\\][// ®


NOTES to be used in construction of article: 1st draft; 5/7/2014 Proximate Cause WTC.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin




There are ‘Signature Effects’ to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.


Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate and mimic these very specific signature characteristics.



10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:


1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;

2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;

3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;

4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;

5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;

6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning “confluent rows of small explosions”;

7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;

8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;

9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);

10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.


[+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.


Ultimate Fact


[=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition .


> NOTE: Any alternative theory as to the mechanisms of the destruction of WTC, will have to successfully dispute each and every one of these 10 points. Particularly troublesome for such theories are points 6 – 10.




A forensic study of the physical evidence, as much or little as there is known of in the public realm, as well as analysis of what the ‘government’ has revealed as can be determined in the text and subtext.


Addressing Counterarguments


I will specifically address the issues pertaining to the idea of a ‘Directed Energy Weapon’, as well to the assertions of a ‘Nuclear Aspect’.




Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Full Definition of ULTIMATE FACT“a basic fact essential to maintain a cause of action or to establish a defense thereto as distinguished from the subsidiary individual facts that are offered in evidence as tending to prove a basic fact”

~Willy Whitten – Hybridrogue1 \\][//



  1. This post is just the ABSTRACT – The full article will be constructed here in the comments section. That article when complete will be reposted as a new page on the HR1blog under a ‘v2’ title.

    NOTE: The term “collapse” is used throughout this article in its ‘technical’ meaning. As it is explosive demolition that caused the “collapse” it is more appropriate in specific terms to say that the towers ‘exploded’ – as is very obvious in the visual record.


    • As to the Note above:

      The Semantics of the Twin Towers’ Destruction

      “The transformations of the Twin Towers from intact buildings to widely scattered rubble and dust were, inescapably, explosions. Whatever the cause of these vast eruptions of dust and shattered steel, their sudden onset, rapidly expanding frontiers, and omnidirectional character fit virtually every sense of the word “explosion”.

      The expunging of this word from reportage of these events — a shift that can be seen on major TV networks within the space of an hour — is a testament to the degree to which powerful socialization tools can be used to rewrite history at times when a deep collective shock renders the populace ever so susceptible to messages emanating from authority figures, where the words used to frame that message exert a profound and mostly unconscious effect on the listener’s understanding of the events.

      On 9/11/2001, the very words used to describe the Towers’ destruction were a key aspect of inculcating the public with pretext for the War on Terror. With the substitution of the word collapse for explosion, and the supplying of the narrative “plane hits tower, tower burns, tower collapses” the official explanation was cemented and rational examination of events short-circuited.”~Kevin Ryan – 2008


    • NOTICE
      The article is produced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

      • How the Towers were Planted and Wired with Explosives:

        Click to access wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

        Ace Elevator was renovating the elevator systems in the WTC towers, up to the very day that the buildings were demolished.
        This cached March 2001 article in the trade magazine Elevator World, gives some of the details.

        A cover-up of this fact of the work being done in the elevator shafts in the year and a half prior to the events of 9/11 is revealed in that NYC Department of Buildings claims there are no records of this elevator upgrade.


      • Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports
        Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports
        produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the
        World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its
        lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross – should be investigated.

        Click to access twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf


      • The Cause of the Destruction Of The World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards Developed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaaceutical, Inc.
        (Stevan Douglas Looney, J.D.)

        Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469 (1993) and its progeny, expert testimony offered to support the official theory and hypotheses concerning the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 (the WTC) on September 11, 2001 would probably be excluded from admission into evidence by an impartial judge in a civil or criminal proceeding. In contrast, expert testimony presenting an alternative theory and hypotheses explaining the cause(s) of the destruction of the WTC grounded in and adhering to accepted and reliable scientific principles using the scientific method would satisfy the Daubert test and would be admitted into evidence.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also became involved and over time presented a series of reports presenting the official theory or explanation of the cause(s) of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

        The official theory and the alternative theory or theories of the cause(s) of the destruction of these buildings are not in agreement.

        Very briefly, the official theory of the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 is that aircraft impact damage combined with intense heat from the fires created by the ignition of the jet fuel on Flights 11 and 175 undermined the integrity of structural support systems in the upper floors of WTC 1 and 2. According to NIST, as a result of this process, “global collapse was inevitable.” NIST has, however, been unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

        The official theory of the destruction of WTC 7 is that it collapsed due to fire. The fires were caused by debris from the collapse of WTC 1 which ignited fires on at least 10 floors in WTC 7 which then burned out of control until the building collapsed naturally due to gravity alone. According to the official theory of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 there is no corroborating evidence for any alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. However, contrary to National Fire Protection Association guidelines and the scientific method, NIST did not look for evidence of explosives.

        Click to access 2015LooneyVol40Mar.pdf

        Also see:,_Inc.

  2. 1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed:

    The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was sudden and dramatic.

    The South Tower fell at 9:59am
    The North Tower fell at 10:27

    Total collapse times vary from source to source, but are agreed to be between 10 to 13 seconds each; virtually free fall speed in any practical sense.

    2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint:

    The collapses, generally occurred inward without significant tipping. The greatest proportion of the heavy steel was found in the basements of the WTC. Although heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more [See: FEMA Debris Map] covering the entire acreage of the complex and beyond. [Note; this covers point 4.]


      • I’m a psych professor and would like to use this photo for my book. (1) Do you have a better resolution than this and (2) Do you know the source of the photo where I could get permission to use it? Jerry

        If you think it is public domain let me know that too okay?

      • Jerry,

        The source is “Images – 9/11”
        There are various resolutions available as well as various angles.
        I have no idea if this particular image has a copyright or not. I published it under “Fair Use” as this blog is not for profit. You would have to look up the photographer and find out for yourself as to what copyrights are standing.

        Good luck!

      • Debris Field extends 400 square yards, covering the entire WTC complex and beyond.

        exploding tower

    • The WTC Towers were part of a psyop, as such it was to a great extent ‘theater’, a dramatic showpiece exposition. They were utterly and completely destroyed for traumatic effect. And this is one reason that they are like no other controlled demolition – as they were akin to a ‘fireworks show’, like two Roman Candles. And for TV; a ‘disaster movie’.


    • Kerosene is Kerosene.
      It is the additives/refinements that make Jet Fuel out of Kerosene. Jet fuel is actually refined kerosene. It doesn’t truly burn hot or it would melt an engine. In an open fire, it will burn at about 500-700 degrees *F.

      Since the melting point of iron is 1537*C or 2,798.6*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires.

      Melting point of Stainless Steel is 1510*C — 2750*F

      Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, the temperatures at which jet fuel burns would range between 800 degrees Fahrenheit to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, and the higher temperature would involve forced oxygen ‘foundry-like’ conditions.

      Furthermore even NIST admitted that the vast majority of the jet fuel blew out of the building on impact and burnt out within minutes.

  3. 3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust:

    700,000 tons of concrete and stone rubble. The towers global collapse was complete, leaving a debris field less that 4 stories high at the maximum.

    Note however some popular misconceptions concerning this issue:

    “the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization,” “the pulverized remains,” both are exaggerated by dismissing the fact of the actual character of the “pulverization,” which simply was not as complete to ‘dust’ as is posited by the parties who promote the use of exotic weapons.


    “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
    rubble. [Jones]

    A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam)* particles that are typically measured.”

    *(μm – micrometer)

    ure_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table at that URL.


    • “As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.”~Jones – Jan 2007.

      [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]

      Click to access NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf


  4. 5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air:

    There is universal agreement on this point. There is no controversy and the point needs no argumentative support. However the visual evidence is available as support if one doubts these facts.


    • I will skip to point 7 in my next entry, as it is short. The points, 6, 8, 9, will be combined into one or two entries as these points are so entwined, and buttress each other as one argumentative flow:


  5. 7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long:

    “A second argument for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is based on the observation that the steel skeletons of the Towers were shattered into thousands of pieces. Indeed, no large three-dimensional steel assemblies survived at Ground Zero, other than fragments of lower portion of the North Tower’s core and sections of the bases of the perimeter walls of both Towers.”~Kevin Ryan, 2008

    steel beams raining

    Photographic evidence as well as testimony of workers in the rubble back up this assertion.


    • [7B]
      “The thoroughness and the consistency of destruction of the Twin Towers is very well documented by surviving photographs of Ground Zero at various stages of excavation, and by accounts of clean-up workers, who describe being unable to find even a single recognizable piece of office equipment. Virtually the only recognizable objects in Ground Zero photographs are larger pieces of the Towers’ steel skeleton and the exterior aluminum cladding. Even the smaller steel components were degraded beyond recognition. Just try to find a portion of one of the nearly 20,460 distinctive double trusses that supported the floors, or evidence of the nearly 10,000,000 square feet of corrugated floor pans.”~Kevin Ryan
      . . .
      Explosive Features

      explosive event

      Explosive events, such as blast waves, energetic jets of dust, exploding clouds of dust, steel assemblies flying hundreds of feet in all directions, and thorough pulverization of debris are all direct evidence of explosives and controlled demolition.

      In league with defenders of the official story, promoters of exotic weapons deal with some of these explosive features through a combination to two misleading tactics:

      -By pretending that detonations in a demolition would be visible and audible as distinct events, in every instance.
      -By simply denying the many explosive features that are abundantly documented.


  6. 6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning confluent rows of small explosions:

    I will be including several video addresses that show the demolition waves, one is in this comment. There will be more in subsequent comments. There are countless other video and still images of these explosive events throughout the Internet. I suggest close study of as much of this material as you can.


  7. [6 cont. 2]

    According to Chapter 1 of FEMA’s own report pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers. The distribution pattern they diagram suggests that, with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward. This is corroborated by the shape of the vertical holes in WTC 6.:

    A three-second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about three seconds into the plunge of the tower’s top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accounting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach the 44th-floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run. The movie (mpeg) was found on plaguepuppy’s cafe with the following description.

    “Though the view of the building is brief, looking at it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected out horizontally at high speed. To account for this very rapid ejection of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.

    If you look closely as the wave travels down it seems to spare the corners, perhaps letting them lag behind to help keep the implosion aligned. The demolition wave is clearly advancing ahead of the actual collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down. The delays between demolition charges would have to be very precisely controlled to create this effect, suggesting to me that each floor was wired to a separate detonator, with control of the sequencing most likely done remotely. This would also allow the collapse to be triggered from the point of impact of the plane to make it look more realistic. Such sequencing could easily be done from a laptop connected wirelessly to the towers, as long as each floor could be detonated separately.”


  8. 8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings:

    Let us begin without much ado with some of these witness tesimonies.

    September 11, 2001, NBC News Transcripts, ‘Attack on America, 11:00 AM’: “Chief Albert Turi told me that he was here just literally 10 or 15 minutes after the events that took place this morning. That is, the first crash. … The chief of safe–the Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me that at–shortly after 9:00 he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men, in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there. And that, basically, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device–that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then, an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So, obviously he–according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that took place after the initial impact, was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building. So, that’s what we have been told by Albert Turi who is the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me that just moments ago. Now we are continuing to hear explosions. We are continuing to hear explosions here downtown. And what we’ve been told by some of the fire officials is that there are some gas lines that occasionally are exploding down there…” (Turi retired in 2002, along with many other supervisors and ordinary fireman in a “mass exodus”.) August 7, 2002, New York Times, ‘City’s Fire Dept. Facing an Exodus of its Supervisors’: “Scores of New York City’s Fire Department supervisors, including some of its most senior surviving commanders, have retired since Sept. 11, and hundreds more have notified their union that they expect to leave in the next year. At the same time, the department’s front-line firefighters are retiring at more than double the usual rate, according to fire officials. … Also retiring is Albert Turi Jr., who was the department’s chief of safety… And of late, the rate of departure has accelerated even more, with some 40 firefighters retiring every week on average. A year ago, 40 firefighters might have retired in a typical month.

    October 23, 2001, New York Times, file no. 9110142 (pdf on the site), interview with FDNY deputy assistant chief Albert Turi: “The next thing I heard was Pete say what the fuck is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.”

    Tyrone Johnson, one of three firemen catching a brake on 9/11, interviewed by a film crew and bystanders (Youtube) (FOIA release in December 2010, after a lawsuit): “[Fireman 1, a black man:] Yes it was. Definitely a secondary explosion. We were inside waiting to go upstairs and on our way upstairs the whole fuckin’ place blew. It just collapsed on everybody inside the lobby. I don’t know about the first one [tower coming down from a secondary explosion]. But the second one, it was terrible. And there was a third one after that one too. … It was like three explosions after that [after the plane crash]. We came in after the fire was going on already. We were in the staging area inside the building, waiting to go upstairs. … It can’t be more worse than this. You’re in the building, trying to help people, and it’s exploding on you inside the building.”

    Jimmy Grillo, one of three firemen catching a brake on 9/11, interviewed by a film crew and bystanders (Youtube) (FOIA release in December 2010, after a lawsuit): “People don’t understand. There may be more [bombs]. Anyone of these fucking buildings can blow up. This ain’t done yet. … We were in the lobby gathering to go up to start doing a search on the upper floors. As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion and everybody just started running for the door. Everybody was trapped. Eventually when the dust lifted, I saw some light and started screaming for everybody to go out towards the light managed to get Tyrone out and a couple other guys…”

    Firefighter talking to Jimmy Grillo, who wants to start helping his trapped buddies again (Youtube) (FOIA release in December 2010): “Jimmy, don’t go too close, Jimmy. They’re still blowing up, Jimmy.”

    Fireman filmed in the WTC complex (Youtube): “There’s a bomb in the building. Start clearing out.”
    New York Fire Department official on the radio (Youtube): “I got an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8.”
    New York Fire Department Official on the radio (Youtube): “And we’ve got another explosion on the tower, 10-13, 10-13.”
    Fireman on the radio (Youtube): “Tower 2, I’ve just had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the entire area.”
    Dusty fireman interviewed on 9/11 (Youtube): “We never even really got that close to the building. An explosion blew and knocked everybody over.”

    September 12, 2001,, ‘United in Courage’: “Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem: We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.”

    Engine 7 fireman in the documentary ’911 – the filmmakers’: “The lobby was about six stories high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there. It’s a … all the glass was taken out, there were 10 foot by 10 foot, a marble panels that were once walls that were loose from the wall of the Trade Center.” Could possibly be from the elevator falling down.


    • “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

      CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 – September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

  9. [8 cont.]

    Evalle Sweezer, office worker (Youtube): “The lobby was totally gone. … A woman with her face blown off [lay here] … As we were coming out, past the lobby, there was no lobby. So I believe the bomb hit the lobby first. And a couple of seconds later the first plane hit.” Not counted. The lobby may have been damaged that bad by the falling elevator.

    Engine 7 fireman in the documentary ’911 – the filmmakers’: “I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown. 30th floor. We hear another … explosion. And at that time we heard a huge explosion.”

    A group of Engine 7 firemen in the documentary ’911 – the filmmakers’:Fireman one: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running. Floor by floor it started popping out.” Fireman two: (makes sound and hand gestures to show how the floors popped out) “It is if they had detonators…” Fireman one:“Yeah! detonators…” Fireman two: “It is if they had planned to take down the building…boom…boom …boom…boom.” Fireman one: “Yeah…detonators…all the way down, I watching it and running.”
    Man in a New York Fire Department uniform states (Youtube): “… [we got?] so many people out, but then there were secondary explosions, and then the subsequent collapses.” (talks very fast and the first part is somewhat hard to hear)

    2002, Dennis Smith, ‘Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center’, p. 18 (report of fireman Dennis Tardio):“I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.”

    2002, Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, ‘Women at Ground Zero: Stories of Courage and Compassion’, pp. 65-66, 68 (account of army veteran and police officer Sue Keane): “[It] sounded like bombs going off. That’s when the explosions happened. … I knew something was going to happen. … It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion. … [There was] another explosion [around the time the North Tower came down]. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. … I can’t tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. … There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.””

    2002, Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard, foreword by Tom Brokaw, ‘Running Toward Danger – Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11′, p. 87:“John Bussey | Foreign Editor, The Wall Street Journal: … I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was a very peculiar sight of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact, the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, “This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.” So I went under the desk in the office where I sought shelter.” (Bussey gives no indication at a later point that he has came to a different conclusion)

    2002, Chris Bull and Sam Erman, ‘At Ground Zero: 25 Stories From Young Reporters Who Were There’, p. 184: Beth Fertig, WNYC radio reporter and contributor to NPR: “The Building came down so orderly, floor by floor, that I presumed it was a controlled demolition. I hoped that it was. Maybe they all got the people out and now they’re bringing the building down to prevent mass casualties.”


  10. [8 cont.2]

    September 17, 2001, Christian Science Monitor, ‘A Changed World’, page 2 of 9: “Tom Elliott was at work in his office at the Aon Corp., an insurance brokerage firm, on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center’s other, south tower. … Elliott and two others headed down the building stairwell, a narrow beige corridor with a yellow stripe painted down the middle of concrete steps. They ran into a few other people as they descended, but there still hadn’t been any announcements, and the absence of other escapees was making them feel as if they had prematurely panicked. Then, as they reached the 70th floor, they heard an announcement: The building was secure. No one needed to evacuate. One woman in the small group said to Elliott, “Do you want to believe them? Let’s go!” They had descended three more floors when United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into their own south tower like an arrow from a giant crossbow [78th-84th floor]. It was 9:03 a.m. … Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise – he calls it an “exploding sound” – shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” he says. … In a flash of panic, people began fleeing higher into the building. Then a few men began working on the crowd, calming people down, saying that downstairs was the only way out. As they descended, a few other survivors stumbled into the corridor. A construction painter, his white T-shirt covered in blood, was helped downstairs by others. But the stairwell was still far from jammed with evacuees. Elliott assumed his was one of the final groups descending. They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    This one is of particular interest because of the impressions of the people giving testimony. From what they experienced it seemed as if the explosion came from below. And this eyewitness account;
    “and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,”

    Note that this belies the insertion in the story:

    “Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below.”

    These data points drawn together are indications that a bomb went off below at about the time the plane was coming in for impact. And when we get to the Seismic evidence a bit later in this discussion, this indication is verified.


    • At around 11am – around half an hour after the collapse of the north tower of the World Trade Center and an hour after the collapse of the south tower, Peskin states, “I still hear continuing explosions, I don’t know what it is,” as small explosions can be heard in the background.
      At 1:49 in the clip, a louder rumbling explosion can clearly be heard coming from the direction of WTC 7 – “That’s another explosion,” says Peskin.
      The clip was contained in the NIST folder named “Richard Peskin” and is a combination of footage from the files Peskin 25.avi, Peskin 28.avi, Peskin 29.avi, and Peskin 30.avi.


    • In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.

  11. [8 cont.3]

    Fox Channel 5 News, live on 9/11. Smoke is emerging from the base of the South Tower (which has collapsed, unknown to the reporters): “[Narrator 1:] We just heard that there was another explosion in the basement on one of the lower levels of the World Trade Center. [Narrator 2:] It would seem from that picture there that you are right, Dave. … It certainly looks like an awful lot of smoke. … Now there seems to be coming a lot of smoke from the lower portion of the World Trade Center. And we had a report indicating that there was an explosion on the lower floors now.”

    Mat Meagher, reporter live on 9/11 (Youtube): “A big explosion has just occurred. Everyone is running from the financial district now. Smoke is filling the entire area. Let’s go! Stop shooting! Go!”

    NBC Live coverage when the South Tower collapses – which the reporter can’t see (Youtube): “We are not exactly sure what happened, but there was an explosion on the far side of one of the buildings from where we are standing. The reverberation! And another explosion on the right hand side!”

    CBS 2, Live broadcast on 9/11 (Youtube): “CNN is now reporting that there was a third explosion at the World Trade Center. Probably an explosion from the ground that caused World Trade Center 1 [she meant 2] to collapse on top of itself. Again, there was a third explosion. It is unclear what caused it. Whether it was a bomb, or whether the first [she means second] plane that crashed into the tower had been booby-trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crash had occurred.”

    Narrator on CNBC live on 9/11 (Youtube): “This was clearly… The way the structure was collapsing… This was the result of something that was planned. It’s not accidental that the first tower just happened to collapse and that the second tower just happened to collapse in just the same way. How they accomplished this, we don’t know.”

    September 11, 2001, ABC News live coverage (Youtube): “[Reporter Don Dahler:] The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. The entire building has just collapsed, as if a demolition team set it off, when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings, it folded down on itself, and it is not there any more. … [Anchor Peter Jennings:] The southern Tower … just collapsing on itself. … We have no idea what caused this. Anybody who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you are going to do it on purpose you have to get at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down.” … “[Don Dahler:] Peter, eh, what appeared to happen from my vantage point, the top part of the building was totally involved in fire. There appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out. It looked like the top part of that building was so weakened by the fire that the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building. That’s what appeared to happen. I did not see anything happening at the base of the building. It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapsed the building by the sheer weight of the top. There was no explosion at the base part of it. But I did see that the top part of it started to collapse. The walls started to bulge out.”


    • “.. what appeared to happen from my vantage point..” says Don Dahler, which is a good place to set him in. He was not that close to the towers, but was several blocks away, being able to see the towers at their height — however, the view is not like looking at the towers standing alone in a field several blocks distant, there are of course buildings, quite substantial in size between he and the base of the towers. From his “vantage point” he couldn’t actually see the base of the buildings. This is why his assertion that “There was no explosion at the base part of it,” conflicts with testimony of those who were there at the actual base, saw and felt explosions there and had to run for their lives to get out of the way of the avalanche of rubble.

      I have had email exchanges with Dahler personally. He is firmly opposed to the idea that the towers were demolished by explosives. And at this point seems to be following an agenda of denial for career advancing purposes. He won’t consider other evidence, does not WANT to be persuaded — he’s a pro with places to go, hoping to be an “anchorman”.

      Peter Jennings the Anchor that day, was much more upfront with his observation, as were several other anchors [Dan Rather also] early in the day … before the official wagons began to circle to a common story-line, obviously controlled from the top of the food chain.


      • On September 11, 2001, Michael and his seeing eye dog, Roselle, walked down 78 flights of stairs in the North Tower of the World Trade Center and survived.
        Michael Hingson, is blind, has a guide dog Roselle and has to descend 78 stories on foot to get to safety.
        . . . . . .
        I saw the segment with Hingson on the Nat’l Geographic special ‘Remembering 9/11′. At the end of that interview Hingson recounts being safely out of the building and standing with a crowd of others, he says:
        “I couldn’t see anything … suddenly there was the sound of bam, bam,bam, then BOOM! And the tower came down.”
        This corroborates so many other ear witness testimonials of hearing the sounds of explosions just before the towers came down. Although Nat’l Geographic attempts to maintain the official narrative, this one interview appearing unedited as it is, rebukes the official story without the editors realizing it.

      • Just a couple of nights ago was the first time I had seen the National Geographic special ‘Remembering 9/11’. It is actually a CD my mom had made and loaned to me sometime back.
        It was really quite awful, blatant sappy emotion tugging pap geared to cause feelings of jingoistic “heroic patriotism” – it was obvious PR, and clearly propaganda meant to reinforce the official narrative.

        The segment with Michael Hingson was very close to the end, and I was fed up with the whole thing, until I got to the end of his segment and realized what he had revealed. I was as surprised and delighted to catch that part. An important ear witness testimony of bombs going off before the onset of the global collapse of the tower as it exploded.

    • 9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions)

      Seismic Evidence of Explosives in WTC Basements

      “In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, in distinction from the amplitude and, particularly, the frequency.”~Dr. Rousseau [pg. 5]

      Click to access RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

      More on this topic in ‘Further Considerations’

  12. 10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months:

    This last point is a lap-over point, a segue into the analysis of the Aftermath. The combined evidence {points 1 through 9} of the destruction of the towers is already shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition; adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

    Arising from that fact is the “Best Evidence” being the combination of points 6 and 8; Audiovisual evidence presented in video clips, still imagery – combining with the vast pool of testimony attesting to explosions that in many instances describe the sequential “bam bam bam” of squibs circling each story, as well as larger booms as well.

    Now from the physical evidence drawn from the aftermath we shall proceed to show another phase of ‘Best Evidence’, that being physical evidence of explosive residue and effects.

    This introduces the next chapter; ‘Aftermath:


  13. 9/11 AFTERMATH

    This story is one of a new crime extending from the original crime of the actual demolitions of the World Trade Complex.

    Every single thing that was effected by the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was evidence. Not just the remains of the towers, not just the steel, but the dust, the fragments, the cars and other vehicles that were effected__EVERYTHING. All of this was ‘crime scene evidence’ in a legal sense.

    What little of this evidence remained after the WTC was wiped clean is only that which slipped through the fingers of the perpetrators controlling their own crime scene. Whatever cursory ‘investigation’ was made, was more in fact to make assurances that suspicious evidence never saw the light of day.

    This is part and parcel with the fact that no chains of possession of such evidences in the entire case have ever been revealed.

    In a case so bereft of any solid physical evidence, the importance of what little there is and what it proves is of paramount import.

    The entire complex was completely destroyed including WTC 7, and that destruction spread beyond the perimeters of that complex to structures nearby. Building 7 has not been dealt with seperately here, but all the points made for the towers attend to this structure and it’s demolition as well – it being in fact a classic controlled demolition, while there were aspects of the towers demo’s that where altered for the purpose of the appearance that the planes were the cause of them.

    So we shall look at the controversy that immediately ensued when the crime scene was commandeered for a cover-up and the steel was hastily being removed and without proper inspection and sold as scrap and shipped off – much of it going to China.


    • This in a sense is proof in itself that all these anomalies add up becoming its own source of evidence. the crime scene was compromised way before any investigation was conducted and so on and so on!

  14. FEMA investigation a Half-Baked Farce

    Editor-in-chief of ‘Fire and Engineering magazine, William Manning was interviewed by Jim McMichael of the New York Daily News on January 4, 2002:

    Editor-in-chief Manning is calling the present investigation run by the American Society of Civil Engineers “a half-baked farce,” and has condemned the destruction of WTC evidence. “For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car,” says Manning. [Jim McMichael]

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produced the first official government report attempting to explain the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers as structural collapses induced by plane crashes and fires. It also appeared to play a central role in the “cleanup”* of Ground Zero, which led to the destruction of nearly all of the body of evidence any thorough investigation would need.

    In May of 2002 FEMA released its World Trade Center Building Performance Study. And indeed it was a “half-baked farce,” the only thing of merit that got through the editing by the perpetrators of this farce was:

    APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination – Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of Worcester Polytechnic Institute

    It is in this examination that the first evidence of ‘Thermite Arson’ is revealed in this report by the discovery of iron – aluminum rich microspheres, and the signature of eutectic corrosive attack on the steel samples tested.
    A further exposition is given by Jerry Lobdill, June 2007:

    Click to access JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

    [Note on URLs used in this document – most of the original pages from official sources have been scoured from the Internet, only ‘mirror sites’ survive in many cases.]


    • Also, one such linear cutting product was patented in February 2001 (See, US Patent 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001). The application on said patent was filed in 1999.

      The device, known as “Cutting Torch and Associated Methods” incorporates a nozzle onto a mounted thermite linear cutting device for the “purpose of cutting substantially thick material” using an extended “linear cut in a piece of material.” Furthermore, another embodiment in US Patent Application 20060266204 reiterates the goals of the 1999-2001 device and states that the “anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”~Robert Moore – PDF


    • Crime Scene Despoiled – Evidence Misplaced

      Most of the debris from the towers likely occupied the sublevel collapses as has been quantitatively explained.[35] Damage assessment schematics issued by the Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers [36] clearly show approximately 1/3rd of the total volume of
      the sublevels was collapsed or heavily damaged while another 1/3rd of the total volume was not assessed. If only 1/3rd of the volume was filled with debris, then this would assuredly account for all the ‘missing’ debris. Furthermore, at least 350,000 tons of steel were reported to be removed from GZ to landfills and recycle centers.37 The number of truck loads (over 100,000)38 which transported material from GZ is consistent with the expected amount of debris generated. Martin J. Bellew, Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal at the New York City Department of Sanitation, reports over 1900 barges were used to transport the material from 59th Street and Hamilton Avenue Marine Transfer Stations, Pier 6, and Pier 25 totaling 1.6 millions tons of debris removed from GZ:39

      At the peak of the operation, approximately 10,000 tons of material were delivered daily to the [Fresh Kills] site… approximately 200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer). The remaining material, approximately 1.2 million tons of WTC debris, was landfilled on the western side of Section 1/9 at the Fresh Kills Landfill in a 40-acre site.
      The project had come up to speed quickly, processing from 1,750 tons per day of debris in mid-September to 17,500 tons per day by mid-October. Average throughput over the duration of the project was 4,900 tons of debris processed per day.
      The last WTC debris was received at the Fresh Kills Landfill on July 29, 2002. On September 3, 2002 the project was completed.

      Click to access Fe-DustStudies44.pdf


  15. WTC Dust Signature Report by RJ Lee Group, Inc. – Report Date: December 2003

    WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology 130 Liberty Street Property
    [Prepared for: Deutsche Bank]

    “The distinctive composition, solid phases, and unique morphological features have allowed for the development of a “WTC Dust Signature”: dust containing particles that, when occurring together, can be considered to act as identifying source tracers. The WTC Dust Signature can be compared with dusts of unknown provenance using conventional source apportionment methodologies, forensic tags derived from microscopic observations, or statistical analysis.” — pg. 5.


    • Cahill and UC Davis Group – South Tower dust cloud sampling:

      The UC Davis group acquired dust samples from a cloth carry-bag as well as a shirt that was directly hit by the expanding south tower dust cloud during collapse –
      Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 85% of sample – Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 0.02% of sample

      Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 11% of sample Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 20% of sample



    “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to

    understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance

    are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and

    that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC


    A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The

    environmental science community has been slow to understand that

    the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of

    gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance

    (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam)

    particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam)

    particles that are typically measured.”

    ure_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table at that URL.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    "As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.”~Jones – Jan 2007.

    [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]

    Click to access NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf

  17. So to cut to the chase here, what was eventually found to be in the WTC dust that is the smoking gun evidence of explosives being used to bring down the towers?

    This is the paper that presents this conclusive evidence:

    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
    Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

    “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”


  18. In this interview on the cable program Face to Face with Jack Etkin, Dr. Harrit discusses this finding and its implications.

    Dr. Harrit notes that World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that was not hit by one of the planes on 9/11, collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, and that the official explanation for this is that it was due to fire. However, the finding of nano-thermite in the dust, along with other available evidence, leads inescapably to another conclusion. “There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a controlled demolition,” says Dr. Harrit. “I consider this to be [a] mainstream scientific conclusion. There’s no way around this conclusion. There are so many observations that are only compatible with a controlled demolition.”

    Among the other evidence is the observation that WTC 7 fell at the acceleration of gravity, or free-fall acceleration. Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.

    While conventional thermite is an incendiary, made from a mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide, Dr. Harrit explains that nano-thermite is manufactured from the atomic scale up. The ingredients are much more intimately mixed, he says, so they react with each other much faster. Unlike thermite, “Nano-thermite can be used as an explosive,” notes Dr. Harrit. “You can use thermite for cutting the steel beams, and it’s soundless,” he adds.

    Discussing the relevance and importance of the conclusion that the three World Trade Center towers were destroyed in a controlled demolition, Dr. Harrit says, “I think what happened on September 11, 2001 is the most important event to our generation, and for our children…. And the consequences of this event should be obvious to everyone. But it’s not. But it’s happening at such a slow pace that people maybe do not connect the dots.”

    Dr. Harrit credits Dr. Steven Jones, a retired professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with having the insight to examine the dust to look for evidence of how the buildings collapsed. Dr. Harrit rebuts two of the more common attempts to dismiss the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust. One dismissal that is often heard is that this material was a natural occurrence resulting from the collapses. Dr. Harrit points out that this violates basic chemical principles, and that nano-thermite is a high-tech manufactured substance that cannot result from natural occurrences. Another charge is that the material was planted in the dust samples Dr. Harrit and his team examined, a claim Dr. Harrit regards as preposterous, noting that the chain of custody of each of the four samples examined for the peer-reviewed paper is well-documented.

    Nano-thermite, Dr. Harrit explains further, is “produced only in military facilities and big military institutions in the world…. The explosions of the future are based on this technology…. Research is going on, but it’s military research. This is high technology material.”


    • Why were military-grade explosive chips found in the towers’ dust throughout Lower Manhattan?

      This is the question that is become the ‘Smoking Gun’, physical ‘hard evidence’ that fits as the keystone to the arch of all the other evidence that this event was a systemic military-industrial state operation, and that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.


    • ref:

      The military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a “new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times … resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including … explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”



      A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite” is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 1 micrometre. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. 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 for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

      Patent from 1996: US1996068478119960722 (July 22, 1996) Legal status (INPADOC) of US5885321 – US F 68478196 A (Patent of invention) PRS Date: 1997/07/22 -PRS Code: AS02 – EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15
      Abstract of US5885321
      “Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing alane-adducts in organic solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highly uniform particles selectably sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic materials including composites, super thermite, and other explosives.
      Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition. Once the nano thermite had been developed one would expect that over time various modifications using additives would be developed for different purposes. For example there is strong evidence that sulphur was incorporated (see appendix C of the FEMA report). Sulphur has the effect of lowering the melting point of steel. The term thermate is applied to such material. Other chemicals can be added to generate gas and thus produce an effect more like a conventional explosive.”

      “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005;
      “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives intothe bulk metal oxide materials.
      These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)
      “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]” B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,”~Clapsaddle 2005.


  19. Where Did The Towers Go?

    Pg. 96 ; Wood’s argument against conventional explosives is asinine. It is all based on the assertion that the building would “slam to the ground” as one event. The video evidence – and she is so insistent on facing that evidence – shows that the materials hit the ground throughout a period of time, not all at once.

    Her assertion that the material would ‘slam to the ground’ all at once as one event in an explosive demolition is obviously false. The material was blown laterally for hundreds of feet, raining down as an event taking somewhere near 12 to 13 seconds for each tower. The largest peak of the seismic event was at the very beginning of each tower’s destruction, indicating an explosive event at sub-level, which is typical of explosive demolition.

    It matters not where she goes with the rest of her argument, for the whole thing is based on this proximate and false proposition.


  20. As far as Judy Wood is concerned:

    There are aspects to her presentation that some would call, “nuggets of truth”. But what these are cannot be said to be exclusive to Wood. The idea that the towers did not “collapse”, but in fact “blew up” is one of the most agreed upon aspects according to all of us investigating this phenomena. And this is why my position has always been that one need not have Wood’s input to know about the so-called “nuggets of truth”, they are available from a great variety of sources in analyses, and by direct visual and eye witness accounts in thousands of articles and expositions on the Internet.

    Wood claims to present no theories, but to simply offer the evidence. This is not so, and anyone who understands PR knows that it is the ‘spin’ and the ‘slant’ of a presentation that projects the bias of the presenter. The ways the issues are framed, reveals the assumptions held by the author/presenter. There would be no controversy about Judy Wood if she didn’t have an obvious interpretation and opinion of what the evidence she shows means.

    More to this is the fact that she makes the assertion that she makes no assertions, as if she truly believes this to be the case, and this can be said to be ‘confirmation bias’.

    My interpretation of the evidence, not just what is within the Wood presentation, but in all that I have been able to review in the past almost 13 years, is opposed to Wood’s interpretation. I make that clear in what I have written here. And I assert that whether intentional or not, Wood presents disinformation with her interpretation. She dismissed the evidence that conclusively proves explosive demolition. She fails to address her critics in anyway whatsoever. When confronted by a qualified and knowledgeable critic, she begins to sputter and spew unintelligible nonsense. She refuses to see illustrations that are placed right before her eyes.

    She even presents videos and images [on website and book] that taken together in a proper deductive manner belie her entire interpretation. There are many pictures and videos that she has addressed that show solid steel beams being blown out, that show squibs, and demolition waves rippling down the building ahead of the dust cloud. These are clear evidences of explosive charges going off.

    It is this evidence that conclusively proves a controlled explosive demolition, that disproves the various alternative theories of the use of exotic weapons to destroy the WTC.


  21. Journal of 9/11 Studies — Volume 34, November 2012

    Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
    By Dr. André Rousseau

    Click to access RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

    Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves. He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

    “Data from the Palisades, NY recording station, located 34 km north-north-east of Manhattan, published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), provide the most detailed seismic waveforms for analysis, particularly for the determination of the locations (surface or underground) and timing of the events that created the seismic waves.

    Some authors have been puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded for the events at the World Trade Center, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic “peaks” before the collapses. (See MacQueen, 2009). This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.”


  22. Can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots?

    Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steal, and supply their own oxygen source, nano-thermites can indeed explain the hot spots.

    As the obvious goal was to totally destroy the towers, I think the destruction was designed in such a way as the evidence would “eat itself” with this extended burn within the rubble. I don’t think it is ‘happenstance’ that there is unreacted thermites in the dust – I think the contingencies were well thought out and the results witnessed and documented were purposely planned for.

    How this was accomplished is a matter of refining postulates that take a good deal of explanation, previously addressed:

    Rubble Hot Spots:

    Anyone who has watched I fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes.

    We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation in the rubble pile.

    In a sense one could say that with these new chemically nano milled metals, and the addition of various gels and even biological material, a sort of ‘time-release capsule’ can be created, useful in propellant design – but can reach out to other tasks as well, such as simply growing ‘warm’ in a sort of slow motion reaction…or reacting so quickly that it can create an open field implosion, such as the so-called fuel-air bombs, known to have been used in Iraq that creates a vacuum within the blast zone as if the area itself is a chamber.

    It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.

    “As for the effects of heat, the products of the pyrolysis of 1,3-DPP at 375°C are styrene and toluene, in equal amounts (Poutsma and Dyer 1982). This can occur directly in the dry composite (Kidder et al. 2005). Additionally, high temperature oxidation of toluene is known to produce benzene (Brezinsky et al. 1984).

    The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, shortlived, and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those
    dates.”~Ryan et al

    Understand that a ‘burn-rate’ of a material is not the same as a ‘burn case scenario’:

    A “scenario’ implies a variety of circumstances, and in the case of the rubble pile a exponentially chaotic and complex theater – A ‘rating’ defines one single contained and controlled circumstance.


  23. As has been shown explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.

    This is the reasoning I put forward in a positive argument for the controlled demolition of the WTC complex. It is because I have this positive thesis that I feel is reasonably conceived, that I counter an antithesis that I see as ill-conceived.

    As has been pointed out, Wood makes her argument against a typical bottom-up controlled demolition. This argument has been made by anyone paying attention to the forensic evidence. It is proposed by the explosive demolition side of this argument that this event was in no way a ‘typical controlled demolition’ – but one engineered to appear as though the plane crashes were responsible for the destruction leading to a global gravity driven collapse. As such the “collapse” was made to appear as if it began at the floors where the planes were struck, ie; a top down sequence beginning at those floors.

    It is also posited that they were purposely totally obliterated both for shock value and to destroy as much evidence as possible. And then that evidence was stolen in blatant violation of crime scene, fire scene protocol and law. Those who claim that this evidence: the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, “simply wasn’t there” in the aftermath, are so blatantly and ludicrously wrong that it is astounding to even have to make an argument against it. Denying the months of work it took to gather and haul these tons of metal is anti-historical and preposterous.



    225 decibels — Deafening — 12″ Cannon @ 12′ in front and below

    Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
    A. Dead people. They are always deaf.

    140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire

    –”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
    –The conclusion from NIST

    This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’

    –“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges

    This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12″ Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]

    The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.

    –“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.

    The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.


    “Intensity and Distance
    • Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
    • Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
    the distance
    • Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.

    • Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
    • Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
    – logarithmic ratio scale
    – with a reference at the threshold of hearing
    – which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.

    It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.

    With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.

    In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.

    One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
    ‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.

    Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.


  25. The events of 9/11 as portrayed by the Public Relations Regime of the Military-Industrial Complex is a self-serving myth. It is a myth that is upheld, not with evidence for none has been forthcoming, it is supported by mere diktat. The authorities simply tell a story made of whole-cloth and expect repetition to cement it into the minds of a TV audience that is already in a trance, spellbound by the black magic of the high-tech Public Relations Regime. This propaganda works through the emotions, not logic and facts, for the myth has no logic nor facts to maintain it.

    As there has been no valid official investigation into the events of 9/11, there has instead developed an investigation by concerned individuals who were not fooled by the interpretation given on the “news” to things they could see with their own eyes. Within a few years others read the information gathered by these pioneers and they began to open their eyes and search for the actual facts of the events. An eventual groundswell arose that became known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    The towers were constructed with redundant load bearing strength. Their so-called “collapse” due to jet fuel fires and the physical damage caused by the planes is simply absurd. NIST clearly did not address the global failure of the towers. They ended their analysis when the buildings were “poised for collapse” as they say, clearly defying their mandate to explain why the buildings failed globally. NIST was a scientific hoax and a political whitewash.

    In regards to the Towers’ immense solid steel construction, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:

    “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

    The NIST mandate was, first and foremost:

    “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”

    “Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.” – NCSTAR1-6 ExecutiveSummary,p. lxii &, p. lxiv


  26. Addressing Counterarguments

    I will specifically address the issues pertaining to the idea of a ‘Directed Energy Weapon’, as well to the assertions of a ‘Nuclear Aspect’.

    “another blast of argumentum verbosium; an attempt to baffle with great heaps of bullshit piled atop his initial proximate errors.” ~December 22, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Well, what is his prime proximate error? Not to account for the clear and obvious signature of a controlled demolition. As Griffin pointed out, “there has never been a complete collapse of a skyscraper that wasn’t a controlled demolition”

    Every single one of those signatures are clearly discerned in the demolition of the WTC Towers.

    The one that Señor cites so triumphantly, the sound of the blasts; he proclaiming that there is no evidence of this, is utter tripe. There are countless reports of bombs going off the whole time the towers remained standing after the airplane strikes. One can watch the demolition waves as they move down the buildings. And yes the squibs that Señor cannot deny, so he says that “yea they were just the fuses that set off the nukes”. The most simple and direct interpretation is that they were the actual blasts that were blowing out the facade members.

    He claims that there are no sound recordings of the blasts. There are several reasons for this where the claim is true, although there are certainly videos I have seen that recorded blasts, obviously explosives detonating. One of the reasons that some of the films don’t have sound is that NIST manipulated scores of videos while in their possession, cutting out parts, both sound and visual. This was discovered after a law suit that freed the library from NIST and was published thereafter on the Internet. There are copies made by NIST that have been altered, and there are corresponding originals that show what was actually recorded, as well as sound that had been edited out.

    Another reason is in the mechanics of recording itself. The microphones in video recorders are attenuated. This means that when there is a spike in volume the mic cuts out to protect it’s diaphragm from popping or being damaged by the vibration.
    As I noted before I often encountered this while recording thunderstorms as a field recordist. Señor is obviously ignorant of the materials and techniques of sound recording. That or he is relying on the ignorance of others to pass this under the radar.
    The final nail in his coffin however is the hundred plus eyewitness testimonies of the first responders. It is overwhelmingly clear that there were loud explosions during the destruction of both the towers and building 7. So this notion of “quiet explosions” is another myth Señor is propagating.

    Señor El Once has shown that he does not comprehend the enormity of his task of making a proof for his ‘Nuclear DEW’ argument. For in order to even begin such an argument, he must in the first place successfully disprove the case for chemical-explosive demolition. This is an impossible task because the case for chemical-explosive demolition is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Nevertheless I shall now address the proximate errors of the argument for a nuclear aspect of the WTC demolition.


  27. “Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof”
    ~Ed J. Gracely, Ph.D

    Señor makes the assertion that his is an “accumulative argument”, and that disproving a single point does not destroy the whole argument. This is only so to a certain extent.

    A building is constructed by “accumulation” or piece by piece, foundation, and accumulative structure. If the foundation is laid of sand, regardless of how sturdy the structure built atop of it, all it takes is shifting sands to topple the whole thing.

    This analogy is true of argumentation as well. If the basic premise of an argument is shown to be a presumption, or a false assumption, all of the argument accumulated upon the false assumption will collapse, just as in the building allegory.

    Señor constructs a foundation of sand by ignoring the signature characteristics of a controlled demolition, as enumerated above. In particular he handwaves points, 6, 7, 8, and 9, while giving almost exclusive attention to point 10.

    But this is just the beginning of Señor’s trouble, as his accumulation is non sequitur as well, that is that his points do not necessarily follow from one to the other. He takes us on great leaps of speculation, high into the structure itself, beyond the fact that his whole base is nothing but speculation in the first place.

    For illustration of this see near the beginning of in the body of the article before my commentary begins:

    MARCH 5, 2013 – 7:05 PM: Señor’s 12 points that he claims I do not address. Wherein I address these 12 points AGAIN, after having done so on numerous occasions before.

    Even unto this very day, Señor will not admit that these issues have been addressed, but claims I have used “cheap-tricks” [SEE: his comment on April 10, 2014 AT 10:59 AM on


  28. “Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World
    Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist
    attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on
    9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2σ) nCi/L of HTO. A split
    water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of
    WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L,
    respectively. These results are well below the levels of
    concern to human exposure. Several water and vegetation
    samples were analyzed from sites outside ground zero, located
    in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Kensico and Croton
    Reservoirs. No HTO above the background was found in those
    samples. Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were
    investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at
    ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767
    aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci
    of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs.
    There is also evidence that many weapons from law
    enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such
    weaponry contains by design tritium sights. The fate and
    removal of tritium from ground zero were investigated, taking
    into consideration tritium chemistry and water flow
    originating from the fire fighting, rain, as well as leaks from
    the Hudson River and broken mains. A box model was
    developed to describe the above scenario. The model is
    consistent with instantaneous oxidation of the airplane tritium
    in the jet-fuel explosion, deposition of a small fraction of HTO
    at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal of HTO
    from the debris. The model also suggests that tritium from the
    weapons would be released and oxidized to HTO at a much
    slower rate in the lingering fires at ground zero.”

    Click to access 241096.pdf

    A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively.”

    There was an armory in WTC Building 6 belonging to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It stands to reason that the highest reading for tritium would be found in this area due to the tritium weapon sights.


    • 1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel … (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq) 1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq) 1 picocurie (pCi) … 0.000 000 001 = 10^-9 = 1 billionth

      . . . . . . . . . .
      The curie (Ci) is replaced by the becquerel (Bq)*
      1 kilocurie (kCi) = 37 terabecquerel (TBq)
      1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel (GBq)
      1 millicurie (mCi) = 37 megabecquerel (MBq)
      1 microcurie (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq)
      1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq)
      1 picocurie (pCi) = 37 millibecquerel (mBq)
      . . . . . .
      Becquerel (Bq)* replaces the curie (Ci)
      1 terabecquerel (TBq) ~ 27 curie (Ci)
      1 gigabecquerel (GBq) ~ 27 millicurie (mCi)
      1 megabecquerel (MBq) ~ 27 microcurie (µCi)
      1 kilobecquerel (kBq) ~ 27 nanocurie (nCi)
      1 becquerel (Bq) ~ 27 picocurie (pCi)
      * 1 Bq = 1s-1

    • Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.


      • Keep in mind here that Donald Fox speaks to TUs; TU: 1 Tritium Unit = 3.19 pCi/L.

        A pico-Curie is ONE TRILLIONTH of a Curie! So his 6 billion TUs is still hundreds of billions of times insignificant compared to the 25 billion nCi of tritium in a single EXIT sign.

        Gawd this tritium business by these nuke proponents is such garbage!!

    • Tritium Weapon Sights:

      A complete sighting system is 0.054 curies.
      A hundred sighted weapons would be 5.4 curies.
      There was an ATF armory in Bldg.6 WTC.*
      There were also ATF, CIA, and FBI headquarters in No.7 WTC.

      Also, tritium watches, which have up to 0.200 curies or roughly four times as much radioactivity as a single weapon sighting system

      Sources for the tiny levels of tritium found at WTC are abundant when we consider the ubiquity of groundwater contamination and the sources mentioned here.

      * 2001; Cummings, 2002). US Customs and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) were housed in WTC 6, also called the US Customs House.


  29. Tritium PR Fantasy

    Quoting Professor Jones:

    Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
    Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones

    Click to access NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf

    “Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…”

    Click to access 241096.pdf

    Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is:

    deuterium + tritium Helium + neutron.

    Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Pretty simple, in the billionth of a curie range – verses – millions of curies of tritium, in fact equals a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction.

    So even at 55 times the normal count as claimed by Ed Ward, there is still a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction. The amount of Tritium is simply trivial and utterly inconsequential.
    Pointing to the Tritium level as a smoky gun for a nuclear powered event at the WTC is in fact preposterous.

    The point is not that the Tritium level was elevated by this small measure above background – the point is that the levels were too minuet to indicate their presence as due to a nuclear event.
    Therefore there has to be an alternative postulate to replace the dismissed nuclear event. These alternatives are in fact quite reasonable assumptions as they are certainly possible and likely probable when considered.
    Radioactive isotopes

    A published study by Paul Lioy et al. presents data regarding radioactive isotopes (radionuclides), such as would be produced in abundance if atomic bombs were in fact deployed.

    Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).

    Results: We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.
    These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts the empirical facts. . . . . . . .
    The question is asked, “Why would the government look for radiation without the suspicion that it might be there?” This question is of course meant to indicate government knowledge that there would be radiation, “because they used nukes.”

    But the fact is these tests were not done in order to look for radiation, but instead were tests to find out what all the substances were in the smoke and dust.

    As much of the dust was rained out, tests were done on the water to detect whatever was in the samples. The published study by Paul Lioy is definitive in that they found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

    Radioactivity in the environment is in fact ubiquitous.

    These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the nuclear aspect
    [Again See: Jones paper]


    >“The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance “~Prager

    Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The “fission pathway” is nothing but it’s natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.~ww

    >“Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm.”~Prager

    “Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.
    Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]

    The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties.”

    The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.*
    Ferrite magnets and refining zinc.[2]
    Strontium titanate has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond, making it useful in a variety of optics applications. This quality has also led to its being cut into gemstones, in particular as a diamond simulant. However, it is very soft and easily scratches so it is rarely used.[2]
    Strontium carbonate, strontium nitrate, and strontium sulfate are commonly used in fireworks for red color, and sometimes for other colors too.
    Strontium aluminate is used as a bright phosphor with long persistence of phosphorescence.
    Strontium chloride is sometimes used in toothpastes for sensitive teeth. One popular brand includes 10% total strontium chloride hexahydrate by weight.
    Strontium oxide is sometimes used to improve the quality of some pottery glazes.
    Strontium ranelate is used in the treatment of osteoporosis. It is a prescription drug in the EU, but not in the USA.
    Strontium barium niobate can be used in outdoors holographic 3D displays as a “screen”.[40]
    Strontium phosphide is an inorganic compound with the formula Sr3P2 and is used as a laboratory reagent and in the manufacture of chemically reactive devices.

    *In 2001 most personal computers were still using CRT displays {same as TVs}. It wasn’t until 2003 that the price of flat screens became compatible with the CRT. I was still using a CTR at work all the way until 2008.

    All of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.


  30. I repeat ALL of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    “The legacy of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy development has left ground water and sediment at dozens of sites across the United States and many more around the world contaminated with uranium.

    The uranium is transported through ground water as uranyl (U6+). In one bioremediation strategy, uranium immobilization in contaminated ground water and sediment may be achieved by the addition of organic molecules known as electron donors to stimulate microbial activity. The microbial community utilizes the electron donors as ‘food’, consuming all of the available oxygen during aerobic respiration. Once the ground water becomes anaerobic, U6+ may be converted to U4+ as UO2, a solid mineral, sequestering the uranium within the sediment. Researchers have been investigating the effectiveness of various electron donors, but have been frustrated by residual U6+ which is not converted to insoluble U4+.

    A team of scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory has investigated effectiveness of several electron donors for uranium bioremediation in a study funded by the Department of Energy’s Environmental Remediation Sciences Program. Madden et al. report that the particular electron donor chosen affects not only the rate of uranium removal from solution, but also the extent of U6+ conversion to U4+. Results of the study were published in the January-February issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.”



    “In 2004 and 2005, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
    identified the presence of tritium (3H ) in over 90% of the landfill leachate samples from 54 permitted landfills in Pennsylvania. While 3H is produced naturally in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen (14N) in air, it is also produced artificially during nuclear weapon production/use, as a byproduct in nuclear power production, and for other uses. It is these other uses that are most likely to be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills, and most notable among these are gaseous tritium light source (GTLS) devices used as emergency ‘EXIT’ signs. Despite regulatory requirements, accidental disposal of GTLS devices in municipal solid waste landfills is not uncommon (PADEP 2005, 2006a). These exit signs typically contain 10-15 curies of tritium but some contain as much as 30 Curies, and they typically have usable life spans of 10-20 years due to the relatively short 12.32 year half life of tritium.
    Tritium is not a treatable constituent in landfill leachate.”

    Pennsylvania Radiation Protection Program – September 2011

    “Tritium Exit Signs a Problem — Tritium, in landfill leachate” p.42
    ‘Tritium Landfill Leachate Study’ — a chart showing Tritium Concentration (nCi/L)

  32. 350,000 nCi/L at the worst landfill out of 40 in Pennsylvania.

    “Tritium Report: Was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. Re-defined “trace or background levels” in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.” ~Bridges

    Let us deconstruct this sentence from above; “Re-defined “trace or background levels” in cases to be 55 times greater than previously.”:

    What is the assumption of the word “previously”? The assumption is that previous to the event that the Tritium levels were actually at or lower than EPA standards. This is a presumption that has no data to back it up, it is simply supposed to be so. And the fact is practically all municipal industrial environments are polluted beyond guideline limits as a general rule. Enforcement is lax and ‘politically influenced’ by the very industries that are supposed to be monitored and held in check.

    Now I have already addressed the issue of landfill leachate systems are entirely ineffective for Tritium. This being the case it is most reasonable to assume that previous to 9/11 the Tritium levels were already higher than allowed by EPA standards. They may, and likely are higher yet today.

    And these points go beyond the fact of how trivial the infinitesimal amount of tritium 55 times the the EPA standard actually is, in fact billions of times less than even the most attenuated nuclear device would produce. Which is a damn-well good enough reason to discontinue testing.


  33. Lack of Tritium Exit Signs Control and Contamination of Landfill Leachate
    FINAL JULY 2009
    ASTSWMO Radiation Focus Group
    Federal Facilities Research Center

    Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
    444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 315
    Washington, D.C. 20001


    The Radiation Focus Group of ASTSWMO’s Federal Facilities Research Center began
    researching tritium issues in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) began conducting product stewardship activities concerning tritium
    containing devices; specifically self-luminescent tritium exit signs.

    In 2003, the California Water Board evaluated 50 landfills for the presence of radioactive
    materials in landfill leachate. Above-background levels of tritium were found in leachate
    at 10 of these facilities.[1]

    In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began conducting
    a comprehensive two-year evaluation of 54 landfills that tested for the presence of
    radioactive materials in landfill leachate.[2]

    The study was conducted as a follow up to Pennsylvania’s new requirements for radiation monitoring at solid waste management facilities and to confirm findings of the 2003 California study. In the Pennsylvania evaluation, above-background levels of tritium were noted in leachate at most facilities.

    Pennsylvania has done quarterly sampling for the past two years with similar findings.
    Studies in New York and New Jersey also have shown similar results.[3]

    The source of higher-than-background levels of tritium found in landfill leachate samples is presumed to originate from the improper disposal of self-luminescent tritium exit signs found in construction and demolition (C&D) waste and other solid waste streams, as there are no other known sources of tritium in industrial or consumer products that would cause elevated levels of tritium in landfill leachate.

    A tritium exit sign is distributed as a GL device and may contain up to 25 curies (or
    25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium sealed in all the small glass tubes. The manufacturers of generally licensed self-luminous tritium exit signs are specifically licensed and must meet the safety criteria in 10 CFR 32 and in the table of dose limits in 10 CFR 32.24. A general licensee who receives a self-luminous tritium exit sign must appoint a “responsible individual” who is knowledgeable with the regulations and requirements for reporting events, transfer, and disposal of the device.[8]

    Click to access 2009.07_Final-Tritium-white-paper.pdf

    “It is apparent that tritium exit signs are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams. When new, tritium exit signs may contain up to 25 curies (or 25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium. The 2004 Pennsylvania studies indicate that over 90% of landfills had tritium above the 150 pCi/L normal background level, with over 50% above EPA’s MCL for drinking water. Pennsylvania studies also show leachate tritium levels in 2004 and 2005 ranged from hundreds of pCi/L up to 200,000 pCi/L. A single tritium exit sign has the potential to cause the tritium levels observed.” -Ibid

    Follow-up quarterly sampling in 2007, 2008 and 2009 has noted levels as high as 350,000 pCi/L.” – Ibid

    “From numerous reports of lost or stolen tritium exit signs by Agreement States and NRC, one can conclude that tritium exit signs are being disposed of in the normal solid waste stream.[19] This is supported by the States that sample landfill leachate and find levels of tritium well above natural background. In addition to the 2004 and 2005 Pennsylvania studies, ongoing quarterly sampling and analysis of landfill leachate has yielded several landfills with concentrations in the 100,000 to 350,000 pCi/L range. As noted above, other surveys in the States of California, New York, and New Jersey have found similar levels.” – Ibid

  34. – “Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.”~Señor

    So is the reader to surmise from this that exit signs and gun sights are “fusion devices”?
    Of course this is twaddle. The linkage to “fusion devices” of the minuscule amounts of tritium found at WTC is simply spurious nonsense, rhetorical jabberwhack.


  35. A Rhetorical Sleight of Hand

    “Scientific sleight of hand. When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren’t looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.”~Señor
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    “However, because the authors weren’t looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source..”???

    And just why should the authors have been looking at nuclear weapons as the tritium source?

    When one considers the FACT that a SINGLE tritium exit sign contains 25 Ci, and the levels discovered in the samples were BILLIONS of times less than this, why would it occur to any sane mind to consider the possibility of nuclear weapons as a source for the tritium?

    It takes a very bent scope indeed to fly off into Wonderland at the discovery of 3 nCi/L of tritium.


    • Suppose we accept Ed Ward’s 55 times greater number:

      3 x 55 = 165; so 25 billion nCi less 165 = 24,999,999,835 nCi – less than a single tritium EXIT sign.

      Get the picture?

      Even if we give him the wash, and rain, and allow his 16billion number, which in itself is just supposition on his part; we still end up with billions of units less tritium than what is in a single tritium EXIT sign.

      We need not be nuclear scientists to see that the tritium situation cannot be an indication of a nuclear device.

      Unless of course we are going to refer to EXIT signs, weapons siting systems and tritium watches as nuclear devices. But no one is going to propose that any such devices had a hand in blowing up the WTC… unless like Ward and his followers they are crazy as shit-house rats.

  36. As far as “the first-responder ailments” that the nuclear advocates for WTC destruction claim is “Hiroshima like” and being related to “radiation”:

    Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:

    “*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”~RJ Lee report

    This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

    This also has bearing as to the anomalies to do with vehicles:

    The RJ Lee Group performed an extensive study of the Banker’s Trust building at 130 Liberty Street to assess structural damage as well as dust contamination. The dust analysis this group performed is, as it is self-proclaimed in the reports, one of the most extensive dust studies performed costing 33 million dollars. Within one of the reports,vi they state:

    “The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings’ mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker’s Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.”

    “Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction. This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.

    The already oxidized and exposed metal corroded at an accelerated rate after the fires subsided and the corrosive ambient dust resettled upon the vehicles. Fine dust is easily agitated becoming airborne.”~Study

    Pg. 4 -5 Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins


  37. Conclusion:

    Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.


  38. Some Further Reading

    Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns, by D.P. Grimmer

    Click to access Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

    Click to access ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

    SAIC (2004), Science Applications International Corporation, Annual Report 2004

    Click to access Annual-Report2004.pdf

    SDMST (2001), South Dakota School of Mines and Technology website, Research
    Experience for Teachers, Current Projects 2001

    SDI (2008), Special Devices Incorporated website, History

    Simpson RL (2002), Safe and Environmentally Acceptable Sol-Gel-Derived Pyrophoric
    Pyrotechnics, SERDP Pollution Prevention PP-1276

    Click to access PP-1276.pdf

    Son SF, Yetter R, Yang V (2007), Introduction: Nanoscale Composite Energetic
    Materials, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 23, No. 4, July–August 2007

    Son (2008), Steven Son energetic materials webpage at Purdue University

    Tillotson TM, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW (1999), Nanostructure High Explosives Using
    Sol-gel Chemistry, 98-ERD-048, LLNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development,July 1999



      “RDX, an initialism for Research Department explosive,[1] is an explosive nitroamine widely used in military and industrial applications. It was developed as an explosive which was more powerful than TNT, and it saw wide use in World War II. RDX is also known as Research Department Formula X,[2] cyclonite, hexogen (particularly in German and German-influenced languages), and T4. Its chemical name is cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine; name variants include cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine and cyclotrimethylene trinitramine.

      In its pure, synthesized state RDX is a white, crystalline solid. It is often used in mixtures with other explosives and plasticizers, phlegmatizers or desensitizers. RDX is stable in storage and is considered one of the most powerful and brisant of the military high explosives.[3]
      The velocity of detonation of RDX at a density of 1.76 g/cm³ is 8750 m/s.
      Outside of military applications, RDX is also used in controlled demolition to raze structures.”



      “Velocity of detonation {Brisance}
      The velocity with which the reaction process propagates in the mass of the explosive. Most commercial mining explosives have detonation velocities ranging from 1800 m/s to 8000 m/s. Today, velocity of detonation can be measured with accuracy. Together with density it is an important element influencing the yield of the energy transmitted for both atmospheric overpressure and ground acceleration.”


  39. “NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.”~Ryan

    Click to access Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

    Also see:

    Click to access Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf


  40. The Pons and Fleischmann — Jones, Cold Fusion Affair

    Only two months after Pons and Fleischmann had learned that they had competition, Jones informed them that he was prepared to publish. Jones generously proposed that both groups submit their papers to the same journal at the same time so that the credit could be shared. The proposed date of submission was just 18 days away, but Pons and Fleischmann had been hoping for another 18 months to complete their testing. Despite the fact that this severely cut down on their time to gather data, Pons and Fleischmann felt they had no choice and agreed to the joint paper submission. They returned to the lab, determined to collect as much evidence as possible in the remaining days.

    Though they’d just agreed to a joint submission in 18 days and despite the fact that they’d originally wanted 18 months to complete their experiments, Pons and Fleischmann jumped ahead of Jones and submitted a journal article on their own just five days later. This action broke with standards for scientific behavior on two levels. First, they failed to uphold the ethical standards set by the scientific community by breaking the intent (if not the letter) of their agreement with Jones. Second, they didn’t sufficiently expose their ideas to testing. In their rush to publish, they failed to perform some simple and obvious experiments, the results of which would have provided key evidence about whether or not their cold fusion hypothesis was correct.

    Pons and Fleischmann submitted their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, whose editor felt that the weight of Pons and Fleischmann’s potential discovery merited special treatment. The editor put the article through an abbreviated form of peer review.

    Publication by press conference

    Instead of waiting for the scientific community to have its say on Pons and Fleischmann’s radical claims — or even for the paper to be published — the University of Utah held a press conference to announce the success of cold fusion to the world. Very little concrete information was given, but the two scientists and university officials repeatedly emphasized the amount of energy that Pons and Fleischmann thought their fusion cells could produce in the future if the cells were made bigger and better. This gave the public a highly optimistic view of cold fusion and aroused much excitement about the possibilities, all before the scientific community had even had a chance to determine if cold fusion was real.

    Despite all the evidence against them — conflict with established theory, problems with the original experiments, multiple failed replication attempts, and even tests suggesting that the original experiments had produced no fusion — Pons and Fleischmann refused to adjust their hypothesis about fusion occurring in palladium and, in this way, broke with standards for good scientific behavior. Though scientists are expected to be open-minded about new ideas, when multiple lines of evidence accumulate against them, even the most intriguing hypotheses must be abandoned.

    The journal editor who allowed the original article to be published with minimal peer review did not adhere to the standards science had set for such publications. Pons and Fleischmann withheld experimental details from the community and tried to shield their ideas from testing. They and the other scientists who “reproduced” cold fusion, only to later retract their results, failed to perform adequate tests to evaluate their ideas. And, of course, Pons’ behavior during the helium experiment, as well as the broken publication agreement with Jones, smacked of dishonesty. It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked. Within a year, the scientific community had investigated Pons and Fleischmann’s claims and come to the consensus that what had been observed wasn’t really cold fusion.


  41. Attorney William Pepper to OIG: “The Pursuit of NIST’s Fraudulent Reports Will be Relentless”

    “On behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, esteemed human rights attorney William F. Pepper has followed up on his December 12, 2013 letter written to the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General (OIG), demanding that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), a non-regulatory agency within the Commerce Department for which OIG has oversight responsibility, “be directed to produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of Building 7.”

    Read the rest of this exciting news at the following URL:


  42. Some further considerations:

    Mike Philbin — March 22, 2010

    Did you know that a THERMOBARIC BOMB was used in the 1993 WTC basement bomb plot?

    Anyway, a typical (thermobaric) weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, in the center of which is a small conventional-explosive “scatter charge”. Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals such as aluminium or magnesium, or organic materials, possibly with a self-contained partial oxidant. The most recent development involves the use of nanofuels.

    In confinement, a series of reflective shock waves are generated, which maintain the fireball and can extend its duration to between 10 and 50 msec as exothermic recombination reactions occur. Further damage can result as the gases cool and pressure drops sharply, leading to a partial vacuum, powerful enough to cause physical damage to people and structures. This effect has given rise to the misnomer “vacuum bomb”. Piston-type afterburning is also believed to occur in such structures, as flame-fronts accelerate through it.

    The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa, 30 bar) and the temperature can be 4,500 to 5,400 °F (2,500 to 3,000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s (3 km/s).

    There’ve been attempts to retrospectively cover their Military Industrial Complex asses with post-911 (2005) patents for nano-aluminium Thermobaric Weapons aka novel explosive, as seen in this video

    (3 mins in, watch all that pulverised concrete), WHICH THE MILITARY USE TO DEMOLISH ENEMY BUNKERS AND VAPOURISE THE OCCUPANTS WITHIN but this really has been covered already in a 1987 patent #4,873,928 where the phrase “nuclear-sized explosions without the radiation” actually originates from.

    Let’s go back to Dr Stephen Jones’s comment that nanothermite charges were used on 9-11 as evidenced by the vast amount of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Well, yeah, nano-thermite charges would be an excellent way to CHOP THROUGH support girders for the demolition of WTC 1 and 2 but… you’d still need to blow all the floors out of the way or it would just sink into its basement and/or partially topple over. And then you’ve got a crime scene to pull to pieces. What clearly happened on the day is floor-by-floor the resistance from the lower floors was REMOVED. And there were still TONNES of aluminium nano-powder found in spectral analysis of WTC dust … it needn’t have all been nano-thermite aluminium.

    So, what’s the difference between explosives and thermobaric weapons? Well, it’s the combination of all the above elements; the novel explosive (fluoridated?) aluminium nanofuel, oxygen-rich environment (WTC aircon system), pulverised concrete, imploding building and very high temperatures. All these parameters are catered for by a THERMOBARIC WEAPON. You don’t need traditional single point explosives. You don’t need petrol/wet combustibles. Deliver the microfine, dry aluminium nanopowder to a volume of architecture via the aircon, which also supplies the oxygen for the reaction.

    Set off the timed charges in a top-down sequence that correlates with the impact point of the ‘highjacked flights’ on each WTC building.

    Blame some Afghanis in a cave.

    John Deutch was the Director of the CIA and, before that, an Undersecretary of Defense also published two papers while he was a physicist at MIT on … wait for it … fuel air – thermobaric weapons.



      arXiv:0901.2993v1 [physics. soc-ph] 20 Jan 2009

      “The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons
      Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni Independent Scientific Research Institute Box 30, CH-1211 Geneva-12, Switzerland January 20, 2009

      This report is an assessment of the prospect of developing new (i.e., fourth generation) nuclear weapons in the context of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996 and of the current moratorium on nuclear testing in effect in all nuclear-weapon States.
      The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of mass destruction.”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      The reader will note that this dialog pertaining to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons is all framed in the future-tense. In other words the whole thing is based on conjecture; what might be developed within the next 20 years or so.

      And this is why it fits so perfectly into Max Bridges’ game — all of it is conjecture, supposition and rhetorical spin. He pretends he doesn’t have to prove any of this bullshit. It’s a big happy MAYBE, and that is all that matters to Max.

      Meanwhile we have the event at WTC itself to analyze in light of the facts now brought forth; conclusive proof of controlled demolition using chemical explosives. A straight forward substantive case of actual physical, visual, and testimonial proofs.

      It is obvious that in his fanaticism Max will never stop talking in circles. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be curtailed by reasonable critics and left behind as irrelevant within the tent of rationality.

  43. title: Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
    author: Steven E. Jones

    “Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
    I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
    Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
    I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.

    Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
    Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.
    Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.

    A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.”~Jones
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    By Ed Ward, MD – 6-15-7
    –“Verifying the Source of Tritium Levels 55 X the Normal Environmental Amount
    Certified Laboratory Testing of WTC Debris Currently In Progress.”

    What is the definition of “Normal Environmental Amount”?
    What was the amount at WTC on September 10, 2001? Are there actual ‘control group’ numbers that can be cited?
    What is the significance of such a minuscule amount as 55 X?
    Etc, ad infinitum…

  44. ”Prior to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s, tritium’s natural average concentrations ranged from approximately 2 to 8 TU. … Since cessation of atmospheric nuclear tests, tritium concentrations have dropped to between 12 and 15 TU, although small contributions from nuclear power plants occur.

    In the period of three half-lives (1963 to 2000), tritium concentrations have been reduced by a factor of 8. With no further atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, tritium will continue to drop to near natural background levels.

    Click to access agedatinggroundwater.pdf

    . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
    Two issues here:

    1. “..although small contributions from nuclear power plants occur.”

    2. “With no further atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, tritium will continue to drop to near natural background levels.”

    Both of these assertions are made without taking into account the discovery of tritium getting into the groundwater because of the lack of effectiveness of the Leach Fields in landfills. I have cited several articles above that address this issue and the amounts of tritium that are known to be getting into the water table. And these amounts are far beyond the 12 and 15 TU mentioned in the PDF above.

    The final point here is that there is no way to know what the tritium level of the WTC area was on 9/10/2001 because there were no samples taken then. And the samples taken afterwards are so minuscule and trivial that mention of them is simply a distraction. The Nuke and DEW issues are agitprop disinformation meant to lead the naive into the weeds of science fantasy.

  45. “Carbon Nano Tubes Found in Lungs of First Responders”

    The contains this interesting revelation:
    “Of the patients with interstitial disease, all had large amounts of aluminum and magnesium (Carbon Nano Tubes) in an unusual platy configuration , ranging from 27,600 to 184,000/g wet weight of lung. As a comparison, we reexamined for the presence of CNT in 40 samples taken from unrelated workers from diverse construction trades suspected for asbestos-related disease. These patients were known to have been exposed to asbestos, and most of these 40 patients had a high lung burden of asbestos fibers. Less than 10%, however, had platy aluminum and magnesium silicates similar to those seen in WTC patients.”

    And then describes WTC dust samples used for comparison:
    “Electron microscopy mineralogic findings: A summary of the mineralogic analysis in correlation with pathologic features is given in Table 1. Four of the seven WTC dust samples contained CNT. The lung specimens of three of the patients with interstitial disease (Patients A, B, and C) contained CNT (Figure 3A) virtually identical to those of the dust samples (Figure 3B) and of the positive control sample (Figure 3C).



    Presentations By MVA Scientific Consultants
    Dr. James Millette:
    “Update on Dust Particulate Analysis from World Trade Center Disaster of September 11, 2001″ Rich Brown:

    Click to access 9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

    Millette did not publish the report. I am pretty certain that it failed review and that he would rather forget about the whole thing.


  47. The JREF forum hired a scientist named James Millette to test WCT dust samples to debunk the Jones-Harrit et al NanoThermite paper.

    Millette – Revised Progress Report of Results: MVA9119 Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust – 01 March 2012 [And this is the last we have heard from him]

    Click to access 9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

    At one point Millette passed the above preliminary notes to the JREF forum so the monkeys there could hoot and holler about it. But it turns out now that Millette did not publish the report. It is not conclusive whether it did not pass peer review, or if he simply withdrew it. But it is a dead letter.

    Now it has also been discovered that Millette was one of the scientists involved in giving the green light to the EPA for the clean-up of the WTC site, which as we all know was based on fraudulent science and hundreds of those workers involved now are suffering from many types of cancers and other ailments do to the extreme toxicity of that dust and environment. There are now parties out to take Millettes head. He is liable for criminal fraud in that case.

    Harrit´s paper is essentially flawless according to one of the referees that reviewed the paper on behalf of the journal, which explains why no-one has been able to challenge the explosive conclusion with published data.

    Some of these issues are addressed here:


  48. A word about NIST 9/11 Reports

    “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below impact area to the top of the structure. WTC1 was truncated at floor 91,WTC2 was truncated at floor 77.”

    The so-called “global model” was NOT global. You have it in NIST’s own words.

    9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation
    “Failure of the south wall in WTC1 and the east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above it to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by downward movement the story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced from several videos from several vantage points.[]

    [Note: These assertions are conjecture based on video imagery, it is not drawn from experimentation or modeling. Again this rhetoric is giving the same message as my original quote:

    “They stopped short at what they term; “poised for collapse”

    Thus the following is again assertion based on conjecture as well:

    “The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. the potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb the energy of deformation.”

    . . . . . . . .
    This assertion is absolutely preposterous when one considers the actual massive intact structure below.

    NIST has not only failed in it’s stated and legally binding mandate to “to explain the global collapse of the World Trade Towers”, but they fudged input data to create the so-called “collapse initiation” which would not cause the failures under normal gravity inputs and were therefore “pushed to extremes” to make sure “failures occurred”.

    This is explained in full detail in Steven Jones’ paper:
    Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse …
    “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.


    • National Fire Protection Agency guidelines (NFPA 921) require that, in the case of “high–order” damage, tests be made for explosives, NIST made no such tests.

      When NIST spokesperson Michael Newman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report, the following dialog ensued:
      ABEL: “… what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?”
      NEWMAN: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
      ABEL: “But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”
      NEWMAN: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayer’s money.”
      Newman’s response is completely at odds with the NFPA guidelines, as well as with the scientific method.
      There is something there! – unexploded nanothermite and the by–products of a thermite reaction – iron–rich microspheres!

  49. Building a Better Mirage

    NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

    by Jim Hoffman {Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005}

    “To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that “collapse ensued,” the “probable collapse sequence,” but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

    NIST’s misleadingly named “probable collapse sequence” is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST’s theory stops at the moment that the “upper building section began to move downwards,” thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST’s theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading “column instability” triggering “global collapse” in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

    NIST’s Report states that its first objective is to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.” The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.”~Jim Hoffman – 2005

  50. Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse

    This is proof the building was not a burning inferno – and shows that the area NIST says was flaming to take out the column is utter bullshit.

  51. Choosing ‘Best Evidence’ and ‘Best Analysis’ of that evidence is the critical path to the truth.
    The Best Analysis is gleaned by clear critical thinking.

    Discovery of those who dismiss and disparage the Best Evidence/Best Analysis is the discovery of agents of agitprop.

    Having had the chance to grill him extensively on T&S, I am certain that James Fetzer is an agitprop mole. He makes the attempt to dismiss all Best Evidence with disinformation concerning, DEW, nuclear WTC, No-planes, Video Fakery, Holograms, etc. In the final analysis he disparages all Best Evidence and creates classic cognitive dissonance in the minds of his readership and audience.

    I would add all of Fetzer’s comrades at Veterans Today, plus Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood to this coven of infiltrators.
    And of course there is Maxwell Bridges a covert entity and blatant agitprop disinformant; “feeding” his “sheep”…grin

  52. Flight Termination System (FTS)
    Developed by SPC International (System Planning Coorporation).
    Former Vice President was Dr. Zakheim.
    System Planning Corporation developed the Flight Termination System (FTS), a safety and test
    system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.
    Doc Zakhaim became later member of the Bush Administration.


    FAQ #3: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?
    Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
    Sunday, 18 May 2014 00:00
    Max claims this is an insufficient argument against DEW, when actually it utterly destroys the DEW proposition, and mortally wounds the nuclear aspect as well.

    Max wants ‘explosive events” for the nuke aspect, and wants nukes driving DEW for other aspects. And all is based in pure speculation. There is not a single indicator for a nuclear/radiological event to have occurred at WTC. Everything is explained specifically and exactly as an explosive demolition.
    Max has nothing but verbosity of rhetoric, ie; BULLSHIT.
    . . . . .
    A Hypothesis in Search of Facts

    “One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers’ mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens – 600 feet.

    Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood’s belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spurious interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just as in the official explanation.”~Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts

    • “Judy Wood is offering the hypothesis that the twin towers were taken down by directed energy weapons, and the problem is that nobody knows what she is talking about, including herself.”~Niels Harrit


  54. “Hundreds of eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions

    The many qualified witnesses to the sights and sounds of explosions are easily explained with the controlled demolition by explosive hypothesis – but not with the DEW hypothesis. Wood questions the credibility of the witnesses of explosions (amounting to hundreds) throughout the Twin Towers.


    We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. In addition, we believe the DEW theory raises far more questions than it answers, such as the energy requirements and other issues outlined in the suggested references listed below.

    Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures.”A&E FAQ#3

    And I agree with this assessment totally.

  55. Evidence: The Military Response on 9/11/01

    On 9/11/01, not one of the four “hijacked jetliners” [*] was intercepted or shot down by the nation’s air defense system, according to all official accounts. The failure to counter the attack is considered by many evidence of insider foreknowledge of or involvement in the attack, based on the following observations:
    [* my quotation marks; there is no evidence to support that these airliners were hijacked]

    Protection of domestic airspace is provided by a sophisticated network of Air Force and Air National Guard fighter aircraft and command and control systems providing real-time surveillance and policing of the skies.
    The attack unfolded over a period of more than an hour.
    The attack targeted the World Trade Center and Pentagon — two American icons that were openly acknowledged as targets of terrorist attacks.
    To explain the failure to repel the attack, officials have put forth a series of explanations which are mutually contradictory.


    Three Versions of the Official Story
    Version 1: no scrambles
    Version 2: NORAD’s timeline
    Version 3: the 9/11 Commission Report
    Military exercises coinciding with 9/11/01
    Testimony indicating stand-down orders

    Three Versions of the Official Story

    Version 1: No Scrambles

    In his confirmation hearing two days after the attack, General Myers, acting head of the Joint Cheifs of Staff on the day of the attack, said he thought that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.

    LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

    MYERS: Sir, I don’t know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.

    LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take — or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

    MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

    LEVIN: And did you take action against — for instance, there has been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

    MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

    LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

    MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.

    General Myers Confirmation Hearing 9/13/01

    Version 2: NORAD’s Timeline

    On September 18, 2001 NORAD issued a press release containing a timeline which listed scramble times for fighters stationed at Otis and Langley bases.

    The document, NORAD’S Response Times 9/18/01, contains the following description of times of events:

    Flight 11 UA
    Flight 175 AA
    Flight 77 UA
    Flight 93
    FAA notification of NEADS 08:40 08:43 09:24 N/A
    Fighter Scramble Order 08:46 09:24 —
    Fighters Airborne 08:52 09:30 —
    Originating Base Otis ANGB
    Falmouth, MA Langley AFB
    Hampton, VA
    Fighter Distance /
    Time to Impact Location not airborne
    153 miles 8 min /
    71 miles 12 min /
    105 miles 11 min /
    100 miles
    Version 3: The 9/11 Commission Report

    Flight 11 UA
    Flight 175 phantom
    Flight 11* AA
    Flight 77 UA
    Flight 93
    Notification of NEADS 08:38 09:15 — 09:34 10:07
    Fighters Scrambled 08:46 09:24
    Fighters Airborne 08:53
    Originating Base Otis, MA Langley, VA
    *Phantom Flight 11 refers to the Commission’s assertion that the F-16s scrambled from Langley were sent up, not to intercept Flight 77, but to look for Flight 11, under the erroneous belief that it had bypassed New York City and was headed for the capital.

    Military Exercises Coinciding With 9/11/01

    Multiple US military exercises were in play on the day of September 11, 2001, some of which included elements of the attack itself.

    Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11
    Cooperative Research
    Testimony Indicating Stand-Down Orders

    In testimony fo the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta recalled an exchange between Vice President Cheney and a young man concerned about a jet approaching the Pentagon.

    MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And —

    Perhaps the most thorough analysis of the testimony is provided by Michael Green.

    “My own brief analysis of Cheney’s remarks is straightforward:

    “The repeated questioning of Cheney by the young man whether “the orders still stand” had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney’s order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of range, Cheney’s order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney’s order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the young man.”~Michael Green

  56. “If Dick Cheney Was In On 911, Why Did Norman Mineta Say What He Did?

    The question posed by this chapter title is a good one, but it has a simple answer. Mineta was not an operative in 911, he did not understand the significance of his testimony, and so he did not simply answer Lee Hamilton’s question, but elaborated on the general theme of orders to shoot down planes on 911. Had the 911 Commission been interested in the truth rather than in covering up the truth, Hamilton & Co. would have pursued Mineta’s revelation with great diligence, extracting every relevant detail and putting it into context. Instead, Mineta’s embarrassing elaboration prompted both Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by Hamilton and Roemer is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to cover-up.

    USGIC domestic covert operations succeed in part by appointing “investigative” panels or commissions that function as a profound tribal ritual intended to produce consensus; the greater the ceremony, the more compelling the conclusions seem. Key members whose principal purpose is to conceal the guilty actions of the culpable parties always control such “investigations”. The following discussion of Mineta’s testimony is intended as a civics lesson for the uninitiated, who are invited to assess its accuracy by examining the original in full at: 9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

    • Having seen this testimony live on television during the hearings, I saw the points made above immediately. That Hamilton was deliberately obfuscating by leading Mineta’s remarks to mean something Mineta clearly did not mean. By Hamilton’s act of trying to appear confused. It was blatant and transparently poor acting.
      Roemer piping in as he did just sealed my suspicions, he simply spun Mineta’s plain testimony into a swirl of blabbering rhetoric.

      The hearings were simply stacked with such burlesque bullshit throughout the whole thing. Condoliza Rice turning into a snapping hyena was obviously staged melodrama. This to make it appear that the questioning was really hard hitting deep digging.

      I watched almost every session, it was a bullshit passion play from start to finish.

    • Construction shot WTC Tower

      WTC construction

      I am presenting these pictures of the construction of the WTC Towers to give a visual sense of the massive structure that these buildings were; to show the absurdity of the idea that the top stories could simply “fall through” that structure as though it wasn’t even there.


    • Now, anyone who understands what a ‘Heat-sink’ is should see immediately that office fires high above would have absolutely zero effect on this massive latticework of huge steel members.

      • 11/13/2014 is a very late date to still be arguing over something as obvious as the PSYOP of 9/11…

        But here we are!!

  57. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers, in itself proves any and all alternative methods false.
    The case for redundancy is absurd; these explosives were calibrated for exactly the results seen. The experience of the Demolition group that designed the wiring of the towers would take advantage of that experience to use the products they knew could do the job. With the advantage of military input these designers would have access to new and more powerful solgel product. These products would have signature characteristics for special work, one such job would be some of these products positioned in such a way as to be “salted” into the rubble as the higher brisant explosives blew them out with the dust and rubble.
    As we know, destruction of the crime scene was a priory in this mission. The danger of the shifting pile as it gurgled beneath meant more care had to be taken, causing delay getting into the pile. It is a well known fact that nano-thermate provides its own oxygen in its processes.


  58. The case for the use of nuclear devices at WTC on 9/11 is a frivolous argument. I have made my case and stand by it. I consider the case closed.

  59. 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT – R.I.P. (September 9, 2001 – May 17, 2015)

    Well it only took about 14 years but the “movement” was finally buried just a few days ago…

    May 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm
    Seriously, did anyone but the terminally naive think that an apparatus such as AIA would come to any but a politically acceptable conclusion?

    Just as I have always argued, you are not dealing with rationality here, you are dealing with a completely pathological system. The majority of the people living on this planet today are going to die stupefied, still in trance.

    Paul Zarembka
    May 18, 2015 at 8:11 am
    I am an economist by profession and there are professional, peer reviewed articles exposing insider trading before September 11th, even in ‘mainstream’ professional journals. In this respect (rightly or wrongly), this other 9-11 topic is ahead of the topic of controlled demolition. Yet, never in my dreams did I imagine going to the American Economics Association’s meeting, just as large as AIA’s, and asking them to vote for study of insider trading before September 11th, even though many of AEA members have that protection of ‘tenure’.

    You don’t want to commit suicide for either the topic of insider trading or of controlled demolition.

    I am sorry, but I think asking for that vote was a mistake. Who said, “timing is everything”?

    Also, I don’t understand why Richard Gage had nothing to say in evaluation thereafter, as if nothing had happened.

    May 18, 2015 at 10:24 am
    “Also, I don’t understand why Richard Gage had nothing to say in evaluation thereafter, as if nothing had happened.”

    It is all quite surreal. Isn’t it Paul?

    Some might propose some sinister intent on Gage’s part, but I think not. I think Richard Gage is a delusional fool. He has been politically naive throughout this whole trip. I mean a real dumbfuck, to speak frankly.

    You say “mistake” … huh, I say tragedy. A goats play. Completely absurd.

    In my honest assessment, I must say that most of the so-called “9/11 Truth leaders” have been jejune fools strategically & politically. They turned the so-called “movement” into a fading historical afterthought.

    Dust to dust, ashes to ashes…
    . . . . . . . . .

  60. ASCE Journals refuse to correct fraudulent paper they published on WTC collapses
    By Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns September 3, 2014

    In January 2011 one of the ASCE Journals (the Journal of Engineering Mechanics) published a paper by Jia-Liang Le and Zdenek Bazant entitled “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth”.
    This paper attempted to calculate the velocity loss of the falling upper section of WTC 1, when it landed on the first intact story, and claimed that this ‘jolt’ (loss of velocity) would be too small to observe. This conclusion is unsound, as it is based on assumptions about the tower that conflict with information provided in the NIST reports on 9/11 and contains internal contradictions and inconsistencies. A Discussion paper pointing out these problems was submitted to the same journal in May 2011, but after keeping the paper in review for 27 months the journal’s editors finally declined it in August 2013 on the grounds that it is “out of scope” for the journal. The following is a summary of the events surrounding these papers.
    The Le and Bazant paper was apparently written in response to a paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti (“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2009), although the authors simply referred to MacQueen and Szamboti’s work as “… a new objection, pertaining to the smoothness of the observed motion history of the tower top, … raised and disseminated on the Internet”.
    Prior to Le and Bazant’s paper being published in 2011, Szamboti, a mechanical engineer working in Philadelphia, had been discussing this issue of the smooth downward motion of WTC 1, or “missing jolt”, with Richard Johns, a Canadian philosopher of science. Johns, whose first degree is in engineering mathematics, was puzzled as to why the intact steel columns below the fire zone had offered so little resistance to the falling mass and sought expert advice. Szamboti was able to confirm Johns’ suspicion of inconsistencies (concerning the resistance of a buckling column) in an earlier 2001 JEM published paper by Bazant. Not surprisingly, when Le and Bazant’s new paper on the “missing jolt” problem was published, Szamboti and Johns read it carefully. They were astonished to find errors of a very clear and unambiguous kind, apparently stemming from the use of input values that differed from those provided by the NIST in their WTC report. For example, in calculating the resistance of a column as it buckles, using Bazant’s “3 hinge” buckling model, the key value is the column’s plastic moment Mp. Le and Bazant simply state this to be 0.32 MNm, for an average column on the first impacted floor. They do not derive it, as one would expect, from more fundamental data, such as the average column’s physical dimensions and the type of steel used. Moreover, when Szamboti and Johns calculated the Mp themselves, from the data provided by NIST, they obtained the value of 0.64 MNm, which gives the columns double the resistance assumed by the Le and Bazant paper. After finding this, and other significant errors which drastically affected the conclusion of the Le and Bazant paper,
    Szamboti and Johns wrote a Discussion paper correcting the Le and Bazant inaccuracies and submitted it to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics in May 2011, within their five-month window for discussion of a paper from the time it was published. They then waited for a full year, until May 2012, to hear results of a peer review. At that time they were told their paper was rejected by just one reviewer, as a second reviewer did not respond.
    However, when they read the review they were surprised at its lack of justification for rejecting their paper and responded with a rebuttal, showing it to be incorrect on almost every point. The rebuttal forced the Journal of Engineering Mechanics to reconsider the Szamboti and Johns Discussion paper, informing the authors that it would only require an editorial review and would not have to go back through a peer review process.

  61. Energetic Nanocomposites with Sol-gel Chemistry: Synthesis, Safety,
    and Characterization
    A.E. Gasht , R.L. Simpson, and J.H. Satcher, Jr.
    Energetic Materials Center
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    The preparation and characterization of energetic composite materials containing nanometer-sized
    constituents is currently a very active and exciting area of research at laboratories around the world. Some
    of these efforts have produced materials that have shown very unique and important properties relative to
    traditional energetic materials. We have previously reported on the use of sol-gel chemical methods to
    prepare energetic nanocomposites. Primarily we reported on the sol-gel method to synthesize nanometersized
    ferric oxide that was combined with aluminum fuel to make pyrotechnic nanocomposites. Since then
    we have developed a synthetic approach that allows for the preparation of hybrid inorganidorganic
    energetic nanocomposites. This material has been characterized by thermal methods, energy-filtered
    transmission electron microscopy (EFTEM), N2 adsorption/description methods, and Fourier-Transform
    (FT-IR) spectroscopy, results of which will be discussed. According to these characterization methods the
    organic polymer phase fills the nanopores of the composite material, providing superb mixing of the
    component phases in the energetic nanocomposite. The EFTEM results provide a convenient and effective
    way to evaluate the intimacy of mixing between these component phases. The safe handling and
    preparation of energetic nanocomposites is of paramount importance to this research and we will report on
    studies performed to ensure such.
    ‘Author information: P.O. Box 808 L-092, Livermore, CA 9455

    Click to access 244137.pdf


  62. “Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.” And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that “from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.’s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company’s CEO.”

    Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives

    If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings’ core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of ‘conspiracy theory’ that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.

    Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. “Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.” And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that “from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.’s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company’s CEO.”

    That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of ‘maintenance’ and/or ‘retrofitting’ work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, “How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we’d been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.”

  63. Asked if I am sure that the Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition;, I would respond; ‘As sure as I’m sitting here’. Which may seem like a trite old adage, but it is an aphorism with deep philosophical insight. It has to do with the only certainly existent in the time/space continuum, the fact that I am aware of my existence. All else is conjecture from that point on. But such answers are metaphysical, and while we are trapped in time, we are physical. The study of the physical is called physics. we proceed from there.

    ((aphorism [noun]: a pithy observation that contains a general truth, such as, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s