Sunday, July 31, 2011

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

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog writes:
I love that they got Lynn Margulis, National Medal of Science winner to tell us about the problems with NIST. She must have won her medal in structural engineering, right? Well, no, she won it for microbiology. Which, if we were talking about multiple prokaryotic organisms, would make her an expert. Unfortunately for her, we're discussing steel-framed skyscrapers, on which she's no more educated than your average cab driver.

We get the usual quote-mining of Danny Jowenko, RIP. The Troofers never mention that he debunked the supposed controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
First off, with the exception of her comment on the nano-thermite evidence, Margulis is speaking about something she knows plenty about; that good science requires evidence not be destroyed (which it certainly was) and an investigation to begin with the most likely hypothesis.

As David Ray Griffin writes in his book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False:
NIST wrote:

The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under any ordinary contents fire.

Why would NIST have assumed that this was "the challenge"? Why would NIST, already knowing that buildings such as WTC 7 can be brought down with explosives--and indeed that is the only way in which such buildings had ever been caused to collapse--have asked if a collapse caused by an ordinary building fire "could occur"?

...Physicist John Wyndham... wrote: "NIST's failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process."

Speaking as NIST lead investigator, Shyam Sunder denied this charge in advance, saying: "We conducted our study with no preconceived notions about what happened" That claim is simply not credible, however, given NIST's refusal to begin with the most likely hypothesis...
Furthermore, Griffin notes:
We also have the testimony of a former NIST employee who had held "a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade" until 2001, after which he worked as a part-time contractor until 2006. Although this man wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of possible retaliation, he is known to physicist Steven Jones, who has confirmed that he is indeed who he says he is... Speaking in particular about the implications of NIST's politicization for its work on 9/11-related issues, he wrote:

When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.
As to Danny Jowenko, the reason he did not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition was due to their unconventional nature, but as the website has pointed out:
A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting.
And as user "stallion4" has noted:
The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry...

Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
Despite claims to the contrary, Jowenko remained quite sure WTC 7 was a demolition. Perhaps the more conventional nature of WTC 7's demolition can be explained by evidence that indicates 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Van The BSer Romero: We Called It!

Awhile back, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted an entry entitled "Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!" criticising Ventura for deceptive editing on the first 9/11 episode of his show Conspiracy Theory when it was revealed that he cut off the end of an experiment by explosives expert Van Romero where he painted "super-thermite," more formally known as nano-thermite, on a steel beam which in the end didn't fail structurally. I responded at the time by noting that blog contributor Scootle Royale and myself, also criticized the experiment from the beginning. Scootle stated, "The superthermite demonstration was a bit crap .. and they didn't even show the ending so I'm assuming the beam didn't break. To be honest I'm not sure it was superthermite."

I noted that the "paint" hypothesis is just one of many and recommended comments after the show first aired where it is questioned why Ventura cut off the clip, if the beam failed, and whether the material in the experiment was genuine nano-thermite

Now thanks to chemist Kevin Ryan we know the answer to that question.

Source URL:

So who is the real BSer?! Ventura may have chose not to show the end of the experiment because it was only a very small amount of "super-thermite" used and it was ludicrous to think it would cause the beam to fail. But Romero definitely knew he wasn't using true super-thermite.

As Wikipedia notes:

Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder [such as in Romero's experiment], but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite.
Although super-thermite and nano-thermite are interchangeable terms, thermite with additives such as sulfur and/or barium nitrate known as thermate is also sometimes incorrectly referred to as super-thermite. Case in point, the definition of thermate contains no mention of it being called super-thermite.

Furthermore, the show mentioned super-thermite as being explosive several times before showing Romero's experiment, so it seems likely that they would have made him aware that this is the caliber of material they wanted tested. It is also probable that he was made aware of the nano-thermite paper published a little over a month before he conducted his experiment, especially because he has been involved in the 9/11 controversy since very early on when he initially stated the buildings looked like they were brought down with explosives.

Either way, he should know that in the scientific literature super-thermite is synonymous with nano-thermite. As Greg Henricks put it in a letter to, Romero is "a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures." And the center has been the testing ground for companies like Energetic Materials and Products Inc. for "nanoaluminum based technology," such as nano-thermite.

As to why Romero and the other experts at New Mexico Tech failed with thermite..​.
...maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with their funding.

Update 7/26/11:

Pat Curley has posted the new nano-thermite video, stating, "Obvious question for the Waterboy: Did the nanothermite burn for weeks, creating large pools of molten iron?"

As I've written before, Pat calls Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, a waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory.

Obviously the reason the material didn't burn for weeks is because it was a very small amount. A paper Ryan published in the journal "The Environmentalist" outlines pretty well how the emissions and high temps at GZ were very consistent with long occuring chemical reactions.

Related Info:

Van Romero, Vice President of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, gained lasting notoriety for candid remarks concerning the collapses of the Twin Towers. In a September 11, 2001 article in the Albuquerque Journal, Romero was quoted as stating that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the result of explosive devices.

A scan of some articles from New Mexico Tech's website suggests a motive for Van Romero's about-face...

Friday, July 22, 2011

Kevin Ryan: The NIST WTC 7 Report is False

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

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

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

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

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

Related Info:

Unnecessary Freefall Revisit #2038046179007145309

Thursday, July 21, 2011

A Journey With Jonathan

Jonathan Kay has posted this review at his site, simply stating, "Conspiracy theorist Jonathan Cole reviews 'Among The Truthers' at And guess what? He doesn’t like it!"

Cole responds, "By the way, since I tend to trust Newton over NIST yet never posted a 'who done it' article, according to Jonathan Kay, I am now considered a 'conspiracy theorist'. (No doubt my past engineering and physics teachers are too.) - 'Conspiracy theorist' Jonathan Cole"


A Review of the Book, "Among the Truthers," Written by Jonathan Kay

By: Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

(PDF Link)

Source URL:

I should have known from the cartoons on the cover what Jonathan Kay's book, "Among the Truthers," would be like. But that old saying about not judging a book by its cover trumped my first impression. I recalled similar cartoons like the astronaut, flying saucers and helicopters on my pajamas, worn as a toddler. The book’s subtitle, "A Journey through Americas Growing Conspiracist Underground," should have been my second clue as to its contents.

An "underground"? "Among the Truthers" is basically about the growing 9/11 Truth movement. “Truther” is slang, given by mainstream to individuals who first research the evidence and then realize that the official 9/11 story cannot be true. Kay tells of one former "truther" who finally did navigate the river Styx back to the mainstream from that underworld stating:

"There were a lot of nights when someone would go off on revolutionary rants, and we would be all rah-rah and get excited. At the time, I smoked a lot of pot with those guys. If you’re doing it everyday and watching propaganda, you're not going to be exercising your critical facilities."

What? I had to put the book down and look for my boots, as it was getting deep. I was a little ticked off, not so much for the obvious mischaracterization; but rather, if true, why I was never invited to any ranting "truther" events. When I started to educate myself, I simply signed a petition calling for a new investigation and conducted a few experiments to demonstrate what is, and what is not, physically possible. Not once was I invited to any dark underground pot smoking rah-rah meetings. I guess I am just not on the “Truther A-list.” Certainly, if such exciting revolutionary rants really do take place, it might explain why the truth movement is growing.

According to Kay it is not the rah-rah parties for the growth of the truth movement, instead, it’s something deeper and far more sinister. It’s so deep, that the average person that I know who questions the official 9/11 tale is not even aware of their “problem.” Kay’s book would help explain a puzzle, but not the puzzle of how the twin towers or Building 7 fell, while not violating physical laws. Rather, he outlines what he considers is this puzzle: What’s wrong with all those architects, engineers, scientists, researchers and thousands of others who place more faith in the fundamental laws of physics than the official 9/11 story?

I was once a “believer” in the official story, totally ignorant of the unexplained evidence and its violations of fundamental laws; "niggling anomalies" as Kay calls them, for over six years. I had my "uh-oh" moment late in 2007 when a friend, knowing that I was a nerdy engineer, forwarded a video that focused on the twin towers’ fall.

The shock reminded me of when I learned the sad truth about Santa Claus. Like all children, I had sat on Santa’s lap and seen evidence everywhere, convinced of his existence. How could millions of parents coordinate and keep this huge lie under wraps? Regardless, physics tells us that reindeers cannot fly and that same understanding of science confirmed the unfortunate truth of 9/11, the more I researched. Like the evidence of iron micro spheres found in the dust indicating temperatures hot enough to melt iron had to have been reached, yet the office and jet fuel fires were way too cold to perform that feat. The downward acceleration of the North Tower’s roof with no “jolts,” meaning that a force far less (not more) than its static weight was imposed on the undamaged tower below while the upper “block” of floors accelerated down, that remained unexplained. The evidence of sudden free fall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet indicates that some other force had to remove all the supports first. Nor was the evidence melting of steel beams found by a WPI professor or the sulfur source that created eutectic formations explained. And, of course, evidence of active nano-thermite, a high tech explosive found all through the dust. What was that stuff doing at Ground Zero?

Alas, Kay totally avoids all scientific evidence from the outset referring the reader to the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST Reports, "debunking websites" and the 9/11 Commission Report for answers to those and dozens of other critical “niggling anomalies.” Kay peddles the notion that only "the credentialed intellectual establishment" are “true experts" having the capability to comprehend the meaning of such complex matters like a falling object or melting of steel. What he neglects to tell the reader is that none of his “credentialed intellectual establishment” ever addressed the above-mentioned evidence, or dozens of other problems with the official story.

It would be as if Kay travelling back to the early 1600’s, avoided all Galileo's observations of planetary motions that bought him to question the official geocentric universe. Rather than address the evidence, Kay would psychoanalyze Galileo and his followers’ personal habits and beliefs in an effort to “understand” why Galileo dared to consider such blasphemies. No doubt Kay would simply dismiss his planetary anomalies stating the science has been settled for well over 1000 years, and referred the reader to Ptolemy, the Bible, Aristotle and "the credentialed intellectual establishment" for answers to that heretic’s niggling observations.

Once Kay sidesteps the key evidence, which is at the very heart of the truth movement, he is now free to offer his journalistic psychology lesson that outlines why those who trust scientific laws rather than the official story need to be diagnosed and stopped.

"Diagnosing and fighting conspiracism is an important project which is why I wrote this book,” says Kay. Evidently, honestly addressing the unanswered scientific evidence about the three largest structural failures in history and the murder of almost 3000 innocents on Sept 11 is a far less important project.

Kay sets out by re-defining Webster’s definition of what a conspiracy theorist or “conspiracist” is. Redefining and ignoring evidence is also important elements of 9/11 "debunking." Kay adopts the definition as a "theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.”

Despite the fact that a growing number of architects, physicists, researchers and chemists specifically do not get into the “who done it” nefarious cabal issues, Kay devotes considerable time smearing Richard Gage, AIA, physicist Steven Jones, and Gregg Roberts an independent 9/11 researcher, by outlining some “midlife crisis” or perhaps workaholics living all alone with “dark visions.” Kay places “truthers” in categories such as “damaged survivors,” “firebrands” or “cranks,” where some may be “prone to rambling.” Since Isaac Newton never married and was a workaholic who focused on some rather unorthodox concepts in the 1660’s; he would also fit nicely into one of Kay’s psycho-categories.

Kay dedicates the early chapters to a "brief history of conspiracism,” including discussions on the Illuminati, Freemasons, KKK and the John Birch Society. Kay weaves in reptilian lizard people, UFO’s, extraterrestrials, and others, for his not so subtle goal of linking those physicists, architects, chemists and engineers who enlighten us about the serious questions of 9/11, with some of the more “out there” theories.

To Kay's credit, he rightfully acknowledges that the average “truther” is nonviolent, with above average intelligence, and many with technical degrees or Ph.D.s. He also says he is not suggesting they harbor any hatred or are explicitly racist or anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, "they are still conspiracists and the threat currently posed by modern conspiracists is not physical, but cultural." Accordingly, he says, "It’s a trend that every thinking person has a duty to fight."

Kay acknowledges that there is always a “grain of truth” to conspiracy theories. For example, he mentioned on a recent radio program regarding the JFK assassination that “it is entirely possible that there was a second gunman involved,” a fact confirmed by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation which was conducted 15 years after the Warren Commission issued its lone-gunman and magic -bullet report. To me, the lone gunman vs. a conspiracy to murder the president is a rather large “grain of truth.”

However, the thrust of the book is really about how “anti-Semitism” links to “conspiracies.” “…ancient forms of conspiracism typically vilified one of two enemies: Jews and secret societies.” Virtually every chapter is filled with the worn out "anti-Semite" slur and the “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist” card is played, intended to place guilt by association on anyone who dares to honestly question 9/11

"Not all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic. But all conspiracy movements--all of them--attract anti-Semites.” according to Kay. So anyone who ever wondered about our perpetual debt and who really owns the Federal Reserve, or those who think it is a little odd that active nano-thermite was found all through the WTC dust, is now somehow linked to “anti-Semitism.” It is a wonderful tactic that can be used on any entity that one wants to vilify, without ever really addressing the questions.

For example, would you like to demonize those of us who think the Second Amendment is important? Just say: Not all gun owners are child murderers. But all children killed by bullets--all of them--were killed by a child murdering gun owner. Perhaps you don’t like to hear the fat lady sing? Simply mention: Not all church choir members are overweight. But all church choirs--all of them--attract overweight people. What Kay is suggesting of course, is that anyone even thinking about violating a social norm or asking intelligent questions about official explanations like Galileo did, could be, and probably should be tarnished as a potential “anti-Semite” in an effort to silence them.

Kay also dwells on something called “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” I never heard of them. Evidently they are a list of secret Jewish goals that are used to explain events and a “document that would become the most influential conspiracist tract since the era of the French Revolution.” What they, or anti-Semitism has to do with studying the evidence or the laws of physics, remained unexplained.

Kay is just a mainstream pitchman, insisting that our government and the mass media’s explanation of 9/11 must be true because those in leadership positions would never conspire to undertake or hide illegal events. This belief is their bedrock, no matter what evidence rears its ugly head after it was “officially” explained and regardless of how many laws of physics are violated.

For example, at the beginning of each AE911Truth presentation, Richard Gage, AIA, asks the audience how many believe in the official story and then asks the same question at the end. The vast majority in the audience “switches” or at least questions the official story once they hear the scientific evidence. Not Kay. “I’ve heard Gage speak three times in three different cities,” says Kay. “Before beginning his presentation in Montreal, Gage had polled the crowd on their views. Five people, including me and my guest, said they believed the official story of 9/11.” “Once Gage had finished, he conducted a second poll. This time, when he asked how many people supported the official theory, mine was the only hand raised. Shocked, I cast a glance at the friend sitting beside me. After three hours in a room with Richard Gage, she’d changed her vote to “not sure.” Ever the pitchman, apparently only Jonathan Kay thrust his hand skyward enthusiastically supporting the official story, despite the conflicting scientific evidence presented. Kay is an intelligent man and one would think that with his background in metallurgy, he would wonder just a little about those iron microspheres, eutectic formations or why all that active nano-thermite was found in the dust.

Kay uses famous quotes intended to be applied to the “conspiracy theorist,” but in reality, they are most appropriate for mainstream pitchmen like him who refuse to address the evidence, such as this one by Joseph A Schumpeter: “Many things that do amount to tampering with effects of logic do not in our field necessarily present themselves as dishonesty to the man who practices such tampering. He may be so fundamentally convinced of the truths of what he is standing for that he would rather die than give new weight to contradicting facts of pieces of analysis. The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”

Indeed. I changed my mind about 9/11 upon learning of the key scientific evidence; but Kay, regardless of freefall, active nano-thermite, iron microspheres, the strange fall of the towers inner core columns (“the spire”) well after the floors and roof fell and other unexplained evidence, is “so fundamentally convinced of the truths of what he is standing for, that he would rather die than give new weight to contradicting facts of pieces of analysis.”

“The idea that the 9/11 masterminds are sufficiently powerful to control the reporting of thousands of different American news outlets as well as stifle after the fact disclosures from hundreds of active conspirators, is farfetched,” according to Kay.

First, it’s a known fact that the ownership of the media has been concentrated to a handful of powerful individuals over the last 50 years. For example, Rupert Murdock, a strong supporter of the wars, controls over 175 papers and Fox News, who is strangely quiet about the alleged hacking of Americans phones and possibly even 9/11 victims to gather intelligence or bolster revenues. Secondly, just like parents really don’t conspire to hide the truth about Santa, it’s natural for most that work for the media, if they want to keep their job or avoid being found dead like journalist whistle blower Sean Hoare, to ignore or stifle uncomfortable evidence. Finally, it really doesn’t matter what one thinks is “farfetched,” because “farfetched” is still possible. Yet freefall, nano-thermite, iron microspheres and many other “niggling anomalies” are totally impossible, blowing the official story wide open.

Kay also faults the Internet for the rapid rise in so-called conspiracy theories. "The Internet actually has exacerbated the human instinct toward parochialism, tribalism and conspiracism," Kay says. Just like Kay downplays critical pieces of evidence, calling them anomalies, he also adds a negative modifier when discussing websites questioning 9/11, and a glowing one when referring to the government story or its supporters. He writes: "So a flashy well travelled site peddling discredited conspiracies will be featured more prominently in Google’s search results, than, say a government website full of accurate information." In fact, there are many 9/11 sites that are not “discredited” and government websites that are not “full of accurate information.”

The real problem for the pitchmen is that the ugly truth is pouring from this open electronic medium, and the government cannot stop the flood. Perhaps this is the real reason for the ongoing push to control the Internet, using copyright violations and cyber- terrorism as the excuse

Jonathan Kay has difficulties understanding why "conspiracist causes can gain strength even when mainstream journalists seek to tackle the underlying subject in a professional and objective way." Maybe it’s because mainstream journalists do not treat the subject in a professional and objective way. Based on my own experience, in order to understand the erosion in confidence of the mass media, Kay ought to watch the BBC production called The Third Tower. The BBC told us “the claims of the mysterious melted steel from tower 7 have been unraveled.” “The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wall board that was pulverized and burned in the fires.” Not only is the formation of sulfur or iron sulfide from calcium sulfate chemically impossible in an open air fire, but an experiment I conducted with gypsum around a steel beam heated to similar temperatures proved the BBC and the debunking sites, dead wrong.

Or he should watch the PBS documentary, “Why the Towers Fell,” that clearly told us they fell due to a "pancake collapse,” (which Kay parroted in a radio interview) complete with cartoon graphics demonstrating the fall of the tower floors and roof; but which left the core columns standing. Years later, when NIST finally managed to get to the initiation of collapse (but were “unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse”) they stated that the towers were not a pancake collapse, contrary to what PBS clearly told its viewers.

Likewise, the National Geographic “Science & Conspiracy Part 5” conducted an experiment with thermite in order to “prove” that thermite could not melt steel. Kay’s favorite debunking website said it could not cut a horizontal column. Moreover, the mainstream program Mythbusters could not melt through the thin roof of a car with a half of ton of thermite. Yet all three media sources were proved wrong by experiments demonstrating that indeed even crude thermitic material could slice through a column using much smaller quantities.

With portrayals like these proven to be total lies, no wonder the mass media has lost our respect. It is the media’s fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts that is eroding confidence, not because of any “anti-Semitism” of the viewers.

Kay tells us that ". . . there is no fact, historical event, or scientific phenomenon whose truth cannot, in some way, be brought into question by an inventive mind on the hunt for niggling "anomalies.” Here again, Kay is wrong. There are many significant historical events where there are no “inventive minds” hunting for “niggling anomalies.” Examples include the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle accidents, the Hindenburg disaster, and the death of Joe Kennedy, Jr. in 1944.

Most importantly, there is “scientific phenomenon” we all agree on that we call "laws," and not just “theories” of physics. There are not just a few “niggling anomalies” or a few "grains of truth,” about 9/11. Rather there are enough grains of truth to make entire beaches resting on a bedrock of natural laws, where the official story is getting pounded by waves of “niggling anomalies.”

Jonathan Kay does not contemplate that it’s not “anti-Semitism”, but rather significant evidence and facts that are contrary to the official story which leaves us begging for answers. When left unanswered by “the credentialed intellectual establishment,” of course it gives rise to "conspiracy theories” in an effort to explain the evidence. We may not know exactly who did it or how things were done, but we do know that the laws of physics prove the official story wrong, just like we know that 2+2=4.

Kay acknowledges “ . . .that whenever I tried to debate Truthers in the facts of 9/11, for instance, all of my accumulated knowledge about the subject has proven useless- because in every exchange, the conspiracy theorist inevitably would ignore the most obvious evidence and instead focus the discussion on the handful of obscure allegedly incriminating oddities that he has memorized.”

His “obvious evidence” is his mainstream mantra relying on “the credentialed intellectual establishment” or absurd statements like “someone would have talked” as if state secrets, highly classified information and military operations are routinely blabbed by those involved. On the other hand, the “obscure incriminating oddities” include total impossibilities such as the absolute freefall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet (impossible with a gravitational collapse), the melting of steel (impossible with an office fire), the lack of deceleration or jolts (necessary to impose a load in excess of its own weight in order to crush the lower undamaged portion of the towers), and the high tech nano-thermite, that is impossible to form naturally due to entropy laws.

The real reason that Kay and his “credentialed intellectual establishment” cannot win any debates is because the “truthers,” made up of thousands of architects, engineers, researchers, and scientists who are “normal articulate people who keep up with the news and hold down office jobs,” are right. Because despite all the name calling of anti-Semites, tin foil hatters, “twoofers”, “conspiracy theorists” and desperate efforts to spin those who question 9/11 in a negative light, Kay and the intellectual establishment simply cannot convince us that 2+2=5.

Since Kay admits having “ . . .been personally humbled by my failure to get the best of conspiracy theorists,” he sees the solution as an “ounce of prevention” and the need to “protect our brains from conspiracy theories before they have a chance to infect our thinking.” He says that conspiracism “ . . can be minimized by applying the same self critical self aware mindset that has served to stigmatize racism, overt anti-Semitism and related forms of bigotry in recent decades.” The solution according to Kay is “…, an anticonspiracist curriculum (that) would aim to provide students with grounding in Internet literacy. Students would be taught the difference between news and opinion; and between websites that are run by professional journalists, and those that are not.”

I don’t think that much could be more Orwellian than Kay’s “anticonspiracist curriculum” and indoctrination program run by journalists to “protect the brains” of our students so they don’t get “infected” by critical thinking looking at those “niggling anomalies”.

Kay wants you to trust authority because he says they are the “true experts,” and not to bother to research or think on your own. But history has proven time and again, that authority simply cannot be trusted. The great physicist Albert Einstein knew this well stating, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Perhaps Einstein was an anti-Semite.

Kay provides a quote by Harold Macmillan, former Prime Minister of Britain that is most appropriate for this book: “That if you work hard and diligently you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot. And that, in my view is the main, if not the sole purpose of education.” I encourage everyone to educate themselves on the science of 9/11, that proves the twin towers and WTC 7 could not have “collapsed” by gravity and fire alone, so you can detect when a man is talking rot.

Investigators normally encourage people to step forward and offer tips for much smaller crimes, and only one minor “niggling anomaly” can dramatically change the outcome. For some reason that same encouragement to step forward about 9/11 is absent, as those highlighting mountains of unresolved scientific evidence are ignored or attacked as “conspiracy theorists” or worse.

America is deep in debt and spent over a trillion more on security and wars using 9/11 as the excuse. Why wouldn’t any person with morals want to look at the evidence or spend a relative pittance on a truly independent investigation in order to resolve the unanswered questions? The devil is always in the details, and maybe those who don’t want to look at the details of 9/11, just may have some link to that devil.

The rise of the truth movement with legitimate questions is not “a trend that every thinking person has a duty to fight” as Kay wants you to believe. Rather, using our founding fathers’ wisdom as a guide, it is every citizen’s duty to question the government in order to prevent it from naturally slipping ever closer toward tyranny, especially about events that murdered thousands, brought us endless war and debt, and restricted individual liberties--like that of 9/11.

If you decide to take this journey with Jonathan Kay I suggest you wear hip boots, since this is one book that can be judged by its cover.

Related Info:

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time

9/11/2011 - Ten Years, No Justice

Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo

9/11 "debunker" Ryan Owens has declared that the 9/11 truth movement is dead. Please join blog contributor Adam Taylor and myself in New York City this upcoming September 11th and help prove that he is dead wrong.

Immortal Technique - What A Patriot Does

Please share this video far and wide. Comment, hit the like button, and please subscribe. Be a part of history on September 11, 2011. Come to New York City and stand with us. It's time to unite in the streets and demand a new investigation.

9/11, Ten Years

We Are
August 7, 2011

Questions, questions, questions that still after ten years is unanswered. This is a problem, that people are still unaware of. To paraphrase what Dan Dicks from Press For Truth, an alternative media group based in Toronto said in one of his films; in order for change to come, people must first realize there is a problem.

The ten-year anniversary for 9/11 is coming up soon. I am sure everyone is wondering what are the plans. They will form in time as in previous years, but here are some important points. The anniversary is on Sunday, leaving Saturday to travel, so if you could not get time off, you could still make it. Next year 9/11 falls on a Tuesday. That’s why I feel it is so important to show our numbers for Sunday in whatever is planned. This is the tenth-year anniversary, if we don’t do it now it may not be done on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth anniversary. Since it is on a Sunday, I would highly recommend things be very peaceful, and simple.

So let’s show people there is a problem with unanswered questions, by strength, in our numbers at Ground Zero on Sunday.

Come to NYC for the tenth-year anniversary, I would love to get the best photographs ever!

WAC Photographer

Source URL:

Related Info:


Click here for details.

AE911Truth 10th Anniversary Activities

Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice

This documentary proves that the U.S. government-including the FBI and DOJ-are totally corrupt and involved in serious felony crime and the outrageous cover-up of truth concerning the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996.

As you will see, Flight 800 was actually destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. Every allegation made in this film is backed up with facts-none more dramatic than those that come from the Federal government itself.

The introductory text before the clip is taken from the You Tube page.

It appears TWA 800 was most likely accidentally shot down by the US Navy. The Navy was known to test fire missiles in the area and their radar tapes of the crash omit an area consistent with a missile track on Flight 800. Watch the video and decide for yourselves if the authorities are lying.

This incident provides a good example of a high level cover-up and is intended to help bust the bubble of conspiracy deniers !

RIP to all the victims of this tragedy.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

RT's Short History of UK Police Corruption - Relevant to the "Unexplained, yet Not Suspicious" !? Death of Journalist Sean Hoare

The whistleblower who exposed the News Of The World phone-hacking scandal has been found dead. Police are treating it as unexplained, but say at this stage there's no evidence of anything suspicious. The scandal has shaken the press, politicians and the police, having already taken down Britain's two top cops. As Laura Emmett reports, it's another blow to Britain's beleagured police force, after a string of high-profile errors in recent years.

The clip here provides a short recent history of corrupt police practice in the UK. The record shows that certain UK cops, those in positions of power, are completely untrustworthy. The police, in the matter of the phone hacking scandal are investigating themselves. The recent resignations of the top cop and a deputy commissioner must be viewed suspiciously.

This is another example of widespread corruption by those in positions of power and a reminder that we are unlikely to see the full truth come out if the establishment was involved in the death of Mr Hoare.

A heads up for all those that think "the authorities", at least in the UK, are squeaky clean. This is why we always should seek open and independent public inquiries into such matters (although these inquires can also be subverted).

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Unnecessary Freefall Revisit #2038046179007145309

Thanks to 'Charlie Gate', many truthers, particularly in the UK, have been brushing up on their 9/11 knowledge, and there has been fierce debate on YouTube about things like the freefall of WTC7.

The apologists for NIST have been claiming that WTC7's 2.25 seconds of free fall can be explained by the lack of core support and exterior column buckling between floors seven and fourteen (depicted above) that NIST's model alleges occured. Basically they're saying it wasn't perfect freefall, but something indistinguishable - like 98% of freefall or something - which can be explained by the fact that the resistance offered by the eight crippled floors was so low that it could only slow the acceleration by a tiny amount. Let's do some simple physics to assess this claim.

As anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of physics knows, the downward force (or weight) of an object being acted on by gravity is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by gravity, or:

F = M g

When there is a resisting force acting in the opposite direction (f), the force available to accelerate the object downward is:

F = Mg - f

Since force = mass × acceleration, the acceleration of an object being resisted can be calculated by dividing both sides of the above equation by M...

a = g - f/M

Since force = mass × gravity, you can substitute mg in place of the little f, where m is the maximum mass that whatever is doing the resisting can support, giving you...

a = g - mg/M


a = g (1 - m/M)

In the case of NIST's WTC7 theory, the acceleration of the collapse would therefore be determined by the ratio of the mass of the upper section (M) and the mass that those eight buckled floors can support (m). Because the building is collapsing, M is obviously going to be greater than m, but how much greater?

If m is just one tenth of M - say if the mass of the upper section was 50,000 tonnes and the mass that the eight buckled floors could support was 5,000 tonnes - then the acceleration would be 8.8ms-2, which is noticeably less than freefall. If m is just one twentieth of M - say if the mass of the upper section was 50,000 tonnes and the mass that the eight buckled floors could support was only 2,500 tonnes - then the acceleration would be 9.3ms-2, which is still noticeably less than freefall. So unless the eight buckled floors couldn't even support say a fiftieth of the mass of the upper section, then the rate of WTC7's collapse, for those eight stories, would be noticeably less than freefall.

Remember, skyscrapers are overdesigned, so it's hard to imagine, even with the loss of the core structure and a buckled exterior structure, that those eight floors would lose so much strength that they couldn't even support one fiftieth of the mass above.

Another thing to consider is how sudden the transition to freefall was. Before the period of freefall, the outer structure barely moved at all, then all of a sudden it just dropped. If the free fall drop was the result of a loss of support in floors seven to fourteen, then that loss of support in those eight floors would have had to have been instantaneous. Otherwise the upper section would start crushing those floors at a rate much lower than freefall the moment they could only just no longer support the mass above - much like how the partial collapses of the TU Delft building and the Windsor tower initiated slowly...

Notice how both collapses begin quite tentatively. This is because the scales have only just tipped. The resistance is less than the weight, but only just. This is what we would expect to see in WTC7. The alleged domino collapse of the core structure and buckling of the outer structure would not have been instantaneous. So even if this could explain the freefall, it can't explain how the onset of freefall was so sudden.

Essentially, the apologists for NIST expect us to believe that eight floors lost at least a fiftieth of their resistance to the weight above in an instant.

But of course, all this is giving NIST's computer model too much credit, since the model fails to match observed reality in many ways. For one thing, the massive bulging of the east side, as seen in the south view of their global collapse simulation, was not observed.

My point is, even if NIST's computer model was an accurate depiction of the state of the lower floors, it's still unlikely that the resistance offered by those floors would be negligible enough for virtual freefall to be plausible.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Chris Mohr's "respectful rebuttal" smells like debunking

Chris Mohr is uploading 'respectful rebuttal' videos of Gage's presentations. I've just quickly looked at this one ... I may watch the others later. Some thoughts...

One minute in Mohr states that Gage does not acknowledge the differences in construction between the twin towers and the other skyscrapers he cites as examples of towers which burned more severely without collapse. Humorously, he then does what so many debunkers do and contradict his own criticism by citing the collapse of a building even less like the twin towers ... the TU Delft building.

I rebutted this stupid debunking argument in the first video I ever made, when I used the TU Delft collapse to support the demolition argument. Mohr characterized the TU Delft collapse as "very fast, almost symmetrical, and into its own footprint". Really? It was about 1/4 of the height of WTC7, and1/8 the height of the twin towers, and collapsed no where near a free fall rate, and it was only one wing of the building ... how exactly is this proof that a massive skyscraper can undergo a progressive, global collapse at basically free fall?

Afer droning on about the TU Delft collapse for a full four minutes, he then cites other examples commonly cited by debunkers like the Kadel toy factory and the interstate 580 overpass - again contradicting his earlier criticism of comparisons to skyscrapers Gage cites. The doublethink here is astounding. If a university building, a toy factory and an overpass are relevent then so are the skyscrapers Gage cites.

After talking a bit about how fire causes floors to sag, and how this phenomena is vital to NIST's 'inward bowing' theory for the towers (while neglecting to mention it's a major problem for NIST's 'rigid thermal linear expansion' theory for WTC7), he finishes this part of his rebuttal by comparing 9/11 truth to what I guess is called "titanic denalism", and saying lots of scientists don't like people like Gage for various reasons. One reason, he says, is they don't like being accused of being part of a conspiracy - an accusation Gage has never made - and another reason is we are apparently "unschooled in the scientific method" - even though Gage's presentations follow the scientific method.

Chris Mohr says this is a "respectful rebuttal" and not debunking. Sorry Mr Mohr, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

The only difference is Chris Mohr's rebuttals are relatively ad-hominem-lite. Aside from that, the tactics and arguments are basically the same.

Related Info:

Edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.

9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Charlie Veitch Parroting Outdated Official Claims Regarding WTC7

In recent interviews justifying his sudden U-Turn on 9/11, Charlie Veitch has made some incorrect claims about WTC7.

He says he spoke to an expert who told him that 25% of WTC7 was scooped out. This is an old claim that even NIST have abandoned. The claim was made in Appendix L to their 2004 progress report. This is one diagram from that report.

In the 2005 Popular Mechanics article, Shyam Sundar of NIST claimed that "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out".

But there was no evidence for this assertion. Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics claimed to have seen NYPD photos that they were not allowed to release which showed clearly that WTC7 had indeed been 'scooped out'. These photos have now been made public via the IC911Studies FOIA (slideshow below) and none of them show what David Coburn claimed them to show. This was a blatant lie by Popular Mechanics.

In their 2008 final report, NIST changed their story. Below is a graphic representation of the south face damage from their final report (NCSTAR 1-9).

Most of the damage was superficial, apart from a gauge on the west side between floors 5 and 18. According to NIST's final theory, the collapse initiated on the east side on floors 12 & 13. Since that area recieved only superficial damage, damage from the north tower's collapse could not have played a role in that failure, so the only role the damage from WTC1 played was to ignite the fires. The damage played no role in the collapse itself. As NIST's Q&A states:
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building - severing seven exterior columns - but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours.
It seems the expert Charlie spoke to has not even read the final NIST report. He is parroting an old version of the official story. NIST's final theory - the "thermal expansion" theory - claims that heat from the fires expanded floor beams on floors 12 & 13. These floor beams then pushed against a critical girder, which buckled, causing several floors to fail, resulting in a critical column being unsupported horizontally over a nine story length, and when that buckled it initiated a chain reaction which led to global collapse.

When I saw Richard Gage live in Bristol on the 21st of June he said something like "There are so many things wrong with this, but for the sake of time, I will list only twelve!". He then went on a rapid fire tirade simply on why the idea of heated floor beams remaining rigid and pushing against a girder and causing it to fail is ludicrous. What would of happened in reality, and not in the fantsy world of NIST's computer simulations, is the thermal expansion would have been relieved through downward sagging. The expanded beams would not have remained rigid.

As Kevin Ryan wrote in his review of NIST's final report:
These extremely high steel temperatures would most certainly have resulted in the weakening of the beams, once the shear studs had been lost, allowing the thermal expansion to be relieved through downward sagging. This fact is supported by the experimental data produced by the Cardington tests, described in NCSTAR 1-9 (section 8.4.3), where much shorter floor beam spans experienced significant sagging. Therefore, this rigid beam linear expansion hypothesis is not realistic.
Not only does NIST's theory have no historical precedent, but they didn't even conduct experiments to test the validity of it. But of course, this is not the main problem with NIST's theory, or any fire/damage theory. The main problem is of course the freefall rate, which brings me to Charlie's next point.

Charlie has been repeating the old debunker chestnut that the total time WTC7 took to collapse, including the east penthouse collapse, was 18 seconds, not 6.5. This is true. The problem is, the TIME is irrelevant. It's the ACCELERATION at each instant that matters. To give you an idea of how the time doesn't really matter, consider the following... (Warning: Math ahead!)

When accelerating constantly from rest, the distance-acceleration-time formula is distance = ½ × acceleration × time² (S = ½ a t²). WTC7 was 180 metres tall. So for WTC7 falling at constant freefall acceleration (9.8ms-2), the values would be:

180 = ½ × 9.8 × t²

Which gives you a value for t of about 6 seconds. Now let's imagine WTC7 fell at only half the rate of gravity (4.9 ms-2). The values in this case would be:

180 = ½ × 4.9 × t²

Which would give you a value for t of about 8.5 seconds. The rate of fall has been halved, but the time has only increased by a couple of seconds. This is because everytime you halve a, you double t². Which means you multiply t by √2 (1.4). So halving the acceleration will yield only a 40% increase in time.

Now if WTC7 had taken 8.5 seconds to collapse, a truther might say "this is only a couple of seconds longer than freefall, this is proof of demolition", and a debunker might respond by saying "8.5 seconds corresponds to an acceleration of half that of freefall, no demolition needed", and the debunker would be correct. But this is assuming the acceleration is constant throughout. In reality the acceleration was not constant.

This was the mistake NIST made in their draft report. They correctly pointed out that the time between the moment the main structure (excluding the east penthouse) began to collapse and the moment the building disappeared from view in the most well known video of its collapse, was 5.4 seconds. Freefall time would have been 3.9 seconds. But the time is irrelevant, what matters is the acceleration. When physicist David Chandler called them out on this, they did a revised analysis for their final report. Below is NIST's velocity-time graph of WTC7's collapse...

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration ... This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." ~ NIST NCSTAR 1-A

So NIST admitted that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 - gravitational acceleration - as if eight stories worth of building were just teleported away.

This is what we've been saying all along is impossible. Because when an object is falling at freefall acceleration, all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted into energy of motion, which means there is no energy left over to actually collapse the building! It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall is only a small fraction of the overall collapse time, freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible.

NIST have not explained the 2.25 seconds of freefall, they've simply asserted that it is consistent with their computer model. Their computer model has not been independently reviewed and they haven't even released an animation of the entire collapse. All we have from them therefore is their word. Even if several floors of the outer structure were buckled as depicted above, there would still be plenty of structure to prevent the building from accelerating at free fall. Because in order to crush that buckled structure, it would have to use some of its gravitational potential energy, this would mean that not all the gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic enegy, and therefore freefall would not occur. The only known way to get a building to accelerate downwards at a free fall rate is controlled demolition.

In fact, controlled demolitions don't fall in a free fall TIME either - as debunker alienentity demonstrated. However, alienentity's analysis was oversimplified. Again, he just TIMED the demolition. I expect if you were to do a velocity-time graph of the demolition it would have the same characteristic S-shape as WTC7's velocity-time graph above. This S-shape, you could say, is a fingerprint of controlled demolition.

As I said before, I'm not disagreeing with Charlie Veitch's assessment of conspiracy theorist psychology. Certainly the average 9/11 truther suffers from a cult-like psychology due to being so emotionally invested in their views. However, I strongly disagree with Charlie's new stance on the controlled demolition stuff and the 'inside job' theory in general. On the plus side though, Charlie's dissention may encourage the conspiracy theorists to research more into the science. This post is for both their benefit and Charlie's. I'll send this article to him, hopefully he'll at least see he's been misled by some old defunct claims which we've addressed ad-nauseum on this very blog.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Another Balzac Vitry Verinage

DEF Tower, Balzac, Vitry-sur-Seine
June 23, 2010

This is another verinage demolition of an apartment building in the same area as the other one.

And here's an After Effects speed-time plot...

Can't get much clearer than that really!

See Also:

Debunker Verinage Fantasies are Bunk!

Reflecting on the Verinage demolition method

Charlie Veitch, WTF???

The latest person to be branded a shill by fundamentalist truthers is Charlie Veitch of The Love Police who recently announced to all his followers that he no longer believes 9/11 was an inside job. This is especially weird because no less than two weeks ago he said the scientific evidence presented by Richard Gage had fully convinced him that the towers were demolished. In the above clip he explains why he's changed his mind.

I'm assuming Charlie didn't know this was being recorded because he revealed something I'm guessing he wasn't supposed to. Apparently the BBC are making a program called "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" about five 'truthers', including Charlie, touring the states investigating 9/11.


Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions

Now I wanna know who these other four 'truthers' are, because Charlie is not a prominent person in the 9/11 truth movement. He's just a general activist who has only mentioned 9/11 every now and then. I expect it will be the same with the other four. No doubt one of them will also be a crazy no-planer or something. If so, it's not really a program about truthers. He also mentioned visiting family members. Again, I expect these were carefully selected family members who disagree with us. But what about the family members behind the BuildingWhat campaign?

Edit: More info on the BBC piece from WideShutUK

The game the BBC are playing here is obvious. Their intention is to get these five so-called 'truthers' to recant their conspiracy views so the viewer thinks this is all BS. And it seems with Charlie they have succeeded.

Alot of what he says in the above clip I actually agree with. I agree that there is a sort of cult-like mentality with regards to things like Pentagon no-plane theories and fake phone call stuff. But this is not the real 9/11 truth movement. Most real truthers have abandoned these theories. It's only the conspiracy theorists who ascribe to them. Veitch seems to have lumped the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the 9/11 truthers together. They are not the same.

And his comment about the psychology is right on. 'Awakened' people can be just as guilty of becoming emotionally attached to an idea as the so-called sheeple. And the furor of comments he has recieved the last few days proves that.

I respect differing opinions, but he seems to be parroting alot of typical debunker denialism here. He states flatly that he 'saw no evidence of controlled demolition', as if he's forgotten about all the science he saw from Richard Gage's presentation in Cambridge. And he parrots the 'impossibility' canard. As if he's forgotten everything people like David Icke (he's seen David Icke live) say about compartmentalization.

He also said he spoke to a demolition expert, who I assume was probably someone like Brent Blanchard, and I'm guessing they told him it would be impossible to demolish those buildings. While there are many demolition experts who disagree with us, the problem with their counter arguments is that we are not saying these buildings were destroyed using the conventional methods that most demolition experts are familiar with. In fact, we are saying the exact opposite. These were very unconventional demolitions. It doesn't matter how impossible you believe such a thing to be, the science is there. To say "I can't imagine how these buildings could be covertly demolished, therefore I'm going to deny all the hard science that proves they were covertly demolished" is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

At 5:15 in the above video he says he was given a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of 'nanothermite'. But John Cole has demonstrated that crude thermate-based devices can be quite effective at cutting steel. It all depends on how it's used.

But even if he's right, and nanothermite is ineffective at cutting steel, it was still found in the dust. And it still shouldn't be there! Regardless of how it was used, it's very existence in the dust proves fowl play.

I don't like calling people shills, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but still ... it's very strange how someone could completely change their opinion so suddenly. I think it may be that he was shown evidence that a plane hit the pentagon and evidence which refuted alot of the other fringe stuff, realised those ideas were all crazy, and then applied this assessment of 'crazy' to all the 9/11 truth arguments. And the tidal wave of rabid comments he has recieved from so-called 'truthers' have reinforced that assessment.

I'll assume this is just him mistaking fringe 9/11 conspiracy theorists for 9/11 truthers and thinking in black and white and not due him being 'got to'.