Friday, April 30, 2010

SEC Found No Sign 9/11 Conspirators Traded on Plot

Nobody at as of me posting this is impressed, however, on March 7th of this year I stated that I thought this issue had been effectively debunked.

[UPDATE October 2014:

Economics Professor Paul Zarembka, has written in the past that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site had caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options" for American and United airlines stocks. I have previously stated that I believe the insider trading issue had been effectively debunked.

In this recent interview Zarembka cites new evidence that brings him and myself back to his original conclusion.]

SEC Found No Sign 9/11 Conspirators Traded on Plot

Joseph Schuman

(April 30) -- Nearly nine years, two recessions and thousands of conspiracy theories later, the U.S. government has made it official: Initial speculation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that plotters made financial bets against airlines or other companies hurt by the events was unfounded.

The Securities and Exchange Commission began its inquiry into the matter on Sept. 12, 2001, and went on to examine trading in the U.S. and foreign securities markets that took place between Aug. 20 of that year and Sept. 11. While the agency wrapped up its investigation in May 2002, and there were references to the SEC's conclusions in the report by the federal 9/11 Commission, the findings were kept secret.

But the privately operated, nonpartisan National Security Archives fought for six years to make the SEC report public, an effort aided by the Obama administration's push to declassify documents across the spectrum of government affairs. And today, most of the SEC's "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review" was made public.

"We have not developed any evidence that suggests that those who had advance knowledge of the attacks traded on the basis of that information," the SEC said. "In every instance where we noticed unusual trading before the attack, we were able to determine, either through speaking directly with those responsible for the trading, or by reviewing trading records, that the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy."

The SEC said it looked at 9.5 million securities transactions involving 103 companies in six industry groups and trading in seven financial markets.

The inquiry's early focus was on the shares of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp., parent companies of United Airlines and American Airlines, whose planes were guided by terrorists into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, as well as one brought down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers attacked the hijackers aboard.

But the probe quickly widened to financial firms with significant operations in the World Trade Center and insurance companies that faced billions of dollars in losses following the attacks. Securities tied to defense and aerospace companies, security firms and travel and leisure services were examined as well.
Shares in AMR and UAL dropped 40 percent or more after financial markets reopened on Sept. 17, 2001. And the commission's investigators found that short selling -- a means of betting against the companies -- substantially increased for UAL on Sept. 6 and for AMR on Sept. 10 of that year.

Yet interviews with the financial advisers and traders who initiated those transactions found they based their decisions on several bearish factors already affecting the airline industry, including widely distributed recommendations for short selling from a California newsletter called Options Hotline.


911blogger user "simuvac" states, "It should be noted that finance professor Allen Poteshman already published a peer-reviewed academic study that concluded there was insider knowledge of the attacks involved in pre-9/11 put option trading. The final version of that paper appears in the Journal of Business in 2006.

Again, I am of the opinion that the debunkers have made some very valid points regarding this paper. Soon after its release, James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog made a preemptive strike, stating:
It would be inaccurate to term Professor Poteshman a conspiracy theorist though, and it is doubtful that his findings will be used to support conspiracy theories, except in their usual quote mining manner, since the entire foundation of his paper is based off the presumption that the attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda or some similar terrorist group, and the paper does not make the normal broad characterizations typical of conspiracy theorists. In fact in many cases it points out arguments contrary to the main thesis, such as the fact that many of the put options were not the short term high payoff options that you would expect in such a conspiracy.
P.P.S. May 01, 2010

James B. informed his readers that, "Nothing ever gets debunked permanently with these people. Put options and 'eight of the hijackers are still alive' will be prominently featured in David Ray Griffin's 2015 lectures."

The fact that I agreed with him in this post debunks him. :) I also concur that none of the hijackers are alive.

James also states, "There is a conspiracy theory industry. Alex Jones, Grifter and Box Boy Gage are the current beneficiaries, but inevitably somebody else will come along to make a buck off the rubes."

Sorry James, that is debunked myth #26 on conspiracy theories:
Myth #26: Conspiracy theory is an "industry"

Even though a conspiracy theory might eventually become widespread, it is difficult for individual authors to gain recognition or wealth from their books or films because they are ignored by the mainstream publications and are on shoestring budgets. In fact, few rich authors have made their fortunes from conspiracy theories, except for a few writers and directors whose challenges to the establishment are limited and general, or disguised as fiction.

While the leading conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and David Icke sell many DVDs, their profits are small and mostly spent on producing their material and to sustain themselves and their employees, often at their personal financial loss. Also, more often than not, the distribution of their material on the internet at no charge far outweighs their sales as a means to make their ideas gain acceptance.

It is also important to point out that this claim neither proves nor disproves any proposed theories.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Afghanistan War Explained!

One fundamental thing I've learnt during my awakening is that the establishment likes to mask simple truths with tonnes of needlessly complicated bullshit. Whether it's a 10,000 page scientific report masking simple physics, a convoluted climate report masking common sense, or the entire field of economics masking the plain and simple truth about money, they love to saturate things with jargon to lock their educated idiots in a mind prison and put the average person off trying to understand these things.

So it came as no surprise to see this spaghetti graph in the Daily Mail today about the war in Afghanistan...

"When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war."

I think that's the point.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

LIHOP and MIHOP are not mutually exclusive!

Pat Curley has claimed in a recent post that LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually exclusive. This is not true, as it assumes a black and white world. As we have said many times on this blog, the world is not black or white. What debunkers never seem to understand is that 9/11 truth does not claim any specific group was responsible. It is not as simple as saying "It was the US government", or "It was Al-Qaeda", or "It was Israel" or whatever.

LIHOP and MIHOP only refer to the US government's involvement - either the US let it happen on purpose or they made it happen on purpose. Out of those two choices I would actually say that LIHOP is more likely to be the correct answer, because MIHOP implies that it was entirely a US conspiracy and Al-Qaeda etc. had nothing to do with it.

I think it's more likely that Al-Qaeda was involved, I just don't believe they were the masterminds. As Jason Bermas demonstrates in his film Fabled Enemies, 9/11 was most likely an international intelligence operation - involving the CIA, the FBI, MOSSAD, ISI, Saudi Intelligence, British Intelligence etc. and probably Al-Qaeda. The people pulling the strings of these groups were the ones who made it happen on purpose.

I personally don't believe that anyone in the Bush administration was involved in the masterminding of the attacks, a lot of people try and give definite answers like "Bush did it!" or "Cheney did it!" etc. But as far as I'm concerned, those guys were nothing more than puppets acting on orders. And their orders could have simply been "Let it happen!". I mean it's possible that Bush and Cheney don't even know that the towers were demolished.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

The 9/11 Cover-up: Do "Debunkers" Let It Happen On Purpose?

Our buddy Pat Curley at the Screw Loose Change blog has taken a look at Stewart's recent series of videos presenting the LIHOP case, he states:
What amazes me, though, is how many of the Truthers don't realize that LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually contradictory...

This movie is just as bad as Loose Change; it's a mixture of the usual BS from the Troofers: Quote mining ("Set up to fail"), selective presentation of facts, and bizarre interpretations (Norm Mineta's testimony about a shoot-down order becoming a stand-down order, for example).
Stewart replies:
My presentation focuses on the "lowest common denominator" evidence of official complicity, which I stated clearly in the video, does not exclude the possibility that some suspects participated in the planning of the attack. But their usual debunker tactic of presenting LIHOP and MIHOP as incompatible simply presents another false excuse to dismiss evidence prior to examination. Notice how all 21 exhibits I presented are simply ignored as "same old Truther BS."
Pat's claim that Stewart is quote mining the 9/11 Commissioners, as to suggest that they agree with our case, is the real logical fallacy.

As the Washington Post reported in August 2006:
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...

"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."
Kean admitted they were lied to and he didn't know why, he can think they got it right in the end all he wants, but his comment and many similar ones made by other members of the commission just proves that we need a new investigation that will tie the "loose ends."

When viewed in conjunction with the preponderance of evidence supporting a deliberate NORAD stand-down, his statement does support this contention, no matter if cognitive dissonance blinds him to this fact, or whatever the case may be.

As to Pat's second point, here is the Norman Mineta case in a nutshell as previously explained by Stewart on this blog:
According to the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Dick Cheney not only lied about the time he arrived at the PEOC bunker, but he knew for at least 10 minutes beforehand about Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon yet refused to try to warn the Pentagon or intercept the Flight. While debunkers and the mainstream press continue to misquote Mineta, saying he was referring to Flight 93, Mineta has repeatedly clarified he was speaking of Flight 77. Many believe this to be evidence of a "Stand Down" order.

Again, the statements of this very 9/11 commissioner seem to support our argument on the issue and definitely support our overall argument that what is truly bunk is the official 9/11 story. Pat's Jedi nemesis Jon Gold explains:
As we all know, Norman Mineta's testimony was never investigated or mentioned in the 9/11 Report. You would think that the "young man" that was involved in such an important moment during the 9/11 attacks would be named, and brought before the 9/11 Commission. He was not.

This clip is from C-SPAN's 5/26/2005 taping of the "Washington Journal". The caller clearly states that at the time the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was aware of the incoming plane according to Norman Mineta's testimony. At the end of this segment, Lee Hamilton says that Cheney was "in the key position at the time". Prior to that, he said that "the Vice President was in the operation room", and "when the impact did occur." To me, this sounds like Lee Hamilton just confirmed Norman Mineta's testimony.

Gold adds:
Apparently, Lee waited a while before he actually read the report. However, he ADMITS that "we do not really know what the Vice President really did." Newsweek reported that Cheney was picked up by the Secret Service at 9:35, but does write that, "a source close to the commission, who declined to be identified revealing sensitive information, says that none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events."

Why is this acceptable? Guess what? It's not.
Pat states there is "no basis in reality" for believing that if a new investigation proved the LIHOP case correct that it would force the end of the wars and a repeal of the Patriot Act.

So let me get this straight, proving that the government consciously allowed 9/11 to happen could not force a reexamination and abandonment of the resulting foreign and domestic policy? I fail to see any basis for that. I do agree with Pat however when he states:

"If you accept LIHOP, then that still means there are dangerous terrorists in the world, right?"

Indeed, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale previously admitted this in his entry "What I learned from 9/11 debunkers," when he pointed out that:
We should all fear terrorists. 3000 people were killed in major a terrorist attack in 2001, 200 in 2002, 200 in 2004, 50 in 2005, 200 in 2006 and 180 in 2008. That's about 4000 people in 8 years! Terrorism is the greatest threat to the people of this world - not cancer or AIDs or heart disease which kills millions a year, not world poverty which kills 30,000 children a day, not those wars we are fighting in the name of these terrorist attacks which have killed over a million Iraqis since 2003 and tens of thousands of British and American soldiers. Fighting terrorism should be our number one priority.

Friday, April 23, 2010

History Repeats Itself

So I've just finished watching a repeat of the History Channel's documentary "The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?" And I basically felt the same thing I usually feel when I watch this particular piece: disgust. This documentary has always had a special significance with me, because it was this very piece that got me interested into researching 9/11. And to this day I still believe it is the most biased and slimy propaganda piece ever put out attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement. I find it both funny and sad that they actually aired this piece again. Funny because many of the debunking attempts in the piece have themselves long been debunked (particularly the section on Building 7, where almost every argument they brought up has been discredited by NIST itself; damage, fuel tanks, etc.) And sad because I know that the average person will watch this piece and probably think the Truth Movement is made up of some of the worst people in the world. Here is a not widely seen episode of the INN World Report that took on the History Channel's lies, exposing some of their dirty propaganda tricks and allowing some of those interviewed the chance to talk about several issues that were not addressed in the piece.

Hopefully the American people will learn to see through these kinds of dishonest attacks and smear campaigns and learn what the real truth is.

Related Info:

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

The LIHOP Case against Cheney and Bush

After more than a year of researching and editing together short clips, I have finished an hour long presentation reviewing the best evidence that key members of the Bush Administration were, at the very least, aware of the coming 9/11 attack and allowed it to happen for political reasons.

Topics include the Afghan pipeline project, the 2000 election theft, wargame drills, changes in hijack interception protocols, missing Pentagon funds, obstruction of the 9/11 investigation, and much, much more.

I need to point out that this video does not exclude the possibility that certain suspects may have been involved in the actual orchestration of the attack as well, ( MIHOP ), but here we focus on complicity which is still an act of treason.

Related Info:

The 9/11 Cover-up: Do "Debunkers" Let It Happen On Purpose?

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Possible Confirmation of "Pull It" - In A Hitpiece!

By: John-Michael P. Talboo and ScootleRoyale

First, a little background...

A writer for FOX News has just inadvertently exposed some key WTC 7 evidence... while writing a hitpiece!

In an article entitled "Shame On Jesse Ventura!" Jeffrey Scott Shapiro writes:

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
It wasn't quiet, many other witnesses attest to this fact, and in the end the noise level is not a determining factor as to whether the building was demolished. That is a privilege reserved for forensic science!

The peer-reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" actually demonstrates how scientists found nano-engineered explosives in dust from the WTC.

The authors mention that in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.
The authors then go on to point out that:

The feature of "impulse management" may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.
In other words these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops of conventional demolitions.

What we are left with is Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, while trying to do a hitpiece on us, revealing yet more evidence of discussions that day concerning the demolition of WTC 7, AND he specifically mentions Silverstein!

As noted on the Remember Building 7 website:

Shapiro’s statement should be given extra weight because it goes against his own interest. The goal of his article (entitled “Shame On Jesse Ventura!”) was to discredit those, including Governor Ventura, who are skeptical of the official account of 9/11. Shapiro’s report that Silverstein had been seeking authorization to demolish Building 7 prior to its destruction runs counter to the author’s goal, because the report indicates that Silverstein wanted to have the building brought down in a controlled demolition—just as those who challenge the official account of 9/11 argue is what happened to Building 7. Therefore, Shapiro’s article, if accurate, strongly supports the view that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

As part of a new investigation, Mr. Silverstein should be questioned under oath about the conversation he had with the fire department commander, who should also be called to testify.
Related Info:

Debating With Larry Silverstein's Friend Andrew G. Benjamin

Jesse Ventura Hammered Over 9/11 Statements

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions

Monday, April 19, 2010

On This Day in History 1995: Elements of the U.S. Government Allowed the Oklahoma City Bombing to Happen

The following video debunks the new MSNBC Documentary "The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist." Also, in April 2007 a program entitled "Conspiracy Test: Oklahoma City Bombing" purported to debunk the idea that secondary devices were detonated in the building, here is a refutation of that program. But even if no secondary devices were used it doesn't matter. The case for OKC and 9/11 complicity are the same in that they are both cumulative and therefore not dependent on bombs being in the buildings.

Other damning evidence that the bombing was allowed to take place:
New OKC Revelations Spotlight FBI Involvement In Bombing - Nichols' claim that McVeigh had government handlers supported by huge weight of known evidence
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 22, 2007
New claims by Oklahoma City Bombing conspirator Terry Nichols that Timothy McVeigh was being steered by a high-level FBI official are supported by a plethora of evidence that proves McVeigh did not act alone and that authorities had prior warnings and were complicit in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. Click here to read the entire article.
Did the Federal Government Have Prior Knowledge of the Oklahoma City Bombing?

By Ian Williams Goddard
In Conclusion

This extensive body of evidence indicates not only that the ATF and the FBI had prior knowledge of an impending terrorist act on the Murrah Building, but that the FBI is guilty of the obstruction of justice by aiding and abetting the escape from justice of a prime suspect, John Doe 2, who may have been a federal operative involved in the worst act of mass murder in U.S. history.

This evidence further suggests that some element within the federal government may have actively participated in the mass murder in Oklahoma City, which resulted in massive new powers being given to the federal government through "anti-terrorist legislation" spurred on by the bombing of the Murrah Building. Click here to read the entire article.
Related Info:

On This Day in History 1993: Elements of the FBI Allowed the WTC Bombing to Happen

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Nuclear False Flag

I haven't posted in a while, there's an election coming up in the UK and I'm working hard trying to put together a video exposing all three main candidates as puppets.

Normally I don't take much interest in false flag speculation, but when nuclear weapons are involved, I can't not take an interest!

Over the past few weeks the government and the media have suddenly started hyping the threat of Al-Qaeda obtaining a nuclear weapon ...

"The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come. If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating.We know that organizations like Al-Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them." - Barack Obama

Now of course we know the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated. We know that Al-Qaeda is still very much an arm of western intelligence. And we know that the US government has the technology to easily catch any would-be terrorists who tried such a thing, unless they want it to happen.

The powers that be have a number of cards in their hand. A false flag cyber attack, a false flag assassination of Obama and a nuclear false flag are three such cards which they seem to be preparing to play.

CNN recently broadcasted a propaganda piece called "Cyber Shockwave" which was a simulated cyber attack exercise. About a year before the 7/7 attacks, the BBC broadcasted a simulated exercise envisioning attacks on London tube trains. It even featured Peter Power, who was running a similar exercise on 7/7. They like to broadcast these exercises to psychologically prepare us for the real thing ... and to brag. With all the internet censorship and cyber security bills that have been made law in recent months, it's obvious they want to destroy the free internet, which of course is our greatest weapon against them. I don't think there's any way they can justify this unless there is a massive cyber attack on a military institution. If that ever happens, and they feed us some bullshit story about 14 year old Korean basement hackers or something, don't believe it!

Not long ago, Glenn Beck, a man who is obviously being fed scripts from somewhere, said on radio and on TV that 9/11 truthers are dangerous and want to kill the president ... total lies. When that nutbar went postal at the Pentagon, within hours the media was making a big deal over the fact that he believed 9/11 was an inside job. Just recently, Raw Story published an article with the headline "'We vote with bullets', reads Tea Party sign" and a picture of someone holding up an Ae911Ttruth sign!

Again, it's obvious they are planning some kind of false flag on the truth movement, and since before Obama was even elected there have been numerous articles about security issues and concerns about his safety. A staged fake assassination attempt or worse, an actual assassination, that will be blamed on truthseekers and patriots, is certainly on the table.

Probably the most terrifying card in their hand though is the nuclear false flag. No other false flag would be as spectacular as a nuclear detonation in a major city. Hundreds of thousands will die and they'll be able to get away with just about anything afterwards, and for those of you who think "They'd never do that" ...

I rest my case. Besides, they've already nuked cities twice before!

The psychological preparations have been going on for years in countless films and TV shows. These clips, from an episode of Doctor Who, a family show watched by children as young as four, basically sum up what would happen following the nuclear destruction of a major city ...

Hmmm ... nuclear destruction, martial law, "labour camps" ... I'll reiterate, young children watch that show! While I do, like virtually everyone else in Britain, love Doctor Who, I can't help but think there's something kind of evil about broadcasting such intense and blatant programming to little kids. Although I suppose it's not as bad as Hannah Montana!

There were also those crude and mysterious Operation Blackjack comics in the Telegraph last year that basically depicted everything the globalists are planning, all of which was triggered by a series of false flag nuke attacks.

Interestingly, one of the slides has recently changed. The slide that depicted the prime minister making a statement has been altered to replace Gordon Brown with Tory leader David Cameron. Last June they started hiding hexadecimal messages in the slides that set conspiracy boards alight. Clearly this is some kind of psy-op.

In May of this year, DHS and FEMA are running their annual National Level Exercise. In the NLE 10 overiew it says "Guided by National Planning Scenario #1: Nuclear Detonation". What's even more interesting is, according to an insider on the PrisonPlanet forum, "Key DC leadership will be at secret locations during the "exercise"."

People need to understand the significance of drills and the role they play in false flag operations and in military indoctrination. They wouldn't be preparing for these things if they weren't on the table. That's why 9/11 truth is so important. Only by exposing their playbook can we stop them from carrying out their plans.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

Update September 17, 2011:

So it's been a little bit over a year since physicist Steven Jones told us "what we need to know about peer-review" while also essentially telling 9/11 "debunkers" to put up or shut up. Let's see if they have stopped just being loud and have gotten loud and clear...

In October 2008, long time 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and three of his colleagues were published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Their paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" promoted the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers. Greening was the third author of the paper, the first being engineer Zdenek Bazant who wrote another paper also published by the JEM on 9/13/01 essentially promoting the theory.

As the website pointed out, "Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behaviour for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days."

The problem for Greening and company is that JEM published a peer-reviewed refutation of his hypothesis by chemical engineer James R. Gourley and are now set to publish another such peer-reviewed refutation by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. in July of this year, making it the 6th mainstream peer-reviewed paper published by members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Björkman's paper can currently be read at his personal website. It closes with the following statement, "Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson model wrong."

Dr. Greening, why don't you do as James Gourley has done with your work and write a peer-reviewed refutation of the latest paper he was involved in regarding 9/11?
You know, the one in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by, that reports to have found remains of nano-thermite, a high-tech military explosive, in dust recovered from the WTC.


The one that you have only attempted to refute on an internet forum where you presented disputed calculations regarding how energetic the material was, but no argument that the material was anything but nano-thermite.
As Steven Jones said:
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers...


IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Being a chemist this is right up your alley and you don't need his samples to refute his work. So what are you waiting on Dr. Greening? Related Info:

Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

Super Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

Wednesday, April 14, 2010



I saw this story by John Bursill about an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio program dealing with 911. It was a short 7 minute 911 hit piece:

Bursill and other 911 activists left comments as did I. I also made a proper complaint about the program to the ABC at this address. The text of this letter follows below.

There are two key points everyone should consider.

1. You CAN hold taxpayer-funded public broadcasters to their Codes of Practice (or argue against corporate media content using government regulations) if you know what the rules are. [If you live in the USA things are more difficult since it has been ruled that the corporate media does not have to tell the truth. ie act responsibly].

2. Where Codes and regulations apply you can argue a case for public harm being done. Our guys are being killed, and so are many innocent people, because of the severe damage done by false information (re: the 911 false flag attack itself and those pushing this lie). Furthermore, in this particular case, I would argue that this is not just an academic exercise to correct a professor on simple "conspiracy theory conjecture" rather it has direct relevance to the public well being.

Note: The ABC intends to air the full Professor Williams lecture, from which the 7 minute hit piece clip was taken, on Sunday 18th April. If they do so I will certainly ask them to make a public apology, correction, or that they air a rebuttal piece from "our side". Lies and propaganda cannot go unchallenged !!

COMPLAINT versus ABC Counterpoint program:

[Dear complaint dept] I sent the following comment to this ABC web address ( in relation to the clip that went to air on April 12th, 2010. [see below for the message.]

I want the ABC to take action on the upcoming airing of Professor Williams lecture that is scheduled to go to air on Sunday 18th. Airing his lecture, which I have proved contains numerous, and very serious, falsehoods without warning viewers would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice (see Section 3). You should inform viewers that there are serious problems with the material presented by Williams as you have in other such circumstances when harmful misrepresentations are about to be put to air.

Please act quickly. Thanks.


Mr Duffy you don't have much idea about the physical evidence that literally proves 911 was an inside job do you ?

You just believe the spin put out by Professor Williams without looking any further. If you had spent just a few minutes at you would see that it is physically impossible for the World Trade Centre buildings to have "collapsed" WITHOUT the use of explosives.

Indeed, fragments of high tech explosive material have been recovered from the WTC site in quantities that indicate many tons of this stuff had been employed on the day.

Professor Williams needs to get his head checked. He mixes in lunatic fringe material and straw man arguments to make his case. The man needs to be openly debated by qualified members of the 911 Truth Movement here in Australia.

Here are three falsehoods pushed by Professor Williams in the clip:

1. That because the US Government is seen as incompetent then they could not have pulled off 911.

The problem here is that the US military and intelligence services are not so incompetent.

2. That because the attacks represent a relatively large operation someone would have talked.

The problem here is that although the Mafia and those associated with them number many individuals no one much talks under threat of death. Who would talk if they or their family members would be killed ? Plus, those speaking out would implicate themselves in the mass murder of 3000 innocent people.

3. He uses the discredited National Geographic hit piece "Science and Conspiracy" program as a good source of information. It is a very poor source of information and loaded with many false or misleading arguments.

There are two grossly misleading statements he makes in the clip about the "Science and Conspiracy" program:

Point 1.) that although it cannot melt steel, jet fuel can weaken steel so that is loses some of its strength (allowing a collapse).

The problem here is two fold, that:

A. If jet fuel (and normal fires for that matter) cannot melt steel then what caused the tons of molten steel found in the rubble of the World Trade Centre buildings ? Independent experts have found clear evidence (in the dust and from the steel itself) of the incendiary THERMATE, which is used by the military in demolition work. THERMATE, or a blast furnace, are the ONLY things that could cause such melting.

B. It does not matter if jet fuel or office fires could weaken the building steel because the observational evidence shows that only explosive forces could have caused the rapid "collapse" rates. Gravity alone is not enough to cause what was seen. The prime example is the freefall collapse of WTC 7. Steel NEEDS to be instantly removed so that it can fall so fast. Only explosives can do this. It's not rocket science, just basic physics. Please do some research.

Point 2.) "That a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at ground zero"

Clear evidence of unconventional explosives (unconventional techniques) were found at ground zero. In April 2009 a team of international scientists, writing in a peer reviewed journal, found clear evidence of nano-thermite explosive materials in all the dust samples collected. This is high tech military material and was present in amounts indicating there could have been 10-100 tons present in the buildings.

Mr Duffy, good journalists would look into this evidence and think for themselves rather that put to air this kind of discredited conjecture without some sort of disclaimer.

By allowing such false propaganda to go to air (you are planning on airing his entire lecture on Sun 18th April), when you have been informed of the problems, would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice. See Section 3 of the Code that deals with impartiality, balance and serving the public interest.

Airing knowingly false and misleading information, without fairly warning the viewers about these numerous problems, is not serving the public interest.

Knowing what you know from my message, and the other material sent to you by 911 truth advocates (such as John Bursill, you should in all fairness, qualify the speech you intend to air (and provide a link to the debunking of the National Geographic program Williams cites) or cancel his address altogether.

Here are two links that completely demolish the Nat Geo "documentary":

Mr Duffy, you need to think for yourself and question authority. You need to challenge Professor Williams on the physical evidence.


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

"Hansen: Official 9/11 story is hooey, critic maintains"... But What Does Hansen Think?

In an editorial yesterday, Marc Hansen, a columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote the following:

David Ray Griffin comes to Drake University on April 23 to tell us why the official explanation for the 9/11 attack on the United States doesn't hold water.

A theologian, philosopher of religion and professor emeritus at California's Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Griffin has been at it for about seven years now and says he won't stop until the government conducts a new, impartial, independent investigation...

...A few years ago, Popular Mechanics magazine devoted an issue to debunking 9/11 "myths." The editor-in-chief says the "Truthers" have been suckered by "the myth of hyper-competence" as it pertains to the military's ability to bring down hijacked planes.

The magazine brought together nine researchers and reporters and consulted more than 70 professionals from aviation, engineering, the military and other disciplines.

They investigated 16 of the "most prevalent claims" and concluded they were false. And yet Griffin's side seems to be the one that's growing.

"Healthy skepticism," Popular Mechanics wrote, seems to have "curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories. ... As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

Griffin responded by taking a whack at debunking the debunkers. And on it goes.
On it goes Mr. Hansen says, who knows who is right. Well, both are at times, but for this excercise we'll concern ourselves with overall.

Hansen points out that Griffin used to go along with the official story, but doesn't any longer due to such things as learning about nanothermite, (Hansen's words here) "a high-tech explosive only recently identified in the World Trade Center dust by a group of international scientists."

But ultimately, he informs us that Griffin cannot prove his theory that "9/11 was an inside job led by Dick Cheney." Remove the part about Cheney and I think the former fact you relayed about the nanothermite pretty well proves 9/11 was an inside job all by itself Mr. Hansen.

This begs a few questions in my mind...

Are you trying to appear objective and still get the facts out there? If so, I suggest you just come out with your true thoughts. It seems rather silly to state that scientists found the explosives, but that proof doesn't exist that 9/11 was an inside job.

Conversely, I wonder if you were trying to appear objective, but fall on the debunking side of the tracks.

Did you just mean to quote Griffin regarding the nanothermite recently being discovered by scientists? If so, bringing up the Popular Mechanics magazine piece from 2005 in no way sheds doubt on a peer-reviewed scientific paper from 2009!

Either way, it's journalistic objectivity. I get it. Let the people decide. The facts speak for themselves. I couldn't agree more.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

An enemy within

By FaithRMichaels


Residues of ceramic molds for thermite welding like these, left by railway workers, can be found along tracks.
I repeat:
Two buckets of thermite residues left by railway workers after welding tracks.
Oh look red and gray chips.
Maybe it's not the same type of thermite as the red and gray chips found in the dust of the WTC, but it's residual thermite and it's in red and gray chips bonded together...
(thermite has chemical variances depending on type and purpose)
Things that make me go HMMMMM!

Oh look More Red and Gray Chips!
These were found in the dust of the WTC:


Looks like the same stuff to me.
Ain't that something!

"Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

Similar but not identical systems are nano-laminated pyrotechnic compositions, or energetic nanocomposites. In these systems, the fuel and oxidizer is not mixed as small particles, but deposited as alternating thin layers." -

thermite - Types, Ignition, Safety, Military uses, Civilian uses, History

What the scientific peer-reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" said about those energetic particles

More on thermite (One might want to check out the reference links at bottom of this link page. I found them to be very informative)

YouTube Channel

Related Links

More about That Exploding Paint

5 Photos Thermite deniers hate

The newer versions of thermite

Applications of thermite

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Countering the Mainstream Terror Propaganda.

The following is the reproduction of a letter sent to the US Correspondent for one of the big newspapers in Australia. I have had some communication with this correspondent previously. In this email I write to her about an article written by one of her colleagues- Simon Mann. [I would have emailed Mann directly but I don't trust the guy because his article reeked so badly of Pentagon PR.]

... In my humble opinion it's always worth writing to the journos since not all of them can be bought or corrupted (?).

Subject: Simon Mann OBL Article

Hello [Name Redacted],

I thought to email you about the problems with Simon Mann's recent article "Osama's still taunting, terror threat mutated."

As much as I would like to believe OBL is alive, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest he has been dead for several years. The claims made by various officials to the media, regarding OBLs whereabouts and existence, need to be treated highly skeptically.

You might ask, why should we question "trusted officials" regarding such a thing ? Because, 1.) generally, as a matter of course, officials should not be trusted, even when it comes down to issues of "life and death" and 2.) that specifically OBL represents an ideal boogieman for a perpetual war (something which is good for the corporate cronies).

When it comes down to perpetuating the myth of OBL remaining alive, there are many reasons why "our side" should want to keep up the status quo.

I would send the following tips to Simon Mann himself, but his article is so poor I don't trust he will be able to think rationally about the bubble he is in. Here goes:

1. Here is a basic outline of some key arguments against OBL being alive today:

2. Here is some specific analysis indicating some OBL terror threat tapes (likely all) are most certainly fake:

3. Here is a spoof on the fake OBL tapes. It's food for thought:

Later in Mann's article there is mention of the trial of KSM. This is another joke. The suspect held as KSM allegedly confessed to being involved in 911 only after being waterboarded over a hundred times. He was reported as saying he made stuff up to stop the punishment (see here: I'm sure anybody would have confessed to 911 after only a short period of this torture. The only reason to continue this treatment, waterboarding a person over a hundred times, is to mentally damage the individual.

Also see this headline dealing with another alleged 911 plotter, Abu Zubaydah
U.S. Recants Claims that Detainee Who Was One of the Main Sources for the 9/11 Report, and Repeatedly Tortured, Was Involved in 9/11 or Even Al Qaeda For the whole story, visit the site (Washington's Blog is a very good source of news and analysis.)

There is a big game being played here and I hope Mr Mann and yourself do not appreciate being pawns in an effort to maintain the Terror Wars.

Please take this stuff under consideration.


ps. Already we are seeing millions of people turning away from the mainstream papers precisely because the real news is found online. We have better background information and journalists who are still highly skeptical of authority. We have research and history-based reports that show patterns of official deceit whereas often in the mainstream we only see repetitions of officially sanctioned PR.


Related Info:

BBC Propaganda: Is Osama bin Laden dead or alive?

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

A little while back Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted excerpts of a discussion at the forum about the scientific paper published by Steven Jones and others in April 2009 that reports to have found chips of nano-thermite/super-thermite in dust from the WTC.

He first quotes John Albanese,"Has Jones submitted his paper, along with samples, to independent labs for verification? no - he has not."

He then quotes Victoria Ashley, "Actually they have. Several different researchers have verified the findings."

Then Pat was happy to report that "The Sounds of Silence" were the only sounds around. That is until Ashley responded and he posted this in an update, "Victoria Ashley points to this 'independent' confirmation by a chemical engineer... I can see no direct confirmation of "nanothermite"; just talk about the iron microspheres and the red and grey chips."

You can see no direct confirmation huh? Did you miss this part where Mark Basile describes the materials as having the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite?:
So we can look at these chips and say "Oh, they're rich in iron, they're rich in carbon, oxygen", whatever there is that's in them, aluminum, silicon, you can see those elements...

...Now in nano-thermite, in these particular chips that we found, basically, what's a little bit different here is, that the way these have been .. Well I can't tell you exactly how these were made, but.. uhm.. If you go to the literature and look at how people are typically making them these days... What they do is they basically take an iron, for instance if we were going to do it with iron or aluminum again.. They would take iron and take a salt of it for instance, like iron nitrate or iron chloride, whatever the case may be, and they would uhm.. with a base basically, convert the iron into like an iron hydroxide or an iron oxide type form, in solution, but then they basically add some materials to make this almost like a gelatin form or a gel... ...but it basically allows you to get this nano-structure and that's the beginning of it.
Maybe you did miss that, but here is something I know you didn't miss...

Remember when Scootle told you this, Pat?:
As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.
And you responded:
Okay, can somebody see the problem here? Scootie claims they found thermitic material that does not get the temperature high enough to melt steel. Therefore, they must have melted the steel with something else! The mind boggles.
Then Scootle responded:
I have no idea what he's on about here. I think he's saying that I'm claiming that the thermite burns at 400-450°C.

What I was actually saying was, 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. Obviously it burns much hotter, that's the point. We find molten iron afterwards, so heat energy must have been released during the reaction. 400-450°C goes in, 1500+°C comes out!
Basile states during his radio interview:
But the other interesting thing about these chips that really kind of shows you that they are the nano-thermite, (Pat must have missed that too) is that when you take these small little chips and you ignite them... If you woulda take one and grind it up beforehand; just the red layer... There is no free iron in it. When I say free iron, like, you know, little beebees of iron metal, that exist in these. You know it's iron oxide, it's not free iron. But when you ignite one, and then you break it up afterwards, you basically find these little droplets, although they're not actually I mean, as a portion of the total volume of the chip they rather significant, but they're still small because these chips are small. But you basically produce molten iron, which then when it cools down again becomes these droplets of iron. As well as the whole the nanostructure that I talked about there, kind of gets destroyed in large part during this combustion process, but some of it at the end is still there and all these inner chambers basically are coated with a very thin metallic layer after it freezes again, so... There is few interesting things that go on in them...

I basically have a setup where I have a stainless steel resistive heating element, that I basically use that's ... oh... what is it... It's about little less than a quarter of an inch across and I basically.. you know... using tweezers and micromanipulators or whatever put the chips basically in the center of the strip, and then by controlling the amount of electricity that flows through the strip, I can heat it up to pretty much any temperature that I want. I don't bring them, you know, anywheres near, you know, the temperatures to do anything harmful to them, but just up enough to basically get them to ignite, and they ignite in the region of... oh... somewhere a little over 400 degrees centigrade typically, and uhm.... When they ignite, you know, I basically have just recorded them burning and then after the fact you can open them up and look inside for these uh.. these iron droplets and films that I spoke of earlier.
One of the interviewers, George Corrette, adds:
Now one of the things that we've heard; these kind of crude critiques of this study is: 'Well all these red and gray chips, well how do you know they're just not paint chips'. What would one expect with Sherman-Williams exterior coat paint if you were to do the exact same thing with this: take those paint chips, put them on this quarter inch resistance heater that you have, and ignite it if you will, heat it up to a point of ignition...
Basile responds:
...If I have a thermite fire and I were to put that rod in there it would melt, be.. you know, if I had sufficient material there to do that, so... it's just the level of energy release, so, yep, there'd be an energy release, but I wouldn't expect say if within that paint chip there was iron oxide as one of the pigments that they put in there, I wouldn't expect to open that paint chip afterwards and find, you know, molten iron has been produced and now there would be iron droplets inside the residue of that chip.
To summarize, the chips have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite and produced a high temperature chemical reaction and iron-rich spheres which are a by-product of a thermite reaction. Now, Pat would have us ignore the actual findings and just focus on the fact that Basile is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and thus not independent.

First off, in an exchange of emails with Robert Erickson, producer of the September 2009 National Geographic special on 9/11, Steven Jones suggested that he attempt independent confirmation and gave recommendations as to how this could be achieved, Jones states:
I urge you to contact Los Alamos National Laboratory and request at least three "prototype" samples of super-thermite matches.

Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust.

Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns).
So the idea that Steven Jones has not sought completely independent confirmation is bunk. In turn it is also bunk to claim, as is often the case, that a sample of his material is required to confirm his work.

The only argument that could still emerge in light of these facts is the claim that the chain of custody wasn't clearly established. First off, it was. As Jim Hoffman has explained "each of the samples was collected by a different individual who has described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing their sample." Victoria Ashley pointed out that "the handling of the samples was done no differently then typical scientific studies, and much research out there on the dust uses the same methods and no police were involved."

Pat Curley counters with an admission:

And in a sense, she's right. Nobody cares where the USGS or the EPA (which she mentions later) got their samples. But there's a crucial difference here. The chain of custody matters precisely because the Troofers are claiming this is evidence that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers. Presumably they would like to use this as evidence in a court of law, which has very strict standards for chain of custody.
But what is Pat trying to say? As Scootle has pointed out, questioning the chain of custody is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?

Back to Basile. Independent is defined as being "free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others." How interesting it is then that Steven Jones made this comment regarding the interview:
This is the first that I have heard of Mark Basile's radio program. Thank you, Snowcrash, for posting this interview.

I congratulate Mark for giving this interview and going on record about his own independent observations.

We have exchanged emails which have proven very helpful. Mark was the first to observe iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue of the red-chip material. I need to emphasize that. With that encouragement from Mark, we went back to our own samples and immediately found iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue also-- ours were ignited in a DSC. (Mark used a different method of igniting the red material, which he explains in his interview above.) This discovery, of iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue, was in fact the last piece of convincing evidence that we needed to assure ourselves that this indeed a thermitic reaction -- for it demonstrated the reduction of iron-oxide to iron AND very high temperatures at the same time, both characteristic of the thermitic reaction.
It certainly doesn't sound like he was taking any marching orders, but rather was doing truly independent analysis.

Pat points out that French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier was unable to confirm the findings in the paper, however, this is only partially true, as Ashley points out, "He was able to confirm several aspects of the experiments, such as the presence of microspheres and the presence of red/dark gray chips and chemical composition of layers."

Couannier does state that "eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed." This was due to him not being able to ignite the chips in his samples, but he notes a distinct difference:
In my samples the red-red chips replace the red/gray ones reported to be found in other samples...
except for, may be, one exceptional red/gray chip i found and described elsewhere...

So, may be, the red-red chips are just fragments originating from red-grey chips that already reacted at the WTC and for this reason cannot react anymore.
The one red/gray chip he was able to find "could not be recovered for an ignition test."

Pat thinks this distinction is inconsequential, stating, "Although he mostly found red chips instead of red and gray ones, that doesn't matter, because Jones claimed that it was the red portion that showed the thermitic reaction."

Well first off, as was pointed out, it wasn't "mostly red chips instead of red and gray ones," it was all but one, which was apparently so small that he wasn't able to recover it for testing. So it certainly does matter that his chips were different from the ones we know did react? Here are two videos of chip ignitions:

As a comment on Pat's blog pointed out, "What did Mark Basile find though? Funny, again no mention of that in this piece. It's as if Basile doesn't exist, but Couannier does."

Couannier notes that the red/red chips have "many shiny gray metallic spots at the surface." Again, this is evidence that the reaction has already taken place and created microspheres.

Victoria Ashley also believes that Couannier did not have the equipment needed to do the ignition test properly. Pat on other hand believes that heat is heat.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, nano-thermite requires "highly specific conditions for detonation." The nano-thermite authors used a Differential Scanning Calorimeter for their ignition tests, Basile used a stainless steel resistive heating element which he passed electricity through, and Couannier used a furnace. It could be that the heat in his furnace was not sufficiently focused to initiate detonation.

Pat covers his ass with Plan B by again playing the "not independent" card because Couannier has pages on his website that question the official 9/11 story. I guess this is why he only confirmed what he could based on the empirical data he gathered then, right?

It must be pointed out that Niels Harrit, who is an expert in nano-chemistry and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, was the first author of the paper. Critics often act as if Jones wrote the paper alone. As Ashley pointed out, "Niels Harrit is not in Utah and did not start off working with Steve. They have different labs and both found the same things. Harrit walks a reporter through his lab in one of the videos."

Pat of course ignores this tid bit that Ashley points out concerning independent confirmation:
This was an article in Denmark media that is google translated. The journalists tried to find someone to confirm the work and they do confirm that the methods are correct -- have tried to check the content of the article from independent scientists working with nanotechnology.Professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup Technical University of Denmark (DTU) know like the other sources not nanotermit, but he did skim through the article and felt that assessments are made on the basis of 'very suitable' test by current standards.

Another person in the article doubts the work but admits he does not work with nanotechnology.
She also points out, as did Basile, that official reports from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the RJ Lee Group "basically confirm the products of nanothermite," most namely, the iron-rich spheres, she adds, "But they were not looking for it themselves. You aren't going to find people at those orgs that want to lose their jobs to expose nano-thermite. As it is, we only have a handful of people who have been willing to put their careers on the line for this."

Most importantly she noted that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is independent. When she was fielded the argument that the "conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data," she replied, "But you won't see that coming out in a paper anytime soon because they are making false claims. They can critique his method, as anyone can critique any study's methods, but they won't be able to show that it isn't thermitic material. When these claims are published, we can talk about it again."

Furthermore, the work of the official investigators at the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed! And they refused to run the proper tests that the USGS study alone should have prompted:
On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them."

"Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
I think the evidence is clear and have demonstrated this thoroughly in a recent blog, which debunks every criticism short of what is in this blog. I also think that much due diligence has been exercised by the authors of the nanothermite paper. I in turn think more could be exercised if they had more material to work with, Basile made this clear in his interview when he stated:
I think there's a lot more things that could actually be learned about the material, uhm.. but one problem is just scarcity of samples.

So uh.. anybody out there who has access to samples and ..uh... you know would like to submit them to be looked at, I'd be more than happy to look at anything anybody could send me, but eh... the number one problem is sample.
The government can surely obtain these samples very easily, perhaps they are the ones that we should be pushing to independently confirm these findings through a blue ribbon-panel of experts.

Update March 4, 2011:

Here is an interview with Basile from October of last year, which Pat has not addressed where Basile again states that he has unequivocally confirmed the findings and throws down the gauntlet for anyone to refute him by doing experiments.
I have independently seen thermitic activity within two independent samples of World Trade Center Dust. [...] I would really like to stress that we need a lot more people involved in this work than just the few of us that are doing it right now.

My work with this has brought me to feel that this material is too big of an unanswered question and it really brings us to demand a new investigation. This is hard evidence that can not be refuted.

Anyone can replicate the work that’s been done and confirm that this material is there.

Mark Basile, chemical engineer

Update March 30, 2011:

Here is a presentation by Basile brought to our attention by YouTube user Lietuvispartizan. At around minute 38:00 he discusses his analyzation of the red/gray chips.