Saturday, December 28, 2013

FLASHBACK- Picks Up Our Recent Article Regarding New WTC Dust/Nano-thermite Study Fund Raiser at

Update: We have raised $3096 of the $5000 goal. Please help out with a donation if you can at:

FLASHBACK - New WTC Dust Study Looks Set to Confirm Nano-thermite

Did you know that a recent survey concludes that nearly half of everyone that sees the video of the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 suspects controlled demolition? Now is the perfect time to remind you of the 2009 peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This is a summary of our extensive essay that covers the paper and the attempts to discredit it. We need your help to fund the completion of an independent study that is verifying the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust, so please donate to support chemical engineer Mark Basile.

The thermitic red layer of the reported tiny red/gray bi-layered chips found in the dust belongs to a novel class of energetic materials that government funded US laboratories have been developing since the 1990´s. Even the federal agency in charge of the supposed investigation of the collapsed towers helped to develop this type of material, which may help to explain why it refuses to look for evidence of it in the dust.

Friday, December 27, 2013

FLASHBACK - 9/11 Debunking for Dummies

The coincidence cited in this video, made by blog contributor Stewart Bradley, regarding the pilot of flight 77 having participated in a drill prior to 9/11 (where an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon) is not a coincidence that I think has much merit. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater like the 9/11 debunking dummies.

Uploaded on Jun 26, 2009
A Big Thank You to,

Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Ho, Ho, Ho! 9/11 Was An Inside Job!” - 9/11 Truth Santa in Oslo - Santa Works for NSA


December 12, 2012
Source: The Onion
Category: COVERAGE 

Seasons greeting from your old friend Santa! My, my, Christmas is just two short weeks away, and everyone here at the North Pole can’t wait to deliver presents to all you nice boys and girls this year. Yes, Jolly ol’ St. Nicholas hopes you’re all being as good as can be!

But today, Santa would like to tell you all about something very naughty, something very, very naughty indeed. Dear children, have you not heard? Why, 9/11 was an inside job! Oh, ho, ho, my, yes it was!
I mean, look at the facts, boys and girls! We already know the Bush administration was itching to go to war in Iraq, now, don’t we? Yes, indeed we do, my darling ones! The Downing Street memo proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you look at the Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, the one headlined “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Ignored! Why, children, they threw that briefing aside like used wrapping paper on Christmas morning, didn’t they?

And remember, sweet little ones, Bin Laden never claimed responsibility for the attacks until 2004. Do you know how many years that is, boys and girls? Something was up the government’s sleeve, and I’ll let you in on a little secret: It wasn’t sugar plums, oh, no! No, it was the ties between the bin Laden and Bush families. They’ve been under the mistletoe for decades, if you catch your old pal Kris Kringle’s meaning! I’ve checked my list twice, and it seems Arbusto Energy, a Bush business, had financial connections to Salem bin Laden, half-brother of Osama. The CIA actually helped create and fund al-Qaeda right around the time Bush Senior was the agency’s director—ho, ho, ho, ol’ H.W. stuffed their pockets as fat as a Christmas goose!

Now, as for the towers themselves: The type of steel they used melts at a temperature of about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, and as I’m sure all you smart little boys and girls know, jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees, tops. My darlings, you’d need quite a Yule log to create that extra 1,200 degrees, wouldn’t you? Oh, what a glorious sight it would be!

Of course, you do know what they found in the Ground Zero debris, don’t you? Would you like St. Nicholas to tell you? Well, then, hop up on his lap and I’ll whisper it in your ear: traces of nano-thermite. Does that jingle any bells upstairs? Nano-thermite is an explosive compound, children, capable of making the biggest Christmas cracker you ever saw! So what in the name of Donner and Blitzen was it doing in the world’s largest banking complex? Was Lehman Brothers or one of the insurance companies stockpiling explosives? No, children. You find nano-thermite where there’s been a controlled demolition. Ever see a controlled demolition, little ones? That’s where the whole building plummets straight downward like a plumb bob and every floor is destroyed. Even if the building is struck in the middle.

Oh, dear, perhaps ol’ Santa has just gone a little nutty in the head, like dear Mrs. Claus repeatedly likes to claim! Perhaps, much like Mrs. Claus, Santa would be better off pretending the facts don’t exist. But you believe, don’t you, children? You believe in Santa’s theory.

Now, I’m not saying the hijackers weren’t naughty. They were very, very naughty indeed. But if you want to really talk naughty, there’s not enough coal in Santa’s sack for a government that throws its own citizens under the sleigh just to gain political power.

Ho, ho, ho, so many questions dance through Santa’s head! What about the six eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying jet immediately after Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, children? Why was debris from the flight found miles away from the crash site? And why did the BBC incorrectly report that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed moments before it actually did? Talk about a snow job, eh, young ones? Why, it’s a veritable winter wonderland!

Perhaps this Christmas, Santa will bring some of you very well-behaved—and discreet—young children some nice, shiny new computers to play with, so you can go to, watch “Loose Change” on YouTube, and see for yourselves. Because if you ask Santa, the truth needs to come out in order to properly honor the memory of the victims and awaken a duped populace, slumbering away in their cozy beds, living in dreamland. We can close our eyes and drink the government eggnog, or we can raise our voices and demand to know what really happened. Isn’t that right, boys and girls?

Well, I’ve still got a lot of toys to build before Christmas Eve, my little ones, but I’ll be visiting you all very soon—ho, ho, ho, that is if I’m not jailed as an enemy combatant for asking simple questions!
Because that’s what they fucking do, you know.


9/11 Truth Santa in Oslo

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Everlast - I Get By

Just something I'm digging at the moment and wanted to share.

NY Times: "We've not yet found any evidence for controlled demolition"

Visit | Canada Campaign Details (December 2013) Rethink911 on Facebook Rethink911 on Twitter logo NOVEMBER 25, 2013

Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...
If You Just Look

Yesterday New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent  was the guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :
“We have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”
Sanger was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why, despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue.”
Now with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!

Contact the NY Times Today

Last week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign. Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,
On Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there, and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have signed a petition at calling for a new investigation based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.
  • Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.
  • However, a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the building’s descent.
  • Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.
  • The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.
  • There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero.
As you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events, and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to seriously examine this crucial issue.
[Name, address]

Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!

Friday, December 20, 2013

37 Video Playlist of Truth

From blog contributor Scootle Royale.

BBC Parades out Debunked Sources to Refute Campaign

The BBC recently published an article on the campaign entitled, "Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations - and of US officials," which trotted out several debunked sources that we're very familiar with around here, so for anyone who might find their piece here is some further reading.

"Frank Greening, a nuclear scientist who lives in Hamilton, Ontario, knows the people behind the organisation - truthers, as they are known - well. He first met them years ago."- BBC

From blog contributor Scootle Royale's Top 10 Debunker Fails:
1) Frank Greening's 'Intelligent Thermite'

In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction", resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!

In 2006, Gordon Ross responded to Greening's thesis in a hilarious essay entitled Sorry Dr. Greening et al ...
Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.
As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic, I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite' designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist, would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from someone who denies Newton's third law?!
"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality, is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Download Part 1 now at:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:  
Part 5:
Part 6:

Part 7:

Part 8:
Part 9: 
NEW! Part 10: 
Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)
"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC

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


ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Metro News Ottawa Article
Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.
This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace

Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Dear Ms. Milne,
The BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply astounding.
Most disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100 engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a single link to a source critiquing the official account.
With regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it “unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the 30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious the video would be of interest to your readers.
The article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its website
If your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”
If you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than 2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7.
[Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December

Finally, we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7. Stay tuned!
Thank you as always for your tremendous support!

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Carl Sagan and Government - Charlie Rose Interview

Carl Sagan's view on science and government. 

Carl Sagan makes some great points in this 2 minute clip especially about being able to think for yourself using logic ('the science way of thinking') - to be sceptical of those in authority.

Crucially he said "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking".

The danger we face comes from false pseudo-scientific claims. We must be mindful of trick arguments or evidence-bereft arguments being pushed by those with hidden agendas, especially people with close ties to the US establishment.

The danger from false Government claims is that they tend to do great harm because they often serve interests that are not beneficial to ordinary people, tending to favour corporate profit over human wellbeing or the desires of various special interest groups or large scale geopolitical (war) ambitions.

If we can think for ourselves we should not fear any argument, whether it is considered a 'fringe' idea or Government dogma, because we will be able to interrogate the matter using reason and established scientific principles. If there is controversy we should be able to understand the essential arguments being put by the leading experts in the debate.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

On four opposing theorys

Ever since the cessation of the 9/11 attacks more than 12 years ago, people have both actively and passively wondered how the 'terrorists' could be so spectacularly successful. Within the truth movement especially, there has been a marked inability to agree on what actually took place in the skys that day, with some (the no planers) arguing that there weren't any aircraft involved at all (!). Luckily, a new article is available which clears up this mess, revisiting the hard facts that are constantly buried under a mountain of talking points. It concludes that there is a narrow range of possible strategys which could account for all the phenomenon seen during the 9/11 attacks.

The trajectorys taken by the planes, for instance, indicates that flight 93 was destined to hit the pentagon, while flight 77 was intended to crash in a populated area somewhere in ohio or kentucky. There is only one plausible explanation for why this did not happen, and it ties in heavily with the live-fly drill, vigilant warrior, that was taking place on 9/11. The topic of aircraft being swapped in mid-air has been brought to the attention of the moderators at scientificmethod911 numerous times: On their part, they have remained firmly silent on the matter, for obvious reasons. While its true that we can never rule anything out for certain, some people are definately going to have to confront reality, and seriously consider the need to re-evaluate their personal stances!
Follow the link for download:  For any comments or questions, please direct yourself here: jrphilps (delete this anti-spam text)

*edit made feb 8, 2014.

Monday, December 16, 2013

How to Debunk DEW Arguments

One of the most frustrating claims I hear from DEW supporters is that "you need to read Judy Wood's book before you can critique her arguments." They of course ignore the fact that she's had her arguments debunked over and over again for the past several years, and to the best of my knowledge these critiques of her work have gone unrefuted. But DEW supporters seem to think that if you don't debunk Dr. Wood's book, you haven’t debunked Dr. Wood. This would only be true if there was some kind of new phenomenal evidence presented in her book that has never been discussed elsewhere by her in her online articles. I’ll freely admit that I haven't read the book, partly because I doubt there's anything substantially new in it that hasn't already been refuted by others. And I have good reason to think this. 

When I debated with DEW supporter "Emmanuel Goldstein" (whose real name is Thomas Potter) on Amazon, he listed off 41 points that supposedly show that the Towers were "dustified." He's obviously read her book (given that he defends it so passionately; and if he hasn't, then who's he to criticize others for not reading it?), and supposedly based his arguments off of information from said book. And I was able to immediately respond to every single one of these points because I had heard them all before. I saw nothing new in any of his arguments, and had an answer ready to go for each of them. So there are really only two possibilities: either there's nothing new in Judy Wood's book, or there's some ground breaking evidence presented in the book that DEW supporters don't feel like sharing with the rest of us. Either way, I still see no great incentive to buy her book. I may someday if I feel like wasting a chunk of my cash (her book currently sells anywhere from 45 to 60 dollars, and there's no preview for it on Amazon). Below I've reproduced my refutations of Mr. "Goldstein's" arguments, which I hope will help others in dealing with this absurd disinformation.

"1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed 'collapse.'"

Agreed. But this does not automatically mean that DEWs were used. And Dr. Wood's own calculations on the collapse rates of the Towers have been shown to be ludicrous.

"In an attempt to analyze the collapse times of the WTC towers (what she calls the "billiard ball" analysis), the conservation of momentum and energy are flagrantly violated. She assumes that with each collision, all momentum in the problem is obliterated. Her underlying assumptions are left unstated and the reader is left to ponder this egregious violation of physical law."
Better calculations of the collapse times of the Towers can be found here:  

"2 They underwent mid-air pulverization (dustification) and were turned to dust before they hit the ground."

Specifically, the concrete and other non-metallic materials were pulverized. NONE of the steel from the Towers was "dustified."

"3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers."
False. The bathtub was significantly damaged: 

"4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any."


“Another source of data that is cited by proponents of the `missing debris' hypothesis relates to the non-catastrophic damage to the Bathtub, the ground zero region which was encircled by subterranean walls to hold back water from the Hudson River.
No credible analysis or quantitative measurements have been offered by the proponents of the `missing' debris hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been catastrophically damaged.

The measured seismic activity explains why there was no catastrophic damage to the Bathtub:

Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5.

From a paper by James Gourley, the Bathtub survived much more substantial
seismic activity in the past:

Additional credible data is available that indicates NYC is located in an active seismic zone. A search of the Advanced National Seismic System catalog of earthquakes from 1970 to 2005, inside an area between 38N and 43N Latitude, and between 71W and 76W Longitude (an area that runs from just south of New Jersey north to the middle of New York state, and from just west of New Jersey east to Rhode Island) reveals that at least 21 earthquakes having a magnitude greater than 3.0 occurred in that area during those 34 years.” 

"5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted."

See points 3 and 4.

"6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition."

See: pg. 3

"7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up."

Buildings have been demolished this way with explosives: and 

"8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise."

It was not "whisper quiet." Are you suggesting that WTC7 was also destroyed with DEWs?

"9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."

This is absolutely false. Steel was everywhere. and and  

"10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."

Evidence for this? And why only the inside? How would a DEW do that?

"11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived."

Not conclusive proof of DEWs.

"12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one."

Yes, because porcelain survives well in building collapses.

"13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them."

They were blown in by the massive pressure waves of the collapses.

"14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage."

I think they were damaged by the STEEL from the Towers.  

"15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer."

See: pg. 13

"16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day."

 pg. 15

"17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat."

See point 16.

"18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed."

See point 16.

"19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass."

Could have been caused by the collapse and the explosives.

"20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel."

There was no "instant rusting." See: pg. 7

"21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating."

No evidence of heating?

"22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies."

The dust clouds were reported to be hot:  

"23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis."

The columns could be bent in any direction in the collapse. And I thought the columns were supposed to be dustified, not bent.

"24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning."

See: pg. 10

"25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust."

This does not support DEWs. See:  

"26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed."

Interesting and good points to raise concerning the lack of air defense on 9/11. But not evidence of DEWs.

"27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers."


"28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings."

Perhaps, but this still is not proof of DEWs. The collapse of the Towers damaged several buildings hundreds of feet away.

"29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it."

See points 3 and 4.

"30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix."

The other WTC buildings were obviously closer to the Towers, so that makes sense.

"31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared."

Yes, it was crushed by the falling STEEL.

"32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume."

See point 15

"33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings."

Wrong. See: 

"34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud."

So you think WTC7 was demolished with DEWs? If the columns in the building were cut, the pile could fold and fit into the footprint. Which by the way is the point of demolitions with explosives.

"35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions."

Evidence for any of this? Explosions would be consistent with demolition with explosives.

"36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC."

Many of the trucks were on fire. Of course things in them would explode.

"37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage."

The collapse of two 110 story buildings can do that ya know.

"38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11."

How is this evidence of DEW? Also, see: pg. 6 

"39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map."

Maybe it wasn't talked about on 9/11 because the worst terrorist attack in history was happening?

"40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails."

Not sure what that's supposed to be. Elaborate please.

"41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above."

None of which was caused by this effect or DEWs.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Information Clearing House

During the 9/11FreeFall promotional interview for the new WTC dust study, the host Andrew Steele asked me how I had gotten involved in the 9/11 truth movement. I explained that I originally began to explore the alternative media on the internet for research articles about geopolitics, which led to my learning about a topic that is never mentioned on CNN: false-flag attacks. I soon found out that one outstanding medium is Information Clearing House. Please check it out and consider becoming a paying member:
Dear Information Clearing House Readers: To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about $16. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave $1, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. We are an independent, not for profit that runs one of the top alternate news and information websites in the world. We have few staff member but serve millions of users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, Insurance, taxes and salaries...

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

A Feature Film on The Drone War Slaughter

Rep. Alan Grayson
December 6, 2013 

Last month, I held a briefing on drone strikes, a cold-blooded military euphemism for a method of waging war that is more properly described as "remote killing." Last year, a mindless killing machine - an American drone aircraft - killed an innocent grandmother as she was harvesting okra outside of the family's home. My friend, the filmmaker Robert Greenwald, brought her family's compelling story to my attention, and I helped to bring them to the attention of Congress and the nation. Robert Greenwald recently released a new documentary with their sad story, and others like it, called Unmanned: America's Drone Wars. I've seen it, and you should too. It's an incredible indictment of remote-controlled death from the skies.

Watch the preview and sign up to get the Livestream link -- FREE!

I told you about this movie a few weeks ago, when I shared with you a statement that I made at the briefing. I wrote:

"If you agree with me that, due to the extrajudicial nature of these killings, they should stop, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that, due to the belief that collateral damage in the form of the death of innocent people, an adult or a child, should never be acceptable, particularly at the will of one man, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that the unintended consequence of civilian deaths attributable to drone strikes, and the public opinion that has mobilized against this in every nation that has been victimized by drone strikes, ultimately engenders more hatred toward America than it could possibly extinguish through death, then I welcome you. And if you have yet to make up your mind about the pros and cons of these drone strikes, these miniature acts of war, then I am particularly glad that you're here this morning, or that you're listening from near or far.

"I can think of no better person to shepherd us through the intricacies of drone use abroad than this person who I am proud to call my friend, Robert Greenwald. And as you see, he has a new documentary called 'Unmanned: America's Drone Wars' coming out, that will be essential viewing for every American with a conscience. I urge everyone to see the full documentary and ask the pressing questions that will come to mind."

Now, you can see a preview of the documentary and sign up for the free Livestream. Do it. To learn the truth.

Watch it. And then pass it on to your friends and family. Because it's time that this secret war is no longer a secret.

Together, a few months ago, we lovers of peace stopped a war with Syria. Maybe, just maybe, we can stop remote killings too.

Thanks for all you have done, will do, and can do. Blessed are the peacemakers.



P.S. If you're going to share one thing on Facebook or Twitter this year, this documentary ought to be it. Share it with your friends, your family, your co-workers, and your neighbors. Share it with the world. Because if we have any hope of ending this, then the world needs to know.

Monday, December 9, 2013

How to Debunk WTC Thermite

Editor's Note: Please help further the study of nanothermite in the WTC dust by donating at

Posted on by

The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is not difficult to understand.

To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
  1. Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
  2. The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
  3. Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
  4. Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
  5. There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke caused by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reaction is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
  6. Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
  7. The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
  8. The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
  9. Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
  10. A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.
There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.

That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how NOT to respond to scientific evidence.

The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:
  • Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
  • Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
  • Government scientists declaring that the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
  • Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence, for example by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
  • Deceptive efforts to introduce the government contractors who created the official accounts as independent scientists.
The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.

Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.

As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.

Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate.  Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.


Millette rested his case on FTIR, which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.

In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.

I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.

Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work. If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.

[1] Here are only a few examples of the hot wind:
“Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost.” -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7
“A wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.” – David Handschuh, New York’s Daily News
“When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter
“And then we’re engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me” -Paramedic Manuel Delgado
“I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat….” -Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter
“A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me” -Firefighter Louis Giaconelli
“This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn’t breathe” -Firefighter Todd Heaney
[2] For example, see Joel Meyerowitz, Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit - "Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"

WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit

Adam Klasfeld
Courthouse News
December 5, 2013

Claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on an “unprecedented constellation of events,” the 2nd Circuit on Wednesday chucked negligence claims against the building’s landlords and developers.

The collapse of the North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, sent fiery debris into Tower 7, lighting fires that burned for seven hours on multiple floors until it destroyed that building and crushed the Con Edison substation located directly underneath the building.

In 2004, Con Edison sued New York City, the Port Authority, and Tower 7′s owners and developers in Manhattan for negligence. The federal action has since gone through multiple rounds of appeals, amended complaints and procedural challenges by different groups of defendants.

Read more

View court docs (.pdf)


"Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"

A common theme seems to be that the people who do not support a new investigation either have never read any 9/11 building reports, have no opinion, or have no idea of what WTC 7 even is.

Here is another LEADER who has never read any of the reports but firmly believes that the reports cover information substantially.

Recently I've seen McCain plead ignorance, Chomsky plead no opinion, and now this Congressman pleas that the investigation has adequately shown the facts but admits to not have actually read any of investigations himself.

The congressman was asked a question on WTC 7 and the Congressman says that radical terrorists brought it down; not fires..... But then again he hasn't read any of the reports so he doesn't know the actual NIST story is ordinary office fires.

To call C-SPAN's Washington Journal program:

Democrats: 1-202 585-3880
Republicans: 1-202-585-3881
Independents: 1-202-585-3882

It is on live every day at 7AM -10AM EST