Debunking the Debunkers

2012-12-21T00:00:00.000-08:00

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

Sorry, we no longer allow comments, but feel free to contact us here if you have a point of contention or some kind words you would like to share. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.

Re-posted material on this site often contains hyperlinks added to back up the claims made, which might not be endorsed by the original author.

Fair Use Notice

Please Read What I Actually Wrote Before Saying My Arguments Are 'Moronic'

2012-01-19T13:05:00.000-08:00

James B. of Screw Loose Change recently commented on my FAQ article posted at AE911Truth and, surprise surprise, he wasn't very impressed. He says the claims in my article are "ironic (and moronic)," but the real irony here is that he clearly didn't carefully read what I wrote. So, what are James' brilliant criticisms?

"They then go on to argue that the collapse started in the location where the aircraft did not have its major impact, ignoring the whole point that the fires were the primary cause of the collapse,"

First off, I did NOT ignore the issue of the fires, as I addressed that later in the article. The point I was making is that the collapse began at the floors with minimal damage, meaning that the planes likely would not have disrupted any of the demolition devices placed at those floors. I discuss this issue in greater detail here.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C

This of course is several hundred degrees below the ignition point of Thermite cited above (1700 F = 927C), and well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire, so their own experiment either disproves the conclusions of the article itself, or their assertion that this was Thermite, or in fact... both assertions.

Here James conveniently leaves off what I also wrote in regards to the demolition devices being set off by the fires. My full quote reads:

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition. (emphasis added)

The fact of the matter is that the devices could very well have been designed so that the fires would not have set them off. As Jim Hoffman notes:

Prior to 2001, the national laboratories and Pentagon contractors had developed advanced energetic nanocomposites which, in addition to providing much higher energy densities than conventional high explosives, were engineered to be very stable and require highly specific conditions for detonation. [source]

As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics. [source]

While nanothermite seems to have a lower ignition point than conventional thermite, nanothermite explosives can evidently be engineered to avoid accidental ignition. As for James' claim that (1700 F = 927C) is "well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire," the fact remains that there is no evidence that the fires in the Towers reached that temperature. So no James, my article does not disprove "both assertions." It supports the assertion that both thermate and nanothermite were used to demolish the Towers. The issues of what types of materials were likely used in the Towers and how they could have been used and set off has long been addressed.

James' post is full of nothing but meaningless insults and illogical arguments. Hopefully his reading comprehension improves in the future.

FAQ # 2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?

2012-01-12T17:11:00.000-08:00

Written by Adam Taylor [Response to attempted debunking of this article]
ae911truth.org

Thursday, 12 January 2012 16:21

We first frame the issue by noting that the answer to this question does not negate the evidence that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition. The massive amount of evidence gathered by AE911Truth and countless others demonstrates that the combined effects of the impacts and the ensuing fires do not account for the complete and explosive destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.

The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes. In the North Tower, the collapse began at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage. Only the tip of the right wing cut through that floor.

Left: WTC1 north face; Right: Damage relative to a Boeing 767. Note that only the tip of the starboard (right) wing cut through the 98th floor.

According to the NIST report (NCSTAR 1, pg. 87), the collapse of the North Tower began at this floor. Though the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this as the case. The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 indicates that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.

Left: WTC1 before collapse; Right: WTC1 at start of collapse. Blue line denotes 98th floor. Red line denotes approximate area of collapse initiation. Stills taken from video of North Tower collapse

If the demolition was started at the 98th floor, where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then the plane's impact would not have had any serious effect on well-designed devices placed on this floor.

Second, a demolition using advanced nanothermite material (which has been identified in the WTC dust) may help to explain why the fires started by the planes did not set off explosive devices. As noted by Dr. Steven Jones:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

In this experiment, “normal” thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch. Similarly, the “super thermite” found in the WTC dust could not have been ignited by the jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers.

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition.

Third, some of the devices were indeed affected by the plane impacts, as is evident from the spout of molten metal seen flowing out of the 81st floor of the South Tower. This would also be consistent with a thermite-based demolition, as noted by Jim Hoffman:

Partly because thermate produces bright orange light while burning, Stage 1 is allowed time to run to completion before Stage 2 commences. In the South Tower, some thermate pushed by the plane crash from the building's core to its corner generates an orange spout lasting from about T-7 to T-2 minutes.

The molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower, which may have been a result of the airplane impacting the demolition materials, is actually further evidence of controlled demolition

Critics contend this material is molten aluminum from Flight 175. However, these claims have been shown to be false. Even if the devices were affected in some way by the planes, this does not automatically mean that the overall demolition of the Towers was affected. If anything, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is very likely evidence of thermitic-based devices placed in the building which may have been disturbed and ignited by the plane impact itself.

Further exploration of this topic can be found at 911Research.com.

JREFers acknowledge the nanothermite hypothesis's scientific legitimacy

2012-01-10T01:54:00.000-08:00

It seems after almost three years, the debunkers are finally putting up. Chris Mohr has found a scientist willing to independently test the findings of Harrit et al:

Here is my official request for funds to analyze the WTC dust. To summarize, after three months of investigating this, the best person I found for the job is James R. Millette, Ph.D. of MVA Scientific Consultants. He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis. He promises an objective study: "At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community... I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization."

Dr. Millette continues to receive input from forensic experts as well as from me and my JREF companions. He has already found red-gray chips using stereomicroscopy and has created initial spectographic analyses of some of the red-gray chips in his lab's possession. He plans to do, at a minimum, a replication of many of the experiments already done in the original Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al Bentham study as well as additional testing by PLM, SEM, TEM and FTIR after sample treatment. I am thinking other tests may be added to the protocol. We will get a full report and he will also make it public.

The JREFers are excited about this, but some truthers a worried this may be a whitewash, and it may very well be, but look at this another way. What we have here is an admission from the JREFers that the Harrit et al paper should be taken seriously. For years, they have simply dismissed it on procedural grounds - questioning the peer-review, calling the journal a "vanity publication", making a big deal out of editorial controversies etc. For years, we've been saying "put up or shut up" and they've been saying there's no need to "put up" because that would just give the paper and the theory undeserved legitimacy. NIST, for example, said that the thermite hypothesis simply wasn't credible enough in their view to warrant investigation.

The fact that they are now attempting to replicate it, even if their intentions are to whitewash it, is an acknowledgement of the nanothermite hypothesis's scientific legitimacy.

Researcher Jeff Hill, who seems to have ignored everything he learnt about the nanothermite paper from his interviews with John-Michael, Adam and David Chandler, comments:

All this testing will do is probably further expose Steven Jone's, etc... as frauds and maybe help misinformed believers of the thermetic pseudo-scientists.

Pseudo-scientists"? Do you even know what "pseudo-science" means? Something is "pseudo-scientific" if it is presented as science but is untestable using the scientific method. Obviously Harrit, Jones etc. are making testable claims because otherwise the debunkers wouldn't be able to do what they are planning to do!

There's something you need to understand about science... you don't have to be right. That's the beauty of it. You can be wrong and still be doing science. In fact, most scientific claims do turn out to be wrong. There's no shame in it, that's how science progresses. And when an idea is found to be wrong, it doesn't mean it loses its status as "science". You're allowed to think Harrit, Jones etc. are wrong if that's what you believe, but don't call them "pseudo-scientists".

And frauds? Scientific "fraud" means to intentionally fabricate data. If you're calling Steven Jones a fraud, you're also calling his colleague Jeff Farrer a fraud. You're also calling Gregg Roberts, Frank Legge etc. frauds. You're also calling Jim Hoffman a fraud. You're also calling Mark Basile and members of Ae911truth who've also tested the red/gray chips frauds. You're also calling everyone who supplied Steven Jones with dust samples frauds... So that's, what, at least 15 concious frauds, none of whom have any apparent motive. Nice conspiracy theory you have there Jeff!

I eagerly await the results of Dr Millette's tests. In fact, I want more independent scientists to look at the red/gray chips. I probably won't trust Dr Millette's tests alone if they fail to replicate the results of Harrit et al, because there's always the possibility that he could be engaging in a deception. However, if we had like 10 different teams of scientists all testing red/gray chips from different dust samples and they all failed to replicate the findings of the original paper, then I would concede to the debunkers.

New Journal of 9/11 Studies Paper: "No plane at the Pentagon" Theories Refuted

2012-01-05T16:29:00.000-08:00

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

Abstract: The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.

(Full paper)

FAQ #9: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?

2011-12-14T17:00:00.000-08:00

Written by John-Michael Talboo
ae911truth.org

Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:03

Q. Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide?

Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled demolition stands on its own

A. Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’

Consider this example:

“7 in 10 doctors say the pharmaceutical drug Lipitor works, therefore it must work.”

It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say it works: If there is insufficient evidence to support the statement, we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions – particularly if there is a vested interest in dispensing the drug. If a large number of doctors believe that it works, then all that is really worthy of our time is further investigation for evidence to support the claim, but there is insufficient reason to blindly believe the unproven statement based only on a belief by a majority.

AE911Truth accordingly places its spotlight on the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method.

It should also be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history.

To illustrate, a general lack of knowledge about the explosive WTC evidence was displayed among A/E professionals at the September 11, 2011, NYC premiere of the AE911Truth film, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out," when an individual who held a professional engineer's license asked during the Q&A session why he had never heard of AE911Truth. An architect at the same screening was found in tears over the terrible implications of the evidence.

Fox News Channel host Geraldo Rivera expressed great surprise when he invited Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and signer of the AE911Truth petition, on his program in late 2010. For years prior to that, Mr. Rivera was dismissive of the 9/11 truth movement, but stated that he was, "much more open-minded about it… due to the involvement of 9/11 family members and the 1,300 architects and engineers.” In reference to the Remember Building 7 campaign, he said:

"What caught my eye is their claim that more than 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about Building 7 and disagree with the official report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology."

It is also important to note that during each of over 200 live presentations of the evidence detailed in our documentary, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, a show of hands afterwards consistently revealed that at least 85% of those who were either unsure or who accepted the prevailing opinion about the Twin Towers’ destruction beforehand wound up agreeing with the evidence for controlled demolition after seeing it.

In addition, there is no way to calculate how many A/E’s are aware of this evidence, but are unwilling to take a public stance on such a controversial matter.

Most technical experts have never had a chance to view the WTC7 collapse videos or the other pieces of evidence that confirm the controlled demolition hypothesis

Even if the flawed argument of ‘strength in numbers’ is to be seriously considered, the comparison should actually be between the AE911Truth petition signers and those who have publicly supported the official story - after studying the evidence for controlled demolition. The latter group only consists of the several dozen engineers that created the NIST WTC reports, along with a handful of various professionals who have openly advocated NIST’s claims and dismissed those of AE911Truth. This total pales in comparison to the more than 1,600 architects and engineers (as of December 2011) who are calling for an independent investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has noted, "There is a good reason why there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that Publicly Support the Official Story’." The numbers would be embarrassing. Few have even taken the time to examine the more than 12,000 pages of documents intended to obscure the issues and ignore the most critical evidence.

Other ignored variables include the fact that there are more than 13,000 additional signatories at AE911Truth, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. These ‘other’ petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, explosives experts and demolition contractors. Furthermore, there are other 9/11 truth groups which should also be taken into account that represent hundreds of people credentialed outside the fields of architecture and engineering, such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Finally, as noted by AE911Truth contributing writer Gregg Roberts, the logical fallacy known as ‘moving the goalposts’ is also at play here. Roberts writes, "...'Debunkers'... dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. While that was never true to begin with, after AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings." However, dozens of structural engineers, such as those featured in the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, have rejected the official story in favor of controlled demolition, citing the overwhelming evidence for that conclusion, much of which was entirely ignored by the official reports. With the "argument from missing authority" refuted, Roberts concludes, "the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again by people who simply don't want to face the evidence."

Fortunately, these false arguments have not stopped hundreds of architects and engineers and thousands of other concerned citizens from examining the evidence and signing the petition for a real investigation. While strength in numbers is not proof in itself, it amplifies our voice as we share the truth of the World Trade Center catastrophe with the world.

FAQ # 8: What Caused the Ejections of Dust and Debris in the Twin Towers?

2011-12-08T17:05:00.000-08:00

Written by AE911Truth [Including contributions by John-Michael Talboo]

Thursday, 08 December 2011 13:36

Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials

Multiple analyses have shown that the ejection speed of the squibs was too high, at 100+ mph, to have been the result of air pressure. These are explosive speeds. They have also been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second.

Q: What caused the "squibs"? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?

A: The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.

The squibs identified in the WTC videos occurred 20, 40, and 60 stories below the destruction wave

Another problem with the “dust puff” theory is that the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows.

Physicist David Chandler has also shown that some of these ejections came from the corners of the buildings. Since there are no windows on the corners, these ejections could not have been the result of air pressure.

Video evidence has revealed that violent ejections occurred before the North Tower began its descent

Furthermore, calculations performed by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. As Kevin Ryan has shown, the ejection speed of the squibs from the Towers also matches the speeds recorded for ejections caused by explosives.

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower's antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See "Visible Explosion at World Trade Center" and "WTC1 collapse initiation - visible signs."

Close examination of network video shows clusters of horizontal ejections racing down the North Tower, at times accelerating faster than debris is falling outside the building

9/11 Truth Versus The BBC

2011-11-27T08:45:00.000-08:00

My video editing software hasn't been working for months, then all of a sudden it inexplicably came to life about three weeks ago (although it's still really slow), so I decided to finish a video that I started literally over a year ago. I thought it was time to go back to my roots and make another 9/11 video. At nearly 22 minutes in length, not only is this my longest video by far but it's also the longest I've stretched out one single piece of music. The music is some extended remix of the BBC news theme I found ages ago. Hopefully it won't get on people's nerves too much!

The video contains clips from the following "debunking" sources:

The Conspiracy Files - 9/11. Aired February 2007.
The Conspiracy Files - The Third Tower. Aired June 2008.
The Conspiracy Files - The Third Tower (Updated). Aired October 2008.
The Conspiracy Files - 9/11: Ten Years On. Aired August 2011.
9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip. Aired September 2011.
National Geographic - 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. Aired August 2009.
NECSS 2009 - "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" Panel. Filmed September 2009.

It also contains a clip from Ventura's Pentagon episode and footage of me burning the 9/11 Commission Report on 9/11/2010!

BBC claims addressed:

"The official story is "unequivocal"."
"There was ONE routine exercise taking place that morning."
"The planes couldn't be intercepted because their transponders were turned off."
"NORAD only looks outwards."
The straw man that the 9/11 truth movement denies a plane hit the pentagon, thinks the phone calls were fake etc.
"The hijackers could have easily flown the planes into the targets."
"The south side smoke is proof WTC7 was a towering inferno."
"WTC7 did not collapse at free fall."
"The eutectic steel can be explained as a result of burning gypsum."
"The iron microspheres could have come from cutting torches."
"The red-grey chips are paint."
"Thermite can't melt steel and has never been used in demolition."
The discrediting of Barry Jennings' testimony to stepping over dead bodies and his suspicious death.

As you may be aware, more emails from the University of East Anglia have been leaked. One of those emails completely exposes the BBC's bias on the climate change issue:

"We are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all ... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats."

~ BBC Environmental Correspondent Alex Kirby to the University of East Anglia's Phil Jones, Dember 7, 2004

Considering all their lies about 9/11, from now on I shall refer to my national broadcaster as "The objective impartial (ho ho) BBC"!

9/11 Truth Movement Trying to Co-opt the Occupy Movement?

2011-11-18T23:37:00.000-08:00

Please spread to individual Occupy movement supporters, affiliated groups, websites, and forums.

This is a plea for the Occupy movement to drop any preconceived notions about, and take careful consideration of, forming an alliance with the 9/11 truth movement, specifically the OccupyBuilding7.org campaign, (an offshoot of the RememberBuilding7.org campaign) spearheaded by 9/11 family members. Please read the entire argument.

Counter to cries that "9/11 truthers are trying to co-opt the Occupy movement" for our "own fringe uses," these issues are arguably inescapably intertwined, and 9/11 truth is far from fringe anymore. I'll start with the latter.

In 2006 a hit piece published by Time magazine stated that the perspective that government officials either "allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves" is a "a mainstream political reality."

That same year it was estimated by 911 family member Bill Doyle, that of the 7,000 member strong communication network he headed exclusively for 9/11 victim's relatives, "probably half believe that 9/11 was an inside job to some extent."

The fact of the matter is, a plethora of polling data conclusively shows that there is quite substantial and perpetually expanding skepticism of the official account of 9/11, and that an undoubtedly notable and also ever-growing percentage of this mass of doubters, suspects or is convinced to varying levels, of not just criminal negligence, but complicity and involvement by U.S. officials. This includes a recent poll commissioned by RememberBuilding7 showing that 48% of New Yorkers support a new Building 7 investigation, as well as a poll sponsored by the German magazine Welt der Wunder showing that 89% question 9/11.

A March 30, 2010 article published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation notes that "figures translate to about 100 million Americans that question or find fault with the official 9/11 story, far from a trivial number and far too many to dismiss as conspiracy nuts and part of the lunatic fringe. This is the important message that merits public appreciation." An article published the prior month demonstrated that indeed the blind disregard of the topic was waning due to the "increasing influence of the 9/11 truth movement," noting, "In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account. Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a 'conspiracy theory' ignoring science and common sense."

The problems with the official 9/11 story that have sparked this paradigm shift are many and include the fact that official government documents show no shoot-down orders were issued until after the attacks were already over; a timespan of over two hours. However, the only officials that could have given such an order, former President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have lied and stated a shoot-down order was given earlier than it is documented to have been.

Then there is the physical and forensic evidence (the government admits doing no forensic tests) cited by the current 1,637 architectural and engineering professionals at ae911truth.org, whose supporters have been reaching out to protesters at Occupy events.

And the 9/11 foreknowledge continues to stack up, for instance just this year a government whistle-blower revealed that intelligence activities between the summer of 2000 and June 2001 revolved around al-Qaeda's interest in striking the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and other targets. However, this and other information was withheld from Congress.

Now, what do these movements have in common?

A 2006 post on GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com asked the same question still on many people's minds in 2011, "How did we get into the economic downturn?," as to the answer, GW writes:

Iraq

Let's start with Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? WMDs, you say!

Actually, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...

The economy is on everyone's mind right now. What possible connection can there be between the economy and 9/11 -- when 9/11 occurred years ago?

Well, many top economists - such as Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz - say that the high cost of war in Iraq is the cause of the current slowdown in the U.S. Therefore, if the false linkage of Iraq and 9/11 was the reason Congress "authorized" war, and if the war is the reason for the current economic downturn, then false statements about 9/11 are one of the reasons our country is currently in an economic slump.

On May 16, 2002, an MSNBC News report revealed that:

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

And the Seattle Post reported this stunning admission on January 12, 2004:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The astounding coincidence of convenience offered by 9/11 for easily achieving goals (including the Patriot Act, written long before 9/11) which otherwise would have been hard going if not impossible, is certainly a motive worthy of further exploration. As lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi has stated, "if there had been no 9/11 there would have been no war in Iraq, certainly not one the American people would have approved of."

So, 9/11 was used to justify two economically debilitating conflicts, one of which has expanded to Pakistan, the other of which was based on a proven lie, for which a new investigation could seek justice, and both of which were planned pre-911. The astounding coincidence of convenience offered by 9/11 for easily achieving goals which otherwise would have been hard going if not impossible, is certainly a motive worthy of further exploration. See the recent article from WashingtonsBlog: "Iran War Threats, Militarization of American Police and Spying on Americans All Started BEFORE 9/11."

As lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi has stated, "if there had been no 9/11 there would have been no war in Iraq, certainly not one the American people would have approved of."

And as one of the original popular 9/11 truth protest signs reads, Expose the 9/11 Cover-up - Fiscal Ruin... Endless War... Only 9/11 Truth Will Set US Free.

From OccupyBuilding7:

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a much needed response to decades of growing inequality, financial deregulation, and zero accountability for the crimes that brought about our current economic crisis. Millions throughout the nation and across globe who feel they have no voice in our political system have come to embrace “Occupy” as an expression of their anger, frustration and hope.

September 11, 2001 - the day our country was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.

Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the suspect destruction of this skyscraper.

The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the anomalies and inconsistencies we've been given about 9/11."

We aren't co-opting anything; we are the 99%.

Corbett Report Radio 011 – Occupy Building 7 with Ted Walter, Plus Updates on the Campaign

Corbett Report Radio 011 – Occupy Building 7 with Ted Walter, Plus Updates on the Campaign and Related Info

2011-11-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

September 11, 2001 - the day our country was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.

Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Corbett Report Radio features Ted Walter of OccupyBuilding7.org, the latest idea from the Remember Building 7 campaign for raising awareness about WTC7, the third skyscraper to fall on 9/11/2001. ( Only covers Occupy Building 7 section. For full radio report: http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-011-occupy-building-7-with-ted-walter/ )

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a much needed response to decades of growing inequality, financial deregulation, and zero accountability for the crimes that brought about our current economic crisis. Millions throughout the nation and across globe who feel they have no voice in our political system have come to embrace “Occupy” as an expression of their anger, frustration and hope.

Source:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-06/its-time-occupy-building-7

Wednesday, November 16 update from RememberBuilding7.org, formerly known as BuildingWhat.org: (Click here for a blog post demonstrating that responses from a prominent "debunker" to the evidence pages at RememberBuilding7 are very misleading and false.)

Stand with OWS Tomorrow, Occupy Building 7 This Weekend

Occupy Building 7 Will Go Ahead As Planned

Stand in Solidarity with OWS on Thursday, November 17

Stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street following their eviction from Liberty Plaza and join the explosion of Occupy energy this weekend by occupying Building 7 and demanding once and for all a real investigation into the events of 9/11.

Details:

Thursday, 7:00am (or anytime) until late: Show your support for Occupy Wall Street on the two-month anniversary of this historic movement’s beginning by marching from Liberty Plaza to the New York Stock Exchange. At 5pm assemble at Foley Square and march to the Brooklyn Bridge. Distribute Occupy Building 7 fliers to thousands of occupiers and other New Yorkers, and let them know we the 99% stand in solidarity with them. Click to download the Occupy Building 7 fliers.

11:00am Saturday: Begin assembling by the tall red sculpture at the southeast corner of Liberty Plaza (the corner of Broadway and Cedar St.). Hand out thousands of Occupy Building 7 fliers to occupiers and passers by, and invite them to occupy Building 7 with us.

Noon Saturday: Depart for the rebuilt World Trade Center Building 7, just four blocks away.

12:15-12:30pm Saturday: Occupy the park in front of Building 7 and remain there until nightfall.

2:00pm Saturday: Join the Occupy Building 7 General Assembly and be a part of shaping the future of Occupy Building 7.

Sunday: same schedule. Start assembling at the tall red sculpture at 11:00am. Depart for Building 7 at noon. Occupy until nightfall. General Assembly at 2:00pm.

If you are coming from out of town and looking for free lodging on Friday or Saturday night, email us at info@OccupyBuilding7.org.

This weekend will mark the beginning of something extraordinary. Inspired and in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement, what we build will seriously threaten to bring the public’s full attention to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and put the official account of 9/11 on its last legs. And in so doing we will contribute immensely to the Occupy movement’s push for economic and social justice. Let’s go make history.

OccupyBuilding7.org

Follow on Twitter - Like on Facebook - Visit OccupyBuilding7.org

Related Info:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Supporters Inform Occupy Movement *** The Blog Continues ***

My Hopes For The Occupy Movement - 911 Truth News

The One Percent - "This 80-minute documentary focuses on the growing 'wealth gap' in America, as seen through the eyes of filmmaker Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune." - Source

The Tea Party Is Wrong on Occupy Wall Street by David Franke - Franke was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

Why OWS needs Michael Bloomberg - Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Current TV - In a Special Comment, Keith contextualizes Mayor Bloomberg's actions against Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park and how they have - unintentionally - vaulted the movement from a local nuisance to a global platform for the disenfranchised.

Thermite Has Never Been Used in Building Demolition?

2011-11-04T14:34:00.000-07:00

"Thermite has never been used in building demolition." - [9/11] Critical Thinking For Dummies - Controlled Demolition by "Juniversal" at the JREF Forum

Popular Mechanics Ignores Its Own Historical Records of Thermite Demolition: Destruction of Skyride Towers, Reichstag Dome Set Incendiary Precedent

Written by Eli Rika
Friday, 04 November 2011 13:41

The editors at Popular Mechanics have made a name for themselves as ardent defenders of the official 9/11 story. Editor-in-Chief James Meigs and contributing writers have presented articles in the magazine that dismiss the scientific evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers and characterize the discovery of thermitic residue in the WTC dust as insignificant. However, a recent review of the Popular Mechanics archives has revealed that this “world-renowned” publication reported on the use of thermite to bring down steel structures over 75 years ago...

A search through national news archives has brought up another famous example of thermite-assisted demolition... The steel-framed roof of the German Reichstag, which survived arson in 1933 and Allied bombardment during World War II, was felled by thermite charges in 1954.

Read the entire article here.

FAQ #7 – Sounds of Explosions?

2011-11-04T11:51:00.000-07:00

This video, pulled from the NIST archives, reveals sounds of explosions that corroborate the eyewitness testimonies of explosive sounds at WTC7

Written by John-Michael Talboo
http://ae911truth.org

Friday, 04 November 2011 13:02

Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?

Answer:
As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.

Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.

Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings' floors hitting each other as part of a "natural" collapse.

The Trapping of Screw Loose Change

2011-11-03T17:00:00.000-07:00

November 3, 2011
by Jeffrey Strahl
911truth.org

Dear Readers,
Please submit your comments on this article at the link at Amazon, here, as provided below by Mr. Strahl.
911Truth.org published this article; the author is not available to be reached through email to this site. We look forward to reading your comments there. – Ed.

In mid-October 2011, I posted a review of David Ray Griffin's new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later -- When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed at Amazon, here.

[Related Info: David Ray Griffin's Fake Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Theory Debunked Again]

This review drew comments from James B, one of the two top people at Screw Loose Change, a leading "debunking" website used as a reference by many an internet opponent of 9/11 truth. The result was a major debunking of Screw Loose Change. This piece is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. The focus of our exchange was the evidence regarding events at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, where three steel frame high-rises were destroyed. This is the part of my review which is relevant to the debate:

Being someone with an engineering degree, it's no surprise that I find the strongest part to be Chapters 2 through 4, which deal with the three steel hi-rises which came down on 9/11. Chapter 2 has been posted previously on the web as an article, a challenge to left-leaning despisers of 9/11 truth to explain nine apparent miracles required to explain how the official story could be made congruent with the physical evidence. It is quite telling that none of the prominent left commentators mentioned have responded to this challenge. Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change have been able to explain how heat caused sudden onset failure, something which is impossible, given the nature of heat as heightened molecular activity which can only lead to gradual failure preceded by softening and sagging, in contrast to extreme cold (e.g. liquid nitrogen application) which sucks out energy from molecular activity, or of course demolition. None of them have been able to explain the presence of molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel, or even to make a coherent argument as to the presence of molten iron, even though NIST's own investigators failed to find steel samples subjected to fires which were heated to the point at which structural steel loses 50% of its strength, 1112 deg F, let alone melt structural steel. In fact, hardly any of the samples even made it to 500 deg F. And there has been little response to WTC7 falling at free fall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, something NIST said was impossible, or the horizontal ejections of large steel beams, or any of the other key bits of evidence.

In Chapter 3, Griffin takes on Bill Moyers and Robert Parry and their complete failure to deal with the WTC evidence. In Chapter 4, he discusses the Building What campaign to publicize the facts behind WTC7. Debunkers should be challenged to explain all this material.

A bit of background regarding the presence of molten iron and molybdenum, and vaporized lead and steel in the WTC dust and debris: A steel beam recovered from WTC7, the third tower which was destroyed on 9/11, though not hit by a plane nor subject to a serious fire, was examined by a team of engineering professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which identified the beam as being clearly from WTC7 due to the type of steel used. They found evidence of a eutectic reaction, i.e., the penetration of the beam's steel by sulfur, which resulted in such severe erosion of the beam that the steel had holes in it. The presence of sulfur is itself a mystery, but so is the fact that this reaction required a temperature of 1,000 deg C (1,832 deg F), far in excess of what even NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the government agency which carried out the official investigation of the WTC, stated was present. By the way, NIST stated air temperatures during the fires as if they were metal temperatures, when in fact it takes a long time for a fire of a certain temperature to heat steel to the same level, given the high thermal conductivity of steel. In addition, the steel was partially vaporized, a phenomenon which requires a temperature of 2,861 deg C (5,182 deg F). The report on this beam was included in the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC, the initial government investigation. But NIST's 2008 report on WTC7, which noted the FEMA report and incorporated much of it, left out the part on the WPI investigation, and indeed stated that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

The dust created by the destruction of the WTC towers was analyzed by several different entities. One was the RJ Lee Group, a laboratory hired by Deutsche Bank, whose building's roof had lots of this dust deposited on it. The bank wanted to demonstrate that the dust came from the WTC for insurance purposes. The investigation, which verified the WTC origin of the dust, found a large percentage of molten iron in the form of spheres, 5.87%, vs. 0.04% iron content in normal building dust. This "normal" iron content also does not take the form of spheres. Such a form requires steel/iron to be melted and tossed in the air, which as with all fluids results in the liquid drops taking a spherical shape to minimize surface tension. This led the investigators to conclude that the iron had melted during the event. The melting point of iron is 1,538 deg C (2,800 deg F). RJ Lee also found evidence of vaporized lead, which requires a temperature of 1,749 deg C (3,180 deg F). The dust was also investigated by the US Geological Survey (USGS), which also found the extremely high level of iron, and also discovered evidence of molten molybdenum, which requires a temperature of 2,623 deg C (4,753 deg F). This was not made public until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by a team of scientists forced the disclosure. In addition, there were numerous reports of large pools of molten iron/steel under the site of the WTC towers, lasting for weeks. NASA satellites detected extremely hot spots underground.

Screw Loose Change (SLC) has managed to come up with "explanations" for just about everything that happened on 9/11, both the physical evidence and other. Most of these make no sense. Some are absolutely laughable. Those who would rather deny the fact that 9/11 was an inside job are OK with any explanation which appears to confirm their "skepticism," and gladly grasp onto anything, however spurious, offered as "9/11 truth debunking." But SLC has been totally silent, or at least evasive, regarding the evidence for molten and/or vaporized metals. I believe this is because this evidence is the Achilles heel of the official story.

Without knowing a full inventory of the weapons in the arsenal of the US armed forces, including special operations units and the CIA, and without having full access to the evidence, one cannot reach a complete conclusion as to what created such high temperatures. Nanothermite was indeed detected in ample amounts in the WTC dust, but it may not represent the full story. This is why I avoid attributing the evidence to any particular weapon. Such attribution is unnecessary. We do know that only three possible explanations are possible: volcanic activity, proximity to a hot star like the sun, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. The first two causes can be ruled out. By deductive reasoning, this leaves us with the third, however much we may not like the conclusion.

Links to the information I have provided can be found at the following two articles by David Ray Griffin: "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven," September 14, 2009, and "Left Leaning Despisers of 9/11 Truth: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?," July 6, 2010.

What follows is the exchange, with some of my comments in brackets. I left out comments by others. I tried to keep the original exchange as complete as possible so one can get its full flavor. Some readers may wonder why all the repetitions have been kept intact. I'm doing so because leaving them in demonstrates how James B. and Screw Loose Change evade questions, repeatedly bring up arguments that have already been discredited in the specific debate, and attempt the same lying via quoting out of context and false attribution.

This is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. I edited down repeat quotations by both myself as well as James B, leaving them in full only where these quotes are necessary for context. I also left out most of my "trapped rat" remarks, which are OK in the context of the debate, but need not be repeated as often. The full exchange can, of course, be viewed at the Amazon review; the URL is provided at the very beginning of this article.

To offer feedback on this piece, please click the Amazon review URL and post comments there. Please make note if you are doing so as a result of reading this piece at 911Truth.org, and be sure to quote sections relevant to your comment, as appropriate.

James B says:

"Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change..... or of course demolition."

But it was a gradual collapse. If you read the NIST reports there are numerous photos showing the sagging trusses pulling the perimeter beams in. FDNY helicopters reported seeing the tops of the buildings start to sag minutes before the collapse. FDNY personnel at WTC7 detected the building leaning and making creaking noises hours before it collapsed. Why do you ignore all of this?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Fantasies. A "leaning" building does not fall down in perfect symmetry. NIST in fact did not in its report show any fires persisting more than a couple of hours in any part of WTC7. Videos do not show any of the towers with "sagging tops." For an actual case of what happens to a hi-rise overwhelmed by fire, see the Windsor Building in Madrid, about the same size as WTC7, burned for 24 hours, had some floors collapse, it demonstrated visible sagging, but it did not fall. "Gradual collapse" takes hours, not even a few minutes, pieces of the towers weren't falling off, one second the buildings were still, the next second they were going down.

And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel. Don't expect any help from Screw Loose Change on that.

The fires in all three buildings were asymmetric. This would result in asymmetric damage. Asymmetric damage cannot cause a symmetric collapse, simply physics. This is why demolition is a careful process, it's very hard to bring down a structure symmetrically.

Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined showed hardly any of them reached even 250 deg C (482 F), none reached the point (600 C, 1112 F) at which steel loses half its strength. The fires in WTC2 were so weak they were near going out when the building fell, two fire crews reported being able to easily take care of them on radio right before the destruction. People walked down past the impact zone without experiencing an inferno.

And why don't you explain the WTC7 free fall while you're at it? Or horizontal ejections? Or the tops of the two main towers being shredded at the very beginning of each destruction, precluding their acting as "pile drivers," the core of the official story? If you're planning a long process of nit-picking, it won't work.
And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel.

James B. Says:
"Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined ..... so weak they were near going out "

Uhh, which is it? You can't keep a coherent narrative for two paragraphs.
[This is very typical of how SLC deals with questions on its website, trying to insult the intelligence of anyone who diverges from its correct line, which is the official story]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, it is you who cannot read. NIST examined samples of structural steel which showed fire damage, as i stated in the review. The fact that these samples didn't reach high temperatures at all, even for building fires, demonstrates that the fires didn't get all that hot, which makes the presence of the molten and vaporized metals even more of a blatant contradiction of the official story. The hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, under prime conditions (isolation, carefully regulated fuel supply, forcing of pressurized air) wouldn't be able to come up with the temperatures necessary to account for the molten/vaporized metals, but in fact these fires weren't even hot hydrocarbon fires. It's clear that something else caused those metals to melt or vaporize.

James B. Says:

Dude, either temperatures got that hot, or they didn't. You are proposing some Schroedinger's cat scenario where temperatures did not get above 250 degrees, but were somehow above 3000. So either NIST was wrong (or you are misquoting them, which you actually are, but I will skip that topic for the moment because it is fun screwing with idiots) or temperatures did not reach as hot as you are claiming. It can't be both.
[This is a common tactic of "debunkers," and even of some who call themselves "9/11 truth activists" who contend the WTC was not brought down by demolition. They attempt to respond to this contradiction by making it seem as if "truthers" are trying to have it both ways, have temperatures be fairly low and quite high at the same time. It's an attempt to obfuscate.]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, you are either thick beyond belief or you are just trying to troll and are desperate. "Temperatures" in the abstract isn't the question here. The fire temperatures and fires-caused steel temperatures is one thing, whereas temperatures required to explain the molten/vaporized metals is totally another. The fires did not heat the vast majority (98%) of inspected fire-affected steel to 250 deg C (482 F), and none of it to the point where steel softens significantly (50% loss of strength), which is 600 deg C (1112 F). Yet there is evidence of molten and vaporized metals which require temps of 2800 deg F (molten iron), 3100+ deg F (vaporized lead), 4700+ deg F (molten molybdenum) and over 5000 deg F (vaporized steel). This evidence can therefore not be accounted for by the fires which erupted due to the plane impacts. Something else besides the fires melted and/or vaporized those metals. Surely this would be easy to understand even for someone with no science or math beyond 7th grade.

If someone traveled between two spots at a rate which suggested they had to move at over 1000 mph, and they allegedly did so by a car, and the car shows no evidence of being able to travel faster than 120 mph, and in fact no evidence it even reached 60 mph, there is no Schroedinger's cat scenario, they simply didn't travel with that car.

And do prove the "misquote," if you dare, the numbers are out of the NIST report. See http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

James B. Says:

No, this happens because the average Truther has the reading comprehension of an overcaffeinated Chihuahua. NIST did not say that the beams were not heated above 250 degrees, but that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified as having come from the targeted area were not heated above 250 degrees. Any beams heated above that temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.

This Truther logic is kind of like saying that the police interviewed the survivors from a mass shootings, and none of the survivors reported that they were fatally shot, therefore nobody died.

"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core."

From the NIST report. You might want to try and read it.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, what temperatures the fires heated the steel to is irrelevant to the core argument i challenged you with. Not even NIST claims that the fires were hotter than some 1400 deg F (which does not directly translate to metal temperatures, see below). And even this temperature would still make it impossible to explain the molten/vaporized metals as being the result of these fires. Using the car analogy from above, even if you can prove the car did travel at 120 mph, that would still not explain how the person could have traveled between two points in such time as to have required a speed of 1000 mph. Nothing can explain such temperatures except explosive and/or incendiary devices.

NIST pleading the small size of the samples is like a guy murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy on the basis that he's an orphan. It was the decision of the US government together with the city government of New York to destroy almost all the structural steel except for these few samples, to ship it all off to China in violation of city, state and national arson laws, in the face of loud protests by Fire Engineering Magazine and other professional organizations.

NIST has no material evidence of steel heated to over 600 deg C., indeed hardly any of steel heated above 250 C. Its conclusion that steel was heated above that point is strictly the result of mathematical models, and we know thanks to whisteblowing that these models were tortured, manipulated to create such temperatures. NIST of course refuses to provide details of its models. We do know how NIST's video model of its WTC7 report is totally at odds with actual videos of WTC7's fall, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST also has tried confounding air temperatures during the fires and steel temperatures, as if structural steel doesn't conduct away heat very efficiently, as if it doesn't take a long time to heat steel, as if the fires were really that hot for very long, as if the fires actually lasted a long time at all.

But again, the key point is that the fires can in no way explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence. This is why Screw Loose Change has avoided the question.

James B. Says:

You claim it was heated above 3000. Make up your freaking mind. Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It was quite clear that i was talking about steel heated by fires, not of steel in general. Indeed, NIST has no material evidence of steel heated by fires to over 600 deg C (1112 F), and hardly any of steel heated by fires to over 250 deg C (482 F). And yet, there is evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temps of around 2800 F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. And i suspect you comprehend this perfectly well, but are simply trying to obfuscate matters and change the topic so you won't have to explain the molten/vaporized metals.

NIST knew perfectly well about a steel beam from WTC7 which showed evidence of sulfidation, with holes in it, investigated by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, reported on in the FEMA 2002 report on the WTC and discussed even in the New York Times. The team knew this beam was from WTC7 and stated so, having recognized the signature of the WTC7 steel. Yet NIST's report on WTC7 claimed no steel was recovered from the structure, thus avoiding discussing this beam, which showed evidence of vaporization as well.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the molten/vaporized metals, Screw Loose Change has consistently done so. This is a clear signal that it cannot deal with this evidence, and hopes it goes away. It won't. I'll keep reminding readers that you are unable to deal with it.

James B says:

Actually we have done dozens, if not hundreds of stories on supermagiconanothermite, to the point that I got tired of discussing the subject. It is a magical amorphous subject which to Truthers can have any properties. It is an explosive, it is an incendiary, it can be painted on, it is invisible, it is fire resistant, it is undetectable by any known means! Arguing it with Truthers is kind of like arguing the properties of unicorn horns with a Harry Potter fan.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are once again trying to change the topic, it won't work. Fact is, there was evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temperatures of around 2800 deg F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. All these temperatures are way in excess of any possible temperatures achievable in hydrocarbon fires (as in the fires which erupted in the buildings after the plane impacts, or in WTC7 supposedly due to debris from WTC1), let alone the temperatures that were actually observed in any of the steel samples examined by NIST. The melting and/or vaporizing of the metals was not the result of the fires, but of something else, and there is no logical alternative to the cause being explosive and/or incendiary devices. NIST knew of the evidence for these molten/vaporized metals, but avoided the question. And you are doing the same.

James B, you are like a rat caught in a trap which continues to bare its teeth and act as if it's capable of inflicting damage, fully knowing it cannot move. You will try to talk about everything, including the kitchen sink, in trying to avoid dealing with this, but you won't succeed. You are trapped. It is inevitable that when you defend a story full of holes, you will eventually fall into one of the holes.

James B says:

I think it was ground up unicorn horns. They are known to burn at high temperatures.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It's fun to watch the rat squirm and squeal and otherwise try to pretend it isn't hopelessly trapped. The more the rat does this, the tighter the trap's grip.

I have long told people that Screw Loose Change's obvious evasion of the molten/vaporized metals evidence shows the best thing to hit them with. Great to finally do so and watch them ground to a halt. Screw Loose Change is finished. My advice to them: shut down the site, open a new one under new names, this way they will able to get away with what they've been doing for a bit longer, till they're exposed again.

We could of course start talking about other stuff which will act as a trap for them, like WTC7 free fall. But it's too much fun watching them squirm.

James B says:

Uhh yeah, because I run my blog, and even my life based on the ignorant comments of random people on the Internet... Oh yes, you have caught me, if you keep us this cunning game the Truth movement will continue its 10 year success of accomplishing absolutely nothing other than breaking up marriages and embarrassing itself in front of relatives.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Watch the rat really squirm and squeal even louder as the trap holding it is lowered into a bucket full of water. It's obvious you have nothing to say to counter the molten/vaporized metals evidence. Even your joke about the unicorn horns was recycled, you wheeled it out months ago on your blog in an attempt to respond to a question about molten molybdenum, which you never responded to. At Screw Loose Change, you were able to get away with not answering. Here you won't. The world's watching. Screw Loose Change stands exposed as fraud.

James B says:

The world is watching? Dude, there are like 3 people commenting on this thread, and you and I are 2 of them. Have delusions of grandeur much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

A lot of people read this without commenting. And everyone who reads this or hears about it will find out that Screw Loose Change is totally tongue-tied when it comes to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals.

James B. Says:

Oh yes, I am well aware of Truther JAQing off, where you Just Ask Questions, without having to actually take a stand on anything, thus they can conveniently never be wrong! It is not science, science involves making falsifiable claims, it is religion.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing from the trapped rat. The points at which metals melt or vaporize are known facts, and this is hard core science. The temperatures required for these are far above anything remotely possible with hydrocarbon fires. No way to produce such temperatures without direct human intervention, barring a volcano which somehow remained undetected by everybody, or a star like the sun approaching the WTC site.
The only possible explanation for this molten/vaporized metals evidence is the use of explosive and/or incendiary devices. Any such evidence at a scene of a fire would normally require an investigation for explosives or accelerants, per the national fire protection code. This is a firm scientific conclusion. I won't accuse you of "religion," you are simply trying to evade dealing with evidence which you obviously cannot deal with.

James B says:

Yes, I am well aware of Harrit's "science" in which he made the shocking discovery of finding rust and aluminum in the debris from a collapsed building. He then paid $800 to some online journal based out of Pakistan to get his paper published in such a sloppy process that the editor of said journal was not even aware of the paper and resigned in protest after the fact. That is what you call "science".

And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, if you didn't know what caused the fire. In this case even the most dimwitted observer can figure out that the fire was caused by a jetliner crashing into both of the buildings. It was in the all papers.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

This is not an actual rat trap, but a virtual one. Unlike with a real trap, the rat can actually leave any time. But at the same time, every time it comes back, it ends up trapped as tightly as it was when it left. A real rat which managed to escape a trap wouldn't return to it, but then we know that rats are smarter than some people. This virtual trap is in fact what a cat would design, as this way it can torture the rat forever without having it die, ending the fun.

James B talks of "religion." Given that he believes in some miracles, including the presence of molten and/or vaporized metals without apparent reason, he is the one relying upon religion, a mystical belief in the official conspiracy story.

"And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, It was in the all papers."

So we see on TV someone getting punched in the face. An hour later, his head explodes. A dimwitted observer like James can figure out that the head exploded because of the punch. A more intelligent observer would inquire whether there's any evidence that the victim was shot in the head by something. An independent investigator has found bullet fragments in the brain. The dimwitted observer insists that these fragments mean nothing, in fact refuses to explain them.
Again, the fires caused by the plane impacts could not have caused metals to melt and/or vaporize. The finding of such evidence should have led investigators to inquire why it was present. The guidelines clearly state that evidence of molten (let alone vaporized) metals should lead to investigation, since the apparent causes *may not provide a full explanation.* In fact, they may have had nothing to to with what happened.
You keep trying to change the topic to the fires. Forget it, you've been trapped. The fires cannot explain this evidence. And neither can you. So keep squealing, it's fun to watch.

James B. Says:

Once again, you claim that NIST said that they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees. Additionally none of the thousands of firemen, police officers, demolition contractors, FEMA workers, NIST investigators or FBI agents found any signs of the use of explosives such as detonators, triggering devices, shaped charges, det cord, nor were there any recordings of the effects of these massive explosions such as warped metal or deafening explosions which should blow out every window within blocks. How can they respond to evidence which you say they did not find?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are again trying to change the conversation. The evidence in discussion here is the evidence of the presence of molten/vaporized metals. Given the temperatures necessary to melt and/or vaporize these metals are FAR higher than anything remotely achievable via the hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, and the absence of either a volcano or a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices could have been responsible for the presence of these molten/vaporized metals. Do you dare deny the existence of this evidence?

As for your totally false assertions above.
" they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees." I have in fact repeatedly stated in this regard that this refers to heating *by the fires.* As for signs of the use of explosives, none of the investigators looked for such evidence, after all as a NIST spokesperson said that they knew it wasn't there, so why bother looking.

But this is besides the point here. There is indeed lots of evidence for molten/vaporized metals. You haven't been able in the least to explain this evidence, in fact you keep trying your hardest to not deal with it, to shift the conversation. It won't work. Your further squirming will only tighten the trap.

James B says:

The whole site was looked through with a fine tooth comb. They trucked all the debris out to Fresh Kills where the FBI literally sifted through it, pulling out remains and such. Somehow they missed all that det cord. I have seen thermite used in military grenades. Aside from the fact that it is not used in building demolitions, it produces very distinctive marks. As do shaped charges (aside from the unmistakably loud boom). There is no way thousands of first responders could have missed these distinctive signs on thousands of beams. One beam which was sulfidized in a eutectic reaction, which in no way was related to the actual collapse of the building, does not a controlled demolition make.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Your claim that the sulfidized beam due to a eutectic reaction is "not related to the actual collapse of the building" is an assertion not backed by anything. There is also the fact that NIST failed to mention it and instead claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the team investigating this beam stated that it was easy to tag as being from WTC7. And there is no mention of the temperature required for such a reaction, far higher than any fire temperatures claimed even by NIST. Nor is there a mention of the fact that this beam was "partially vaporized."

And besides, this beam is not the only evidence of molten/vaporized metals, far from it. Again, the squealing trapped rat tries to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. Let us remind him and anyone who might be fooled by him what this topic is: the presence in the dust and site debris of molten and vaporized steel/iron, vaporized lead, and molten molybdenum. These require temperatures far in excess of what hydrocarbon fires are capable of producing. James has totally failed to address this or even acknowledge it.

James B. Says:

Dude, it is in the FEMA report. You are basing your argument off of it, have you even bothered to read it? The temperatures required are much lower than you claim. Well within the reach of an normal office fire, much less one resulting from two airplane crashes.

"It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Nice try, James B. You left out certain parts of that report.

"Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 �C (1,800 �F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel...."
This is closely followed by
"The larger sulfides further into the steel are the more stable manganese sulfides that were formed when the steel was made. The smaller sulfides that have formed as a result of the fire do not contain significant amounts of manganese, but rather are primarily sulfides containing iron and copper. These sulfides have a lower melting temperature range than manganese sulfide. (Here is where your quote starts) It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."
So the temperature you are trying to pass off actually applies to one region of the steel, the inner part. The outer part required a temperature of 1000 deg C (1800 deg F) for the evidence to be explained, far higher than anything even NIST claims. Not to mention that what NIST passes off as steel temperatures are actually air temperatures due to the fires, it takes a while to heat steel to such temperatures due to its conductivity. You must be a used car salesman.
Best of all, James B, *you totally fail to explain the partial vaporization reported not only by the Worcester Poly team but also by Dr Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. This requires a temperature of 5182 deg F. *
And why did NIST totally leave out this part of the FEMA report, and state that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the Worcester team stated that this beam was clearly from WTC7 due to the steel used to make it?!!!!

You also fail to account for the nearly 6% molten iron spheres content of the WTC dust, or for vaporized lead or for molten molybdenum. Squeal, squeal, trapped rat. Every time you come back, the trap will be as tight.

James B says:

Aww, Truther "anomaly hunting" whereby Truthers take any perceived anomaly or unexplained phenomenon and use that as a license to create the most elaborate speculative explanation, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or even possible. "Hey, what are my keys doing on the dresser? I know I left them in my coat pocket. The only explanation must be that time travelling gnomes using their cloaking shields snuck into my house and stole my keys, used them to play pranks on people and then replaced them without being seen. But I am too smart for them!"

I am reading Michael Shermer's the Believing Brain, which explains why otherwise intelligent people believe in things like ghosts, faeries, homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You guys might want to read it sometime.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

James B.: You are apparently not very bright, coming back into a situation in which you were caught in an outright lie. You quoted the FEMA report out of context, making it seem as if the steel beam examined by the WPI team was subject to temperatures of "only" 700-800 deg C (as if such temps were present anyway), when in fact the full quote shows otherwise.

If someone is reading this and doesn't understand what you did, i'll provide them with another example. Someone (call him/her A) says "It's horrible that even in the 1950s, there were people who thought lynching is a good thing." James B would then accuse A of being a racist and present a "quote" in which he/she states "lynching is a good thing." You are a shameless liar, James B.

Of course, it's understandable. You have been caught like a trapped rat, unable to explain evidence of molten/vaporized metals, which would require temperatures FAR, FAR in excess of anything even NIST claimed were present, let alone anything for which there is evidence that the fires caused. This would obviously require explosives and/or incendiary devices, since there are no volcanos or hot sun-like stars in the area. It is not an "unexplained phenomenon." So, unable to explain it off, even with a nonsensical pseudo-explanation, you resort to prattling about Shermer's BS and all sorts of other stuff. That's nothing more than the squealing of a trapped rat. By the way, Shermer is a proven liar regarding 9/11, just like you.

(Edit to add this URL regarding Michael Shermer's record of lying and fraud, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/)

James B says:

Whether sulfidation required 800 degrees or 1000 is irrelevant. Both are well within the range of temperatures produced by even a common housefire, much less a major fire produced by crashing jetliners. Yes, I understand Truthers don't like Shermer. I have even seen them heckle him at a book signing. Rationalism is to truthers like garlic to a vampire.

James B says:

And it is hilarious that you are citing Dr Astaneh-Asl as supporting your theories, considering he has been one of the leading proponents of the NIST explanation of the collapses. You get someone with his qualifications on your side, instead of theologians and failed designers of mini-malls like Richard Gage, and I will start to take you seriously.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Shameless lying and squealing by the trapped rat. 1000 deg F, 1832 deg F, is 4-600 degrees F above any temperature claimed even by NIST, whose claims are totally unproven. Hydrocarbon fires cannot achieve such temperatures (1800) except under carefully controlled environments, i.e. insulation, air injection,..... Even 12-1400 deg F fires require mixing and fuel supply conditions that are/were not present in the WTC fires. The claim that this can happen in common housefires is comedy. But besides, the beam was partially vaporized, *required a temp of over 5100 deg F,* as i pointed to you earlier, which you are still evading. And reading the link i provided shows how little credibility Shermer has.

James B says:

NIST was only concerned about the temperatures leading up to the collapse. The fires burned for weeks, it is entirely expected that at some point the temperatures would reach higher levels. There are plenty of studies showing higher temperatures during common building fires. 5100 is above the temperatures produced even by thermite, so assuming that these are even correct observations, your magical thermite argument does not work anyway.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

The vaporization citation came not only from Astaneh-Asl, but from the WPI team. You're squealing some more, trapped rat.
AE911 Truth has on its team structural engineers, including some who have their own companies, even people with demolition experience. They include the designer of the PGE building in downtown San Francisco and the architect of Transamerica Pyramid, also in SF. Lots of lots of experience, unlike your total illiteracy in engineering. Astaneh-Asl by the way also complained of the destruction of the evidence. The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people. By the way, there is zero evidence that Richard Gage is a "failed designer," but the claim that there are no structural experts on my side is 100% bogus.
So you quoted from the FEMA report trying to make it look like the sulfidized beam resulted from a temp of under 800 deg C. Then when you got caught you claim that 1000 deg C is not that different. So why did you leave out so much of that quote, trying to make it seem as if the temps required were lower?
And you left out the fact that the beam came from WTC7, as noted by FEMA, yet NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing by the trapped rat. Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims. It is not at all expected that the fires would keep burning hot, as the jet fuel burned within a few minutes, and building materials do not support fires which create anywhere near the temperature of burning jet fuel. The persistence of extreme heat http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html under the WTC site for weeks is in fact a total anomaly if one accepts the official account, given the lack of both oxygen and fuel for such fires. Show us studies of temps of 1000 deg C during common fires, if you dare.

And what's this "assuming that these are correct observations"? The iron spheres composing almost 6% of the WTC dust is in the evidence, so is vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. More desperate thrashing by the trapped rat.

James B says:

"The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people."

Ooh, goodie gumdrops for you. And everyone knows that YouTube editorials are the way "real science" is done. When shall I expect all of their peer-reviewed studies explaining how supermagiconanothermite blew up the World Trade Centers?

James B says:

"Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims."

Well that is the primary theory proposed by AE911truth and Mr. Harrit, who commented below, all of whom apparently you support. If they are wrong, perhaps you should let them know? What do you think caused all of these anomalies you are complaining about? C-4. HMX? Nuclear Weapons? Star Wars Death Beams? You claim to be the expert, while I am just an uninformed commentor, take a stand.

James B says:

Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, you don't in the least apologize for falsely attributing something to me, the same false attribution you have done earlier. This goes along with your quoting the FEMA report out of context, and when quote pretending that it doesn't matter anyway.
I don't know what caused those metals to melt and/or vaporize. I don't have access to the files of the Pentagon's secret weapons programs. But it is clear that the temperatures required for these results are far in excess of any fires, and they are not the result of a volcano or a nearby hot star. Hence, by deductive reasoning, they can only be explained as the result of the use of explosives and/or incendiary devices. If you see someone's head explode to dust sized particles an hour after being punched in the face, you know it's neither the result of the punch nor of spontaneous combustion, but of some weapon, whether you know or don't know what the weapon is.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot."

So you are saying temperatures hot enough to melt steel (almost 2800 deg F)occur at every major fire? Temperature hot enough to vaporize lead (over 3100 F)? To melt molybdenum (over 4700 F)? To vaporize steel (over 5100 F)? Your squeals are turning downright screechy. The trap gets ever tighter.

James B says:

LOL OK, sorry dude. It wasn't supermagicthermite, it was some unnamed supersekrit Pentagon weapon instead. My bad!

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

In other words, James B., you cannot explain the high temperatures required. Keep thrashing and squealing, trapped rat.

James B says:

You can't either! Saying it was some super secret magic invisible Pentagon weapon is no more scientific a theory than me claiming it was powdered unicorn horn.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Wrong. I stated it was an explosive and/or incendiary device. It certainly wasn't fire, nor a volcano, nor a star. This is called "deductive reasoning," James, see the analogy of the exploding head. That's solid science.

James B says:

No, the scientific method requires that claims be repeatable, testable and falsifiable. Making vague claims about mythical and amorphous military explosives and/or incendiaries is neither.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Being someone with an engineering degree, i know perfectly well about the scientific method, which by the way excludes quoting out of context and false attribution, something you've repeatedly done here. In fact, i have doubts about your science credentials.

It is a scientific fact that temperatures like those necessary to explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence are attainable only via special tools, explosives and/or incendiary devices, volcanos, or close proximity to an active star (which is of course a thermonuclear reaction). Volcanos and stars are ruled out, unless you wish to claim one of these was present without gaining notice. Special tools could possibly account only for molten iron, and certainly not in the quantity detected in the WTC dust (5.87%). And they cannot account for vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. Hence, by deduction, only one choice is left.

Same with the video of the person whose head is seen exploding into tiny dust size pieces an hour after a punch to the face. One doesn't need to know what weapon was used to know that this was the result of the use of some weapon. A trained medic can tell that a wound is a gunshot without knowing what weapon was used.

James B says:

Uhh, dude, explosives don't vaporize metals. They aren't even particularly hot, just fast reacting. May not be a scientist, but I am retired army.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Then you learned very little in the army. My brother was an officer in the Corps of Engineers. If you're talking conventional explosives, you are right, but that's hardly all the explosives available, even per public knowledge.

And the secret research programs have an even wider "menu" to choose from. Most people in the army don't know what's going on there, you need a security clearance for that, and if you talk about what you know to unauthorized people, your pubic area would be subjected to hot sulfuric acid. If you were in that program, why, i'm sure you'd tell us everything. Ha, ha!!

A real rat knows better than to keep coming back to the same trap, and even worse, to get itself trapped even more with each visit. Now you've admitted to not being a scientist. And yet you've attacked the science credentials of all sorts of people. Well, doesn't take a scientist to understand that the temperatures required for molten/vaporized metals are possible as a result of only a very few plausible causes, and that once all of them except one are ruled out, the one remaining is the only explanation possible, regardless of how distasteful the conclusion may be.

James B says:

Oh yes, those mythical super secret weapons, just like the hidden anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin's voice morphing devices from Terminator 2. I think they used one of those laser cutting devices I saw in Mission Impossible. Isn't baseless speculation fun? Remember, everything in real life is just like the movies.
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing and thrashing from the trapped rat. Right, there are no secret weapons programs.

Fact is, deductive reasoning is part of the scientific method. Applying deductive reasoning to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals, ruling out a volcano and a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices can account for the temperatures necessary to explain this evidence. And with each return to this trap, you are trapped ever tighter. You have two choices: leave this debate in humiliation, or keep returning and get further entrapped by getting caught in new lies. You've already been caught quoting out of context and making the same false attribution twice, the second time after being informed and acknowledging it. Each time you come back, your credibility is shredded even further.

James B says:

I am sure there are, but using that as an excuse to make accusations is hardly scientific. In the evolution/Intelligent Design argument this is known as the "God of the Gaps", where the ID'ers use any real or perceived unexplained issue in biology to say "well, then the only explanation is that God did it". While this is theoretically possible, it is hardly scientific. The Holocaust deniers do the same thing with their "No holes no Holocaust" argument. Science is about providing a falsifiable theory which better fits observations than the alternative, not just pointing out perceived anomalies and attributing them to mythical secret weapons or unseen deities.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I did not attribute them to any specific weapon, mythical or not, or to deities, seen or not. The only reasons that metals melt or get vaporized is extremely high temperatures. I already listed the temperatures required to create the evidence which was seen. There are only three causes of such high temperatures: explosives and/or incendiary devices (including but not limited to nuclear weapons), volcanos, and proximity to hot stars. The last two are ruled out, which leaves only the first.

The analogy with an unexplained issue biology is completely false, as the information regarding this issue is incomplete. The analogy with Holocaust deniers is completely nonsensical, i have no idea what "No holes" means, i doubt anyone else does, including you. And there is a huge amount of evidence for the Holocaust. On the other hand, there are only three alternative explanations for temperatures of 2800 to 5100 deg F. Two of them are ruled out, which leaves only one, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Again, an observation of someone's head blowing up into dust sized particles an hour after being punched can be deduced to be the result of the firing of a particular weapon at their head, whether that weapon is known or not. A wound can be ascertained by a trained observer to be the result of a gunshot, regardless of the specific weapon used. Your insistence that the weapon be identified is nonsensical, especially given the number of unknown (to the general public) weapons in the arsenal. And sure, there are no secret programs, the US never had a huge secret project to develop the A-bomb.

Unless you can come up with another cause for the temperatures required to explain molten/vaporized metals, you have just caused the trap to tighten some more.

James B says:

It is a reference to your old buddy Michael Shermer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I posted earlier a review of Shermer's article in Scientific American "debunking" 9/11 truth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html
You can read his advancing of the "pancaking" explanation of the WTC destruction, right as NIST was renouncing the theory as being without evidence. You got good buddies, James.

And you have yet to answer to being quote with deliberate quoting out of context, and deliberate false attribution. Your believability is noted in its total absence.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

And i looked at the Shirmer article. The lack of holes in the roof of the gas chamber does not preclude gas coming in from a different direction. But the presence of molten/vaporized metals has only three possible causes, and two of them are out of the question.

And Shirmer continues the same crap as in the SciAm article i posted a link to the critique of, of making it seem as if "truthers" are claiming that the official story is false because the fires couldn't melt the structural steel. It was in fact the first version of the official story (which is now on its fourth version) which explained what happened as a result of the fires melting the steel structure, as pointed out in the critique. The critique and many analyses since also point out the impossibility of all versions of the official story which rely upon the steel being weakened. The four different versions of the official story contradict each other, and are each contradicted by the facts of the evidence. It's quite amazing that some defenders of the official story are still peddling versions which have been discarded by the official purveyors, while others have gone along with the extreme changes in the story without batting an eye. It's easy to conform, takes zero brains. Straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four.

James B says:

I didn't take anything out of context. You were the one who repeatedly claimed that NIST said that the beams were not heated over 250 degrees, omitting the fact that they specifically said those were not representative of all the beams.

I would agree that Shermer is not an expert on 9/11 issues. He hasn't wasted much time taking on you idiots. Unfortunately I have. His work on skepticism and belief systems in general though is quite good.

As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are truly a shameless liar. What i pointed out that you took out of context was from the FEMA report about the sulfidized beam, making it seem as if this phenomenon required temps of only 7-800 deg C to be explained. Do you really think everybody here is so stupid that they forgot how i illustrated your out-of-context quoting by posting the entire passage and showing what you left out? You think the readers here are like the ones at SLC?

"I would agree that Shermer is not an expert....... is quite good."

He has written an article for Scientific American and keeps speaking out on it. His complete acceptance of the official story, in fact of versions of it which have been disavowed even by NIST, shows how much of a "skeptic" he is. He is guided far more by belief than by science.

"As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required."

This is your proof that fire can melt steel? You think the steel in steel wool is the same steel used for structural steel? This may go over with your ignorant readers at SLC, but i happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering, and i took courses in metallurgy. There are lots of different types of steel, different mixtures (carbon content is a big factor), depending upon the intended use. Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel. And it is also composed of very fine fibers, i.e. not in the form of thick beams. Thus, it has a large ratio of surface area per given unit of mass. Try doing this experiment with a thick structural steel beam. This comparison is strictly for glueheads. And besides, the evidence showed IRON spheres, iron doesn't melt till some 2800 deg F. But now you have trapped yourself some more by suggesting "other possible answers." So what are these answers? What can explain temps of 2800 deg F to 5100+ deg F? Show us how you can melt molybdenum or vaporize steel with this battery setup of yours.

James B says:

No, at SLC I would have more than 3 readers...

"Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel."

But you are the only one insisting that any molten iron comes from structural steel. There are literally millions of sources of iron, including human blood. Once again, the fact that you can't account for every phenomenon is a large chaotic situation does not give you the right to create your own fantasy to explain it.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

As if i was talking about numbers. Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science.

The iron in human blood is not in the form which would ever show up as molten iron spheres. Your assertions are strictly science for glueheads and paint thinner sniffers. On second thought, maybe it's not only your loyal readers who failed 8th grade science.

Regular building dust has only .04% iron content. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron content, in the form of spheres, demonstrating that melting occurred during the event, per the lab which did the analysis (RJ Lee). And maybe human blood explains molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel as well, eh? And you compound your situation further by trying to attribute the evidence to chaos theory. You have just tightened the trap further. Now what, trapped rat?

Only three sources can account for temps hot enough to melt iron, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel: volcanos, proximity to hot stars, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. Special tools could account for some molten iron, but not in the quantity detected in this instance, and cannot account for the other phenomena. The first two of the three are ruled out. This leaves the third. Maybe James B. will tell us that when someone's head is observed blowing up into dust sized pieces an hour after being punched that this doesn't necessarily mean he/she was shot in the head by something, that such a conclusion is unwarranted unless the weapon can be identified. Unless you can provide another explanation for such high temperatures, you have been caught in yet another lie.

And notice, everyone, how James B. didn't even try to further contest the fact that he quoted out of context. His credibility has sunk below zero.

James B. says:

"Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science. "

Possibly, we get a lot of comments from Truthers. We allow open comments. Skeptics are immediately banned from any Truther site. They don't seem to be too big on this whole free spech/open dissent thing. ironic.

Wait a minute, I just showed you that a cigarette lighter can produce molten metal under the right condition, now you are saying this can only be caused by explosives and incendiaries. ADD much?

James B says:

Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?

Comparing normal building dust to one of the largest building disasters in the world is a rather bizarre comparison anyway. That is like going to an airplane crash and saying, "A normal landing does not have near this amount of ripped body parts and debris. What could account for that?"

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Sure you allow open comments, greeted with abuse and pushed out. SLC doesn't even rise to the level of garbage.

"Wait a minute, I just showed......... ADD much?"

Typical of the personal insults you use at SLC. If anyone is showing attention deficit, it is you. The quote from me which you are responding to does not say "molten metal" in the abstract. It specifies four phenomena. Are you claiming that a cigarette lighter can melt structural steel, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel? If so, you have reached amazing depths of ignorance. If not, you have just tried to lie your way out. Either way, you have tightened the trap further.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?"

Deliberate false attribution number three on your part. Iron *powder* is what's present in regular building dust, not molten iron spheres, and certainly in much smaller proportions than what was observed. And vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel are not present in such dust, i never said anything of the sort. You are left with nothing but lies.

Another of your stupid comparisons, this one comes back to bite you. Ripped body parts and debris of course constitute evidence for a crash. A high proportion of molten iron spheres in dust likewise indicates that the iron melted during the event which created the dust, cannot be explained as something which was already present. This required a temperature of at least 2800 deg F. The other molten and vaporized metals required far higher temperatures. Keep squirming and squealing.

James B says:

LOL And you actually inspected all of that iron dust to make sure that none of them were in the shape of spheres? Or is your evidence based on the fact that you get to pick the synonym? I love Truther science. It is so... flexible.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

If someone were to read this, they would be justified in thinking that i'm paying you to post here and look stupid. You got it backwards, the iron particles were ALL in the shape of spheres, exactly what happens when iron melts and is flung about, due to surface tension. The wording "spheres" is per the professional laboratory RJ Lee and the USGS, which did the examining, not per some "truthers." You got all your legs stuck in the trap, and now you've added your tail.

James B says:

I am talking about the "powder" which you claim to be perfectly natural, as opposed to the spheres which are created by supersekrit pentagon weapons. Go ahead and pay me, I could use the cash. I find you amusing, but I don't have any delusions that this conversation will change the world. In another 10 years, you will be in the same place you are now, posting incoherent rants on the internet and accomplishing nothing.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Before anything else, let's remind the audience that you quoted out of context, then asserted it didn't matter anyway, then tried to make it look as if my charge pertained to a completely different passage you quoted. A lie compounded thrice. And you have falsely attributed stuff to me three times. You haven't got a shred of credibility left.

[quote of previous post]

Such spheres are created by metal melting and then being flung in the air, which is what gives the molten metal bits a spherical shape, surface tension due to its moving in liquid form, just as with falling water drops. Melting metal in a furnace and the flinging the fluid would also create such spheres. Iron powder requires neither melting nor flinging in the air, you can get iron powder for instance by rubbing the metal with emery cloth. Melting by itself isn't enough to create spheres, neither is flinging in the air, of course. I'm sorry i attributed to you 8th grade science knowledge, you obviously didn't get that far.

And your last two sentences are nothing more than an attempt to extricate yourself from the trap. As i've said previously, you can leave any time, this being a virtual trap, not a real one. But any time you come back, the trap will be as tight as ever. And any time you come back and open your mouth, you in fact cause the trap to tighten by putting forth more lies and more garbage. The whole world will be able to come here and observe how one of the principals of Screw Loose Change is trapped like a rat, whether you leave now or keep coming back.

James B. says:

"Before anything else, let's remind the audience "
Audience? Look at the line right above the posts:
"Tracked by 3 customers"
Delusions of grandeur, much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You tried this before, James, it drew a bunch of comments. Your lying and complete cluelessness are here on exhibit for the world to see, which people will, at the time of their own choosing.

[For many more refutations of James B from the Debunking the Debunkers blog click here.]

9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - Aluminum Water Explosions Took the Towers Down?

2011-11-02T11:06:00.000-07:00

I'm glad Jonathan Cole included the part about the new theory that water and melted aluminium from the aircraft was the cause of the explosions in the Twin Towers. I just recently learned of this myself and was planning on posting about it anyway.

I found the theory interesting because in purposing that aluminum water explosions took the Towers down, scientist Christian Simensen is acknowledging (unlike the government and "debunkers") that explosions equal in power to those observed in controlled demolitions did indeed take place.

As noted in a 2009 paper entitled Safety Coatings to Prevent Molten Aluminum-Water Explosions:

Aluminum Water Explosions

Casthouse explosions are occurring at a significant rate. There were at least 18 deaths reported last year, all which are attributed to molten aluminum trapping water. Any time you mix two liquids with vastly differing temperatures an explosion can occur. Mixing liquid aluminum (1300F-700C) and water (50F-10C) results in a steam explosion. This explosion is rated as Force 1 through Force 3. A Force 1 causes metal, less then 10 pounds (4.5Kg), to be thrown a short distance, usually up to 15 feet with little if any property damage. A Force 2 is a violent steam explosion. The metal is thrown 15 to 50 feet (6.4m-12.8m) and involves a considerable amount of metal. Fatalities and serious injury can result from this type of explosion. A Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event. Metal is thrown more then 50 feet and extensive property damage and injury can result. There will be a white powder present indicating the reaction of aluminum with oxygen. In this reaction every pound of aluminum equals 3 pounds of TNT.

When I asked blog contributor Adam Taylor if he had heard of this he replied:

Here's what I wrote to someone who initially sent me the article:

I don't think this guy's theory makes much sense. According to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the sprinklers were not operating on the main fire floors because the planes severed the water lines. There was water running down through the building from the severed water pipes, so the molten aluminum could theoretically have gone down through the buildings. But the problem there is that the collapses did start near where the planes impacted, i. e. the fire floors. Plus, the collapse of the North Tower started on the 98th floor, and only the tip of the starboard wing went into that floor. Also, this person doesn't seem to understand NIST's theory on the cause of the collapse. It's not the beams that were supposed to be over-heated, but the floor trusses, which then pulled on the exterior walls, causing them to bow inward and then break. Now I don't believe fire caused that, but I don't see how his aluminum-water theory accounts for that. This just seems to be a weak attempt to explain the accounts of explosions in the Towers that could be evidence of demolition. I've seen similar arguments in the past.

Cole wrote at the time:

Remarkably...

...that airplane aluminum, after it was initially shredded precisely like shot from 15 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun, ripping off every stitch of insulation even on the backside of the columns, reformed itself into larger pieces as it heated up in that fateful hour. Suddenly the sprinkler system sprang to life, with its soothing water focused directly on that molten aluminum which had ample time to coalesce into series of pools at critical columns, creating a cacophony of explosions that previously went undetected by NIST.

Coincidently one intrepid aluminum pool managed to escape that cooling water, and poured outside about 7 minutes before the south towers final destruction, combining with wood paneling and desks, causing it's molten flow to look exactly like molten iron. Incredibly the pulsating jets of water, synchronistically timed as it exploded those aluminum pools, blew out the floors thrusting massive perimeter panels hundreds of feet, while turning acres of concrete into powder. Yet small gobs of aluminum doggedly clung to key points on the spire of core columns which stood tall long after the main floors fell, finally exploding from the humidity, dropping those very last remnants of a once proud icon, straight down.

Alas dear reader heed my warning, and be ever vigilant when flying a jet plane with hot engines through a rainstorm, or this same tragic fate could happen to you.

On an article from physorg.com "amhippi" comments:

Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

In short, Simensen's theory is untenable, but in his attempt to account for the actual collapse features, he at least shows that he has an understanding of what 9/11 "debunkers" can't seem to grasp. But it doesn't take a scientist.

Even Children Understand What 9/11 Debunkers Can't Seem To Grasp

Related Info:

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories?

2011-11-01T22:50:00.000-07:00

According to dailymail.co.uk and Pat Curly of Screw Loose Change apparently. Some new footage of Building 7 has been released and according to the dailymail article it proves "once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim." Let's take at look at this for ourselves before taking this article's word for it.

The article contains several stills from the video that apparently show "raging fires" on several of the lower floors.

These sorts of images are actually nothing new, and certainly don't show any fires that were not previously known to the Truth Movement. Although there were undoubtedly fires in the building, it's quite a stretch to say this footage shows the building "consumed by fire."

As we have previously noted on this blog, the appearance of the building being totally engulfed in flames seems to have been caused by smoke from the burning WTC complex clinging to the side of Building 7.

As for the fires being intense on the lower floors, it has been demonstrated that the fires on the floors which supposedly initiated the collapse were apparently burned out before the time of collapse.

So does this new footage "prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat?" Hardly. The burden of proof is on the debunkers and any other defenders of the official story to provide evidence that the fires were truly as severe as they claim. Even NIST has acknowledged that the fires in Building 7 were nothing special compared to other skyscraper fires that did not cause collapse.

“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).” -NIST WTC7 FAQ

“NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7.” -NIST Final Report on Building 7, pg. 341

Purdue, NIST, and widely dislodged fireproofing

2011-10-30T20:40:00.000-07:00

"The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway." -Stanley Praimnath, who was on the 81st floor of the South Tower.

See also: Letter to Purdue President Córdova, by Kevin Ryan

Feeding a troll

2011-10-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

I know that one policy at this blog we have tried to maintain is to not feed the debunkers and trolls, but in this case I must make an exception. For the past few days I have been in a heated debate with a youtuber called CaptMandrake360 (sadly, his name is a reference to one of my favorite movies). One need only look through the comments section of this video to see how pointless it has been trying to debate this person. He has also left several fallacy-rich comments on my channel and his own, constantly claiming that I have not answered any of the questions he has asked me.

For the record, I have answered his questions numerous times, as can be seen looking through the comments from our discussion. What has happened through the course of our debate is that he has simply not been happy with the answers I have provided. There is obviously an enormous difference between not answering someone's question, and that person simply being unhappy with the answers he's been provided with.

It shouldn't be necessary for me to continue to address such silliness, as I and others have already repeatedly addressed numerous issues raised by the debunkers. But for the sake of clarity, I will provide full responses to this person, in hopes that he will see how truly ridiculous he has been. Here are the basic questions he has asked:

Q:

A: The basic question being presented is how the explosives set in the Towers wouldn't have been affected by the plane impacts and ensuing fires. At one point, I provided this person with a link to 911research which tackles this very issues. Unfortunately, he dismissed this and claimed that

This evidently highlights CaptMandrake's nonsensical logic. Because it's a "truther" site, it must be untrue! Apparently Mr. Mandrake decides in debates what is a credible source. His reasoning is obviously ridiculous. In any case, before providing this link to 911research, I provided several of my own answers.

It's important to note that, when discussing the collapse of the Towers, the collapses began at the floors with minimal to virtually no damage. In regards to the North Tower, the collapse initiated at the 98th floor, which had the least amount of structural damage. Only the tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor.

The NIST Report clearly states that the collapse began at this floor:

“First exterior sign of downward movement of building at floor 98.” NCSTAR 1, pg. 87

Although it is true that the inward bowing occurred over several floors (as Mandrake felt the need to repeatedly tell me), the first floor to collapse was the 98th floor. This is significant because this shows that the collapse did not start at floors with significantly more structural damage, which means that any demolition devices placed on the 98th floor would not have been affected by the plane impacts. When I pointed out to Mandrake that NIST reported that the collapse began at the floor with the least amount of structural damage, his response was

Although it is true that the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this. Mandrake's claim that floor 98 was "one of five seriously damaged floors" is unfounded. The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and one need only look through the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 to see that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.

On page 196 of NCSTAR 1-2, we see that NIST shows that only 6000lb of debris went into floor 98. We see in their severe case scenario (page 212) 7300lb of debris was said to have went into that floor. Although the report does list floors 92, 97 and 99 as having even less debris on them, the 92nd floor had core columns severed and the 99th floor was not recorded as having any structural damage to any support columns. Floor 97 had major damage to the perimeter and damage to the core as well. Therefore, out of all the floors that received structural damage to the perimeter and/or core columns, the 98th floor was the least damaged. Mandrake's claim that this floor was not the least damaged is therefore groundless.

If the demolition was started at the 98th floor where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then clearly the plane's impact would not have had any serious affect on devices placed on this floor. But it's important to note that some of the devices may actually have been affected by the impacts. However, this would still be consistent with the observations of the Towers. An example would be the spout of molten metal seen coming from the side of the South Tower. As Jim Hoffman explains:

Partly because thermate produces bright orange light while burning, Stage 1 is allowed time to run to completion before Stage 2 commences. In the South Tower, some thermate pushed by the plane crash from the building's core to its corner generates an orange spout lasting from about T-7 to T-2 minutes.

The plane impact, in the case of the South Tower, may have indeed affected the devices in some way. However, this does not mean the overall demolition of the Towers was affected.

Another issue Mandrake brought up was the fires and how they didn't affect the demolition devices either. A thermite based demolition, however, solves this problem. As Dr. Steven Jones explains:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

Thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch.

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition.

The third issue Mandrake raised concerned the planes and how they were guided into the Towers. 911research discusses this issue in some detail, so I will quote from there:

[T]he charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft, given that the planes may have been flown by GPS-equipped autopilots providing targeting accuracy to within a few meters.

Indeed, research shows that the types of maneuvers the planes executed on 9/11 would be entirely consistent with GPS-based control.

This particular issue was one I was not enthusiastic about addressing, as I felt it had more to do with speculation on my part rather than observable evidence. But Mandrake's insistence led me to address it, to which several times he ridiculed my sources as "conspiracy sites."

Mandrake's questions have been effectively answered, although I have no doubt that he will disagree. He will likely come up with any number of scenarios for how this explains nothing or how I'm "not answering" his questions. Let him think what he may. I choose to concern myself with more important matters, rather than answering every tiny problem brought up by faceless individuals on the internet.

David Ray Griffin's Fake Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Theory Debunked Again

2011-10-26T13:32:00.000-07:00

David Ray Griffin has responded to Paul Zarembka's recent critique of his fake phone calls from the 9/11 planes theory.

Zarembka comments:

Late arrivals were those TRULY last day or even last minute. Here is what my ITHP article reported, in addition to pp. 51 and 309 in The Hidden History of 9-11:

--"For late arrivals, Griffin could also read Jere Longman (Among the Heroes, New York: Harper Collins, 2002). There we find that Tom Burnett switched from flight 91 (p. 8), Jeremy Glick’s prior day flight had been canceled (p. 20), Mark Bingham was using a “companion pass” (p. 28), and Lauren Grandcolas switched from flight 91 (pp. 12 and 128). Also, Elizabeth Wainio switched at the last minute from a flight to Denver (www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup/encyclopedia/ho/Honor_Elizabeth_Wainio.html). Todd Beamer had delayed a September 10 departure (www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=todd_beamer) although it is unclear how late he booked UA 93. For its convenience, I can recommend 'Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11' (at http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html)."

Flight 91 had the same destination from the same airport scheduled for one hour and 20 minutes later (if I recall correctly the exact timing). Burnett and Grandcolas seemed to have taken advantage of being early to the airport to switch to 93 instead of 91 (to their great misfortune).

Voice morphing is the single most important issue in my 2700-word ITHP article. Griffin's book never mentions the issue of late arrivals and the problem of being able to morph those persons and also having needed personal family information. As I remarked in my article regarding his Chapter 5, "Griffin devotes seven pages to Burnett, while Beamer receives four pages, Glick has an equivalent of a page, and Bingham, Grandcolas and Wainio are three more for two short paragraphs each". For all of them, only voice morphing is offered to explain how the calls were faked.

In this morning's posting, I stated why I am unconvinced by Griffin's response (in 6000 words at that). He is speculating, without any evidence, that tens or hundreds of thousands of "possible passengers" on UA 93 had been taped over the years in preparation for 9-11-2001. Then perpetrators waited to see who happened to appear on the manifest as UA 93 leaves and executes morphed calls from a large data base. This is simply far-fetched, in my view.

At least I now know, for the first time, how Griffin answers the issue of late arrivals.

I think Griffin's failure to see the validity of Zarembka's criticisms stems from his black-or-white view that inside involvement and Al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 are mutually exclusive.

Jonathan Kay offers another explanation in his book Among the Truthers:

Many come to their crankdom in middle age, or at the end of their their working lives, as they are casting about for some project to occupy their hyperactive brains. In some cases, cranks are high-functioning intellectuals frustrated by a menial profession... Many cranks have a Asperger's like-like obsession with arithmetic, flowcarts, maps, and lengthy data lists... What drives the cranks on an emotional level isn't the substance of their theories: Many of the Truther cranks I've interviewed-including David Ray Griffin, Barry Zwicker, and Paul Zarembka... treated the issue as a debating exercise, and seemed curiously detached from the profoundly disturbing implications that flow from their claims. What cranks truly crave is exhilarating sense of independence, control, and superiority that come from declaring oneself a self-sufficient intellectual force.

As I wrote in my review:

Economics Professor Paul Zarembka, who Kay mentions in his diatribe on cranks, has recently written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options" for American and United airlines stocks. I have previously stated that I believe the insider trading issue had been effectively debunked. Again, not very cranky of us.

The fact of the matter is, the best criticism of debunkers, such as that of the 9/11 fake phone calls theory of David Ray Griffin (who Kay calls the "leading crank" of the movement) has been accepted and expanded upon by many truthers. In this case and with the no plane at the Pentagon claims, many 9/11 truth activists never accepted these claims in the first place.

And while Griffin and many others still don't accept these criticisms, a possibly cranky trait, its very existence proves the movement can accept criticism and can't be pigeonholed.

Still highly recommended is Griffin's analysis of the destruction of the WTC Towers and lack of air defense on 9/11. As well as his book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, which I wrote about here.

Thank you professor Zarembka for your efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff; for the wheat cannot be debunked!

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

2011-10-20T21:11:00.000-07:00

as long as you pretend they don't exist.

I've recently read the updated 2011 version of Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11Myths, and I plan on writing a full response to their controlled demolition sections. However, I wanted to discuss one particular statement in their book that I feel deserves special attention.

Their book is updated with several new sections discussing topics such as the Active Thermitic Material paper, Barry Jennings, and the 2008 NIST report on WTC7. But less than thirty pages into their book, I discovered that PM apparently was not up-to-date on everything that's happened in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here is what they say on pages 28-29:

"Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011, pg. 28-29 (Emphasis added)

I feel that the emphasised section bears repeating:

not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields.

And please don't take my word for it that their book says this. Read for yourself:

Well, I think it is plainly obvious to anyone who has payed attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 5 years why this statement deserves special attention. Popular Mechanics evidently chose to omit over 1600 credentialed experts who certainly have experience in "engineering, construction, or related fields," who question the official story of 9/11. Indeed, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is absolutely no mention of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See if you can spot "AE9/11Truth," Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," or "Gage, Richard."

And if we step back in time for a moment, we will see that this exact same statement appears in PM's 2006 book on the exact same pages.

It is painfully obvious what Popular Mechanics has chosen to do: update their book only where it benefits them, and pretend that any experts in engineering and building construction we have don't exist.

Welcome to 2011 PM. Your journalism never ceases to amaze.

Related Info:

There Are No 9/11 Whistleblowers If You Claim They Are All Confused or Lying

DEW Advocates' Form of Debate: Censor Opposition

2011-10-03T19:28:00.000-07:00

Well, today I received this message from one Andrew Johnson regarding my video "Dr. Judy Wood Debunked":

To which I replied:

Hello.

First let me start off by saying that I included at the beginning of the video a screen grab of the original video description saying that copying and sharing of the video was encouraged.(This is true) There's even a link included to your website to download the video. This I felt gave me sufficient grounds to reupload the video as I saw fit. Apparently all you are upset about is how I uploaded it, but never the less you apparently did give permission.

Secondly, I would have preferred that you actually try responding directly to my video in some way. I have no problem with open debate, but you are effectively telling me to delete my arguments.

However, I will remove the video, since it bothers you that much. I may look at your book at some point, but I have already read a great deal of Judy Wood's work, and I find her theories groundless. I find it very sad that you felt the need to engage in these tactics, and that you support someone as fraudulent as Judy Wood. I couldn't care less that this theory was submitted to court. How about submission to a peer-reviewed journal?

I hope that at some point in the future you'll actually grow a pair and find better ways of responding to your critics.

-Adam

To all those who believe the DEW theory, please keep in mind that this is apparently the preferred method of debate for some of the more prominent advocates out there.

Interestingly, this person's original channel was evidently deleted for...

Pot calls kettle black much?

Related info:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

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?

2011-09-26T20:40:00.000-07:00

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 knowingly 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

2011-09-26T19:34:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-18T22:10:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-16T17:02:00.000-07:00

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

A Message of Peace and a Pledge of Tolerance - 9/11/11 and Beyond

2011-09-13T01:07:00.000-07:00

Earlier today I received this email:

Hi again John

I wanted to thank you again for helping to spread the message of the My Fellow American project over the last few months. With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 this past Sunday I was hoping you could help once more by reminding the readers of Debunking The Debunkers about our short video of peace and the pledge of tolerance on our site:

If you are able to post or tweet again, please let me know. I am here if you have any questions.

Thank you so much,

Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth Potter
Unity Productions Foundation
myfellowamerican.us
facebook.com/MyFellowAmericanProject
@usmuslimstories

As I stated in my first posting:

Thanks for passing along the message Ms. Potter, you have our support.

As I wrote after a debate with a member of former NYC Mayor Giuliani's Economic Development Committee, Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget, Andrew G. Benjamin, late last year:

While I was searching around for more info on Mr. Benjamin I found that he had posted two comments supportive of the website islam-watch.org using the email he contacted me from. The website features a permanent picture of the Twin Towers being hit on 9/11 in the right-hand corner and claims that Islam has a "hateful and violent core." So, Islam's violent nature is responsible for 9/11.

Never mind that extensive polling data indicates that the majority of the more than one billion Muslims in the world have an opposite interpretation of the Quran. If they didn't they would be a whole lot scarier than peanuts, but they're not! And never mind that according to professor of political science Robert A. Pape, the first complete database of suicide terrorism around the world from 1980 through early 2004 showed that over half the terrorists were secular and over 95% were trying to compel a modern democracy to withdrawal combat forces from their country.

Really never mind numbers often cited concerning how many people Muslims have killed in the last 1,000 years, because not only are they greatly exaggerated, but completely irrelevant.

The pertinent statistics are ones such as these, which estimate that one million plus Muslims have been killed by the U.S. in the past 30 years, many times arguably without justification, which equates to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost, and those numbers do no not take into consideration many things that would make the figures even more heavily slanted. Furthermore, the larger issue at hand is U.S. empire-building.

As the hip-hop group Dead Prez states:

you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay

Exact transcript of the onscreen text in the Wonderful World segment.

If the warnings hadn't been ignored, if NORAD had done its job, and if the laws of physics weren't broken, not even Osama's CIA training would have led to those 3,000 people being killed.

After sharing this post with Ms. Potter and wishing her good luck in her efforts she replied:

This is excellent! Thank you so much for deciding to share it with your readers and help us spread the word of this video and initiative. I am sure your support will make a difference and we sincerely apprecite the support and good wishes. Have a great week!

Cheers
Liz

Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions

2011-09-10T00:27:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-09T01:11:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-09-08T21:02:00.000-07:00

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)

2011-09-08T03:04:00.001-07:00

#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

2011-09-04T04:06:00.000-07:00

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!

2011-09-01T01:43:00.000-07:00

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

The Eleventh Fail: The BBC & 9/11 Truth ... Four and a Half Years On

2011-08-31T08:00:00.000-07:00

Written by Scootle Royale, with help from John-Michael Talboo.

Shortly before the BBC Conspiracy Files hitpiece aired on Monday, I published a blog listing my top ten debunker fails. After seeing watching the piece, I think the entire program deserves to be considered the eleventh fail.

The program was basically an updated version of their first 9/11 program that aired in 2007. It started the same way, with the shaky-cam walk around Hangar 17 set to sentimental music and shocking images of the day. Once again Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery represented 9/11 truth, except this time with Neils Harrit. New footage of AJ and Fetzer was shot, but for Dylan they simply reused footage from the 2007 version. To sum up the program in one word: strawman!

First of all, who in the 9/11 truth movement takes Jim Fetzer seriously anymore?! No one! Why the hell would the BBC interview him for a 2011 documentary on the 9/11 truth movement? They would have been better off interviewing CIT! It seems the BBC still thinks it's 2007.

The alternative theories they investigated were:

NORAD standdown claims
The demoliton theory for the towers
Pentagon no-plane claims
Claims that the C-130 was involved in the conspiracy
The demolition theory for WTC 7 / Red-Gray Chips
Flight 93 no-plane / shootdown claims
Speculation that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland
The Lone Gumen Pilot
Skepticism surrounding Bin Laden's Death
9/11 Foreknowledge, Dick Clark, two Hijackers living with an FBI informant etc.

Now regular readers of this blog will know that we only endorse about four or five of these claims. The 9/11 truth movement has abandoned alot of these theories. The sections on the C-130 and Flight 93 were essentially identical to the 2007 version of the program. Footage of interviews with the Dylan, the C-130 pilot, the passenger of Delta 1989, Wally Miller and the former Mayor of Indian Lake was reused for this version. About three minutes were spent on the C-130 claims and almost ten minutes were spent on the Flight 93 claims. The section on WTC7 and the red/gray chips was only 7 minutes. So the program essentially was one hour-long straw man attack.

Unlike their previous 9/11 programs there was no token family member saying we're horrible this time. Although at the very end the narrator did say "The 9/11 conspiracy file seems certain to remain open for a long time to come, however distressing and painful that will be for the families of those who died that day". Once again, the BBC did not interview family members who support 9/11 truth or even acknowledge their existence. Their continued ignorance of these people is probably the most despicable thing about these Conspiracy Files programs.

The stuff about the Pentagon was actually pretty good. They interviewed engineer Allyn Kilsheimer and FBI special agent Jean O'Connor. Allyn discussed how the damage he saw matches the Perdue animation of the Pentagon impact. He also mentioned how he saw dead bodies, including bodies with airline uniforms. Jean discussed how they used large wooden crates that were built specifically to hold the airplane parts. Immediately after she says that the program cuts to a shaky-cam shot of a piece of debris (image above). The narrator says "The FBI retains this section of the plane in its distinctive American Airlines livery". Jean then discussed how she personally collected remains, DNA etc.

Like most of the program, this is a fairly rational critique of a fringe theory that do not endorse, so I agree with this. It's not so much what was in the program, it's what WASN'T in the program that pisses me off!

The stuff about the air defence was basically the same as the 2007 version. Except instead of Davin Coburn telling us the official story, the BBC interviewed Colin Scoggins of the FAA. Scoggins was the source of one of the claims in the Popular Mechanics article.

Scoggins was interviewed at length for David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Both he and former Former FAA Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon (who believes 9/11 was an inside job) were interviewed, and through their combined testimonies and research it is shown that the FAA's supposed slow response to the hijacked flights is not only inherently unbelievable, but also "in tension with several other reports."

The excuses were the same as the 2007 version:

The transponders were off and the military were trying to find the plane amongst thousands of blips on the radar.
As stated by the 9/11 Commission, "With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude."

The commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal.

As defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, AWACS is "a sophisticated detection aircraft, fitted with powerful radar and a computer, capable of simultaneously tracking and plotting large numbers of low-flying aircraft at much greater distances than is possible with ground radar."

On 9/11, an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector.

In 2006 New Scientist magazine reported that "US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit."

The 35 USAF bases that were within range of the 9/11 flights unquestionably possessed highly-sophisticated radar.

Commercial airliners do not need their transponders turned on in order to be tracked by the US military. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the US military lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder
signal.
There was a 'routine exercise' confusing things.
In stating this, the BBC again failed to mention the in fact there were four coincidental drills that were taking place on the morning of 9/11 that were eerily similar to the real events. These wargames seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings and NORAD radar screens which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks.

See:

'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks
The scrambled jets didn't know where to go.
Included after the narrator says that is a segment of audio from the Vanity Fair NORAD Tapes article: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination". Here's the full audio clip:

08:44:59
FOX: MCC [Mission Crew Commander], I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination-
NASYPANY: OK, I'm gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It's just north of-New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head 'em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.

I think the BBC exaggerated the confusion here by only including the first part of the clip.
The equipment and procedures were designed to intercept planes attempting to enter the US from outside.
However, there is much evidence that looking inward was also one of their responsibilities. When asked about this issue by 9/11 researcher Jeff Hill, NORAD historian Thomas Fuller stated that "if we were alerted we would be able to intercept" anywhere; noting as an example the instance where NORAD intercepted golfer Payne Stewart's runaway Learjet. "Debunkers" use this incident to demonstrate that intercept times are not speedy. This despite the fact that these events are barely comparable. Stewart was flying a 6-8 passenger Learjet 35, not a large commercial airliner, which was not flying over densely populated areas, did not have its transponder turned off, and was on autopilot as opposed to having terrorists at the helm clearly attacking the country.

The program mentions that it is alleged that Dick Cheney ordered a stand down but does not present any of the evidence for why many believe there was a stand down and why people suspect Cheney. For example, ignored was the fact that no shoot-down orders were issued until after the attacks were already over; a timespan of over two hours, and Norman Mineta's testimony possibly indicating the opposite, a stand-down order from Cheney.

For much more info on the lack of air defence stuff, see here.

Their section on the demolition of the towers was also basically the same as 2007 version. The only feature of destruction they point out is the squibs, and Leslie Robertson repeats the old chestnut that they're just puffs of air escaping from the pancaking floors, addressed here. I've always seen the squibs as a distraction from other features of the destruction that are much stronger evidence for demolition. In fact, I suspect they may even have been intentionally mistimed for that purpose. It's worth noting though that measurements by David Chandler and others have shown that even at the begining of the collapses, the speed of the ejections exceeded 100 miles per hour. It is unlikely that the pancaking of floors, especially so early on the collapse, could push out air so fast. We also have video of what appears to be a 'squib', before the collapse even happened.

Robertson also attacks the straw man version of the 'Fire can't melt steel' argument, saying the steel didn't need to melt, only weaken. The problem is, steel did melt! There was molten steel at ground zero, which Leslie Robertson himself confirmed!

Next, the BBC interviews a structural engineer who rejects the demolition theory and thinks it distracts from a debate about the safety of the twin towers. After saying the conspiracy debate tends to go round in circles, he claims the twin towers weren't up to code. Leslie Robertson says this is ridiculous. I'm not sure why this was included in the program. They spent more time on this irrelevant debate than they did on the case for demolition.

The only interesting segment of this hour long program was the seven minutes they spent on WTC7 and the red/grey chips. The program acknowledges that NIST found that WTC7 fell in virtual free fall for two seconds but doesn't make much of a big deal out of it. Neils Harrit then discusses the red-grey chips. He says the red side shows all the characteristics of being thermitic and mentions how they react when heated.

The person interviewing him then asks what sort of reaction his paper has received from the scientific community. Harrit says, "none!". He says it's without a doubt the best peer-reviewed paper he's ever published (of nealy 60 as of 04/10/2009) because its findings have remained unchallenged for over two years.

Next we are introduced to two scientists from Carnegie Mellon University, who the BBC contacted to whitewash Harrit's findings. One of the Carnegie scientists says the chips release less energy per kilogram than paper. I don't know what he's on about here because the paper says they release more energy per unit mass than conventional thermite and conventional explosives. Case in point, blog contributor Adam Taylor recently asked Neils Harrit to address the argument from debunker, er, make that respectful rebuttaler Chris Mohr, that the "sample 1 in figure 29 doesn't match the comparison with the known thermitic reaction," Harrit replied, "IT IS BETTER - FASTER."

The narrator then says something like "USGS studied 38 dust samples, RJ Lee studied thousands, Jones and Harrit studied only four" and essentially accuses them of cherry-picking dust. How can you cherry-pick when you've only collected four samples? It can only be cherry-picking if you collect thousands but only select the four you want for your study.

The scientists collected only four samples. And these chips were present in all four samples. This tells us something about how prevalent these red chips were in the dust.

Imagine a city-sized haystack that has a few needles hidden in it. If you were to take say a random binbag-sized sample of hay from that haystack, the likelihood of one of those small number of needles being in the sample that you collected is extremely small. On the other hand, if you took four random samples of hay from a city-sized haystack, and each of the samples contained several needles. What that would tell you is that the city-sized haystack was most probably full of needles. The fact that red chips are present in the four relatively tiny samples obtained by Jones and his colleagues suggests that these red chips were everywhere.

The other Carnegie scientist repeats the claim that we have heard so many times before from debunkers. That's right, they've once again gone with the primer paint claim.

See:

The Debunking the Debunkers Exploding Paint Archive - 46 posts from our archive that tear to shreds their ludicrous paint claims, hypocritical peer-review arguments and conspiratorial chain of custody suggestions.

When I heard experts would be addressing Neils Harrit's findings I was expecting more than this.

The narrator then acknowledges that Jones and Harrit studied a primer paint sample and found it to be different from the red chips. The program doesn't really respond to this though. The Carnegie scientist just keeps on talking about how there would likely be several coats of paint and the red-chips were likely primer from the structural steel. That's what they studied! It's ironic that as they're talking about paint there's footage of someone painting across the screen with white paint, coz this really is a whitewash!

The program then cuts to a shot of the Manhatten bridge and the narrator says that this type of primer is painted all over it. She then says that the temperature the red-grey chips react at is what we would expect if it was primer paint.

Really? So is the chemical reaction aluminothermic?! Are droplets of molten iron produced in the reaction? Are you gonna do any experiments?!

During a radio interview with chemical engineer Mark Basile (who independently confirmed Harrit's paper and only became a full-fledged truther after doing so), the host George Corrette asked:

Now one of the things that we've heard; these kind of crude critiques of this study is: 'Well all these red and gray chips, well how do you know they're just not paint chips'. What would one expect with Sherman-Williams exterior coat paint if you were to do the exact same thing with this: take those paint chips, put them on this quarter inch resistance heater that you have, and ignite it if you will, heat it up to a point of ignition...

Basile responds:

...If I have a thermite fire and I were to put that rod in there it would melt, be.. you know, if I had sufficient material there to do that, so... it's just the level of energy release, so, yep, there'd be an energy release, but I wouldn't expect say if within that paint chip there was iron oxide as one of the pigments that they put in there, I wouldn't expect to open that paint chip afterwards and find, you know, molten iron has been produced and now there would be iron droplets inside the residue of that chip.

For more on the aluminothermic nano-'paint', see:

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple
WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

Until these 'scientists' publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal, the findings of Harrit, Jones et al are still valid. When asked why no one has attempted to publish a rebuttal, one of the Carnegie scientists laughably claims that, while it would be fairly easy to disprove Harrit's claims, it would be a waste of time. Most scientists are busy doing more interesting things! Apparently the defining moment of the 21st century isn't interesting enough for most scientists!

Once again, the BBC interviewed the X-Files guy who again basically called 9/11 truth a religion. Clips of the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen are shown and the narrator mentions how people believe that the show was predictive programming for the real thing. It's worth noting that the star of the show, Dean Haglund, believes this to be the case. In 2004, he revealed how the government officials often attend Hollywood parties and submit ideas for film and TV show plots.

As for the foreknowledge stuff at the end, there is much more evidence than what was included in the program. (Again, for more on this, see here). But could it all be due to incompetence? Well, as Sibel Edmonds once said on a radio show:

You know, it is very easy to write off things when you have one or two slip-ups, and you attribute certain things to bureaucratic bungling - but it goes beyond that... Now, what is that? As I said, I wont be able to answer the question, but what I can answer is, yes, we had this 911 Commission that was formed (laughs) and first we had Henry Kissinger appointed to be the Chairman, this tells you what kind of Commission they had in mind, which was going to be cosmetic. It was pretty obvious. Then we had the final Commission, with a bunch of people with conflicts of interest, and we didn't get anything.

As you see, people have been gagged, a lot of things have been classified... And you think 'Why would they go so far to cover up bureaucratic bungling?' Again, that doesn't mean that this was an inside job, but what it tells you is that there are a lot of things that we don't know, there are a lot of things that our government doesn’t want us to know.

All in all this BBC program was perhaps even worse than the 2007 version. Because at least back then we could forgive them for thinking things like the Pentagon, C-130 and Flight 93 stuff were important issues for 9/11 truth. But now after four and a half years of evolution no serious truther really cares that much about these issues anymore. As I said earlier, it's not so much what was in the program, it's what WASN'T in the program that pisses me off!

A Message of Peace and a Pledge of Tolerance

2011-08-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

Earlier today I received this email:

Hello John

In memory of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I would like to offer you and your readers of Debunking The Debunkers a message of peace in a short video and a pledge of tolerance.

If you are able to post or tweet about the video and the pledge, please let me know. I am here if you have any questions.

Thank you so much,

Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth Potter
Unity Productions Foundation
myfellowamerican.us
facebook.com/MyFellowAmericanProject

Thanks for passing along the message Ms. Potter, you have our support.

As I wrote after a debate with a member of former NYC Mayor Giuliani's Economic Development Committee, Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget, Andrew G. Benjamin, late last year:

While I was searching around for more info on Mr. Benjamin I found that he had posted two comments supportive of the website islam-watch.org using the email he contacted me from. The website features a permanent picture of the Twin Towers being hit on 9/11 in the right-hand corner and claims that Islam has a "hateful and violent core." So, Islam's violent nature is responsible for 9/11.

Really never mind numbers often cited concerning how many people Muslims have killed in the last 1,000 years, because not only are they greatly exaggerated, but completely irrelevant.

As the hip-hop group Dead Prez states:

you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay

This is excellent! Thank you so much for deciding to share it with your readers and help us spread the word of this video and initiative. I am sure your support will make a difference and we sincerely apprecite the support and good wishes. Have a great week!

Cheers
Liz

Update: A Message of Peace and a Pledge of Tolerance - 9/11/11 and Beyond

Debunking the George W. Bush National Geographic Interview

2011-08-29T17:18:00.000-07:00

First, a little background from YouTube user WarCrime911.

Early on in George W. Bush's interview about 9/11 which aired on the National Geographic channel last night, he states, "I went from a president that was primarily focused on domestic issues to a wartime president — something that I never anticipated, nor something I ever wanted to be."

As Madison Ruppert of Activist Post notes in his article "News Corp. owned National Geographic’s 9/11 documentary more interested in feelings than facts, "This is an outright lie and the fact that they are still peddling this thoroughly debunked deceit is nothing short of offensive."

Ruppert points to an MSNBC News report from May 16, 2002 entitled "U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida - White House given plan days before Sept. 11," in which it's written:

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

And as the Seattle Post reported on January 12, 2004:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Ruppert continues:

The documentary also continues to push the blatant lie that George W. Bush and his cronies in Washington were not aware of the possibility of the attack.

This, like the outright lie that Bush was not seeking to go to war, has been thoroughly debunked as well, even by the mainstream media!

David Edwards of RawStory reports:

In an interview that aired Sunday night, President Bush told National Geographic Channel’s Peter Schnall that after 9/11, he didn’t want to blame intelligence agencies for failing to predict the attacks.

“At some point in time in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, I thought about why didn’t we know this?” Bush recalled.

“I knew we needed to figure out what went wrong to prevent other attacks but I didn’t want start the finger pointing and say to our intelligence communities, ‘You fouled up. You should have caught this. Why didn’t you know?’”

On Aug. 6, 2001 — more than a month before the attacks — Bush received a presidential daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US,” the briefing said. “Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ‘bring the fighting to America.’”

“FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

The day after receiving the report while vacationing on his ranch, “Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday,” according to The Washington Post.

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has written of the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief before, "Note in particular that the two paragraphs which do not appear historical in nature are also not very accurate in predicting 9-11; federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."

One commenter by the name of Brian Good on Pat's blog thanked him for his candor, "Thanks, Pat, for confirming that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo actually did warn of new attacks, though Condi claimed under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows that it did not."

Condi's bio on Wikipedia also contains this tidbit:

Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting."[45] Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America."[46]

Yes, there was a section that mentions "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," and no, "the attacks were not done with explosives," meaning of course that it wasn't a bombing attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but the memo also mentioned "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..." It then mentions that this included "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," to which Pat points out that the Towers were not federal buildings, but the "recent surveillance" would be in addition to the "most attractive terrorist target" at the WTC as detailed by several reports dating back to the 1980s.

Bottom line is, bin Laden, NYC, and hijackings are mentioned. And as OilEmpire.us points out:

In 1995, the US stopped plans for "Project Bojinka," a planned terror attack on commercial airliners (12 planes were to be hijacked simultaneously, and the plotters also envisioned driving a jet into CIA headquarters in Virginia). Bojinka was thwarted when a group of Islamic terrorists were apprehended in the Philippines. This proves that the Cheney administration lied after 9/11 when they claimed they didn't forsee the possibility of hijacked planes being used as weapons.

Blog contributor James Dorman notes:

I just watched the NG Bush interview. Truly pathetic. If watched carefully, even though both towers were hit with planes-no shoot down order---the pentagon gets hit-and he pretends to give a shoot down order before flight 93 went down--he didn't.

“Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority." – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

“At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told “negative clearance to shoot.” Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

And why wasn't one given before the pentagon was hit? He also does what he and condi rice do in every interview---downplay that he was told it was a commercial airliner that hit the wtc --told that before he went into the classroom.

Released notes from 9-11 commission.....

First plane hits; Rice calls POTUS - tells him at end of convo that it's a commercial plane. ---page 1

Called POTUS after first hit; said at first it's a twin engine and then a few minutes later said no, it's a commercial plane (so POTUS knew when he hung up it was a commercial plane??) page 4

Call to POTUS after WTC 1 hit: in the first interview w/Woodward (10/24/01) she mentions that at the end of this call "Tony" said they think it's a commercial plane, and she passes this along to POTUS. This description drops off in subsequent interviews. page 6
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571575/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-102401-Rice-Transcript-Notes-998

"He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we're going to go ahead and go on, we're going on to do the reading thing anyway," Tose'-Rigell recalls.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/ap081902d.html

also see.....

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=881251&t=408072
http://www.pumpitout.com/images/gwb-decision-points-page-142.jpg

They always do these things in every interview. Also he was not upset at all about this giant massive "intelligence failure". Rumsfeld never ever talks about what he was doing between 9:00 and 9:38 when the pentagon was hit.

Rumsfeld and Bush both deserted their posts on 9-11 and left Cheney in charge. The VP has no authority and is not in the military chain of command, and exercise after exercise made all the Generals fully aware of that.

“Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).” - 911 commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Only the President and Sec Def Rumsfeld has this authority. The VP only assumes the responsibilities of the President when the Pres is dead or incapacitated. Pres Bush was in excellent health and had access to phones as well as Cheney and in fact had better communications even after he got on board Air Force one.

"The generals understood that. In an earlier exercise, one that postulated a suicide mission involving a jet aimed at Washington, they had said shooting it down would require an "executive" order. The defense secretary's authority, General Arnold told the Commission, was necessary to shoot down even a "derelict balloon." Only the President, he thought, had the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner." Page 136
http://www.amazon.com/Eleventh-Day-Story-Osama-Laden/dp/140006659X

Now watch as Rumsfeld lies and says he was involved in making the Shoot down order. This shows they are not incompetent on this matter but know it very well, and that's why they lie about it.....

"Goldberg: What about authorization to shoot down United #93? Did that come from the Vice President?
Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command. The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking. Clearly he was involved in the process.
Cameron: It was reported that the decision came from the Vice President.
Rumsfeld: He might have recommended that.
Cameron: But the rules of engagement came out of your office.
Rumsfeld: Sure." page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redacted-044

Rumsfeld: The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redacted-044

9-11 Commission bust him on this lie......

“The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was NOT discussed.” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Even Rice knows what the procedures are and so she has to lie as well.......

"DR. RICE: The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly. And it was authority requested through channels by Secretary Rumsfeld"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

Lie busted by 9-11 Commission counsel John Farmer:

Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it." page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Why are they lying? Because they know that Cheney is not in the Military chain of command, so the shoot down orders can't come from him can they MR Rumsfeld?....

Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command. page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Intvw-2002-12-23-Rumsfeld-Donald-H-Less-Redacted-044

Cheney was covering for Rumsfeld and Bush. And all of them are lying, including Rice. He could be issuing shoot down orders and it wont matter, he's as authorized to command fighters shoot down aircraft as much as the Postmaster General, or Secretary of Agriculture. That's why nothing happened until Bush gave the OK at 10:20. After the attacks were over. Not....“Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center"