ba all mainstream political and intellectual circles in this country and the United States. Among the chattering classes' politcal sophistication demands the ritual trashing not only of the all-embracing conspiracy theorists, who deserve it, but virtually anyone who offers up a conspiracy of any kind.
The respectable Anglo-American' chattering clsess; reject all talk of conspiracy because (a) it conflicts with the model taught to them at university and (b) careers in British (or American intellectual political or media life are not aided by being identified with radical or deviant positions.
The hostility to conspiracies rests upon two false assumptions. The first is the juxtabpoition of the compexity of social/political processes and the presumed simplicity of any explanation of events which has a conspiracy in it. This is false because, with the exception of small minorities who respouse the all-eccompassing conspriacy theories, nobody is actually suggesting the comlex social/politicla events can be explained by a single conspiracy". ~ Robin Ramsay - Conspiracy Theories
"The years following the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 have seen what Mike Ward, writing in PopMaters (January 3, 2003) termed 'probably the most staggering proliferation of 'conspiracy theories' in American history. Angry speculation---focused on dirty dealings, ulterior motives, and potential complicity in the attacks---has risen to a clamor that easily rivals what followed the Kennedy assassination.'
"Conspiracy theories are often replete with internal paradoxes, and some are easily dismissed by rational folks as completely weird and crazy. Often, the truth lies in the middle, and the task of the serious researcher is to make an intelligent discernment. To dismiss some conspiracy theories as too wild and off-the-wall to deserve attention may only result in the last laugh being enjoyed by those who seek to control and manipulate others." - From Conspiracies and Secret Societies - The Complete Dossier - Second Edition by Brad Steiger and Sherry Steiger
Conspiracy Theories: Generic, Rational, and Irrational by David Ray Griffin
In criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement's alternative theory, nothing is more common than the designation of it as a conspiracy theory. This designation takes advantage of the fact that "conspiracy theory" has become such a derogatory term that the claim "I do not believe in conspiracy theories" is now almost a reflect action. Lying behind the term's derogatory connotation is the assumption that conspiracy theories are inherently irrational. The use of the term in this way, however, involves a confusion.
A conspiracy, according to my dictionary (23), is "an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act". To hold a conspiracy theory about some event is, therefore, simply to believe that this event resulted from, or involved, such an agreement. This, we can say, is the generic meaning of the term.
We are conspiracy theorists in this generic sense if we believe that outlaws have conspired to rob banks, that corporate executives have conspired to defraud their customers, that tobacco companies have conspired with scientists-for-hire to conceal the health risks of smoking, that oil companies have conspired with scientists-for-hire to conceal the reality of human-caused global warming, or that US presidents have conspired with members of their administrations to present false pretexts for going to war. We are all, in other words, conspiracy theorists in the generic sense.
We clearly do not believe, therefore, that all conspiracy theories are irrational. Some of them, of course, are irrational, because they begin with their conclusion rather than with relevant evidence, they ignore all evidence that contradicts their predetermined conclusion, they violate scientific principles, and so on. We need, in other words, to distinguish between rational and irrational conspiracy theories. Michael Moore reflected this distinction in his well-known quip, "Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true". (24)
To apply this distinction to 9/11, we need to recognize that everyone holds a conspiracy theory in the generic sense about 9/11, because everyone believes that the 9/11 attacks resulted from a secret agreement to perform illegal, treacherous, and evil acts. People differ only about the identity of the conspirators. The official conspiracy theory holds that the conspirators were Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda. The alternative theory holds that the conspirators were, or at least included, people within our own institutions.
In light of these distinctions, we can see that most criticisms of the alternative theory about 9/11 are doubly fallacious. They first ignore the fact that the official account of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory in the generic sense. They then imply that conspiracy theories as such are irrational. On this fallacious basis, they conclude, without any serious examination of the empirical facts, that the alternative theory about 9/11 is irrational.
However, once the necessary distinctions are recognized, we can see that the question to be asked is: Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory? Once this is acknowledged, the alternative theory about 9/11 cannot be denounced as irrational simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. It could validly be called less rational than the official conspiracy theory only by comparing the two theories with the evidence. But journalists typically excuse themselves from this critical task by persisting in the one-sided use of "conspiracy theory", long after this one-sidedness has been pointed out.(25)
For example, Jim Dwyer wrote a New York Times story entitled "2 US Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories about 9/11"(26) -not, for example, "2 US Reports Say Government's Conspiracy Theory is Better than Alternative Conspiracy Theory". One of those two reports, he pointed out, is a State Department document entitled "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories", but he failed to mention that the truly top 9/11 conspiracy theory is the government's own. Then Dwyer, on the basis of this one-sided usage, tried to poke some holes in the alternative theory without feeling a need, for the sake of journalistic balance, to poke holes in the government's theory- because it, of course, is not a conspiracy theory.
Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive, published and essay in his own journal entitled, "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already".(27) He was not, of course, calling on the government to quit telling its story. He began his essay by saying:
Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed…. [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.
He did not have a paragraph saying:
Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defence system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.
Besides failing to have this type of balanced appraoch, Rothschild described my books as ones in which "Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory". He gave no parallel description of, say, The 9/11 Commission Report as a book in which the government peddled its conspiracy theory. Rothschild wrote, "The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin". He did not add, "The guru of the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is Phillip Zelikow" (the persona primarily responsible for The 9/11 Commission Report; see Chapter 2).
In response to the poll indicating that 42 percent of the American people believe that the government and the 9/11 Commission have covered up the truth about 9/11, Terry Allen, in an essay for In These Times magazine, explained: "Americans love a conspiracy.... There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge." She did not offer this Americans-love a conspiracy explanation to account for the fact that 48 percent of our people still believe the official conspiracy theory- according to which evil outsiders secretly plotted the 9/11 attacks. She also ignored the fact that if people's beliefs are to be explained in terms of a psychological need for comfort, surely the most comforting belief about 9/11 would be that our government did not deliberately murder its own citizens.(28) (I, for one, wish that I could believe this.)
The psychological approach was taken even more fully in... Time magazine. Although it was entitled "Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away"(29), the author, Lev Grossman, was not seeking to explain why the government's conspiracy won't go away. He did quote Korey Rowe, one of the creators of the popular documentary film Loose Change, as saying:
That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interuption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.
But this did not faze Grossman. He continued to use the term "conspiracy theory" exclusively for the alternative theory.
Then, to explain why this conspiracy theory has gained increasing acceptance, rather than going away, he ignored the possibility that its evidence is so strong that, as more and more people become aware of it, they rightly find it convincing. He instead said, "a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it." The question of the quality of the evidence was thereby ignored.
Another problem with Grossman's explanation is that he, like Allen, got it backwards. As Paul Craig Roberts, who had been a leading member of the Reagan Administration, has pointed out:
Grossman's psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they "hate our freedom and democracy"? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring.(30)
Roberts also pointed out that the attempt to explain away the 9/11 truth movement in this way would not even begin to explain its leaders:
The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability. - From Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin
Click here to read some of the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking this is an excerpt from for free on Google Books. Much more of the content can be accessed by using the "search in this book" box located on the left-hand side. For instance, the search query "NIST" yields 34 viewable pages.
"Of course, one can argue that obsession with conspiracy theories serves only to demonstrate the lunatic paranoia running rife in the twentieth century. Much talk about conspiracies is dismissed as paranoia and much of it is paranoia. But in reality, history has proved all too well that politicians lie, presidents lie and bureaucrats lie. Almost everyone lies to a degree. If we continue to be gullible and believe everything that is presented to us, the truth never comes out. It becomes not only interesting and revealing but an absolute priority to question authority and question the authoritarians." - From the A-Z of Conspiracy Theories by Kate Tuckett
"...The often fantastic nature of conspiracy theories does not necessarily make the scenarios any less plausible. After all, soaps are only a minor exaggeration of real life, a kind of superconcentrated pastiche of the violence, secrecy, and betrayal that exist in the real world. To deny that the absolute lowest in human potential could exist in at least a small coterie of planetary citizens, and then to doubt their ability to gravitate toward each other and to plan, is to be unrealistically naive." - From The Conspiracy Reader by Al Hidell and Joan d'Arc
"There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber, so the newly invented psycho-babble that tries to explain the malady of conspiracy theorists, also needs to explain why millions of conspiracy theorists all decided not to theorize about those events. There is no psychological malady. There was simply no evidence to indicate a conspiracy." - Conspiracy Theorists By Jolly Roger
"Don't even think about pooh pooh conspiracy theories. Last time I checked the various data bases --Findlaw, Cornell Law Library, et al --there were hundreds, if not thousands, of court cases involving conspiracies and just that many statites involving conspiracies. That is a lot of ink spent on something that does not exist. I will not waste my time with 'conspiracy theory deniers'. Most major crimes are conspiratorial in nature. What is organized crime if not conspiratorial? What was Enron if not a conspiracy to defraud employees, investors, and the IRS? Major crime is almost always conspiratorial." - http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_len_hart_070704_declaring_our_indepe.htm
"'Conspiracy theories' seem to be the quintessentially cognitive dissonant concepts of our culture. For many people, the idea that JFK was killed by the government or '9/11 was an inside job' threatens the entire fabric of their consciousness. These things simply cannot be true and people will bend over backwards and resort to irrationality and ridicule to avoid considering them." - http://www.truthmove.org/content/cognitive-dissonance/
"This book will delve into a number of things you don't see on TV or read about in the papers. The fact is, the media--the fourth branch of government that our founding fathers anticipated would speak truth to power and keep our democracy on track --has at least since the assassination of President Kennedy systematically ignored any 'conspiracy theory' that might rock the Establishment's boat. Clearly, there's something going on in our national psyche that the New York Times and the Washington Post don't want to examine. I'm tired of being told that anybody who questions the status quo is part of the disaffected, alienated element of our society that ought to wake up and salute the flag. Maybe being patriotic is about raising the curtain and wondering whether we've really been told the truth about things like September 11." - Jesse Ventura, from his book American Conspiracies. Listen to the entire audio book for free here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/01/jesse-ventura-american-conspiracies.html
"Understand the label 'conspiracy theory' is a tactic that the media often invokes to immediately discredit voices of dissent and people who seek truth. The tactic of creating manufactured enemies for personal gain has been around for as long as there have been conflicts. Of course there's no concrete proof of a conspiracy - the media would never allow that - but rather an abundance of evidence that points to a conspiracy on behalf of US interests." - Paris – Recording artist and performer.
"It is currently standard practice in America to simply dismiss any piece of information that punches a hole in any widely accepted explanation of a disturbing event. In many cases, especially when a serious crime is in question, the 'conspiracy theory' tag is immediately attached to any new discovery about the event. Information related to such important topics such as 9/11, election fraud, the new world order, secret societies, or globalization is too often ignored as part of a baseless conspiracy theory even before any of it is ever presented, discussed, or evaluated.
There seems to be no set criteria for dismissing information as a foolish conspiracy theory. The only prerequisite for information to be so categorized seems to be the desire to reject it. The reason for the rejection does not seem to matter. It appears that anything people do not want to believe is simply set aside as not believable." - http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/they_are_not_conspiracy_theori.html
"Ever since JFK was assassinated, the use of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has been elevated to a political tool for dismissing any information that goes against whatever 'official version' being pushed in any situation. This has lead the world to where we are now.
The term became infamous as it covered the role of everything from bigfoot to Elvis. By definition though, most of the subjects lumped in with the rest simply don't fit the definition of a conspiracy theory. A theory must involve people who are secretly plotting illegal or wronful acts in order for it to be considered a conspiracy. To be a theory, it must be composed of facts... not allegations. By allowing these words to get away from their definitions and trying to defend yourself against being a conspiracy theorist, you're only contributing to the Orwellian newspeak that is being pushed on us. Facts are facts; the minute you begin thinking about them, you are theorizing. There's nothing wrong with that." - http://www.conspiracytheoristclothing.com/about.html
"Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true." - Michael Moore
"There are people, like myself, who are called 'health nuts'. A 'health nut' is a person who advocates natural health things. So that's... The 'nut' is a term of endearment now. They were called 'health nuts' by the establishment, in a derogatory way, for many, many years. But now, a lot of us are proud to take the term 'health nuts'.
Well there are also 'conspiracy nuts'. And they're identical to 'health nuts': they have been put down with that term for a long time. They're a person who has keen insights to the ongoing problems of the world; and to the news of the world, he 'reads between the lines' and he sees that there are people out there with an agenda, powerful people with an agenda. And he begins to believe it and study it, and he gets to be called, by the establishment (which is part of the agenda problem) a 'conspiracy nut'.
Well, many of us are 'conspiracy nuts'. And I'm proud to be a 'conspiracy nut'." - Tom Valentine, Radio Free America "Most people can’t resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue … and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous. Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy. USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair. When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive? What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying 'alternative agenda'? When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls? 'I own a small business and am in town for a short while. Oh yeah, you look beautiful.'" - Jonathan Elinoff, from his article, 33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know…
With John-Michael Talboo filling in for Andrew Steele this week, Ziggi Zugam and him talk about Mark Basile's success in raising the money needed for a blind study of WTC dust, debates with alleged debunkers over the years, and other important issues related to 9/11 Truth.
HOMETOWN
Cleveland, OH HONORED BY Gretchen Talboo, Daughter
ACTIVITY DURING WWII
FORWARD OBSERVER. 83RD INFANTRY DIVISION THUNDERBOLT
DIVISION, OHIO. SERVED IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE, NORMANDY, BRITTANY,
HUERTGEN FOREST, ARDENNES, RHINELAND AND CENTRAL EUROPE.
James L. Rumbarger
BRANCH OF SERVICE U.S. Army
HOMETOWN
Kittanning, PA HONORED BY Mrs. Kimberly A. Talboo, Daughter
ACTIVITY DURING WWII
ENTERED SERVICE DECEMBER 26, 1942. FORT MEADE; RENO AIR
BASE; FRESNO; ENGLAND; FRANCE; BELGIUM; HOLLAND; GERMANY. AWARDED GOOD
CONDUCT MEDAL, AMERICAN RIBBON, EUROPEAN-AFRICAN-MIDDLE EASTERN RIBBON; 3
BRONZE STARS, WWII VICTORY MEDAL. DISCHARGED JANUARY 1, 1946.
Glenn Greenwald is best known for his disclosure of Edward Snowden´s classified documents through The Guardian. His new venture looks promising but some have raised doubts because of the controversial figure behind the financing. As always, in the end "the proof will be in the pudding," and we will have to see for ourselves.
We are very excited to welcome everyone to The Intercept, a publication of First Look Media (FLM). The Intercept, which the three of us created, is the first of what will be numerous digital magazines published by FLM.
As soon as we resolved to build The Intercept, we set out to
recruit many of the journalists whose work we have long respected and
admired: those who have a proven track record of breaking boundaries,
taking risks, and producing innovative, rigorous journalism.
We have assembled a team of experienced and independent journalists and editors (see our masthead here).
Our central mission is to hold the most powerful governmental and
corporate factions accountable, and to do so, we will report on a wide
and varied range of issues.
Mark Basile is planning to compose a progress report that will be posted on the aneta.org fundraising page withing a couple of weeks.
I can report that stage one of this study is about to commence and that it involves getting an independent lab to perform tests on known primer paints to allow direct comparison to the active red/gray chips. This will include SEM/EDX and FTIR or Raman to characterize chip composition, and DSC tests to confirm the non-production of molten metal/iron during exposure to approximately 400 - 600 degrees C and establish the exotherm/endotherm characteristics of these paints. Stage two will involve repeating the same tests on the thermitic red/gray chips and analyzing the reaction products. Mr. Basile predicts that the tests will require a few months to complete.
When the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center complex collapsed on September 11, 2001, they exhibited numerous features that several researchers have identified as being consistent with controlled demolition with explosives. However, others have argued that the Towers could not have been destroyed via explosives, noting that the collapse events lacked a critical feature of explosive demolition: sounds of explosions. The absence of these sounds, it’s argued, means explosives could not have played a role in the destruction of the buildings. In this paper, we examine this argument at length and show it to be groundless. We demonstrate that not only can explosive sounds be heard, but that even if this argument were correct, the entire premise of dismissing the demolition hypothesis based on this argument is fallacious to begin with. We also demonstrate that the official investigation into the destruction of these buildings failed to adequately consider this evidence as well, and therefore renders the conclusions of said investigation unfounded. The theory of controlled demolition with explosives has abundant evidence to support it, and this body of evidence does indeed include the sounds produced during the collapses. [Read the full paperhere.]
Like global radioactivity from heavily subsidized nuclear power-plants
and depleted uranium weaponry, GMO corruption of the food supply,
destruction of ocean-life leading to the largest source of oxygen on
this planet being heavily depleted, to state-sponsored terrorism, it all came into being for the same reason: the constant and immense funneling of wealth and power to the few, which is conducted mainly by land control, cost and taxation. By
disallowing self/community-sufficiency this unnatural (and inevitably
destructive) concentration of wealth/power is achieved, with horrible
consequences, like the events of 9/11/01. Even if someone were to
believe the official story this would hold true, since there would have
been no state to attack by those who "hate our freedoms," nor the
technological means to do such massive damage (most modern tech is only
possible through the same unnatural/unjust concentration of wealth &
power).
I began by reading reports of melting dripping metal at the World Trade Center after the attack on September 11th.
Some of these reports come from weeks after the attack.
This seemed quite strange.
Following links, I arrived Dr. Steven Jones and his famous paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”
Jones takes up this issue and much more. His paper is well worth reading.
Jones’ approach goes beyond the argument about whether
the buildings collapsed because the steel construction melted or just
weakened.
The molten pools of metal are the anomaly. They need to
be explained. Jones is arguing that these long-lasting pools wouldn’t
have resulted from burning jet fuel.
His conclusion, which he states needs further
investigation, is that thermite charges were the cause of the pools. And
why else would thermite be present in the buildings, except for the
purpose of bringing them down?
I fully understand that all sorts of assertions have
been made to explain the collapse of the buildings. And I’m sure people
will write me with their assurances about what really happened on 9/11.
But in this article I’m simply pointing out that what
appears to be confirmed observation of molten pools of structural metal
from the WTC is a key.
Why? Because it cannot be explained or accounted for by the official 9/11 scenario.
Yes, there are other facts that can’t be explained by
the official scenario. The molten pools are one important fact, and
Jones takes it up. Here are quotes from his paper:
“We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were
observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings:
the Twin Towers and WTC7.”
“There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all threebuildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging
from molten metalwhich was still redhotweeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6.)”
“…the observed surface of this metal is still reddish orangesome six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity
of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large
heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an
underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might
remain hot and molten for a long time — once the metal is sufficiently
hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated
underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite
reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in
pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000
°C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the
molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which
would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and
conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite
during the collapse could also contribute to theprolonged heating.”
Jones goes on to explain thermite reactions.
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of
high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some
combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See
Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder.
The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporatesteel which it contacts while reacting.”
“Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction
cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with
the thermite, which we call “thermate,” will accelerate the destructive
effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed
in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported
in Appendix C of the FEMA report.”
“On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as
thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of
large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed
during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!”
“The government reports admit that the building fires
were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal
pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]) stated: ‘Your
gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt.’ (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)”
“And in a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST
states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers
melted due to the fires.”
“None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal
pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers
and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the
previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel.
This could well become an experiment crucis.”
“Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires
would NOT melt steel: ‘The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe)
that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot,
especially with so much fuel present. This is not true….The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and
it wasmostdefinitely not capable of melting steel…The maximum flame
temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is,
thus, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.’”
Jon Rappoport – The author of two explosive collections, THE
MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US
Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He
maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of
which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a
Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years,
writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch,
LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in
the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global
politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the
world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Why
do I think this activism is definitely the best thing going for a
better world? I explain that here (in a newly updated post), and how it
could be made even more effective in establishing lasting positive
change (socially & environmentally):
Another good idea for refuting false arguments is to come here and use
our internal search function, because of their 8 FAQs, blog contributor Adam Taylor and I wrote
two apiece and helped on at least 3 others. :)
Partisangirl on Twitter noticed a photo posted on the Atlantic. It
shows a mercenary supposedly from the secular Free Syrian Army wearing
an al-Qaeda t-shirt.
Free Syrian Army soldiers watch a video on their laptop. (Hamid Khatib/Reuters)The fact the United States supports a “resistance” that almost if not
entirely consists of al-Qaeda and other closely related Sunni jihadist
fanatics is not mentioned by the establishment media. They are, after
all, the only force that can come close to defeating al-Assad’s
military.
The (NYC
CAN) is excited to announce the launch of the “High-rise Safety
Initiative,” a new ballot initiative that will amend the New York City
Charter to require the NYC Department of Buildings to investigate all
high-rise building collapses occurring in New York City on or after
September 11, 2001, except the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The Initiative
will apply to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001, as well as
any high-rise collapse that occurs in the future.
As many of you know, the City of New York blocked NYC
CAN’s 2009 ballot initiative from going before the voters and becoming
law. Five years later, we are sponsoring a new ballot initiative that
has been carefully crafted to withstand any legal challenge the City
might bring.
For the proposed charter amendment to appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot, we need to submit 30,000 signatures from registered New York City voters by July 3, 2014, and a second submission of 15,000 signatures by September 5, 2014.
To be sure we have enough valid signatures, the High-rise Safety
Initiative is aiming to gather 75,000 signatures for the first
submission, and 35,000 signatures for the second submission.
After that we may have to face off against the City over
the legality of the petition, a battle we are confident of winning. Once
the amendment is officially on the ballot, we will launch a full-scale
electoral campaign to educate New York City voters about the need for
the High-rise Safety Initiative.
Our Success Depends on You
Our ability to gather the signatures, overcome a legal challenge and win the vote on November 4 depends on your generous support.
The petition drive, which will run from May to July 2014,
will cost $250,000. The High-rise Safety Initiative is working with a
political consulting firm that specializes in field operations to manage
the petition drive – which all but ensures that we will successfully
gather enough signatures if we meet our fundraising goal. After that, up
to $50,000 may be needed for litigation.
Today we are asking you to make a generous donation to help us reach our $250,000 fundraising goal by May 1.
With your generous support we will take the first steps toward
mandating a new WTC 7 investigation and ensuring that the failure to
properly investigate a high-rise collapse is never repeated in New York
City.
Please go to HighriseSafetyNYC.org to learn more about the campaign and make your donation today.
We thank you for your commitment to NYC CAN’s efforts
over the past five years. Now, with your generous support and lots of
hard work, we can require the City of New York to investigate the
collapse of WTC 7 and any high-rise collapse that may occur in the
future.
“Not my problem” seems
to be the national if not the world slogan these days. People by the billion
have apparently given up all hope of the world ever righting itself, after the
programmed shellacking we’ve all gone through since sometime in the
20th century, now accentuated and accelerated beyond all hope of even
keeping track of since the nightmarish spectacle of
9/11/2001.
And that strategy, of
just minding your own business and keeping your head down, really isn’t as
stupid as it’s often made out to be, really. A person should still be able to do
that if he/she wishes – not concern oneself unduly with abstruse world-scale
affairs – without fear of getting clobbered by unearned and certainly undeserved
sudden out-of-the-blue gargantuan financial obligations stemming, say, from
vengeful unread fine-print emanating from who-knows-where on documents
tangentially dealing with your house fragmenting your future, or bombs or guns
in the hands of dark-side mad men or misguided ladies at any moment blowing away
you and/or your family. Such once was, of course, the common plight of those
whom ill fortune trapped in the derelict deep rotten cores of inner-cities, in
sterile canebrakes or hollers away out in the country, or in some crazed,
far-off or targeted seldom heard from realm of psychopath dictators with oil or
an H-bomb cache suspected clear across the globe, viewed dimly on your grainy
13-inch TV. But now, the psychs are operating closer at hand, nearly everywhere,
as a matter of fact, and the random acts and cyber-hits, or what not, are either
custom-planned or the result of fully-intended policies designed to screw
everything up for clever and/or bumptious reasons or rabid agents, to
destabilize or distress.
If I tend my yard, you
reason, and take the kids to ballet and inquire politely of the neighbors over
the fence tending their yards, and don’t make any noise at all or rattle the
chains, maybe the hubbub of the killing and wrecking machines won’t even find
me. But now, they are increasingly calibrated for finding everyone and the game’s almost up. But,
it’s not quite over yet.
And that’s roughly the
strategy of your neighbor, too, who knows well enough (when he knows or thinks
anything at all) that 9/11 knocked virtually everything out of kilter, just like
you say it did, and probably was part of an ongoing program in truth appearing a
lot more evident since. But it’s still “not my problem”, because I can’t do
anything about it.
And the likes of Greg Palast
and Chris Hedges, obscenely-famous and sold-out public intellectuals, who never,
in years and years and years, have had time, they invariably tell anyone who
inquires, to delve into the most consequential and easily key event of all of
our lifetimes to even form a reasonably-informed opinion as to whether it could
have been a false-flag operation – a set-up by powers out to trick and control
us – or not. It was either a heinous happenstance, totally beyond the control,
influence, or prior knowledge of anyone native to North America, or the blow-out
grand opening number of a new and endlessly accelerating enslaving and killing
spree launched by powers who were in control of our own government. And none of
these paid-to-be-smart clowns (Palast, etc.) have yet found time in their busy
schedules or vaguely hermetic lives to check out even the first clue about it.
Hence, the second practically unanswerable national and world slogan: “I’m not
convinced,” the refuge of many.
By now, those of us
who are for real and sane in this one way are yelling into an unrelenting gale,
that is, those of us who’ve been fool enough to look into what’s been driving us
all steadily back and reporting what we saw. They call us crazies, and we
obviously are, to take the abuse attaching to our staunch stubbornness! Only the
crazies among the Greeks questioned the tales of the gods who supposedly were
pulling their strings and messing with nature. To attest to the often-stated
fact that we have to be a little bit different ourselves – teched, or touched, I
believe, is the old-fashioned word – to dare to look straight on at all the
gargoyles and medusas and elementals of 9/11 as into the sun, in the face of
nearly-universal ridicule dealt out to dissenters these days, to openly blame
the infamous acts at Ground Zero, Salomon Brothers, and two other locations on
fiends not foreign but domestic, flies in people’s faces and questions damn near
everything they thought they had a handle on. Thus, there aren’t many of us
crazy scary enough left – and we shouldn’t be too surprised. We lost the last of
the faddists and swells some time ago, and are left a small cadre defending the
Alamo with the one great weapon we have and have had all along – the verifiable
truth.
I can’t get together
these days a decent quorum or anywhere near it for the once-thriving 911 Truth
group I started here in the middle of the middle, at one time the wonder of the
Movement. “Not my problem. The dog needed a bath, so I stayed home,” is
something like what I regularly hear now.
“Lord, give me power
to change what I can, grace to endure or accept what I can’t, and wisdom to know
the difference,” goes the old prayer. We, the few still battling mightily
upstream, obviously don’t know the difference! But we should still know that it
doesn’t matter what you know or say, if no one is
listening!
Yet, it’s not over.
For then, there comes along Pete Carroll, the coach of Seattle Seahawks in the
Super Bowl, who let slip last week that he’d grilled a returned Iraq War
higher-up general as to whether 9/11 was an inside job, and how on earth it
could have been otherwise, given what he, Pete Carroll, knew. “Carroll’s a very
good coach, so how can he be so crazy?” one article reporting this tidbit
quipped. A few more such reverenced crazies spewing the taboo words of
not-so-difficult understanding and courage by someone who really gets it and
cares, and there’ll be enough to fill a teacup. And then, perhaps, we’ll
seriously be in business!
How do I know it isn’t
over yet? Because, when it is, it will no longer matter to them what any of us think. We won’t
matter; they’ll just go ahead and plow us under, which has been their way from
Day 1.
As they’d say in
Casablanca –
You
must remember this, the truth is still the truth, the lie is still the lie! The
world must learn to tell the difference, as time goes by!
