Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Iraq Inquiry: your opportunity to demand a new 9/11 investigation

28 September 2010

From Reinvestigate 911


Reinvestigate 911 is asking 9/11 truth activists worldwide to write to the Iraq Inquiry in London in support of our submission. Please forward this email to any politicians or journalists who may be interested.

Our letter is copied in full below. Since Tony Blair confirmed in his testimony that 9/11 "changed the calculus of risk" when it came to invading Iraq, the Iraq Inquiry must now consider whether we have been told the whole truth about the 9/11 attacks.

Please go to this page and fill in the response box.
Please say you are supporting the letter from Reinvestigate911 (below) and then add your own comments, polite and factual of course, mentioning any experience or expert knowledge you may have to support your views.

Better still write a letter to
Sir John Chilcot, Iraq Inquiry, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG.

If you are a UK qualified lawyer please get in touch if you can offer any time pro bono to pursue either our letter to Chilcot (eg is there a judicial review option if Chilcot refuses our requests?), or matters related to the forthcoming 7/7 inquest.


If you write from outside the UK, please explain that there has never been a full independent inquiry into the 9/11 events in the US. The 9/11 Conmmission, run by White House insider Phillip Zelikow, has been criticised by its own members and the trial of alleged 9/11 ringleader Khaled Sheikh Mohammed seems to be postponed indefinitely.

The Inquiry's remit starts in summer 2001 when, according to the 9/11 Commission, many warnings of the impending 9/11 attacks were being disregarded in Washington.

Iraq Inquiry has written to campaigners as follows:
"The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT IMPACTS ON THE UK'S INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website." (our emphasis)

Commentators agree that 9/11 made the invasion of Iraq politically possible and Tony Blair specifically told the Inquiry that the 9/11 attacks changed the "calculus of risk" in respect to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Hence they must look at 9/11 as a major element in the decision to invade Iraq, the matter which is at the heart of their terms of reference.


From: Ian Henshall and others
Hove BN3 7NQ

To Sir John Chilcot,
The Iraq Inquiry,
35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG
Your ref Alastair Seaton, IE0054

27 September 2010

Dear Sir John Chilcot,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you state:

"Thank you for your further letter of 27 July, in which you urge the Committee to challenge the conclusion that the 911 bombings were perpetrated by Al Qaeda. The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, except insofar as it impacts on the UK's involvement in Iraq. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website."

We welcome your agreement that the attribution of responsibility for 9/11 is relevant insofar as it impacts the UK's involvement in Iraq. Blair made clear that 9/11 was indeed a major factor in the invasion of Iraq while the official paper trail shows that the attribution of responsibility, which includes the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, is murkier than first appeared.

It is noteworthy that your terms of reference start in summer 2001 when, we now know, warnings of the 9/11 attacks were flooding into Washington.


In case there can be any doubt as to the central role of the 9/11 attacks in the decision to invade Iraq, please recall that Blair made his "shoulder to shoulder" speech in the weeks after 9/11 and as we now know decided effectively to subordinate UK foreign policy to the Bush White House at that time. As he explained to you very clearly and repeatedly in his testimony, 9/11 was a major factor in the decision to invade Iraq because it changed the "calculus of risk". This confirms what commentators across the political spectrum have been saying: that the invasion of Iraq was made politically possible by 9/11.

Assuming Al Qaeda carried out the attacks independently of any other organisation, an extremely important question remains: how were the attacks able to succeed and hence to change the "calculus of risk"?


We accept it is not up to your Inquiry to determine what happened on 9/11, but we contend the public will not be satisfied unless you examine whether the explanation of the causes, offered to London by Washington, of this massive US defence failure was reliable. Given the anger that now exists in many quarters over the weapons of mass destruction allegations and the "dodgy dossiers" in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, we submit that the public will expect you to look into this with great concern and investigate whether the official 9/11 story is wrong, self-exculpatory, misleading, or simply not adequately substantiated. If Washington's explanation is unreliable we contend your report should state that further investigation is needed.


A review of the media reports at the time confirms that the initial 9/11 account was indeed seriously wrong and that this is the version on which Tony Blair seems to have based his decision making. Politicians and commentators said that Al Qaeda succeeded in this unprecedented, audacious and well-planned attack because they had immense resources and, in the words of Condoleeza Rice, that in the US government "nobody could imagine" that such an attack might occur. Blair made similar comments.

However we now know that the main features of the 9/11 attacks had all been built into various Pentagon war games in the months before 9/11, that Rice had ignored multiple warnings from top officials and foreign governments, and that the failure of the CIA to co-operate with FBI investigations into the presumed 9/11 hijackers was a major factor in the success of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission chair said at one point that the attacks "could and should" have been prevented. There is much further evidence to support this view. It may be noteworthy too that the CIA's Inspector General later gave George Tenet, CIA director at the time, a severe reprimand over 9/11 on grounds that remain secret.


If you agree with the consensus view now, that failings of the US authorities, glossed over at the time, were a significant factor in the success of the 9/11 attacks, and if London was trusting information supplied by Washington rather than carrying out their own checks, this has a major bearing on the UK decision to invade Iraq.

It would mean that the alternative policy to war was not properly evaluated. This would have been to avoid launching the invasions, deal with terrorism in the ways that had always been followed up to then, and deal with the causes of the intelligence failings at home.


We are not asking you to mount an entirely new investigation into the 9/11 attacks, but we hope you will agree that judgement by media acclamation and White House press release is not a sufficient basis to launch two wars. Therefore we submit that you should note in your final report that the 9/11 attacks have never been fully investigated by a well resourced and independent body prepared to consider a range of ideas on what the full story might be. Many people in the US, including many of the bereaved and members of the 9/11 Commission itself, emphasise the lack of a thorough investigation. The 9/11 Commission was starved of funds, given a very tight timescale and was refused access to key evidence. See note below for some more failings of the 9/11 Commission. The promised trial of alleged ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the only person ever indicted for a central role in the 9/11 attacks, seems to have been postponed indefinitely.


A new 9/11 investigation, and particularly a sharing of the mountain of still secret evidence with the public, is all the more important in the light of the many details which still have not been satisfactorily explained. For instance there is so far no official explanation for the recent discovery by associate Professor Niels Harrit of uncombusted high energy artificial nanothermite particles in the dust at Ground Zero, which indicate the possibility that the collapse of the buildings was some sort of a controlled demolition which could explain the rapid and symmetrical downward collapse of the three (sic) multistorey WTC buildings. Official sources insist the collapses all happened spontaneously in a way unforeseen by any expert before the event, but independent experts have not been given access to the evidence or the computer models which government scientists rely on. Hundreds of architects, engineers and demolition experts have spoken out publicly calling for a new investigation.

Another reason for a further investigation is that the 9/11 Commission discovered the CIA had a top secret 80 strong Osama Bin Laden unit working on projects in the months before 9/11. This contrasts with the explanation proffered by many politicians and commentators that Washington had lost interest in Afghanistan. The CIA reportedly refused to talk to the 9/11 Commission about vast areas of what the OBL unit was up to.

Similarly no details have been given of the Pentagon's anti-hijack exercise running, apparently by sheer coincidence, at the exact time of the 9/11 attacks and which we now know interfered with the response from air traffic control and the Pentagon. Even the flight manifests for the hijacked planes are still secret.


As well as the more general recommendations mentioned above concerning the preventabilty of the 9/11 attacks and the failure to investigate the whole affair in any depth, we submit that you should ask some specific questions to Tony Blair. Before he gave his almost unconditional support to the Bush White House, did he task MI6 or any other UK agency to make an independent assessment of the 9/11 attacks, of who was behind them, and of how they came to be carried out so successfully? Did anyone mention to him that the Oklahoma bomb was at first wrongly blamed by Washington on Islamic extremists? Did he and his advisors discuss the possibility the attacks were successful as a result of failings in the US? Did they inquire if 9/11 resulted, as now seems possible, from a CIA sting operation gone wrong?


Finally we submit that you should take adequate evidence from us and make appropriate recommendations in your report, not only because the decision to invade Iraq is at the heart of your inquiry but also out of respect for the rights of the bereaved and other victims of many nationalities in both the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please take public testimony from Paul Warburton on the general legal issues, Niels Harrit on the nanothermite at the World Trade Centre, and Ian Henshall for an overview on how the official 9/11 story has changed and whether it is reliable. Other experts could probably be made available including retired FBI and CIA officers.

Ian Henshall (co-ordinator Reinvestigate 911, author 911 The New Evidence)
Paul Warburton (barrister)
Niels Harrit (associate professor of Chemistry University of Copenhagen, nanotechnology specialist)
Noel Glynn (Convenor Quakers for Truth on Terrorism)


The only official attempts to investigate 9/11 were the FBI probe that was ended prematurely and run by Bush appointee Michael Chertoff (later Homeland security chief in charge of the Hurricane Katrina disaster), and the 9/11 Commission. The latter was severely underfunded, short of time, and stuffed with Washington insiders. It never considered any scenario other than the official story. Its executive Director Phillip Zelikow was caught reporting regularly in secret to the White House, while Senator Max Cleland resigned angrily denouncing the process as a whitewash. Later the chief investigator John Farmer wrote that there was an agreement in the White House or the Pentagon to lie to investigators. The Commission failed to clarify the role of the CIA's top secret Osama Bin Laden unit and its refusal to pass on important information to the FBI prior to the attacks. It failed to investigate the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings one of which was not struck by a plane and which we now know fell at free fall speed. For the chaos and manipulation of the 911 Commission by Zelikow and the Bush White House, see the book The Commission by Phil Shenon the New York Times specialist on the subject.

pub Sept 2007 Constable (UK) ISBN 978-1-84529-514-1

"9/11 Revealed: The New Evidence"
pub Oct 2007 Carroll & Graf (US) ISBN-10: 0786720417

Ian Henshall is also proprietor of Coffee Plant ( www.coffee.uk.com)
and chair of INK, trade organisation for UK alternative print media (www.ink.uk.com)
Ian Henshall's email is crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk

My Letter:


I am writing to voice my support for the letter from Reinvestigate911 below. Let there be no doubt that these two issues are inescapably intertwined. President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

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

John-Michael P. Talboo

Letter from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers:

There are frightening consequences for failing to act upon the evidence showing that the attacks of September 11 involved an element of US Government complicity:

Dear Reader, this submission to the Inquiry is in support of the letter from Reinvestigate911. (This document should already be on file with your investigation.)

As you are probably well aware, there is a direct connection to the illegal invasion of Iraq and the attacks of 911.

Put simply: the threat of future 911 style terror attacks provided a "justification" for the preemptive War.

However, such a justification is totally undermined by damning material evidence that has come to light indicating the 911 attacks involved a huge degree of "inside help".

I will not go over the evidence here suffice to say that other submissions to your inquiry will have covered the forensic evidence that proves the official story is a lie. (Visit: http://www.ae911truth.org and for counter disinformation material http://911debunkers.blogspot.com)

My task here is to alert the Inquiry to the serious implications of ignoring this evidence.

It should be noted that:

1. Failure to recognise the staged nature of 911 helps to prolong the false paradigm, held in the minds of policy makers and the general public, that the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan), can be somewhat justified as reaction to a heinous crime committed by Muslim extremists.

2. that; failure to recognise the hard evidence here places the population of many Western countries under threat of draconian anti-terror legislation, physical harm and continued psychological damage. Most troubling of all is the fact we are susceptible to further false flag incidents that may involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. My fear is that new terror attacks being planned by elements from within "our own side" will involve biological, chemical or nuclear devices.

3. that; failure to address the false flag nature of 911 leaves the door open for those war obsessed elements of US and European governments to attack countries like Iran that do not pose a threat and have not broken any International Laws.

Dear Reader, it does not matter how many real terrorists are caught or captured if elements of our own Governments and intelligence services have a hand in committing terrorist atrocities.

Please take action on the evidence that proves US complicity in 911 so we can see an end to the War in Iraq and an end to the wider War on Terror.

Thanks for you attention

Steven Weathers

Related Info:

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Monday, September 27, 2010

What We Believe According to JREFers

So I've just taken a look over at ae911truth.info to see if Mr. Joseph Nobles has been up to anything recently. His latest addition to his site concerns a post by someone on the JREF forum on a thread titled "Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?". I was ready to write a quick response to this, but looking through the thread I quickly saw that someone had already responded to it. Poster "Sivan Kurzberg" posted this excellent response, which I've reposted here with some of my own comments in red, some links:

1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST has not done this.

2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours. Other skyscrapers have burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.

3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
See number 2

4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we have no examples of this outside of controlled demolition.

5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by fire was everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.

This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.

Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:

"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."

Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:

A quick comment while I'm on break...

Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.

Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.

Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.

Also, pertinent to the video's specific claim: the effect of fires following such an impact were not considered. This ignores the several pre-9/11 sources which indicate the fires were taken into account. All Dr. Shyam Sunder had to say about this was that "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question."

Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds." The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very least consistent with controlled demolition.

The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
"First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find it unacceptable to compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them to badly built toy factories and elementary schools is just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.

Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory.
Here's the reality.

WTC Collapse
This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.

WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning.

Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.

He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photos which show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.

Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of "25% scooped out!" or "there were fuel tanks in the building!" As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.

South Tower Should Have Toppled
Absolutely fail, the towers were not solid trees. And I never claimed them to be. What I do claim is that at least three times as much weight was acting on one side of the building, but instead of toppling it lost its moment of inertia and disintegrated.

patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, and JREFers themselves have been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.

Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.

Related Info:

The neverending incredulity of JREFers

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.

The beam that fell too fast...

I normally don't like discussing little anomalies in videos like this, but I found this kind of interesting. Some time ago I posted the image below and noted the single beam that's fallen much further than the rest of the debris, as if it was falling faster than freefall.

In many videos this beam can be seen falling unusually fast, as if it was launched downwards. Up until today I had never bothered to time it, mainly because I couldn't find a continuous shot from a good angle.

The video above is continous and pretty much square on, so I thought I'd use it to see how much time there was between the start of the north tower's collapse, and the moment the beam disappears behind WTC7. As the video shows, it was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion.

So not only were there horizontal ejections, there was also at least one downward ejection!

Friday, September 24, 2010

Three Pictures ... Your Argument is Invalid!

How retarded do you have to be to think this is paint?

K.T. Penn Exposed

I have had my fair share of irritating debates with debunkers, but this is one for the books. K.T. Penn, a man who has written a book titled Lifting Up the Couch Cushions: Exposing the Loose Change, has some of the oddest beliefs about 9/11 I have ever heard. Mr. Penn is known as "loosechangeexposed" on Youtube, and after commenting on my first video aimed at refuting his claims, he grew increasingly irritated and insisted that I had refuted nothing. Ultimately, he challenged me to make a response video to one particular Youtube video of his. Before jumping into that, let's take a look at some of this man's beliefs about 9/11. We've seen debunkers make some pretty questionable claims, but these claims are nothing short of extraordinary, especially by debunker standards.

Here are claims from a site advertising his book:

K.T. Penn believes Saddam Hussein masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

He believes his book will be included in the 9/11 Commission Report and taught in schools.

He believes the theory that Flight 77's wings folded back as it hit the Pentagon, allowing it to enter the building.

Some claims he made to me on Youtube:

He believes he is smarter than the 1300 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

He believes that I am apparently a "foreign douche."

And probably his oddest belief of all:

Anyway, here's the video he challenged me to refute. It supposedly proves what caused the damage on the lobby floor of the North Tower.

Now, I acknowledge that the issue of the lobby damage is controversial, but Mr. Penn's theory is completely wrong. I tried to post a link on the video in the comments section that refuted his claim, but...

Here's the picture I tried to link him to:

No matter how many times I sent him this picture, he still didn't believe me and claimed I had to make a video response. Well, I did just that.

Surprise surprise, he still doesn't believe me. I informed him I was done discussing the issue, as there are obviously more logical people I could be debating with. Hopefully no one will be stupid enough to be buying his book, but you never know. One odd thing I noticed though. For some reason, K.T. Penn apparently charges more money for a used book than a new one.


Thursday, September 23, 2010

Why Do People Ask Retarded Questions?

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asks,"How Retarded Do You Have To Be? To think there's no way the iron microspheres could have come from this:"




Well Pat, here is a picture for you, and what Steven Jones had to say back in 2007.

It has also been suggested that thermate may have been used at ground zero (GZ) during steel-cutting operations for clean-up there. However, no documentation whatsoever that thermate was so used has been provided, and so for this suggestion to be seriously considered, the proponents will need to provide documentation for the use of thermate and disclosure of the composition – including KMnO4, S, etc. In this way, we can compare the alleged thermate use with what is observed in the dust. What is thoroughly documented is the use of oxyacetylene torches in the cutting of the steel at ground zero.

Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just a few days after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten-metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there. This is a compelling argument against “accidental” contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues.)

In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected. (On the other hand, the fast-moving dust clouds on 9/11/2001 traveled for many blocks and certainly would have carried small residues with them, for example, residues from thermite cutter-charges used to help destroy the Towers.) Furthermore, iron-rich spheres were found in the WTC dust several blocks away from GZ in large numbers which essentially eliminates the possibility that these spherules could be due to thermite used at ground zero.
Then we have the fact that this blog has pointed out to Pat four previous times this year (once that I know he read) that the 2009 Thermitic Material paper by Jones and his colleagues demonstrates how the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust actually create these molten-iron spheres when ignited. Again Pat, this is evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction, which would not happen if they were just chips of paint as "debunkers" have asserted.

At one time, laziness could account for Pat asking such a retarded question, but now it seems that he is just asking the type of question that comes natural to a special guy like himself.

Related Info:

Three Pictures ... Your Argument is Invalid!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Skeptics Society Tag Lines [Satire]

Boredom has prompted me to have some fun parodying the skeptics. I think my banner is much better than the one on the Skeptic Magazine website! I love that quote from Shermer (from the History Channel hitpiece), if he really believes it then it doesn't say much for skepticism! And here's some tag lines I came up with for The Skeptics Society. Other contributors feel free to add your own.

"The Skeptics Society: Because believing powerful people get together and plot ways to get more power is irrational!"

"The Skeptics Society: Everything's a Coincidence!"

"The Skeptics Society: Because it's a common rookie mistake to confuse explosive nanotechnology with paint!"

"The Skeptics Society: Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories - believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!"

"The Skeptics Society: Forensic proof of explosives is not enough to prove the 9/11 conspiracy, but a few mined quotations and a typo is enough to prove the 'Intelligent Design = Creationism' conspiracy!"

"The Skeptics Society: There's no god - because we're assholes!"

"The Skeptics Society: We haz cumpyutr simulayshuns!"

"The Skeptics Society: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy!"

"The Skeptics Society: Not only did we come up with the joke, but we also slayed a dragon and defeated an army of jew robots. Your egos are just too out of whack to accept the truth!"

Saturday, September 18, 2010

How to handle a 9/11 deniar!

September 16, 2010

Help us build the 60x8 9/11 was an inside job banner at http://www.formula4409.com

Please make sure Terry Gilberg at [ terrygilberg@clearchannel.com ] gets this video and many others

She is just another mouth piece for the establishment

No Shelton, those 1,300+ architects and engineers aren't stupid. They're moonbat crazy!
Related Info:

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Building What? is up...

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The Real 9/11 Mastermind?

This is a post I found on George Washingtons Blog.

Dick Cheney's Oily Dream

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is currently saying that Dick Cheney's vision of policy towards the Middle East after 9/11 was to re-draw the map:

Vice-President Dick Cheney's vision of completely redrawing the map of the Middle East following the 9/11 attacks is "not stupid," and is "possible over time," former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says.

In his new book, A Journey, the former Labour Party leader wrote that Cheney wanted a wholesale reorganization of the political map of the Middle East after 9/11. The vice president "would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran, dealing with all their surrogates in the course of it -- Hezbollah, Hamas, etc," Blair wrote.

What does this mean?

Well, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the "war on terror" in the Middle East has nothing to do with combating terror, and everything to do with remaking that region's geopolitical situation to America's advantage.

For example, as I noted in January::

Starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon; the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda. As American reporter Gareth Porter writes in Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...


General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].


When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."


The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD)...

Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.


After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1998] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".
No wonder former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

But can Cheney's desires can't be equated to U.S. foreign policy as a whole? Well, the number two man at the State Department, Lawrence Wilkerson, said:

The vice president and the secretary of defense created a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that hijacked U.S. foreign policy.
And Cheney was the guy who set up the secret shop at the Pentagon to bypass the intelligence agencies and push fake "intelligence" showing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And as I wrote in 2009:

5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said "my interest is to hit Saddam".

He also said "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time", is the statement "Hard to get a good case." In other words, top officials knew that there wasn't a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.

Moreover, "Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda".

And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed repeatedly for years that Saddam was behind 9/11.  Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.

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

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, the Bush administration expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.
Indeed, the torture program which Cheney created was specifically aimed at producing false confessions in an attempt to link Iraq and 9/11.

So it should be clear to any honest, thinking person that Cheney and the U.S. used 9/11 as a pretext to redraw the map of the Middle East.

Cheney's Oily Dream

But that doesn't mean the Cheney's goals had any impact on 9/11, right?

Well, it is surely just a coincidence that the Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11. 
And that top British officials, former CIA director George Tenet, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and many others say that the Iraq war was planned before 9/11.

Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, a high-level National Security Council officer and others say that the Iraq war was really about oil. They must be conspiracy theorists.

And it is surely meaningless that Cheney made Iraqi's oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. As I pointed out in 2008:

You may have heard that the Energy Task Force chaired by Dick Cheney prior to 9/11 collected maps of Iraqi oil, Saudi and United Arab Emerates fields and potential suitors for that oil. And you might have heard that the oil bigs attended the Task Force meetings.

But you probably haven't heard that - according to the New Yorker - a secret document written by the National Security Council (NSC) on February 3, 2001 directed NSC staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy:

"The review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields”.
It is difficult to brush off Cheney's Energy Task Force's examination of arab oil maps as a harmless comparison of American energy policy with known oil reserves because the NSC explicitly linked the Task Force, oil, and regime change.

But don't believe me...

The above-linked New Yorker article quotes a former senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the NSC said:

If this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.

As I wrote last year:

CIA director Leon Panetta told the New Yorker:
When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.
News commentator Ed Schultz said today that Cheney is wishing for a terrorist attack on the U.S.
What should we make of all this?

Well, everyone knows that Cheney is ruthless:

Cheney is the guy who pushed for torture, pressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. The former director of the CIA accused Cheney of overseeing American torture policies

Cheney is also the guy who:

Helped found the Project for a New American Century, which called for a new American empire well before 9/11, and lamented that, without a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor", transformation of America into an empire would be very slow.
In the 70's -- Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending. See also this article.

30 years later, Cheney was largely responsible for generating fake intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the war. And, according to former British Defense Secretary, Cheney has called the shots in the failed Iraq war.
According to former high-level intelligence officer Melvin Goodman, Cheney orchestrated phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola

Cheney has been perhaps the leading advocate for strengthening the powers of the White House to the point of monarchy for at least 20 years
Cheney was involved in debates concerning illegal wiretaps 30 years ago

Cheney was probably responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the military ran an "Executive Assassination Ring" throughout the Bush years which reported directly to Cheney.

Hersh also says that Cheney is the main guy helping to fund groups which the U.S. claims are terrorists


A well-known writer said of Dick Cheney:

For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him . . . .
Cheney also knew 9/11 was going to happen. The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons -- and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes -- all before 9/11. Indeed, the government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers' own mouths before 9/11.

Indeed, Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11


The Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission:

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"
Could it be that Cheney got so lost in his dreams of redrawing the map of the Middle East (and grabbing some oil along the way) that he - as the guy in charge of all counter-terrorism efforts for the United States on 9/11 - spaced out and forgot to engage America's standard air defenses?

I don't know ... But - unfortunately - Cheney's oily dream has turned into a nightmare for America.

I did not include the many,many links nor the vid that are in the original article due to time constraints .

If One wishes to see the back up proof George provides then please view the original article

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Truth About TruthBurn

Here is the take of the "911TRUTHINATOR":


Here is the truth from the creator of the "TruthBurn" display, John Parulis:

That gave me a good laugh. Boy these people can't seem to stop their obsession with us. I hope we drive them batty.

It's true that I did modify the original intent of the sign because of safety concerns. There were too many out of control Burning Man folks biking through our security barrier during the Truth Burn. I could have destroyed the sign but taking safety and the issue of the cost of dismantling a dangerously mangled sign, I decided to use my cutter charges on a steel beam below the sign. The thermite worked very well in cutting a precise slice through the beam as though an oxy-lance had done it. This is all explained in my blog http://911truthburn.blogspot.com if the debunkers even bothered to read it in detail.

The residue from the TruthBurn was used as a control in the now famous paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


The electron microscope renderings of the TruthBurn residue closely matched the thermitic signature of samples from the World Trade dust, as shown in the paper. As a result, I would say that the TruthBurn art show at Burning Man was a great success.


Even if the experiment had been attempted and failed it would not negate the fact that there are various ways in which thermite variants could be used to destroy vertically standing steel beams. But for the "debunkers" it's forensic evidence be damned: "If we haven't seen it done before, it can't possibly have been done!"

On that note, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog tried to downplay the significance of the the findings garnered from the TruthBurn residue, stating:

They are all excited over at 911 Blogger regarding Steven Jones, who in his secret lab discovered that particles of metal from the Truthburn art project are "similar" to particles of metal recovered from World Trade Center debris. Well, similar in the same sense that tiny round pieces of metal are all similar to each other...

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, the Thermitic Material paper analyzes iron-rich spheres from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, and the spheres found by themselves in the dust. Take a look for yourself; they are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it.

Pat hasn't updated the above blog since this further analysis, therefore indicating he still fails to see the significance of the findings, but this isn't surprising. He also doesn't understand that the chips creating molten-iron spheres is itself evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction, which would not happen if they were just chips of paint as "debunkers" have asserted.

"We don't do the best debunking out there." - Pat Curley

Saturday, September 11, 2010

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)

By AdamT. and John-Michael P. Talboo

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2008-2009)

By John-Michael P. Talboo

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:


Everlast Stone in My Hand

Richard Gage on TVNZ

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth on A Channel in Victoria British Columbia

AE911 Truth Press Conference

The Loud Debunker-Not

1000 "Moonbat Crazy" Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

FireFighters Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth Expo with Tom Sullivan

Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Responding to Joey Knobles

Anders Björkman interview
Bjorkman's paper

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

More About That Exploding Paint

AE911Truth conference; Steven Jones part

9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed

BBC WTC 7 part 1

BBC WTC 7 part 5

AE911Truth Engineer Does for Free what NIST Couldn't for Millions

During testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta had the following exchange with 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton regarding the plane coming into the Pentagon:
MR. MINETA: ...There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"...

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
The 9/11 Commission would assert that the military "had at most one or two minutes to react" to Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon, however, Mineta's testimony indicates that they had 10 to 12 minutes, leading many to suspect the orders were stand-down orders. They omitted Mineta’s testimony from both their final report and the official version of the video record, however, they did imply Mineta was mistaken, stating that the discussion between Cheney and the aide occurred later than he claimed, and that it was referencing a shoot-down order for Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

So, were the orders for a stand-down or a shoot-down? As pointed out by 9/11 researcher "jimd3100":

Even if the 9-11 Commission is correct, when they claim he arrived at 10:07 (according to the White House) Mineta makes it clear the order was given before he got there. There was no shoot down order given before 10:07. The 9-11 Commission seems to admit this.

...It seems very clear from the evidence that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the military until 10:31. Which means if an order was given before 10:20 there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down.
Now thanks to recent research by "jimd3100" we know that a one Douglas F. Cochrane was the naval aide Mineta was referring to. When 9/11 activist Jeff Hill followed up and phoned Cochrane, asking him what the orders were, Cohrane replied that he was "really not prepared to talk about this subject at all." Jeff then pleaded with Cohrane to ease his mind about whether the orders were stand-down orders, to which Cohrane replied that he had "nothing further to add" to the information already publicly available. Hill then asked Cohrane if he thought answering his questions would get Cheney in trouble, Cohrane paused, and then stated that "The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11."

As it turns out, it is against the law for Cohrane to say anything else because his interview with the 9/11 Commission has been classified.

We need to be allowed to view Cohrane's testimony, but even if he says the orders were shoot-down orders, the fact remains that after seeing the second tower struck at 9:03 AM the National Military Command Center realized there was "a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States," but yet shoot-down orders were not relayed to the military until 10:31.

As 911myths.com says regarding the Norman Mineta issue, "Get out there, read the contrary views, see if they can deal with the points we raise, or have compelling new arguments of their own."

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition & the Debate about this Story at 911Blogger !

Alan Hart video

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

Alex Covers Fox News Hit Piece Against Jesse Ventura & 9/11 Truth on Alex Jones Tv 2/4

AE 9/11 Truth Press Conference Ending

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

An Open Letter To Ryan Owens

Mr. Owens,

Let me start off by saying that the purpose of this message is not meant in any way to insult you as a researcher or as a person in general. The purpose of this message is meant to simply inform you of errors that you have made in your 9/11 research, and my sincere hope that you will correct such errors. This is not meant to be an argument of any kind, but merely one researcher offering advise to another researcher.

That being said, the reason for this message is largely due to a post you made on your Youtube channel, in which you claimed that if any 9/11 truther could point out anything you got wrong in any of your videos, you would either remove the video or fix the mistake.

I was initially shocked by this statement, as I had done essentially this with my updated "9/11 Un-debunked" series. To date, you have not responded to my videos at all.

I am well aware of how popular your videos are, as many of them are featured on prominent debunker sites. In fact, your work is apparently so good that the government itself is using your videos to discredit the Truth Movement. However, as popular as your videos are, I have found many errors in them.

Now, I happen to agree with many of your videos and their conclusions. For example, you have done a very correct debunking of Pentagon-no-plane theories. However, videos in which you discuss WTC collapse theories are greatly at issue. There are several dozen points I could raise here, but this would just undoubtedly lead to nothing but continuous debating back and forth. So, for this post I have simply listed the problems that I truly think are incorrect, and I feel that you should keep your word that you will fix these mistakes. But of course, if there are any points you believe that I have gotten wrong, feel free to point out where I am incorrect. For each point I will list one of your videos, a claim in that video, followed by my reasons why the claim is wrong on some level. I shall list a problematic claim as either False, Most likely false, Misleading, or possibly a combination of these three.

9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible

Claim 1: The puffs of ejected dust were caused by pancaking floors.

Most likely false: Debunkers such as yourself have argued for years that these ejections were caused by pancaking floors falling onto one another. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that many of these ejections were isolated below the demolition wave. The video you show from the NOVA program shows a scenario in which the floors remain intact as flat plates, thereby allowing the pressure to be built up without allowing air to escape anywhere except the windows. But this obviously would not have been the case for the floors collapsing in the Twin Towers, as they were clearly pulverized before they had reached the areas of the ejections below the collapse front. To create the ejections below and at the collapse front, the floors would need to continuously fall as flat plates, as demonstrated by the NOVA simulation. If the floors broke apart as they fell, the falling mass would allow the pressure to be released upward. NIST’s “piston theory” is clearly contradicted by this. What’s more, Dr. Crockett Grabbe has calculated that the horizontal ejection rate of the puffs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers, making it highly unlikely that these ejections were caused by compressed air. Physicist David Chandler has also demonstrated that some of the ejections are in fact not coming out of windows at all, but out of the steel corner columns of the Towers. I would therefore ask you to reevaluate this claim, as evidence strongly goes against it.

Claim 2: The squibs shooting out of the southwest corner of WTC 7 were actually window blinds.

Misleading: While I do agree that the ejections at the southwest corner of WTC 7 are not squibs, your video fails to address the squibs that evidently are shooting out of Building 7 on the north face near the west side. NIST’s piston theory involved a scenario where the floors compressing air created the squibs shooting out of the Towers (see claim 1). But this explanation does not work for the squibs shooting out of the north face of Building 7, as these squibs formed at a time when the floors essentially did not move relative to one another. What’s more, these squibs are not addressed at all in NIST’s final report on Building 7. A search of their 729 page report turns up not a single mention of the word “squib” or “puff.” And the issue is also not addressed at the FAQ section for Building 7 on NIST’s website. I would therefore ask you to at least acknowledge the apparent squibs shooting out of the north face of WTC 7, as these ejections are far more visible than the false ejections you point to in your video. The official investigators have offered no explanation for the ejections, so the ejections are therefore still an unexplained phenomenon in the collapse of the building.

Claim 3: Explosions were not heard at the base of the buildings or from far away.

False: This issue is thoroughly addressed in the video Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible, which shows that the Towers did produce noises consistent with the roar of explosions continuously progressing down the buildings. It also shows that the noises, described as explosions by witnesses, were heard from far across the city. And sounds indicative of explosions have also been found in videos of WTC 1’s collapse and WTC 7’s collapse. Your claim that explosions cannot be heard in any of the videos of the WTC’s collapse is therefore wrong, and I would ask you to either rephrase this statement or remove it entirely.

Claim 4: The controlled demolition of the WTC buildings would have left behind remnants of the explosives used in the debris pile.

Misleading: In your video, you feature a statement made by Brent Blanchard of Protec. He has often claimed that objects such as det cord would have been found everywhere in the debris. However, he has also stated that controlled demolitions can be engineered to be radio controlled, which would eliminate the necessity of det cord. Wireless detonators have been commercially available for decades. And other parts of the explosives would also not necessarily be found, as pointed out by an explosives technician formerly from Controlled Demolition, Inc. He points out that explosives can be engineered to be self consuming, and therefore would not be found in the debris. Because of this, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

Claim 1: The core of the South Tower survived the collapse.

Misleading: While a section of the core did survive the collapse, video evidence appears to show that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns. You should make this clear in your video, as it contradicts the official explanations since the South Tower initially collapsed to the east.

9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist

Claim 1: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have accused Charles Burlingame of being “some kind of terrorist.”

False: Of all your videos, this is the only one I have a particular personal problem with. Although it may be implied in Loose Change (which I don’t really think it is), it is incorrect of you to imply in your video that members of the truth movement in general believe this. You are right in saying Charles Burlingame did not work in the Pentagon when Loose Change claims he did. I have nothing against that. But the claim that he was actually one of the conspirators has never been a direct claim of any prominent member of the movement, and I would ultimately ask that you either remove this video entirely, or redo it.

9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

Claim 1: Building 7 was “less than 300 feet from the North Tower.”

False: The distance between the north face of WTC 1 and the south face of WTC 7 was actually about 107 meters, or 350 feet. You should correct this as it is a false statement and therefore also misleading to those who watch your video.

Claim 2: The structural damage to Building 7 contributed to the collapse.

False/Misleading: Although you do not specifically state in your video that the damage contributed to the collapse, you do, at the very least, imply it very strongly. But the official NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 states that the structural damage played no role in initiating the collapse of the building. What’s more, new evidence has been presented which shows that the damage to Building 7 was not as severe as previously thought. I have no fault with you showing pictures of damage to Building 7, but you should make it clear in your video that the official explanation states that this damage did not contribute to the collapse. Otherwise, your video will mislead those do not know what the actual explanation is for Building 7’s collapse.

Claim 3: The fires in Building 7 were fed by a series of diesel generators.

False: Again, according to the official investigators at NIST, the diesel tanks did not play a role in the collapse. NIST states they found no evidence that the fuel lines contributed to the collapse, and that the building had only normal office fires. You need to clarify this, as it is simply not the official story for what happened to the building.

Claim 4: The collapse of Truss 1 initiated the collapse of WTC 7.

False: According to the NIST report, Building 7’s collapse was initiated by the failure of a girder connecting column 44 to column 79, which led to the collapse of column 79, and then the rest of the building. NIST does mention the collapse of the trusses in their report, but they do not claim that any of them failing initiated the “progressive collapse.” As you state in your video, this led to a “vertical” collapse to the roof. NIST claims it was an “east to west” progressive collapse. You should replace your current claim about the trusses with the official explanation about column 79.

Most of the claims you make in this video are incorrect, but admittedly this was before the report was released. However, now that the official report has been released, you should remove this video entirely, as it will undoubtedly give people unfamiliar with 9/11 the wrong ideas about what is supposed to have caused the building to collapse.

9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained

Claim 1: The “aluminum” from Flight 175 could have been heated to 1800°F.

Most likely false: The idea that the fires in the South Tower could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely. It is very difficult for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach these sorts of temperatures. Thomas Eager, who supports the official story and therefore cannot be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist,” has written that:

“In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types…. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C [1832°F]…. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.” -Thomas Eager

One thing that we must agree on is that the fires in the South Tower were clearly weaker than the fires in the North Tower. Also, NIST has no evidence for these kinds of temperatures in either building. The idea that the fires in WTC 2 could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely which, as we will see, essentially refutes the entire notion of your video.

Claim 2: Aluminum glows “light orange” at 1800°F.

Misleading: Although aluminum does glow light orange at 1800°F, the color of the material at the front indicates that, if it was aluminum, it was heated to temperatures higher than this.

So even if this material was aluminum, it would still need to be explained what heated it to over 2000°F to get to glow that bright. You should make this clear in your video.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained

Claim 1: The fires burned up to 1800°F.

Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”

9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition

Claim 1: Controlled demolitions create bright flashes in a building.

Misleading: Bright flashes do not always occur in controlled demolitions, as these videos show:

Therefore, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.

Claim 2: The demolition waves are explained by pancaking floors.

Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.”

Claim 3: Cameras did not pick up any sounds of explosions.

False: See Claim 3 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible,” and also this video.

Claim 4: The South Tower’s core survived the collapse.

Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed.

Claim 5: The initial antenna drop of WTC 1 as seen from the north was actually an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the antenna to the south.

Most likely false: This video features a more westward shot of the North Tower’s collapse at minute 6:13. The antenna did rotate south seconds later, but the initial motion was almost entirely vertical. You should clarify this in your video.

Claim 6: Building 7’s collapse started with the failure of its three large trusses.

False: See Claim 4 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”

Claim 7: Explosives would have caused the buildings to collapse at free-fall speed.

Most likely false/Misleading: In fact, it has been a misconception by both sides of the argument that controlled demolitions cause a building collapse at the rate of free-fall. Explosives rarely if ever cause a building to collapse at free-fall acceleration. The question that should really be asked is, “did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with buildings destroyed with explosives?” And it turns out that they did. You should either add a disclaimer to your video or remove this statement entirely.

Claim 8: Controlled demolitions cause a building to collapse into its own footprint.

Misleading: Although demolitions usually do this, it is not strictly true that it always happens, as this video shows at minute 8:32. As for Building 7, the fact that it fell somewhat outside its footprint may have been caused by the simple fact that it was a particularly large building. No demolition company had ever demolished a building the size of WTC 7 before, so who’s to say how compact the debris pile would be if the building were brought down in a classic demolition fashion? The buildings it damaged were quite close to it. As this video shows at minute 7:42, buildings brought down by classic controlled demolition methods can fall outside their footprint. But the fact is, the debris from WTC 7 was almost entirely within the footprint of the previously standing building.

9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven

Claim 1: The elements noted by Dr. Jones were found in common materials in the WTC.

Misleading: Although the elements you list were abundant at the WTC, what you fail to note is that these elements were found in the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, not the dust itself. The spheres show that the chemicals were formed due to melting and/or vaporization, which is due to surface tension. This indicates that the various chemicals found in the spheres were melted at the same time, forming spheres. The spheres found had the chemical signature of FE, AL, K, SI, and various additives and variations of thermate. Different aluminothermic reactions have different properties; some are faster reacting, like sulfur which reduces the melting point of steel. The idea of the spheres forming from an office fire is virtually impossible. Iron cannot melt in office fires and the melting points of these metals are so different that there would be a sizeable time delay from heating WTC common materials. Then they also have to cool together at the same time to form a sphere. Thermate, however, provides the solution to this question because the reaction is very fast. No other mechanism is known to provide spheres such as these. You should therefore clarify your statements about the elements that Dr. Jones has found.

Claim 2: The elements were not found in their correct quantities.

Misleading: In this case you are confusing Steven Jones arbitrary usage of the word thermate with military grade Thermate-TH3, which is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur. There are a wide variety of different types of thermite, thermate, and other aluminothermic reactions. So your figure of sulfur making up 2% of thermate is based on only one specific type of thermate. Also, it should be noted that the sulfur likely did not come the gypsum wallboard, as demonstrated here. You should correct this statement or add a disclaimer.

Claim 3: Barium nitrate and aluminum oxide needed to be found but weren’t.

False: As I have already demonstrated, barium nitrate does not have to be found. And as for the aluminum oxide, oxides of aluminum are common in the environment, and probably a major form of the aluminum found in the WTC dust. Because the thermite reaction generates aluminum oxide as an aerosol, it tends to disperse rather than clumping with the iron-rich initially-liquid residues. Note that the composition of residues of known thermites is a good match for the ignition residues that Jones, et. al. examined from the red-gray chips. So therefore, aluminum oxide also does not need to be found. You should correct these claims in your video.

Update: As it turns out, the USGS apparently did report finding traces of aluminum oxide in the WTC dust. Therefore, the claim that aluminum oxide was not present in the dust should be removed entirely from your video.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

Claim 1: The molten metal would have solidified and would not have still been molten 6 weeks later.

Misleading: The presence of the pools of molten metal after a thermate reaction would seem to indicate a continuous chemical reaction occurring in the pile, as documented by the peer-reviewed paper Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Material. You should clarify this in your video.

Claim 2: Temperatures of up to 1342°F were recorded in the debris piles.

False: Actually, the NASA thermal images show that temperatures of about 1377°F were recorded in the debris. But there are other studies which indicate even higher temperatures than this. According to the R. J. Lee report, lead had apparently become hot enough to volatilize (boil) and vaporize.

“The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.” –RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature, 2004, page 12

Although the word “vaporize” was never used in the final version of the report, the 2003 version of this passage explicitly referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5)

Lead does not boil and vaporize until it reaches temperatures of 1749°C [3180°F]. As the report indicates, therefore, the temperatures must have been not merely high, but extremely high. Other evidence also indicates the temperatures were far hotter than anything normal fires could cause. You should address these issues in your video or delete the claim entirely.

Claim 3: The initial fires were burning at 1800°F.

Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”

Claim 4: Pictures show glowing metal not flowing and is therefore not molten.

False: Close-ups of the crane shot show that molten metal is flowing off.

Claim 5: The pools of molten metal seen by the first responders and clean-up workers were pools of molten aluminum.

Most likely false: This argument is contradicted by the fact that pools of molten metal were also found in the debris of Building 7 as well. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it was also not clad in aluminum like the Towers were. But what’s more, the fact that the molten metal remained reddish-orange six weeks after the attacks indicates that the metal had fairly low heat conductivity and relatively large heat capacity. Therefore, it is more likely that the metal was steel or iron rather than aluminum. You should remove this claim and correct it in your video.

9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim

Claim 1: The planes that hit the Towers were travelling at 490 and 590 miles per hour.

Misleading: The speeds you claim the planes were going at seem to come from the FEMA report. However, the NIST report states that the planes were travelling closer to 440 and 540 miles per hour. You should reevaluate this claim and fix it.

Claim 2: Building 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris.

False/Misleading: See Claim 2 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”

Claim 3: There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fires.

Misleading: As this video shows, your comparison of the WTC buildings with smaller steel structures is highly misleading. All I have ever seen debunkers compare the WTC buildings to are smaller steel structures that have collapsed from fire, but never other skyscrapers that have not collapsed from fire. You do feature the Windsor Tower, but ultimately its partial collapse supports our side of the argument. Others have attempted to show that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the fires in the WTC. I have shown these claims to be incorrect and unfounded. Unless you can make better arguments, I would recommend removing the entire video, as it is highly misleading.

9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact

Claim 1: The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 180 mph, being also low on fuel.

Most likely false: For this particular statement, you offer no link or source. As this video shows, there were numerous pre-9/11 studies which showed that the buildings were built to withstand a 707 travelling at 600mph and filled with fuel. Even the Port Authority stated that the buildings could withstand a 707 going at 600mph. From the NIST report:

“An additional load, stated by the Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the Towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the Towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600mph.” -NCS NCSTAR1, p. 6

Claim 2: The planes were travelling at 490 and 590 mph.

Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: The ‘First Time in History’ Claim.”

Claim 3: Because the wingspan of a 767 is greater than that of a 707, a 767 would have severed more columns.

Most likely false/Misleading: Admittedly, the wings of a 767 are longer. However, there is another difference between the wings of these two planes, which are the engines attached to them. A 707 has four engines, while a 767 only has two. The engines of an airplane are undoubtedly the most solid part of the plane. The wings themselves are merely made of aluminum, and once they impacted the perimeter columns, it would have been more difficult to severe the thicker core columns. The planes’ engines would do quite a bit more damage than the wings once they started impacting core columns. Even if the wingspan of a 767 is larger than a 707, I think we can agree that a plane with four steel and titanium engines will do more damage than a plane with only two.

Claim 4: Fires were not taken into consideration when the Towers were built.

Most likely false: To back up this claim, you provide a quote from Leslie Robertson, who you incorrectly state was the chief structural engineer for the WTC. In fact, John Skilling is more likely to have been the lead engineer for the Towers. In a 1993 Seattle Times article, Skilling was described as the head structural engineer. Robertson was not mentioned there, nor in an article in the Engineering News-Record that discussed the design in 1964. In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,” whom Skilling “assigned… to help him prepare a proposal” to the Port Authority’s board. Skilling’s firm was named Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his subordinate. Therefore, the claim that Robertson was the chief engineer for the Towers is almost certainly false. John Skilling, however, stated that the buildings could have survived severe fires from a plane crash.

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.” –John Skilling, Lead structural engineer for the WTC

You should address these facts and correct your statements about the WTC design parameters and Leslie Robertson’s position in the construction of the buildings.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires

Claim 1: Roughly 7000 gallons of fuel remained in each of the Towers after the initial impacts.

Misleading: This appears to only be true of the North Tower, as NIST claims that approximately 6947 gallons of fuel remained in WTC 1, while only 5932 was in WTC 2. However, the idea that all this fuel remained within the impacted areas is contradicted by the FEMA report. In NIST’s most detailed quantitative report, NCSTAR 1-5F Computer Simulation of the Fires, the jet fuel estimates are provided for each of the impact floors, supposedly accurate to the gallon. In the report, it is stated that NIST used FEMA’s assumption that half of the fuel that the remained within the Towers flowed away from the impact zones. It states:

“Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the predicted fuel distributions from the impact analysis. Of the total amount of fuel distributed to each floor, only 40 percent was used in the simulations. The reasoning behind this estimate followed that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study (McAllister 2002). It has been estimated by various forms of analysis (Zalosh 1995; Baum and Rehm 2002) that roughly 20 percent of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs that were observed outside of the buildings within seconds of impact. The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts. Some additional discussion of the fireballs may be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.

The jet fuel consumption estimate put forth by the FEMA team was used in the model because (1) no evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate, and (2) the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.” -NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, page 56

So, ultimately NIST assumes that half of the fuel in each of the buildings flowed away from the impact points, and therefore did not contribute to the fires that supposedly caused the buildings to collapse. That leaves 3474 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 1 and 2966 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 2. Of course, even considering that all the fuel NIST claims remained in the buildings stayed at the impact points, the amount of fuel in either Tower would have fit into an above ground swimming pool, hardly a large amount in ratio to the rest of the buildings. You should clarify these facts in your video and fix your statements.

Claim 2: Photographs show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed in fire.

Most likely false: The pictures you show of WTC 7 show a large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face. But this smoke was likely caused by a negative low air pressure acting on the building’s south side. This had the effect of drawing smoke up from the still burning WTC complex and causing it to cling to Building 7. Photos show that the exact same thing happened to the North Tower after the South Tower collapsed. Therefore, I would ask you to remove this claim from your video, as it is most likely incorrect. Also, it should be noted that, regardless of how big the fires were, there is serious doubt that the floors had enough combustible fuel and energy to reach the temperatures NIST claims the fires reached. Dr. Frank Greening, another supporter of the official story, has written that:

"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening

In light of these errors, I would strongly encourage you to keep your promise and fix them. As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it would be best of you to keep your other promise that you will not allow the history of 9/11 to be "distorted or rewritten." Real progress has been made in the name of 9/11 truth, and it would be regrettable if the errors in your videos misrepresented this progress.

With all due respect,



A Response from Ryan Owens