Tuesday, December 29, 2009

World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse

December 28, 2009

There have been countless films made about different aspects of 9/11. But this film will focus on just one main element of the controversy surrounding 9/11, and it is the element that has come to be known as the smoking gun of 9/11 Truth: The collapse of World Trade Center 7. Divided into four parts, this film will analyze all the aspects of building 7s collapse and why the official story of what happened to it is completely false. Part 1 looks at the hypothesis of controlled demolition, and why this should have been the hypothesis that NIST should have started with in their investigation into building 7s collapse. Part 2 looks into the testimony of multiple witnesses who heard and saw things on the day of 9/11 that directly points to a massive cover-up. Part 3 examines the foreknowledge that citizens, firefighters, and the media seemed to have had about the collapse of WTC 7. And Part 4 analyzes the many claims made by so called debunkers who believe the official account, despite the massive amount of contradictory evidence. Based largely on the research and information from David Ray Griffins latest book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Official Final Report About 9/11 is Unscientific and False, this film will expose the massive amount of information that the government does not want you to know about. As with every examination of 9/11, watch this film from start to end and make up your own mind about what you believe.

:Please purchase and read David Ray Griffins book, as (I believe) it is one of the most important books of the decade. And as we are approaching the end of this year, we need to research now more than ever.

We here at the Debunking the Debunkers blog suggest everyone view the entire film, but here are the parts we like best for obvious reasons.

Related Info:

9/11 Inside Job Debunkers - Debunk These Facts

Friday, December 25, 2009

The Lizard Who Ruined Christmas

Scroll down past the video for a glowing review of "Her Majesty's annual Christmas Day message."

Too often we informed freedom lovers go after the politicians - the Bushes, the Blairs, the Obamas. And we often forget that these people are just frontmen. Mascots of a much deeper power structure of corporations, banks and royalty not officially accepted to exist. One family that's high up in this shadowy power structure is the British Royal family. Every year on Christmas Day, Queen Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha, reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis (I wish that was an exaggeration!), a woman who receives more undeserved love and worship than Michael Jackson, gives a pre-recorded "festive" speech to her subjects.

It wasn't exactly festive. Just 7 minutes of pro-war and pro-globalism propaganda. Although British soldiers take orders from the politicians, they all must swear allegiance to the Queen. So when they drop Depleted Uranium bombs on innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians, they're doing it in her name! The fact that she obviously has no problem with that is itself evidence that the monarchy is just as ruthless as it was hundreds of years ago.

It's also sickeningly ironic that the video ends with some black people playing God Save The Queen. The Queen's husband / third cousin / second cousin once removed Prince Philip is of course virulently racist.

To fellow Brits reading this who think I'm being unpatriotic, here's a quote from Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols:

"You don't write God Save The Queen because you hate the English race. You write a song like that because you love them, and you're fed up with them being mistreated."

In 1969 John Lennon returned his MBE in protest of British support of the Vietnam War. Sadly there aren't more people like him nowadays.

Rant over. Happy End-Of-Winter-Solstice to all the Christians and Merry Christmas Richard Dawkins! Enjoy the rest of this corporate co-opted holiday.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

9/11 Inside Job Debunkers - Debunk These Facts

December 23, 2009


If you know someone on YouTube who does not think 9/11 had inside involvement, please forward this video and ask them to debunk the facts presented in it.

Building 7 facts to debunk, from David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False":


The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False


Related Info:

Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Tin Foil Hat Wearing Loons

RawStory.com has published an article about Jesse Ventura's 9/11 documentary and as one would expect the conspiracy nuts are coming out of the woodwork and squirming around. 911blogger.com user Robert Rice has the low down:

"Excellent debate raging over there in the comments section.

Please post, as a member or as a guest there when you have the opportunity, but present really compelling evidence without too much mud slinging, and we'll continue to utterly dominate and triumph in the debate, as our side has so far.

The whole climate really has changed, thanks to the Internet. We are no longer a fringe element - the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) Myth supporters are now. THEY are now the "tinfoil" hat wearing loons, for supporting and trying to defend the indefensible!

Good work all! Keep it up."

Speaking of defending the indefensible, 911blogger user "brian78046" shares his comment at RawStory:

"Contrary to what Popular Mechanics claims about NORAD (that NORAD monitored aircraft over American skies that originated outside of America only), NORAD and the Air Force says they didn't monitor the airspace of the United States at all on 9/11:

In 2004 the Air Force said, 'Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward.'

In 2008 NORAD said, 'Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORAD’s role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America.'

However, in 1997 NORAD contradictorily said they insure, 'Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day.'

And the April 2000 Air Force Instruction on air defense, as in effect on 9/11/01, said, 'The First Air Force Commander...provides SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL OF THE AIRSPACE OF THE UNITED STATES...'

Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11."

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Air Defense: The Changing Stories

Official accounts of the military's response to the attack on 9/11/01 -- or lack thereof -- has gone through at least three mutually contradictory versions, a fact that has remained virtually un-noticed by mainstream news organizations.

Three Versions of the Official Story

Version 1: No Scrambles

In his confirmation hearing two days after the attack, General Myers, acting head of the Joint Cheifs of Staff on the day of the attack, said he thought that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.

LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.

LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.

General Myers Confirmation Hearing 9/13/01

Version 2: NORAD's Timeline

On September 18, 2001 NORAD issued a press release containing a timeline which listed scramble times for fighters stationed at Otis and Langley bases.

The document, NORAD'S Response Times 9/18/01, contains the following description of times of events:

Flight 11 UA
Flight 175 AA
Flight 77 UA
Flight 93
FAA notification of NEADS 08:40 08:43 09:24 N/A
Fighter Scramble Order 08:46 09:24 --
Fighters Airborne 08:52 09:30 --
Originating Base Otis ANGB
Falmouth, MA Langley AFB
Hampton, VA
Fighter Distance /
Time to Impact Location not airborne
153 miles 8 min /
71 miles 12 min /
105 miles 11 min /
100 miles

Version 3: The 9/11 Commission Report

Flight 11 UA
Flight 175 phantom
Flight 11* AA
Flight 77 UA
Flight 93
Notification of NEADS 08:38 09:15 -- 09:34 10:07
Fighters Scrambled 08:46 09:24
Fighters Airborne 08:53
Originating Base Otis, MA Langley, VA

*Phantom Flight 11 refers to the Commission's assertion that the F-16s scrambled from Langley were sent up, not to intercept Flight 77, but to look for Flight 11, under the erroneous belief that it had bypassed New York City and was headed for the capital." - Source: http://911review.com/coverup/airdefense_stories.html

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." - Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

Scapegoating Norad

...What the Washington Post article fails to mention is that 5 or more war games were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including:

• At least one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes

• At least one "plane into building" exercise

• Injection of false radar "blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers

• Monitoring of the exercises and the 9/11 events by Vice President Dick Cheney

Indeed, Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta testified to the 9/11 Commission that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon, and was in charge of the military's (non) response to flight 77.

So the Washington Post article completely misses the other half of the story: that the dedicated rank-and-file personnel at Norad were misled, intentionally, by the planners of 9/11. Specifically, the good and dedicated lower-level military people were confused by the events of 9/11 because 9/11 occurred at the same time as the multiple war games with their live fly exercises, plane into building scenarios, false radar inserts, and apparent interference by Cheney.

The prevailing spin from the Washington Post article and the related Vanity Fair article is that Norad lie to the Commission simply to cover up its incompetence on 9/11.

But stop and think about it for one minute. Is it more likely that a government agency would lie to an official government commission simply to cover up incompetence? Or to hide classified information regarding 5 military war games occuring that day, and the the interference which those war games caused with FAA and Norad's normal response to hijackings? Remember that this administration routinely lies, and in fact authorized governmental agencies to lie about 9/11...

Norad has already changed its story numerous times, apparently to address impossibilities with the official story pointed out by 9/11 skeptics.

Therefore, it is obvious that Norad lied for more important reasons that covering up incompetence. Norad lied in a desperate attempt to save the official story from that myth's glaring inconsistencies and, moreover, to cover up treason by certain people within the U.S. government and military." - Source: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/08/scapegoating-norad.html

In his article "9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?" David Ray Griffin compares and contrasts the two choices we are left with, he states:

"If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason."

Griffin also points out that even if we accept the 9/11 Commission's third version of the day's events that in the end it is inconsequential because, as Laura Brown of the FAA reported to the 9/11 Commission:

"Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service. . . . The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD. . . . The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest. . . ."

So in the end "the formal notification was primarily a formality and hence irrelevant to the question of when the military" knew about the flights.

"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen." - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic
Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor

Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off

"One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only 'primary radar' was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder? Darn! Why didn't we think of that?!" - Source: http://911blogger.com/node/14583

"Helpful background information on the significance of transponder signals is provided in journalist and 9/11 critic Michael Rupert's Crossing the Rubicon. Ruppert explains that all commercial airliners are equipped with transponders--devices that identify the altitude and position of planes by means of radio signals to air traffic controllers (ATCs). When transponders go off, the plane can still be tracked in two dimensions, but the ATC can no longer pinpoint its altitude. At that point, the system is in emergency status and the offending plane appears on the consoles of all the local ATCs. Ruppert goes on to quote from the statement of a pilot, one Michael Guillaume, who explains that such a plane...

'...is now a hazard to air navigation, and the controller's primary function of separating planes is now in jeopardy... If in addition to losing communication and transponder the flight starts to deviate from its last clearance, the whole system is in emergency condition. Alarms all over the country would be going off...

So we know that the traffic control system would be in panic mode within two or three minutes of the initial events. ... The odds are that many flights would be on patrol just offshore. It would be most improbable that even one commercial flight could go [astray] more than ten minutes without being intercepted...

Interceptions are routine daily occurrences. The fact that they didn't happen under extreme provocation raises some serious questions...'
" - Source: http://www.bushstole04.com/911/david_ray_griffin911.htm

Payne Stewart

"There's an argument that says the 9/11 attacks couldn't have succeeded if the FAA and NORAD had only followed standard procedures, as at least some of the planes would have been intercepted in time. The 1999 case of Payne Stewart is occasionally used as an example of just how fast intercepts can be.

It's certainly true that there were initial media reports suggesting Air Force jets intercepted the plane only around 20 minutes after contact was lost. But this isn't actually what happened.

Read this carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so the lack of contact was first noticed at around 09:34, accepted as a loss of contact at 9:44, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's well over an hour between the controllers realising there’s a problem, to intercept taking place." - Source: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart

"Let's keep it in context. The Payne Stewart flight was not hijacked. It was not a commercial airliner with hundreds of people on board. It was not of the size or fuel capacity that would enable it to be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

Yet it was still intercepted by the airforce. Viewed in context, it still boggles the mind that we apparently could not get it together on the morning of 9/11."

"...They are totally different scenarios. The Stewart plane stopped responding and basically kept flying straight. There were no known hijackings taking place and the plane was not actively diverted. It wouldn't surprise me if given these fatcs there was not a sense of urgency about intercepting it. On 9/11 however, we were presumably UNDER ATTACK. Planes were known (believed anyway) to have been hijacked and diverted, and if memory serves, their transponders turned off. The difference in the situiations makes a comparison unreasonable as a defense of the failure to intercept on 9/11." - Source: 911blogger.com: Payne Stewart

Saturday, December 12, 2009

My take on Ventura's 9/11 Show

I just downloaded and watched Ventura's 9/11 show, and I am amazed this was allowed to air. The whole first half of the episode was amazing. Steven Jones, Superthermite, Building 7, William Rodriguez, Family members who our on our side, False flag defined ... this documentary really put the BBC to shame.

The second half of the episode was okay and I found the ending interesting but I'm a little skeptical... could be more disinformation. Normally when people who know something are thinking of coming forward or reveal part of what they know, they are killed. Whatever may come of it, it should certainly be investigated.

The superthermite demonstration was a bit crap .. and they didn't even show the ending so I'm assuming the beam didn't break. To be honest I'm not sure it was superthermite, the documentary did mix thermite and superthemite a few times. Also it was never explicitly stated whether the particles in the demonstration were on the nano scale. However it did appear to burn longer than ordinary thermite. Which is interesting because it's consistent with the fact that ground zero cooked for several months after the event.

Certain parts of the episode were blatantly scripted and dramatized and I chuckled when the narrator addressed Jesse's crew as an "elite team of investigators", but that isn't a bad thing. This is the type of stuff the public likes so it makes for a great introduction ... it's sheeple friendly if you will. Plus the dialogue between Jesse and the skeptic on his team was a very well done. It's something that has never been done in any 9/11 documentary before - having a skeptic on to ask the questions the viewer is thinking. The skeptic essentially portrays the cognitive dissonance of the viewer. As the viewer goes through the usual mental gymnastics, asking questions like "how could they get all that thermite in there?", to try and cast doubt on our theories, the skeptic asks those questions on the show, prompting answers from others. It's a pretty ingenious way of doing it.

All in all this is the best mainstream 9/11 truth documentary by far and it really shows what a bit of unbiased investigation can accomplice... just imagine what the BBC or Popular Mechanics could have accomplished if they actually bothered to properly investigate it in any way. Kudos to Jesse and his team ... I'm downloading the HAARP episode right now and I'll definitely be downloading the global warming one. I was surprised to see June Sarpong (the hot British woman) in this. I used to watch her on Channel 4 on Saturday mornings.


Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire latest book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies

Jesse Ventura: Make Politicians Wear NASCAR Suits

Thursday, December 10, 2009

TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' - 9/11

Jesse steps into America's most controversial conspiracy by challenging the 9-11 Commission report and considering the claim that the September 11th attacks were an inside job. At the urging of victims' families, he finds witnesses who claim the towers were brought down by revolutionary explosives that were placed in plain sight, but no one knew what they were. Ventura also hears from those who claim the missing black box flight recorders were actually recovered. And he is told a shocking story about who may have been in the cockpits before the jets took off.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Physicist Steven Jones, who says he found evidence of thermite, a bomb material, in the residue from Ground Zero; explosives expert Van Romero, who performed a test purported to show that liquid thermite can make steel girders burn hotter and faster; demolition expert Brent Blanchard, who says that no inspection for explosive materials was done at the scene; former Air Force pilot Jeff Dahlstrom, who is convinced that 9-11 was a "false flag" operation carried out to push the country into war; Mike Bellone, a recovery worker at Ground Zero who says that he saw airline flight recorders recovered at the scene; Dave Lindorff, a journalist, who says that the recorders were recovered, inspected and turned over to the FBI; Dale Leppard, a former head of the Airline Pilots Association who insists recorders are always found; and former FBI investigator Jack Cloonan, who disputes claims the recorders were found.

About the Show: Jesse Ventura and a team of expert investigators are on a mission to examine some of the most frightening and mysterious conspiracy allegations of our time. They examine available evidence as well as talking to experts and eyewitnesses to learn more about such topics as global warming, possible 9/11 cover-ups, secret government weapons and apocalyptic prophecies. "This is my personal journey," Ventura says, "to prove that there is more to these stories than you know about."

Source: 911truth.org

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog claims that 9/11 family members Donna Marsh O'Connor and Bob McIlvaine "have sold their credibility as 9-11 family members for the adulation of the Troofers." Are you prepared to tell that to the estimated 3,500 members of the largest 9/11 families group who believe 9/11 was an inside job to some extent?

Pat states, "Next up, Willie Rodriguez. Hilariously, Jesse claims Willie worked in WTC-2. Wow, way to fact check your stuff, guys. We get W-Rod's claim that he felt the explosion from below him. Never mind that his initial reports were that he heard a big rumble, remember?

As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor ScootleRoyale has pointed out, "The release of the 9/11 Commission documents vindicated him from claims of debunkers that his story has changed over the years, but there is a simpler explanation for his story."

Next Pat seems confused about nano-thermite:
Then comes Steven Jones. This time his substance is "superthermite"; it's been nanothermite, thermite and thermate in the past. It's liquid and can be painted on the steel. So they show poor Van Romero painting superthermite on this beam. And we see that while the unpainted beam did not catch fire, the painted beam did seem to light up. But will it fail structurally?

Well, no kidding they skip right over that part. Apparently the idea that the steel caught on fire, however briefly, is enough to convince Jesse that this was how they did it. And nobody stops to mention that the claim is that they destroyed columns (vertical) not beams (horizontal), and that we haven't seen the beam actually destroyed in the video by any means.
Super-thermite and nano-thermite are just two names for the same thing, and Pat should know this. His "debunking" buddy James B. posted an explanation of it from Steven Jones way back on May 10, 2008, "Jones: Superthermite, in the nano-composite sol gel form, can be painted on the steel columns and that then can be touched off with radio controlled signals."

Secondly, it has never "been thermite in the past," and the "paint" hypothesis is just one of many. Steven Jones thoroughly detailed this during a debate with Dr. Frank Greening in April-May, 2009 when he stated:

During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the 'super-thermite matches' described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date. But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips....

The "working hypothesis" above is a scientific hypothesis, that is, subject to change as further research data emerge. It is also possible (for example) that explosive nanothermite (not an incendiary) could have been used in SHAPED CHARGES, to cut through steel explosively (a use suggested in Fig. 1 of Miziolek AW, 'Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance.' Amptiac Spring 2002; 6(1): 43-48. Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf .
Pat does have a point concerning the thoroughness of the experiment. All I can say is welcome to our world!

Update on the experiment - 3/24/2010 : Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

His point about how the beams were destroyed vertically and not horizontally is a NIST talking point and has long since been debunked.

Update - 10/11/2010: Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants can demolish vertically standing steel beams.

Bottom line is that until somebody on Pat's side puts up he really should invest in some nut bars.

The next thing worth mentioning is Pat's statement that, "We get the usual BS about how the steel was shipped out immediately." BS huh?
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. - N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02
Pat also states that "Jesse tries the 'no steel structure' argument."

Finally, Pat points out that the credibility of Mike Bellone is in question:
Mike Bellone is a discredited witness, but you'd never know that from the extensive face time he gets in this episode. Let's let the NY Daily News give it to us straight:

FIRE MARSHALS ARRESTED a self-proclaimed 'honorary firefighter' for allegedly touring the country with pilfered FDNY gear to promote a 9/11 book, officials said yesterday.

Michael Bellone, 51, of Brooklyn, who volunteered at Ground Zero and later collaborated on a book about the experience, showed off the equipment during speeches to schoolchildren, authorities said.

After fielding complaints, FDNY investigators questioned Bellone and discovered that a breathing mask, air tank and other gear he was using had been missing from the department since October 2001, officials said.

But do we hear any of this during the breathless passages of smirk-terviewing that follow? No, Mike's a hero of 9-11, and so what he says must be true. Never mind that Bellone also claimed in his speeches to schoolchildren that he was an honorary FDNY member, never mind this:

"He was charged yesterday with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property."
But as the show points out Bellone is not alone:

There are accounts contradicting the official account of the black boxes. Two men who worked in the cleanup operation at Ground Zero claim that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of the workers, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. 5 The book, Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts, can be ordered through SummerOfTruth.org.
This book, written by Gail Swanson, and published in 2003, includes accounts of firefighters Mike Bellone, Robert Barrat, and Nicholas DeMasi.

In December 2005, CounterPunch reported that an NTSB source contradicted the official account, "'Off the record, we had the boxes,' the source says. 'You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.'" - Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/blackboxes.html

To quote Mr. Curley one more time:
When one of the producers questions the value of the black boxes, an obviously scripted bit comes with the black British woman snapping about how it might explain how these lousy pilots could hit the buildings. Yawn, how many times do we have to go over the same points? The towers were 210 feet on a side, wider than an average runway.
I can't say I disagree with his yawn about having to go over the same points. :) His statement of course in no way applies to clueless super-pilot Hani Hanjour. And the British woman makes points beyond the one singled out by Pat, but I think Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet.com summed it up best:
The motivation behind lying about the recovery of the black boxes on 9/11 is obvious – any aspect of the recordings of the onboard conversations between the pilots or the movements of their plane that didn’t coalesce with the official story would have destroyed the fairy tale that was being constructed around the attacks in the very minutes and hours after they started to unfold.

Questions about how a handful of men with box cutters could have overpowered burly ex-military pilots and scores of passengers with apparent ease would not have gone unanswered.
Here is blog contributor Scootle Royale's take on the show. Also see this post on 9/11blogger.com for many great comments on the program.

Related Info:

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura [Season 2 • HD]

Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire latest book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies

Jesse Ventura: Make Politicians Wear NASCAR Suits

Friday, December 4, 2009

Flight 77 Deck Door Closed for the Entire Flight?

By Scootle Royale

Pilots for truth are now claiming that newly decoded FDR data proves there was no hijacking because the flight deck door was closed for the entire flight. What they don't tell you is that the data actually indicates that the door was closed for at least 42 hours!

See here: http://bluecollarrepublican.com/911files/ft_deck_door.csv

Every four seconds for 42 hours, it took a reading and the door was supposedly closed the entire time... Seems a bit unlikely if you ask me. It would appear the government is still putting out deliberately fake data that contradicts the official story. Why would they do that? If they are going to fake data, you'd think they'd fake it so that it supports the official story, right? Unless they want us to think that there were no hijackers ... and think that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Obama Plays The 9/11 Card Again

At the one minute mark Obama reminds us why we are in Afghanistan by invoking 9/11.:

"To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more."

... So I take it you ignored Charlie's letter then.

The thing is ... for all we know, he may actually have been telling the truth ... it all depends which nineteen men he was referring to! Here's sixteen for ya!

Related Info...

Obama Invokes 9/11 Yet Again! - March 29, 2010

Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story - June 6, 2009

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Richard Gage's Auckland Presentation Silences the Debunkers

by Clare Swinney
December 1, 2009

SOURCE: 911truth.org

On Monday the 30th of November, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, gave his third and final presentation in New Zealand on the Hard Evidence Down Under Tour, to an audience of 143 in Auckland, at the Trades Hall in Grey Lynn.

Says Martin Hanson who had also attended Gage's Wellington presentation of the 21st of November, which had had over 630 attendees, "The Trades Hall was full except for two or three empty seats."

The event began shortly after 6pm and lasted for 3 hours. A show of hands at the beginning indicated that the audience was comprised largely of people who already knew the official story of 9/11 was a hoax. Only 11 indicated that they believed the WTC buildings were brought down by jet fuel and fires, while 18 indicated they were unsure.

Evan Ward, who was recording the event said: "Richard Gage was very professional. The presentation was down-to-earth and in layman's language, so the information was accessible to most anybody." Ward, who has been investigating the evidence of 9/11 for approximately 3 years, said he also had learnt something new.

Brian Reiersen, who was in the audience offers: "The information Gage presented was very hard to argue with. It was very, very good. I couldn't fault what he had to say and any reasonable person shown this on TV would realise, given the free-fall nature of the collapses, that the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Centre, were brought down with explosives. Richard Gage proved it."

What Reiersen found most convincing he said were the telling photos of all the cars in the vicinity of the WTC buildings that were covered in dust after the building collapses, that remnants of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were found outside the buildings' footprints, including that huge girders were thrown 600 feet horizontally and were embedded in adjacent buildings, and that dust samples contained nanothermite.

As Gage points out, nanothermite is a highly advanced, highly energetic material that does not come from a cave in Afghanistan. Rather, evidence indicates that the explosive material, which is known as the "loaded gun" of 9/11, as it goes off when it's ignited, was developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

There were five or six in the audience who were obviously 9/11 truth debunkers initially says Reiersen. "I was sitting behind them. They were lawyers and intelligent, yet paradoxically they believed the official story. Gage easily handled their questions and then they became silent. He's a very, very professional person and exposed that there was a monster cover up."

Near the conclusion of the presentation, Gage asked for a show of hands of those who still believed the official story and only one raised a hand, while five indicated they were still unsure.

Reiersen, who walked behind the deflated debunkers following the event, heard one of them say that they had a lot to think about now.


The 1st of December is Gage's last night in New Zealand on this tour. He is flying out tomorrow morning to Japan for the start of the 7-city Japan Truth tour, which kicks off on the 4th of December and said he's particularly looking forward to meeting Yukihisa Fujita, the Japanese politician who has been challenging the official account of 9/11 in the political arena.

He said he regards the New Zealand tour as a huge success, largely owing to the mainstream media coverage it got. Gage was on Close Up, the country’s most popular current affairs program, and on Radio NZ's popular Saturday morning show with Kim Hill. While he said the latter interview was not very good, he believes it helped to attract a lot of attention to the tour.

It also appears to have attracted a lot of attention to Radio NZ. Mark Cubey, the producer of the Kim Hill show advised via e-mail on the 2nd of November, that Hill has received over 350 e-mails from listeners regarding the interview, a representative sample of which she read out on air on the 28th of November. If the comments she read out are anything to go by, as they included: “Poorest interview I have ever heard…corporate whore..”, “Disgusting piece of trash..she should be fired," "What a horrible stupid vile woman,” “Most dreadful interview…,” the Gage-Hill interview will likely go down in Radio NZ history, as one of their worst ever.

The night before he left New Zealand, I asked Richard Gage if he had anything he wanted to convey to the people of New Zealand. He replied that everyone must make every effort to spread the truth. Inform your family, friends and colleagues, even though it might not be easy to do so. He says you must go out of your way to wake everyone you know up to what really happened on 9/11.


Richard Gage’s New Zealand Tour Getting Good Media Coverage

Richard Gage Goes Mainstream In New Zealand On The Kim Hill Show

Richard Gage’s Wellington Presentation Gets Biggest Blueprint For Truth Audience Ever

The Hard Evidence Down Under Tour 2009 – An Amazing Success!!

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Unofficial Story

I've just watched CBC's The Fifth Estate - "The Unofficial Story" and I'm unsure what to think of it. At first glance it appears to be a fair piece, at least compared to the History Channel, BBC and National Geographic propaganda pieces, but I can't help but feel it may have been a very subtle hitpiece.

The first thing I noticed was that they spliced Richard Gage's speech incorrectly. When he talks about a building falling at freefall for two and a quarter seconds, he is obviously talking about WTC7, but they use that snippet while talking about the South Tower. From that point on I was carefully analysing the piece from a video editor's perspective and noticed alot of splicing. Maybe it was harmless condensing but it was something I couldn't help but notice.

Next they get into the air defence timeline and stand down theories. They make no mention of the fact that the timeline has been revised several times and simply state the newest timeline as fact. They then whitewashed the concern that the skies of America were undefended for eighty minutes by cutting to James "[Loose Change is] Very Compelling Propaganda" Meigs, who for some reason always makes me think of Bill Hicks' "Suck Satan's C**k!" routine, who repeats his usual drivel about us watching too many films and believing in hyper competance and vast conspiracies. To be honest, if you believe the official story of 9/11, then it is you who has been watching too many films, because as Barrie Zwicker pointed out, the official fairytale is somewhat reminiscent of a Hollywood movie.

Next they briefly talk Pentagon no-plane theories with Craig Ranke. Now I'm no fan of CIT's work and I'm glad they didn't spend much time on it but when the narrator mockingly said "So many conspiracy theories, so little time" that really pissed me off. This isn't something to joke about. If it was something like the moon landing hoax theory (which they later brought up), then fair enough, joke all you want , it isn't really that important. But when you're talking about the defining moment of the 21st century, remarks like that are totally inappropriate.

Next they talked to John Farmer who said there was no basis for controlled demolition theories (which is a blatant lie), however he did admit that the official government version "doesn't square with reality". This is a heck of a statement coming from the Former Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and by itself should warrant a new investigation. However it was talked about as if it was no big deal.

In part three they spent alot of time on the controversial fake phone call theories. Now I'm neutral on that issue and I don't like to flat out say they were all fake because it's such a sensitive area and can't really be proven either way. Professor Dewdney however did not share my reservation and was willing to say without a doubt that the emotional calls were fake. He also repeated the claim that Mark Bingham's "imposter" screwed up by saying "Hi mom this is Mark Bingham", a claim which I have always known was incorrect, since the first 9/11 documentary I ever saw was The Flight That Fought Back, which features his mother explaining what that was about. Dewdney at first incorrectly called him "Bob Bringham" and was the only person in the piece to put forward an alternative narrative. All of his baseless assertions, factual errors and fringe speculation was used to whitewash the genuine concern surrounding Barbara Olsen's alleged calls, which was glossed over.

Lastly they discussed Building 7, but did not make a big enough deal over the fact that it admittedly fell at freefall. Once again Brent Blanchard makes an appearance, and he's in just as much denial as ever. The red chips were brought up briefly. Well actually, photos of them were shown on screen while Gage was talking about the microspheres. The interviewer was obviously trying very hard to get Gage to speculate but thankfully he didn't. The piece then ended on some powerful words by Daniel Sunjata.

All in all, it could have been worse I suppose. At least they didn't bring on some token family member and have them say how much they hate us. Then again, they also didn't talk to any family members on our side. I really am getting tired of these whitewashes/hitpieces. And I'm equally tired of the "conspiracy theorist" label. Alex Jones was talking to Jon Ronson a few weeks ago and Ronson (about 9 minutes into this clip) said that the truth about 9/11 would be the biggest news story ever and he finds it hard to believe any reporter would turn down such a story if it had any truth to it. The reason few reporters are interested is simply because of the term "conspiracy theory". The stereotype associated with that term has been implanted so much into popular culture that most reporters will simply dismiss us and our theories as crazy. And those reporters that have done fair pieces on us still use the term conspiracy theory because they don't know what else to call it. And because they label it a conspiracy theory, few people will take any interest. As long as the media continues to portray 9/11 truth as a conspiracy theory, instead of a serious search for truth by family members, survivors, first responders and concerned citizens of planet Earth, the dumbed down, drugged and distracted masses will never take it seriously.