Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A Woman among Warlords..The aftermath of 9/11 in Afghanistan
An invasion of a country based on the 9/11 lie.
This is what the American government has done in We The Peoples name with our tax dollars.
Obama is as bad as Bush when it comes to war crimes.
Hey Obama!Stop the Massacres!
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!
Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Paint Dry...
Especially when they keep going on and on about paint.
A few weeks back poster "Sunstealer" at the JREF forum claimed to have shown that one of the red/gray chips in the Active Thermitic Material paper was actually WTC primer paint.
______________________________________________________
I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!
I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.
Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.
Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120
This is one and the same material!
Note how in the paper they say
Quote: Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.
The bolded part is their own bias.
Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.
Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.
______________________________________________________
The first thing that we should note here is that Sunstealer is apparently focusing on one chip in particular. The chip he is referring to is this one:
He claims that this chip is comparable to the spectra showing WTC primer paint. But is it? We contacted Dr. Jones about this, and here is what he had to say:
"It is unfortunate that we did not first fracture the chip which was later soaked in MEK and measure the fresh surface -- a procedure we followed (thanks to Jeff Farrer) on the FOUR chips thoroughly analyzed in the paper. I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside of the chip-later-soaked, because after soaking there was NO ZINC (as we showed in our paper, Figures 16, 17 and 18). Clearly, soaking and agitating in MEK removed surface contamination. The Zn seen in Figure 14 was before soaking, as we said in the paper, and was very likely due to surface contamination, but we could have stated that more clearly. A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18, appears to be ignored by the JREF'ers but is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint."
What's more, Dr. Niels Harrit also made this distinction in his article WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT. In his discussion of the Figure 14 chip, he states:
______________________________________________________
In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).
______________________________________________________
Furthermore, Dr. Harrit goes on to point out that:
______________________________________________________
Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).
______________________________________________________
Indeed, as the spectra Dr. Jones labels as primer paint shows, magnesium is present in the paint, but not in the Fig. 14 spectra.
Another JREFer, "The Almond," also threw in his own comments:
______________________________________________________
Good catch on this. I've often suggested that the material in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to the steel structure during construction. NIST describes the anti corrosion coating applied to the steel beams (also used to do the infamous 600 C temperature test) in 1-3C appendix D (check around page 433). Not shockingly, the pigments listed have iron, zinc, silicon and a proprietary pigment known as Tnemec. What's further, if you compare figure D4 to the ones shown in Harrit et al, you can't even begin to think it's anything else.
______________________________________________________
Apparently, Mr. Almond likes using the same argument that Mark Roberts and Joseph Nobles are fond of using: that the paint and the chips look similar. Dr. Jones also addressed this issue for us:
"The paint and the red/gray chips have a distinctly different appearance (see for example recent photos by Jon Cole which confirm this fact) and different behaviors in the MEK solvent. After soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming. OTOH, the paint including primer paint chips become very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK. There can be no mistaking the distinction, despite what the JREF'ers say."
And what's more, we have independent confirmation from chemical engineer Mark Basile, who has come to the same conclusions as Dr. Jones et al.
(At around minute 38:00 he discusses his analyzation of the red/gray chips)
This is an issue that's been addressed many times before. The red/gray chips discovered do not act like paint, do not have the same ingredients as paint, and do not look like paint. And until debunkers decide to actually get their objections peer reviewed, the paper's conclusions stand.
______________
Thanks to Dr. Steven Jones and Jon Cole for their helpful comments and pictures of WTC paint and red/gray chips.
Thanks to youtuber Lietuvispartizan for sending me the Mark Basile video and other helpful comments.
Related Info:
Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry...
A few weeks back poster "Sunstealer" at the JREF forum claimed to have shown that one of the red/gray chips in the Active Thermitic Material paper was actually WTC primer paint.
______________________________________________________
I just found something new out. Harrit et al did have a sample of WTC primer paint in the paper - they just didn't realise it!
I have long suspected that the chip subjected to the MEK soaking was WTC primer paint but couldn't show that it was - until now.
Now what's interesting is that Harrit et al claim that the MEK chip is identical to the samples a-d in the paper even though the compositions are radically different.
Compare and contrast my corrected spectra of Fig 14 (Mg peak identified at 1.3KeV and K peak at 3.4 KeV) below with the spectra at 2.45 in the video below (note that in the spectra below the peak at 3.7KeV is incorrectly labelled as C - it should be Ca)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0#at=120
This is one and the same material!
Note how in the paper they say
Quote: Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.
The bolded part is their own bias.
Que the nitpickers looking at different peak heights and claiming something different. It's not.
Fig 14 - the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint.
______________________________________________________
The first thing that we should note here is that Sunstealer is apparently focusing on one chip in particular. The chip he is referring to is this one:
He claims that this chip is comparable to the spectra showing WTC primer paint. But is it? We contacted Dr. Jones about this, and here is what he had to say: "It is unfortunate that we did not first fracture the chip which was later soaked in MEK and measure the fresh surface -- a procedure we followed (thanks to Jeff Farrer) on the FOUR chips thoroughly analyzed in the paper. I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside of the chip-later-soaked, because after soaking there was NO ZINC (as we showed in our paper, Figures 16, 17 and 18). Clearly, soaking and agitating in MEK removed surface contamination. The Zn seen in Figure 14 was before soaking, as we said in the paper, and was very likely due to surface contamination, but we could have stated that more clearly. A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18, appears to be ignored by the JREF'ers but is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint."
What's more, Dr. Niels Harrit also made this distinction in his article WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT. In his discussion of the Figure 14 chip, he states:
______________________________________________________
In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).
______________________________________________________
Furthermore, Dr. Harrit goes on to point out that:
______________________________________________________
Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).
______________________________________________________
Indeed, as the spectra Dr. Jones labels as primer paint shows, magnesium is present in the paint, but not in the Fig. 14 spectra.
Another JREFer, "The Almond," also threw in his own comments:
______________________________________________________
Good catch on this. I've often suggested that the material in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to the steel structure during construction. NIST describes the anti corrosion coating applied to the steel beams (also used to do the infamous 600 C temperature test) in 1-3C appendix D (check around page 433). Not shockingly, the pigments listed have iron, zinc, silicon and a proprietary pigment known as Tnemec. What's further, if you compare figure D4 to the ones shown in Harrit et al, you can't even begin to think it's anything else.
______________________________________________________
Apparently, Mr. Almond likes using the same argument that Mark Roberts and Joseph Nobles are fond of using: that the paint and the chips look similar. Dr. Jones also addressed this issue for us:
"The paint and the red/gray chips have a distinctly different appearance (see for example recent photos by Jon Cole which confirm this fact) and different behaviors in the MEK solvent. After soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming. OTOH, the paint including primer paint chips become very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK. There can be no mistaking the distinction, despite what the JREF'ers say."
And what's more, we have independent confirmation from chemical engineer Mark Basile, who has come to the same conclusions as Dr. Jones et al.
(At around minute 38:00 he discusses his analyzation of the red/gray chips)
This is an issue that's been addressed many times before. The red/gray chips discovered do not act like paint, do not have the same ingredients as paint, and do not look like paint. And until debunkers decide to actually get their objections peer reviewed, the paper's conclusions stand.
______________
Thanks to Dr. Steven Jones and Jon Cole for their helpful comments and pictures of WTC paint and red/gray chips.
Thanks to youtuber Lietuvispartizan for sending me the Mark Basile video and other helpful comments.
Related Info:
Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry...
I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Richard Gage’s Asterisk
Richard Gage’s Asterisk
by Michael Wolsey
www.visibility911.com
March 29, 2011
Anyone who knows Richard Gage, AIA very well or has worked with him, knows that Richard insists that when you cite his name anywhere, whether in voice or print, that you include his title AIA, which stands for American Institute of Architects. I assume it’s much like a Dr. following his name with the letters PhD and is obviously important to Richard for whatever reasons. Those of us who know, always include the AIA tag when formally referring to Richard. We know that if we do not, Richard will be quick to correct us!
Unfortunately, Richard now has another inclusion in his title; an Asterisk.
In early 2009, I learned that Richard Gage, AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth had given a written endorsement of a new documentary about the September 11th Pentagon attack titled National Security Alert. This film was being aggressively promoted by two people, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team or CIT. Craig and Aldo were apparently seeking written or verbal endorsements of their film from high profile members of the 9-11 Truth Movement.[1] At some point, they had approached Richard and he agreed to give them a statement. Richard’s written endorsement reads as follows:
Prior to Richard’s endorsement of CIT, I knew about Craig and Aldo and their kooky theory that speculates that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. I confess that I didn’t really pay that much attention to them. I consider CIT’s work to be counter to the truth and believe that unsubstantiated claims of truth based on dishonest research and methods and speculation actually hurts our efforts at achieving a new 9-11 investigation. It was also a highly held belief that in most cases, it’s best as a movement to ignore disruptions such as these, which is what I did with CIT.
With much fanfare, CIT boasted their high profile endorsers to as much of the movement as would listen and used these peoples’ names as an appeal to authority [2] to further promote their film. I saw this behavior as extremely dishonest and was very disappointed in Richard and the others. [3] I considered this a tipping point and a place where 9-11 activists could no longer ignore CIT. Since then, we have published several podcasts as well as articles on the topic at visibility911.com. [4]
In response, I personally contacted Richard and some of the other endorsers with polite, yet firm emails asking them if they knew the whole story behind CIT. I urged them to look further into Aldo and Craig if they had not done so in the beginning, and reconsider their endorsements of what I considered to be the worst disinformation in the 9-11 movement history. I also had a chance to sit down with Richard face to face when he was in Denver in August of 2009.
My biggest concern was that Richard’s endorsement of CIT was helping CIT’s credibility and hurting his own. It is my opinion that there is very strong evidence to support the Controlled Demolition hypotheses at the World Trade Center on 9-11. Richard and his organization AE911T had gained much credibility over the years in this area. I did not want to see this hard work discredited by association with CIT and I saw this as a real possibility. I informed Richard of my concerns, as well as why I believe what I do. I was certainly not alone in my critique of CIT and I know Richard was hearing from many others on this topic. After spending over an hour and a half talking on this, Richard admitted to me privately that he had probably made a mistake with regards to CIT but still failed to fully retract his endorsement.
In December 2009, Richard issued a “clarification” of his CIT statement, and in February of 2011, after educating himself about who Craig and Aldo really are, issued his “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT and their film.
Personally I welcomed this withdrawal of support by Richard, although I wished he hadn’t given them the statement in the first place. I argued for a long time that the damage had been done, and that even if Richard took back his support from CIT, that they would never remove his name or words from their website. This was even a prediction I made privately after Richard issued the withdrawal; repeat, that CIT will NEVER remove his name or endorsement from their website.
Since then, I have from time to time checked back to the “Praise for Citizen Investigation Team” webpage to verify my prediction. It is no great surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone familiar with CIT’s methods, that Richard’s endorsement continues to be posted at the CIT website along with the others. The only difference now is that Richard’s words are now followed by a big red Asterisk which is actually a link to another page at the website which contains a long and wordy response by CIT to Richard’s withdrawal of support. The link is neither prominent or easy to see. It is linked only to the Asterisk itself and unless you are looking for it, you won’t see it.
The reasons that CIT will never remove Richard’s statements are not hard to understand. It’s not because of pride or ego or anything like that. The main reason, and one of the main goals of disinformation is to discredit good information with bad . Since Richard and AE911 promote solid information, one way to undermine them is to discredit them. When Richard, and all the other endorsers gave their names to CIT, they all in one way or another discredited themselves by associating good information with bad; some have called it the “turd in the punchbowl”. The endorsements provide a strong tie between the good and the bad and these ties will never be broken; they are actually the goal.
Dishonest? Heck yea, but what else is new with CIT.
Endnotes:
[1] It should be noted here that in my experience in the movement which goes back to 2003, I have never known any film about 9-11 to seek or even need endorsements. The movement has at times been hungry for tools to use on their friends and new video’s about the 9-11 attacks are no exception. The success or failure of a film was based on the films’ own merits.
[2] Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[3] This list includes David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Aidan Monaghan, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett, Peter Dale Scott, and Ed Asner.
[4] It is not my intention in this essay to discuss the relative dangers in disinformation/ misinformation as it relates to CIT. This topic has been extensively covered on our podcast and at my blog.
by Michael Wolsey
www.visibility911.com
March 29, 2011
Anyone who knows Richard Gage, AIA very well or has worked with him, knows that Richard insists that when you cite his name anywhere, whether in voice or print, that you include his title AIA, which stands for American Institute of Architects. I assume it’s much like a Dr. following his name with the letters PhD and is obviously important to Richard for whatever reasons. Those of us who know, always include the AIA tag when formally referring to Richard. We know that if we do not, Richard will be quick to correct us!
Unfortunately, Richard now has another inclusion in his title; an Asterisk.
In early 2009, I learned that Richard Gage, AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth had given a written endorsement of a new documentary about the September 11th Pentagon attack titled National Security Alert. This film was being aggressively promoted by two people, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team or CIT. Craig and Aldo were apparently seeking written or verbal endorsements of their film from high profile members of the 9-11 Truth Movement.[1] At some point, they had approached Richard and he agreed to give them a statement. Richard’s written endorsement reads as follows:
"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."
Prior to Richard’s endorsement of CIT, I knew about Craig and Aldo and their kooky theory that speculates that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. I confess that I didn’t really pay that much attention to them. I consider CIT’s work to be counter to the truth and believe that unsubstantiated claims of truth based on dishonest research and methods and speculation actually hurts our efforts at achieving a new 9-11 investigation. It was also a highly held belief that in most cases, it’s best as a movement to ignore disruptions such as these, which is what I did with CIT.
With much fanfare, CIT boasted their high profile endorsers to as much of the movement as would listen and used these peoples’ names as an appeal to authority [2] to further promote their film. I saw this behavior as extremely dishonest and was very disappointed in Richard and the others. [3] I considered this a tipping point and a place where 9-11 activists could no longer ignore CIT. Since then, we have published several podcasts as well as articles on the topic at visibility911.com. [4]
In response, I personally contacted Richard and some of the other endorsers with polite, yet firm emails asking them if they knew the whole story behind CIT. I urged them to look further into Aldo and Craig if they had not done so in the beginning, and reconsider their endorsements of what I considered to be the worst disinformation in the 9-11 movement history. I also had a chance to sit down with Richard face to face when he was in Denver in August of 2009.
My biggest concern was that Richard’s endorsement of CIT was helping CIT’s credibility and hurting his own. It is my opinion that there is very strong evidence to support the Controlled Demolition hypotheses at the World Trade Center on 9-11. Richard and his organization AE911T had gained much credibility over the years in this area. I did not want to see this hard work discredited by association with CIT and I saw this as a real possibility. I informed Richard of my concerns, as well as why I believe what I do. I was certainly not alone in my critique of CIT and I know Richard was hearing from many others on this topic. After spending over an hour and a half talking on this, Richard admitted to me privately that he had probably made a mistake with regards to CIT but still failed to fully retract his endorsement.
In December 2009, Richard issued a “clarification” of his CIT statement, and in February of 2011, after educating himself about who Craig and Aldo really are, issued his “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT and their film.
Personally I welcomed this withdrawal of support by Richard, although I wished he hadn’t given them the statement in the first place. I argued for a long time that the damage had been done, and that even if Richard took back his support from CIT, that they would never remove his name or words from their website. This was even a prediction I made privately after Richard issued the withdrawal; repeat, that CIT will NEVER remove his name or endorsement from their website.
Since then, I have from time to time checked back to the “Praise for Citizen Investigation Team” webpage to verify my prediction. It is no great surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone familiar with CIT’s methods, that Richard’s endorsement continues to be posted at the CIT website along with the others. The only difference now is that Richard’s words are now followed by a big red Asterisk which is actually a link to another page at the website which contains a long and wordy response by CIT to Richard’s withdrawal of support. The link is neither prominent or easy to see. It is linked only to the Asterisk itself and unless you are looking for it, you won’t see it.
The reasons that CIT will never remove Richard’s statements are not hard to understand. It’s not because of pride or ego or anything like that. The main reason, and one of the main goals of disinformation is to discredit good information with bad . Since Richard and AE911 promote solid information, one way to undermine them is to discredit them. When Richard, and all the other endorsers gave their names to CIT, they all in one way or another discredited themselves by associating good information with bad; some have called it the “turd in the punchbowl”. The endorsements provide a strong tie between the good and the bad and these ties will never be broken; they are actually the goal.
Dishonest? Heck yea, but what else is new with CIT.
Endnotes:
[1] It should be noted here that in my experience in the movement which goes back to 2003, I have never known any film about 9-11 to seek or even need endorsements. The movement has at times been hungry for tools to use on their friends and new video’s about the 9-11 attacks are no exception. The success or failure of a film was based on the films’ own merits.
[2] Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[3] This list includes David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Aidan Monaghan, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett, Peter Dale Scott, and Ed Asner.
[4] It is not my intention in this essay to discuss the relative dangers in disinformation/ misinformation as it relates to CIT. This topic has been extensively covered on our podcast and at my blog.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
History repeats right down to the day...
"American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger."
~ George W. Bush, March 19, 2003
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9098447
"Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world."
~ Barack H. Obama, March 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bfk23IY2vg#t=3m1s
~ George W. Bush, March 19, 2003
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9098447
"Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world."
~ Barack H. Obama, March 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bfk23IY2vg#t=3m1s
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Obama on America Iran
1:28 - "For two years there has been a campaign of intimidation and abuse..."
1:50 - "The world has watched these unjust actions with alarm ..."
2:17 - "These choices do not demonstrate strength, they show fear. For it's telling when a government is so afraid of its own citizens that it won't even allow them the freedom to access information ..."
2:52 - "... the rigid and unaccountable government, the refusal to let the people realize their full potential, for fear of undermining the authority of the state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)