Want a new WTC 7 investigation? I do.

Dear Friend,

My name is Bob McIlvaine. My son, Bobby, was murdered on 9/11 along with nearly 3,000 other innocent people.

I am writing you today as a member of NYC CAN and friend of AE911Truth to ask for your support of the High-Rise Safety Initiative - a ballot initiative we are sponsoring that will require the City of New York to launch a new investigation into the destruction of WTC 7.

To put this measure on the ballot, we need to gather 110,000 signatures, and to fund our petition drive we must raise $250,000 by June 1st.

This strategy is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is promising, and one we must try.

Our petition drive can only go forward if 3,000 people come together to support the campaign. So far nearly 600 people have donated.

Will you help us reach 3,000? Please go to HighRiseSafetyNYC.org to contribute.



We are counting on you.

Sincerely,

Bob McIlvaine

Why Do People Believe Stupid Things? - BFP Roundtable #04

From the official story of 9/11 to the drug war narrative to Omidyar's hope and change, people allow themselves to believe the most transparent lies and propaganda. But why? On this edition of the BFP roundtable, James Corbett, Guillermo Jimenez and Sibel Edmonds ask (and attempt to answer) the question of why people believe stupid things.



_______________________________________________

A really great discussion dealing with the issue of independently using logic and referring to hard evidence in the face of official (or mainstream) rhetoric.

The problem is that the majority of people assume most of the things they know via a 'consensus', or authority-derived, view rather than really understanding (ie working out for themselves) where their information comes from. Even highly intelligent people are as much trapped in the psychological world of mainstream opinion as everyone else. The clip also mentions the fact that there are professional faux-independent authority-figure liars out there that help hoodwink the public.**

In this situation obvious evidence can be overlooked or blithely dismissed by people to favour an existing world view, even washing over basic common sense principles. More often than not many  do not have enough spare time, or drive, to really discover the truth behind contested matters - which is compounded by a lack of imagination in realising the importance of finding the real facts when it comes to critical issues.

And although there can be varying levels of 'accepted wisdom', depending upon your level of education, intellectual aptitude or life-based experience, there is still the problem of people falling into a ridged world view that only reluctantly accepts new ideas - more often rejecting new information, even if backed by strong evidence, in favour of what they already 'know'.

Furthermore, critical thinking is unpopular. There are many examples in history where the few who have pointed to the problems faced by society were rejected only to be lauded years later as being 'ahead of their time'.

It is because people do not think too deeply, being only concerned with their immediate surroundings and not wanting to rock the social boat, that criminals in positions of power can get away with all manner of poorly executed deceptions. In the end most people cannot fathom what is happening in the wider world and are at a loss when the consequences come home to impact them - like banker caused financial crises and unnecessary wars for geopolitical advantage.

Watching videos such as the one above will help provide you with vital information, allowing you to be more self aware and more discerning, so that you will not become an unaware victim of heinous trickery. It helps to have an open minded curiosity with enough imagination to recognise independent thoughts or ideas. Share this clip with your friends!

**This is one of many good points raised in the clip - the fact that some, or perhaps many, allegedly independent defenders of the consensus, or authority-derived view, notably those who are part of 'Skeptics' organisations, like Michael Shermer (mentioned in the clip), are seemingly professional liars. Some people have a hard time contemplating this fact - that the level of deliberate lying to the public is more sophisticated than they have imagined.

A reminder that Boiling Frogs Post is having a fund raiser. Donate what you can !

Dave Thomas Pulls Iron Spheres Out Of His Hat

Originally Posted September 9, 2013
Updated March 4, March 14, and April 25, 2014. 

Note new article about Dave´s previous steel-wool experiment: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/04/steel-wool-iron-spheres-debunked-again.html

Part 1. Apparently, CSI´s Dave Thomas has read part two of our essay, including the concise debunking of his steel wool YouTube video which was supposed to debunk Dr. Harrit´s claim that conventional combustion has never been observed to leave behind the molten iron-rich spheres produced via a thermite reaction. Mr. Thomas failed to notice his multiple gross experimental errors and the fact that he did not yield the desired iron-rich spheres: he failed to understand the difference between "iron rich" spheres and the iron-oxide spheres obtained via conventional combustion (such as cenospheres) even though we have tried for years to make Thomas et al. understand - see this example.

In response to our debunking of his prior experiment, Mr. Thomas has posted another youtube video where he claims to have gotten iron spheres via conventional combustion. Again he has invalid data due to his incompetence - that he cannot even dream about getting reviewed and published - and he knows it, as can be gleaned from the comment section by the video. Let´s start with his premise of having countered the announcement in the second part of our essay that, "Even some of the most ardent supporters of the paint-hypothesis have admitted that no-one has ever documented examples of paints leaving behind those molten spheres." The original premise of the new video is triumphantly answering back "UNTIL NOW", but Mr. Thomas had to add a disclaimer, having received some enlightening comments:

 "OK, I annotated the video to say "It would be more correct to say that no one has documented examples of burning painted steel beams and leaving behind those spheres...UNTIL NOW.""

April 25, 2014 update: As we shall see, Mr. Thomas cannot establish whether or not the fire actually formed any new spheres at all, and Dave knows the experiment is unpublishable for this reason. Most likely the spheres are filler material from the paint or external fly-ash contamination, perhaps partially reduced in the barrel. Note that we are at this point trusting Mr. Thomas for his conclusion that his two spheres are in fact solid "iron rich" spheres, not iron-oxide spheres or hollow oxidized cenospheres, even though this trust is unwarranted: The proper recording of oxygen levels by the EDS depends on the professional capability and integrity of the experimenter, but Dave is not known for either quality as discussed in a recent article about his fraudulent steel-wool experiment.

Part 2. My informal correspondence with Mr. Thomas on his YouTube channel speaks for itself. Editing, underlining and bolding of YouTube-comments done by author for this article:

Zugam says: "Results that cannot be replicated by others and published are pseudoscience. Pretty much as kawika7777 says, repeat with a clean piece in lab conditions to eliminate plentiful possible contributors of irons sphere contamination, and prove that the paint FORMS the spheres as you claim. Then publish your data if you still stand by your claim"

Thomas responds: "..there was never any direct contact between the steel beam and the burn barrel itself. I scraped some paint from the bea[m] for examination, choosing a spot that had no ash smudges from the wood."

Zugam: "No contact does not mean no contamination, as you should have figured out when you had to scrape a spot with no ash smudges. You also have to eliminate possibility of spheres as filler material in the paint. Getting iron spheres from [lead-chromate] paint is quite the trick! You actually think you got liquid molten iron which requires about 1500 degrees while not getting any molten led-chrom which requires only 850?"

Thomas: "...paint DOES have other constituents, including iron, and the beam itself has lots of iron."

Zugam: ""Paint" has iron? Paint in general? Your own XEDS for your paint, that is the pre-burn XEDS, does not show any iron, only led-chro."

Thomas: "I've added some more SEM and EDX scans to the JREF post (see the link in About), page 2, post #65. These show very plainly that some components of the unburned paint samples most definitely have iron"

Zugam: "OH so u withheld data? What else u not telling us? Some components of the paint have fe, or the beams, or contamination? Maybe if someone were to take a better look, sphere contamination would be also found in your data? If you think your result can be replicated/confirmed in a lab with CLEAN samples, TRY to publish data, or lets call it pseudoscience. Now cue your excuse for not publishing."

No direct response to above post, but Mr Thomas posts new comment:
"I must say it appears the Truthers are actually quite concerned that this work demolishes their revered Dr. Harrit, and are over-reacting to preserve his image at any cost."

Zugam: "I was wondering what u would do to avoid talking about doing a valid experiment in a lab and publishing results - Nice distraction Dave, I guess u do what you have to, to try to preserve your image, since you can´t publish your fraudulent data. It is a pity youtube does not have a journal."

Mr. Thomas has moved the goal-post in response to his failure, but his attempt at twisting Harrit´s remark about the difference between conventional combustion and a thermite reaction into a claim that only thermite creates molten iron is transparent and absurd:

 Thomas: "Now that I have the attention of aneta.org obfuscants like Ziggi, "Hello!" Don't you agree that this video shows Dr. Harrit's assertion above is simply wrong? If you don't agree, please state how and where you think I smuggled in the Thermite, and how I ignited it. :)"

Zugam: "Harrit is absolutely right, only thermite burn forms reduced iron. U should know by now after your stupid "steel wool" video, if you burn metal conventionally u end up with an oxide. It is of course possible to get molten and reduced iron by other ways than thermite, but that means specialized smelters and very special conditions. I should not have to spoon feed you this info since this is all laid out in the same chapter of our article that you quote. Your 2 spheres are ext. contamination"

In sum, the three most likely sources for Mr. Thomas´s spheres are:

1. The spheres are already present as filler material in the paint.
2. Dave (accidentally?) made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel, or a band-saw.
3. He partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before he lit the fire. Or he simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

Part 3. At the beginning of this article I mention that Mr. Thomas made his new YouTube video in response to the essay where I and Mr. Talboo cover the Harrit vs Millette debate. We end that essay by repeating  Steven Jones´ 2009 public challenge to people like Mr. Thomas: publish your rebuttal in a reviewed journal if you expect us to take you seriously.

Readers should note that the demand for testing in a clean lab environment is especially prudent given how Mr. Thomas and his JREF friends totally ignored the spherical evidence when truthers brought it to the table, on the grounds that the spheres were such a common contaminant in an urban environment. The fact that Mr. Thomas backs away from challenges to move on from YouTube videos to a reviewed journal is especially sad given how his JREF buddies used to ridicule YouTube science.

As we have seen, Mr. Thomas cannot deliver a reviewed paper because he has no evidence that the barrel-fire formed any new spheres, let alone that the paint formed any spheres. I have of course notified Rev. Chris Mohr, the leader of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, that Mr. Thomas is aware of the fact that his data is invalid and unpublishable. The question remains whether or not Rev. Mohr will pretend to NOT know it in yet another YouTube video?

By the way, a real scientist has tested paints in lab conditions, and so far no samples have ignited and left behind molten spheres of any kind. Mark Basile has also confirmed that the red layer of the active thermitic red/gray chips studied by Harrit et al. contains Fe2O3 and aluminum, ignites at about 430°(C) and leaves behind molten iron spheres with aluminum-oxide. Can anyone replicate that with paint?


Donate to help Mark Basile finish his work at: http://markbasile.org

AE911Truth to Present WTC Evidence in 17-Stop ReThink911 Canada Tour March 13 to April 1, 2014

http://rethink911.org/news/ae911truth-to-present-wtc-evidence-in-17-stop-rethink911-canada-tour-march-13-to-april-1-2014/

Let us come together to support the High-Rise Safety Initiative

Dear Friend,

My name is Bob McIlvaine. My son, Bobby, was murdered on 9/11 along with nearly 3,000 other innocent people.

I am writing you today as a member of NYC CAN and friend of AE911Truth to ask for your support of the High-Rise Safety Initiative - a ballot initiative we are sponsoring that will require the City of New York to launch a new investigation into the destruction of WTC 7.

To put this measure on the ballot, we need to gather 110,000 signatures, and to fund our petition drive we must raise $250,000 by June 1st.

This strategy is not guaranteed to succeed, but it is promising, and one we must try.

Our petition drive can only go forward if 3,000 people come together to support the campaign. So far nearly 500 people have donated.

Will you help us reach 3,000? Please go to HighRiseSafetyNYC.org to contribute.



We are counting on you.

Sincerely,

Bob McIlvaine