New Nano-Thermite Study Fund Raiser at MarkBasile.org

The purpose of Mark Basile's new study is to conduct a formal blind study that can be seen as true independent confirmation of the thermitic materials (explosive and steel melting) he and other scientists have documented in the World Trade Centre dust.

Basile's own work, that confirmed the presence of the thermitic material (uncovered by other scientists in peer reviewed research) was informal, hence this new study. The following link outlines the new proposal - an Independent Study of the WTC Dust: http://www.markbasile.org/

Donations can be made at: http://www.markbasile.org/donation. Any amount will help. Try a donation of $10, or more, if you can afford it, and you can use Paypal. You will be contributing to the scientific process - in this case, reproducible results.

Please understand that the study, although being run independently, will be observed by Basile himself, to ensure no skulduggery occurs which is always a risk when it comes to 911 research.

Readers should note Basile's video testimony (featured above) indicates there were a high number of iron spheres, glass spheres and other spherical material, all throughout the dust along with the red grey chips - the latter item being the target of the new independent investigation.

Considering there is so much spherical debris, melted due to intense heat, anyone claiming an absence of high temperature explosive forces impacting upon the buildings is in firm denial. 

We should all look forward to this new study that will provide a formal confirmation of the forensic proof revealing explosive thermitic compounds in the dust. This second opinion will be valuable when evidence of the treasonous 911 murders are brought up in a court of Law.

Upcoming Interview on 9/11 Free Fall, 5/30/2013

This Thursday I will be featured on the No Lies Radio program "9/11 Free Fall" for the second time to discuss my recent paper published at scientificmethod911.org. Tune in this Thursday at 10:00 EST for a thorough discussion of why other steel-framed structure collapses are totally unjustified comparisons to the Twin Towers and Building 7.

See also:

Debunking Popular Mechanics on 9/11 Free Fall, 12/27/2012

Proposal for Independent Study of the WTC Dust - Using an Independent Lab that has No Idea that the Dust is From the WTC or From 9/11 (Donate)

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile proposes a blind study into the WTC dust:

A "blind" study is when the technicians performing the test have no idea what the purpose of the test is or where the testing samples came from, so that they will not unconsciously influence results.

In previous analyses of the dust by independent 911 investigators, iron microspheres were found - something that could not be created by jet fuel or office fire - plus there were also unreacted red/grey chips that ignited in a thermitic (incendiary) fashion to produce iron spheres.

This physical evidence shows that Thermitic materials, which are sometimes used by the military to demolish equipment - and have been used to dismantle steel structures in the past - were present in the buildings on 911.

Along with the collapse features of the Towers and WTC7, plus the evidence of eyewitnesses to explosions and melted steel, we can see that explosive and incendiary devices must have been used.

Please donate a few dollars to Mark Basile's blind study by following his green highlighted link on his webpage. Do not be concerned about Government interference since the tests will be monitored.




Related info:

The Great Thermite Debate

Paper Accepted and Published at Scientific Method 9/11

I’m happy to announce that I’ve successfully had a paper accepted and published at the website Scientific Method 9/11. It’s an updated version of my paper Other Collapses in Perspective. In it, I present scientific explanations for why other steel structure fire-induced collapses are not comparable to the WTC buildings. It’s obvious that fire could not have brought down the Towers on 9/11. But don’t just take my word for it; read for yourself here and decide if I’m right.

http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Other_Collapses_Apr27_2013.pdf

Special thanks to the moderators at Scientific Method 9/11 for their review and helpful comments.

See also my SM9/11 profile page for other writings of mine.

The WTC Dust: Science and Replication

 Bilbo's Blog

A few years ago a team of scientists studied the red/gray chips in dust samples of the World Trade Center buildings and came to the conclusion that they were the remains of an active thermitic material, which could have been used as explosives. Since then their claim has been disputed. But no one has tried to replicate their results. Science isn't just about trying to get peer-reviewed papers published. That's only part of the story. Once results have been published, it is then the job of other scientists to try to replicate the results, by doing the same experiments, though perhaps under more controlled conditions. NIST, for example, has dust samples of their own. They could conduct the same experiments and see what they get.

Meanwhile, Mark Basile, a chemical engineer and signer of the petition that requests a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11, along with over 1,750 architects and engineers, is trying to raise funds to conduct a blind study of the dust samples. The fundraising is going slow. It hasn't been advertised in the two major 9/11 truther websites, which makes one wonder why. Is it distrust of Basile? Of the lab that he would eventually select? A fear that authorities would discover which lab it was and infiltrate, bribe, or threaten it to get negative results? That would be my fear. But whatever the reason, so far no one is trying to replicate the results of the original study. And so science (at least regarding the dust samples) remains at a stand still.

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out - Trailer

This is the trailer for the much-anticipated Final Edition of the expert-packed 90-minute documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The powerful documentary takes its cross-country World Premiere Tour of 30 cities with AE911Truth founder and the film's director, Richard Gage, AIA, from May to July 2012. Order the DVD today at: http://shop.ae911truth.org/DVD-Cased-9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out-DVD-ESO-CASED1-PP.htm...



This is an excellent trailer. Make sure to check out the documentary. We live in a world with an endless War on Terror thanks to 911. Exposing the crime, and seeing justice done, will end this conflict.

We can have peace if we want it but we have to become educated and speak out so that no amount of censorship or misinformation will stop the truth movement.

Related:

'9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



Excerpt:

Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

Kevin Ryan: The NIST WTC 7 Report is False

This presentation describes some of the ways in which the 2008 WTC 7 report from the National Institute of Standard and Technology is false and unscientific.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the 911 lie we have all been plunged into an endless War on Terror. Only the truth about 911 will end this war and stop the criminals from pushing further atrocities upon the people of this world.

I appreciated the comment by tHoM0r at the You Tube page on 12/7/11:

Deception by computer model. This is not science, this is merely a long winded way of saying "this happened, but we can't back that up with real world observations".

Further, i still don't understand, even if this column expanded enough to fall off, how did this cause global collapse at an initial rate of fall ~9.8ms/2 ?

Related Info:

Unnecessary Freefall Revisit #2038046179007145309

VIRAL EMAIL LETTER: The Laws of Physics and the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 911.

Dear People at [Insert Media Name here],

I've included a link to a You Tube video that I think everyone at your [Newspaper/TV Station/Radio Station] should watch. The video explains why our troops should not be in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0



Our troops must be withdrawn as soon as possible.

And note, there is no dishonour to our soldiers who have engaged in operations fully believing their missions were of vital defence importance to our country. Our forces have done the best they can under the circumstances and now it's time to disengage from this unnecessary fight.

The material in this clip is known to millions of people online in various other forms.

Thanks for you attention.

[Insert Name here]
--------------------------------------------------

Media Contact List

Write an E-Mail Message to Congress, the President and the Media!

A note to letter senders. The key value of this video is the experimental data cited that proves the official story is a lie. No matter what one says about other details of the murder the forensic material highlighted here shows the destruction of these buildings involved explosives.

WTC 1 - The Obvious Case Against the Collapse/Crush Down Hypothesis - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST

By Anders Björkman (M.Sc)

Just drop Anything on Something

Start with a solid rubber ball, mass m (kg) and drop it on the floor from height h = 3.7 meters height = the height that WTC1 upper part is assumed to drop. The ball free falls with acceleration g (9.81 m/s²) due to gravity, makes contact with the floor and normally bounces. The ball was not rigid and deformed upon contact with the floor. Why? The floor applied a force on the solid rubber ball, so that it deformed, absorbed some of the kinetic energy E involved (E = m*h*g) and then released it and bounced up. Evidently the ball also applied a force on the floor that also deformed, absorbed the remainder of the energy involved; maybe the floor vibrated a little. This is Newton's third law at work.

Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed and contacts something else below, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.

Finally drop anything weak (an egg or a lemon?) on something strong! PLAFSH! The weak anything (the egg or lemon!) is crushed against the strong something!

Don't forget that!

Try to compress a lemon with another lemon. What happens? Both lemons compress.

Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on something and try to compress something. This basic knowledge is used in this paper.
-----------------------------------------------------
If the upper, 53 meters tall, 13-15 storeys upper part of WTC 1 actually dropped on the structure below is a matter of semantics. Drop suggests that it was not being held at all. I prefer that it came into contact after local structural failures and downward displacement and that it was prevented from dropping by the connections between the two parts. Anyway, only the velocity at contact is of interest and it was not high in the WTC 1 case. Assuming a 'drop' of 3.7 metres, it does not produce a big velocity; it is around 8 m/s. If the 'drop' is dampened by intermediate connections the velocity is much less.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bazant (described below) and NIST suggest that the energy initiating or released at the WTC 1 destruction was enormous but in a serious ships collision it can be up to 10 times bigger!! NIST should learn from ship collisions! Bazant also assumes that the WTC 1 upper part was rigid (!). A rigid object is indestructible and will destroy anything non-rigid. But ships and WTC 1 upper part are not rigid.
-------------------------------------------------------
The official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 (photo left) global collapse (sic) is that the alleged release of potential energy (PE), of the mass of an upper part C above all supporting columns after sudden, local deformation and buckling, due to downward, alleged near free fall movement in an initiation zone (indicated by red) and impact of a structure below, exceeds the strain energy (SE) that can be absorbed by the same columns below and above and that all this was due to gravity only.
[SEE THE PICS AT THE LINK]
-------------------------------------------------------
Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

Note the pic above: There is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. Furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. Where is that pile-driving mass ? It does not exist. The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity.

911 Truth in 5 minutes: The Key Evidence vs Mainstream Conspiracy Denialism & Propaganda

The Hard Science:
There IS overwhelming physical evidence that reveals explosives were used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings on 911. There is nothing theoretical about the claim - forensic proof has sealed the case.

Simply put, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of High Tech Explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapse of steel framed buildings, WITHOUT using incendiaries or explosives of the sort commonly employed by the military and demolition companies.

Either basic scientific principles (ones that have NEVER been disproved) are drastically in error or we are looking at the physical evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Ergo, 911 was an inside job.

The Propaganda:
For almost 9 years there has been a concerted effort by official investigators and the mainstream media to keep people ignorant of this information. However, thanks to the work of independent investigators and the availability of information via the Internet, these efforts have largely failed. The scientific proof of the inside job is irrevocably in the public domain.

However, there still remains a high level of ignorance concerning this key scientific evidence - due primarily to a self induced, culturally influenced aversion to even consider the 911 truth question.

In today's society people have been conditioned to reject all things labeled "conspiracy" as if such claims were wholly unsubstantiated. Association with mental illness and irrationality have hamstrung our ability to even look at the data. This is especially true when it comes to issues that can be labelled as being part of a "big government conspiracy". Most people when it comes to these topics end up being too indignant, ignorant, embarrassed or afraid to even discuss them. Alas, no matter how good the information, even the most intelligent among us who decide not to weigh up the evidence, will always fail to see through the official deceptions.

Moreover, because conspiracy claims are the subject of such strong ridicule, many people who do actually chance to look into the details often find them psychologically too difficult to accept - regardless of how damning the information may be.

Further adding to the disconnect here is the general population's inexperience at recognising the significance of hard scientific evidence. Few people, upon seeing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7, or seeing data that confirms structural steel had melted in all three buildings, would understand the strength of this hard science - even if explained to them.

On top of all these hindrances we also have to deal with the disinformation put out by various "independent" 911 truth debunking "experts" who help fuel society's irrational anti-conspiracy bias (conspiracy-denialism). Appearing online and in various 911 "documentaries" these individuals push distortions, provide pseudo-scientific trick explanations, heap ridicule and tell outright lies about the facts in question. Their agenda is to act as credible authority figures, using their academic or professional backgrounds to discredit the hard evidence and build a "consensus" opinion backing the official lies. The mission, transparent to the well informed, is to basically hoodwink open minded members of the public. Many of these debunkers, who are too intelligent not to understand the science proving the inside job, appear to be on the Government payroll. Indeed most are probably involved in a modern day version of Operation Mockingbird.

Nevertheless, despite the pervasive lies presented in the official 911 reports, the censorship by the corporate media, the disinformation efforts of the supposedly independent debunkers, and our own inabilities to come to terms with challenging information, the physical evidence of the inside job still stands. The World Trade Centre forensic evidence proves the official account is a lie and ends the 911 conspiracy debate. [Presently there are 6 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the inside job hypothesis that remain unchallenged in the scientific literature.]

Whatever the truth is concerning the involvement of Osama Bin Laden, he certainly could not have rigged the Twin Towers or WTC7 with explosives.

The War on Terror is a hoax designed to foment conflict between the West and militant Islamic groups for the purpose of US strategic domination of the Middle East. Only the truth about 911 will end these Wars.

The first step is identifying the propaganda to be overcome whilst simultaneously recognising the hard scientific evidence of the inside job. Once EVERYONE understands the truth then the game will be over.

By Spookypunkos

Because it can Never be Repeated Enough: 9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition

Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn't matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone "thinks". Nothing can fool the laws of physics.




http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210712-Because-it-can-never-be-repeated-enough-9-11-Experiments-Collapse-vs-Demolition

Remember: only the truth about 911 will stop the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Related Info:

The Conservation Of Angular Momentum In Action...

Distorted Tilt Confirmed

Debunker Verinage Fantasies are Bunk!

The Physics of WTC 7

911 CRIME SCENE: the "Logic" of the Official Story vs Reason

By Spookypunkos

If we adhere to the "logic" demonstrated by the Official 911 Investigation it would follow that scientific evidence must always be twisted to fit a preconceived theory. Contradictory material that cannot be shaped to fit an existing theory must be ignored or unscientifically debunked(!). In practice what we see with the Official Investigation is a cooking of the books, a fraud, intended to bolster the singular claim that the 911 attacks were solely the result of Muslim extremists.

As we are taught from the plethora of TV shows dealing with forensic science, we must always base our theories on the unadulterated crime scene data, paying special attention to the scientific evidence over untested claims made by investigators, suspects or witnesses. One is not allowed to twist hard facts to fit a theory. If the scientific evidence does not agree with the prevailing claims (or the working hypothesis) then the working hypothesis must be revised or rejected. Evidence comes first.

The problem for the official 911 story, is that the forensic evidence from the WTC site provides proof showing that the Government account (or theory) cannot possibly be true.

Contrary to claims made by many uninformed or dishonest commentators, most 911 Truth advocates have based their skeptical views upon the scientific method as applied to the data we have from the WTC buildings. Indeed, the molten steel and the free fall collapse of Building 7 show these buildings MUST have been brought down using a combination of incendiaries and high explosive charges. This smoking gun evidence leaves us no choice but to conclude that the official "fire caused the collapses" story to be false. The fact that fragments of high tech explosive material were later found in multiple samples of the WTC dust removes all doubt about the case.

It is from this concrete basis of scientific fact that members of the 911 Truth Movement proceed. We KNOW 911 was an inside job because of the forensic proof associated with the WTC collapses- now we need to discover who was responsible.

The official theory, that the 911 attacks were solely the work of Middle Eastern extremists, does not match up to the material evidence found at the crime scene. It is time we had a real criminal investigation.

1000 "Moonbat Crazy" Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

By Spookypunkos

Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.

I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...

Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.

After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!

Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !

Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !

Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC



Related Info:

1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost

The Loud Debunker-Not

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

They debunk the debunkers, explain the science, and discuss Obama, Griffin's new book, and the future of the 9/11 truth movement.

Scroll down past the videos for related info...

PART 1:


PART 2:

PART 3:

PART 4:

PART 5:

Related Info...

The Journal of 9/11 Studies

New David Ray Griffin Book: New Pearl Harbor Revisited

TheAlexJonesShow.com

WeAreChange Debunks the BBC part 2: A Call to Action

Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53