9/11 FALSE FLAG PSYOP

9/11 FALSE FLAG PSYOP

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

“What is ‘Truth’? said jesting Pilate”

“History is written by the winner”

The question then is; “what did the historians of the accepted official history taught in the US win? These historians are winners in various contexts, and investigating what conflicts they were winners of, and who the losers in these conflicts were, can do a great deal of clarifying the popular myths that have become officially sanctified ‘HISTORY’.
\\][//
________________________

Zelikow’s record gets really interesting when we consider that he went on to write the 9/11 Commission Report. He earned a law degree from the University of Houston Law School and a Ph. D. from Tufts University. He wrote books too. He wrote a book on The Kennedy Tapes, and another on Why People Don’t Trust Government. One of his areas of expertise is PUBLIC MYTHOLOGY.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

These articles dispel those myths:

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/139/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/new-hotel-tape-released/

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/national-security-alert

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1 Gordon Ross, ME, June 2006

WTC 7: A Short Computation Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler, June 2006

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?,Word Document, Dr. Steven E. Jones, September 2006

The NIST WTC Investigation–How Real Was The Simulation?, Word version Eric Douglas, R.A., December 2006

Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1 Robert Moore, Esq., January 2007

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 Jerry Lobdill, June 2007

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers Kevin Ryan, July 2007

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage Dr. Crockett Grabbe, August 2007

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, October 2007

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, October 2007

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 Gregory H. Urich, December 2007

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destructionDr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe, January 2008

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites Kevin Ryan, July 2008

Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems Aidan Monaghan, October 2008

The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, January 2009

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics David Chandler, February 2010

A Discussion of “Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse”
Ronald H. Brookman, October 2012

Anomalies of The Air Defense On 9/11
Paul Schreyer, October 2012

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
André Rousseau, November 2012

Radar loss on 9/11
Paul Schreyer, April 2013

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period Daniele Ganser, May 2014

Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009 PDF

Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCIEJ/TOCIEJ-2-35.pdf   — Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION (January, 2002)

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-1/departments/editors-opinion/elling-out-the-investigation.html

“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.

“Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”

“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything.”
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/nist/nist-never-tested-for-explosives/

The Terror Factory
The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror shows how the FBI has, under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the bureau can then claim victory in the war on terror.

An outgrowth of Trevor Aaronson’s work as an investigative reporting fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, which culminated in an award-winning cover story in Mother Jones magazine, The Terror Factory reveals shocking information about the criminals, conmen and liars the FBI uses as paid informants, as well as documents the extreme methods the FBI uses to ensnare Muslims in phony terrorist plots—which are in reality conceived and financed by the FBI.

The book offers unprecedented detail into how the FBI has transformed from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive counterterrorism organization–including the full story of an accused murderer who became one of the FBI’s most prolific terrorism informants–and how the FBI has used phony terrorist plots to justify spending $3 billion every year on counterterrorism.
http://trevoraaronson.com/book/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/terror-factory-fbi-trevor-aaronson-book

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Do you know the distinction between the concept of “experts” and “authorities”? The words are often used interchangeably, but there is an an important difference:
noun, plural authorities.

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization :
Who has the authority to grant permission?

3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency: The housing authority provides rental assistance payments to low-income residents.
The bridges and piers are built and maintained by the Port Authority.

4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government
. . . . .
Experts:
An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study.

So you may make an appeal to authority as you just have, which is a common logical fallacy, but you can be assured that there are many experts who are not beholding to authority ie; government who agree with me.

Supplementary report made for FEMA by Therese McAllister, Jonathan Barnett, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, Jon Magnusson. Chapter 2 … Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

“Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.”

This is evidence of Thermite Arson, however NIST never addressed this information.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Dr. John L. Gross is a research structural engineer in the National Fire Research Laboratory (NFRL) of the Fire Research Division (FRD) of the Engineering Laboratory (EL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Noitce that Gross is one of the names in the FEMA, Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
There is therefore no excuse whatsoever for NIST’s claim that there was no evidence of explosives or thermite arson.
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm

Advertisements

245 thoughts on “9/11 FALSE FLAG PSYOP

      • Black’s Law Dictionary defines a conspiracy in US law as:
        A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
        http://thelawdictionary.org/conspiracy/
        \\][//

  1. World Trade Center a 3D Visualization – WTC

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”~Marcus Tullius Cicero
    \\][//

    • 9/11 – The Impossible Case of Flight 175
      Asside from Lear’s assertion that the engine part was dumped off, there is evidence of that piece flying off in that direction during the hit. A more reasonable explanation is a modified military Boeing and switching it in the radar dead area – either a modified engines on a 767, or a substitute of a 737.

      \\][//

  2. Pons and Fleischmann v Steven Jones: The True Story
    With promising preliminary results to back their cold fusion hypothesis, Pons and Fleischmann applied for a government grant to get funds for further experiments. As part of the grant process, Pons and Fleischmann’s proposal had to go through peer review. One of the reviewers was Steven Jones, a nuclear physicist at Brigham Young University, just 50 miles away. As it happened, Jones and a group of collaborators were working on a similar experiment but were studying a different line of evidence. While Pons and Fleishmann were concentrating on detecting the heat that would be produced by fusion, Jones’ group was looking for another sign of fusion — neutrons.
    Nuclear theory — the theory of how protons and neutrons interact — explains how fusion works and generates many expectations about what we should observe when fusion actually happens. According to nuclear theory, deuterium atoms fuse and release energy in a two-step process:
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_04
    Worried that Jones would scoop them, Pons rushed to perform neutron experiments of his own, but his search for neutrons did not start off well. He was initially unable to detect any sign of neutrons being released from his cold fusion cell, although the large number of neutrons produced by fusion should have been relatively easy to detect. Pons then tried a second technique for neutron detection. This time he found neutrons — but a hundred million times fewer than the number he had expected to detect! However, this was still many times more neutrons than the number that Jones had found. Nothing seemed to be matching up — Pons’ neutron results didn’t agree with his heat measurements, with Jones’ neutron results, or with established nuclear theory, which suggested no fusion should be occurring at all!
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_05
    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. For example, they could have…
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_06
    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.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_07
    While publicizing exciting discoveries is normal, early publicity, combined with curtailed peer review, caused some problems in this case. The scientific community was in an uproar after the press conference. Pons and Fleischmann had made extraordinary claims, but because the paper was not yet available, the scientific community had no way to evaluate the work presented in the paper — let alone try to replicate it.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_08
    In addition to trying to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s experiment — attempts which had been thwarted by lack of information — scientists also tried to verify the work in other ways, scrutinizing the cold fusion paper for potential sources of error. Many of the problems they noticed would likely have been caught in a thorough peer review, and some mistakes were surprisingly simple. For example, scientists noted that Pons and Fleischmann hadn’t stirred the heavy water inside their fusion cells. Just as not stirring a pot of soup on the stove is likely to leave some parts cold and others burnt, not stirring the water in a fusion cell leads to uneven heat distribution and inaccurate temperature measurements.
    Others continued to try to replicate the findings by trying out many different experimental combinations, hoping to hit on the one used by Pons and Fleischmann. Initial results were mixed. While most research groups reported seeing no evidence for fusion, a few groups did claim to observe excess heat and/or neutrons coming from their fusion cells. However these groups conflicted with each other on the conditions needed for fusion. For example, some found that months were needed for the nuclear reactions to begin, others noted results in just a few hours. And often, these groups couldn’t even replicate their own results.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_09

    Over the next few months, scientists brought the most sophisticated and sensitive experiments to bear on the questions of cold fusion, but were unable to find any evidence in support of it. The case for cold fusion was not looking good. However, there was still the possibility that the finding couldn’t be replicated — not because cold fusion wasn’t happening — but because other scientists weren’t matching the conditions of the original experiment exactly. Perhaps Pons and Fleischmann were doing something special in their experiment that they were not revealing or were not aware of themselves, and it was this “special something” that led to cold fusion. The best way to test this would be to have independent experts search for fusion products coming from Pons and Fleischmann’s fusion cells. Many scientists offered to collaborate, but their offers were declined. Pons and Fleischmann were actively standing in the way of tests that could have shed light on whether or not their hypothesis was correct.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_10

    In a last ditch effort to validate the cold fusion results, fellow University of Utah professor Michael Salamon was allowed into Pons’ lab to conduct experiments searching for neutrons coming from Pons and Fleischmann’s own fusion cells. If any experiment could be sure to replicate the conditions of the original, this would be it. During his five-week long test, Salamon was unable to detect any neutrons.
    Pons tried to cast doubt on these results by claiming that the cells were not producing excess heat (and hence, that fusion was not going on) during those five weeks, except during a two-hour period that happened to coincide with a power outage. However, one of Salamon’s instruments was still able to collect data on neutrons during the outage. Not surprisingly, no spike in neutrons was observed. Pons even went so far as to attempt to censure Salamon’s data by threatening legal action if Salamon did not voluntarily retract his report. Such attempts to control information are a severe violation of scientific ethics and present an obstacle to scientific progress.

    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.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_11
    One year after the press conference that had garnered Pons and Fleischmann so much attention, the scientific process had finally been able to sort through the evidence regarding cold fusion. Few groups had found support for the hypothesis, and those few had inconsistent results and could not reliably reproduce their findings. This lack of replicable evidence was a major blow for cold fusion. The laws of nature don’t play favorites. If cold fusion works in one laboratory under a certain set of conditions, we’d expect it to work in other laboratories at other times under the same conditions. Hence, lack of reproducibility is a serious problem for any scientific finding, casting doubt on the validity of the original result and suggesting that there’s been a misinterpretation of what’s going on. In Pons and Fleischmann’s case, lack of reproducibility indicated that whatever it was they had originally detected, it probably wasn’t cold fusion. This interpretation is also supported by the fact that independent scientists couldn’t find any evidence that Pons and Fleischmann’s own cells had actually produced fusion. In light of all this evidence, most scientists consider Pons and Fleischmann’s results to be an experimental error.
    Time magazine cover An error like this would normally be detected before it caused an uproar in the scientific and broader communities. However, in the case of cold fusion, the checks inherent in the process of science were weakened when Pons, Fleischmann, and others caught up in the excitement broke with norms for good scientific conduct. While the process of science is resilient to a single, or even a few divergences from best practices, the convergence of multiple infractions can hinder the process. 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. However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion.

    Pons and Fleischmann broke all of these rules of good scientific conduct.

    Pons and Fleischmann also did damage that is harder to quantify. Perhaps most worrying is the effect that this debacle had on the public’s perception of science. Pons and Fleischmann’s unclear statements at the press conference, which emphasized only the future benefits of cold fusion and not the early stage of the investigation, contributed to the media hype and raised society’s expectations without warrant. These unmet expectations coupled with accusations of fraud and dishonesty damaged the public’s trust in science. Because science is so deeply intertwined with the broader community, scientific misbehavior has implications far beyond the group of physicists and chemists who study cold fusion.
    Despite all this, some scientists continue to investigate the possibility of cold fusion. Science doesn’t give up on ideas that have merit, even if they experience setbacks. All scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. So though there is every reason to think that what Pons and Fleischmann observed was not cold fusion, some scientists (though a small minority of the physics community) continue to investigate whether or not cold fusion is possible. But to convince the rest of the physics community, they’ll need to find many lines of solid evidence to support their views.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_12
    \\][//

  3. Thermate
    Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

    The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminium and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature[1] Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but to avoid confusion with thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires supervision and sometimes persistent effort.

    Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite,[1] it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate’s ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
    ______________________________________
    Nano-thermite
    A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite”[1] is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. 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.

    What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
    _____________________________________
    Nano-thermate is produced by the sol-gel process

    The sol-gel process is a wet-chemical technique used for the fabrication of both glassy and ceramic materials. In this process, the sol (or solution) evolves gradually towards the formation of a gel-like network containing both a liquid phase and a solid phase.
    In materials science, the sol-gel process is a method for producing solid materials from small molecules. The method is used for the fabrication of metal oxides, especially the oxides of silicon and titanium. The process involves conversion of monomers into a colloidal solution (sol) that acts as the precursor for an integrated network (or gel) of either discrete particles or network polymers. Typical precursors are metal alkoxides
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol-gel

    THERMATE AS EXPLOSIVE

    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;http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)
    “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.

    “Solubility” also occurs during the reactive stage of the thermate conflagration. Solvents can be benzine based, acetone based, or polymer based in a sol-gel produced product such as the materials discovered by Jones-Harrit.
    http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Equilibria/Solubilty/Solubility_Rules
    Also see: JR Lee WTC Dust Study: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

    Rebuttle to the Millette so-called WTC Dust Study by Kevin Ryan:
    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/
    \\][//

    • The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.

      Dear [Interested Scientist],

      Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials…” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

      Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

      1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
      2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

      Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.

      The presence of reduced iron (less oxygen than needed for even FeO) in these spheres (see our Figures 20 and 21) implies that a transfer of oxygen has taken place, from iron oxide to aluminum. High temperatures are also needed for the formation of iron-rich spheres (spheres formed from liquid due to surface tension), further indicating a highly exothermic thermitic reaction.

      When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things.

      Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.

      You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.

      Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.

      You say that the exothermic peaks we observed in the DSC (our Figure 19) could be due to burning of epoxy paint. Not according to our experiments — that is, when Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peaks in Fig 19. Igniting paint in the same DSC is one of many tests performed to double-check our experiments, and I urge you to do similar tests.

      Please keep these facts in mind as you undertake DSC studies – which I welcome! Yes, I was surprised that James Millette did not even perform DSC studies.

      Another key observation that we made:

      3. Migration of aluminum in the red material as it was soaked for hours in MEK solvent, evident from Figure 15 in our paper.

      If you compare frames c) aluminum and e) silicon in Fig. 15, you will see regions where the aluminum is clearly separated from the silicon. This argues against the red material being kaolinite as you and Millette suggest.

      We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours. OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time. This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!

      Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .

      The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.

      I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for examplehttp://http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0203/perepezko-0203.html . I’ll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings. Did Millette see an electron diffraction pattern demonstrating that aluminum occurs in the form of kaolinite? His report does state:

      Millette report: “TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”

      We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.

      Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That’s what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake.

      Sincerely,
      Steven E. Jones”
      \\][//

      • Bentham did NOT publish the Hoax paper they have been accused of publishing:

        An open access journal has agreed to publish a nonsensical article written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer reviewed and requesting that the “authors” pay $800 in “open access fees.” Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University, and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the __New England Journal of Medicine__, submitted the fake manuscript to linkurl:__The Open Information Science Journal__;http://www.bentham.org/open/toiscij/ (__TOISCIJ__) at the end of January.

        Bentham journal, __The Open Software Engineering Journal__, and it was rejected after what appeared to be an actual peer review process. Mokarram’s acceptance email for the __TOISCIJ__ article had a linkurl:fee form;https://confluence.cornell.edu/download/attachments/2523490/Publisher+Fee+Form.xls attached, asking Davis to submit an $800 payment to a post office box in the SAIF Zone, a tax-free complex in the United Arab Emirates. Davis wrote back and retracted the manuscript. “We have discovered several errors in the manuscript which question both the validity of the study and the results,” he wrote in an email to Mokarram. Davis said that he considered scraping together the $800 to see if Bentham would actually publish the fake paper, but considered that taking the hoax further would be “unethical.”
        http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

        Note: This articles says, “and it was rejected after what appeared to be an actual peer review process.” – which simply makes no sense at all. Why would Bentham put the paper through a peer review process prior to receiving a payment to do the peer review? How can the authors of this story state the quote above, when all they received as a reply is the form to begin the process? The bottom line here is that the claim that Bentham published this fake article is totally false. On top of this those promoting this have completely misrepresented the facts, as shown above.
        \\][//

  4. 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.”

    Interest in developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum for energy-intensive applications involving explosives and propellants have led to the development of an aerosol-based sol−gel method (Aero-sol−gel) for preparing nanoporous iron-oxide nanoparticles with high internal surface area. We have employed sol−gel reactions in the aerosol phase using an iron(III) salt with an epoxide in a volatile solvent (ethanol), to generate nanoporous oxidizer nanoparticles. Porosity of the particles results from the nature of the sol−gel chemistry implemented. Energy-dispersive spectrometry (EDS) results indicate that the aerosol-based chemistry is qualitatively similar to that occurring in bulk sol−gel synthesis. The oxidizer particles obtained from the aero-sol−gel experiment are in the 100−250-nm size range as evidenced by SEM and differential mobility analysis (DMA). Porosity of particles is observed qualitatively in the TEM micrographs and quantitatively determined with BET surface area measurements which indicate that these particles have total surface area that is enhanced by a factor of 200 over the geometric surface area. The aero-sol−gel derived iron oxide has also been mixed with nano-aluminum and preliminary ignition tests have been performed to show the effectiveness of the oxidizer particles.
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t
    \\][//

  5. 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 fire 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.

    \\][//

    • FEMA 403 –Appendix C, describes the Eutectic Corrosion discovered on two steel beam portions, and advised further investigation into the possibility of ‘Thermite Arson’; the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.
      Also See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

      Eutectic

      eu·tec·tic (yo͞o-tĕk′tĭk)
      adj.
      1. Of, relating to, or formed at the lowest possible temperature of solidification for any mixture of specified constituents. Used especially of an alloy whose melting point is lower than that of any other alloy composed of the same constituents in different proportions.
      2. Exhibiting the constitution or properties of such a solid.
      n.
      1. A eutectic mixture, solution, or alloy.
      2. The eutectic temperature.
      [From Greek eutēktos, easily melted : eu-, eu- + tēktos, melted (from tēkein, to melt).]
      American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
      eutectic (juːˈtɛktɪk)
      adj
      1. (Chemistry) (of a mixture of substances, esp an alloy) having the lowest freezing point of all possible mixtures of the substances
      2. (Chemistry) concerned with or suitable for the formation of eutectic mixtures
      n
      3. (Chemistry) a eutectic mixture
      4. (Chemistry) the temperature on a phase diagram at which a eutectic mixture forms
      [C19: from Greek eutēktos melting readily, from eu- + tēkein to melt]
      Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
      eu•tec•tic (yuˈtɛk tɪk)

      adj.
      1. of greatest fusibility: said of an alloy or mixture whose melting point is lower than that of any other alloy or mixture of the same ingredients.
      2. of or pertaining to such a mixture or its properties: eutectic salts.
      n.
      3. a eutectic substance.
      [1880–85; < Greek eútēkt(os) easily melted, dissolved]
      Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
      ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
      Noun 1. eutectic – a mixture of substances having a minimum melting point
      mixture – (chemistry) a substance consisting of two or more substances mixed together (not in fixed proportions and not with chemical bonding)
      Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eutectic
      \\][//

    • The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – Niels Harrit

      Niels Harrit has more than 60 peer reviewed papers in mainstream scholarly journals.
      \\][//

      • Differential scanning calorimetry or DSC is a thermoanalytical technique in which the difference in the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a sample and reference is measured as a function of temperature. Both the sample and reference are maintained at nearly the same temperature throughout the experiment.

        Detection of phase transitions
        The basic principle underlying this technique is that when the sample undergoes a physicalenergy of chips
        transformation such as phase transitions, more or less heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both at the same temperature. Whether less or more heat must flow to the sample depends on whether the process is exothermic or endothermic. For example, as a solid sample melts to a liquid it will require more heat flowing to the sample to increase its temperature at the same rate as the reference. This is due to the absorption of heat by the sample as it undergoes the endothermic phase transition from solid to liquid. Likewise, as the sample undergoes exothermic processes (such as crystallization) less heat is required to raise the sample temperature. By observing the difference in heat flow between the sample and reference, differential scanning calorimeters are able to measure the amount of heat absorbed or released during such transitions. DSC may also be used to observe more subtle physical changes, such as glass transitions. It is widely used in industrial settings as a quality control instrument due to its applicability in evaluating sample purity and for studying polymer curing.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry
        \\][//

      • Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (XEDS)
        is an analytical technique used for the elemental analysis or chemical characterization of a sample. It relies on an interaction of some source of X-ray excitation and a sample. Its characterization capabilities are due in large part to the fundamental principle that each element has a unique atomic structure allowing unique set of peaks on its X-ray emission spectrum.[2] To stimulate the emission of characteristic X-rays from a specimen, a high-energy beam of charged particles such as electrons or protons (see PIXE), or a beam of X-rays, is focused into the sample being studied. At rest, an atom within the sample contains ground state (or unexcited) electrons in discrete energy levels or electron shells bound to the nucleus. The incident beam may excite an electron in an inner shell, ejecting it from the shell while creating an electron hole where the electron was. An electron from an outer, higher-energy shell then fills the hole, and the difference in energy between the higher-energy shell and the lower energy shell may be released in the form of an X-ray. The number and energy of the X-rays emitted from a specimen can be measured by an energy-dispersive spectrometer. As the energies of the X-rays are characteristic of the difference in energy between the two shells and of the atomic structure of the emitting element, EDS allows the elemental composition of the specimen to be measured.[3]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy
        \\][//

      • The authors also know that the active red/gray chips are as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite, because they compare the exothermic DSC curves to the result in a paper on a sol-gel nano-thermite: The red/gray chips display DSC curves that are as narrow or even narrower than the compared sample, despite the burden of an inert gray layer (see fig. 29 below). According to Dr. Farrer (PhD, Physics), “that was really a turning point for the red/gray chips for me because we got a peak on the calorimeter which shows that these red/gray chips were energetic. They were very exothermic and the width of the peak was also significant; it showed the power that the chips had. The significance of the calorimeter cannot be understated here: The calorimeter can’t lie to you. If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic. The degree of its energy is determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak.” According to Harrit´s paper, the tested samples of paint displayed a completely different behavior in the DSC: As Farrer states in the interview, “[y]ou may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material..”
        http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
        http://www1.ae911truth.org/fr/nouvelles/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html
        \\][//

  6. ZIONIST FALSE FLAGS
    A Historical Perspective

    What was the very first Zionist attack in Israel? The King David Hotel bombing was a false flag attack carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.

    The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).

    Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel’s own switchboard, which the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities. A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time. From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day. Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered. The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel. Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.

    Yes Zionists in the guise of Arabs. This has continued to be the Zionist – Mossad MO, up to this very day. I submit that Brandon Martinez is a Mossad double agent using the same MO to disrupt the truth movement__coming on strong against “the Zionists”, when in fact he IS a Zionist himself. And perhaps this is the same game that the sockpuppet is playing on us at T&S.

    “Zios usually resort to ad hom attacks, insults and vulgarities when losing an argument. If you’re not an Israeli agent then you may wish to sign up as one because you’re doing their bidding.”~Brandon Martinez
    See: Brandon Martinez, on the RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum.
    \\][//

    • Brandon Martinez’s rhetoric is so blatantly Judaeophobic that it begs the question as to whether he is just a whacknoodle or in fact a Zionist double agent. My suspicion is that he is Mossad.
      \\][//

    • “What might have Government Loyalist verklempt, is the gall they perceive in such skeptics for daring to demand the same original evidence (which would now be exculpatory of the Government), for the Government to simply produce.”~Pernambuco
      October 21, 2015 at 11:15 am

      [Verklempt – choked with emotion (German verklemmt = emotionally inhibited in a convulsive way)]
      \\][//

  7. Philip D. Zelikow — Myth Maker — Dream Weaver

    Philip D. Zelikow, is best known as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. He basically wrote the 9/11 Commission Report. Immediately prior to Bush appointing him to head the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow was the executive director of the little known Aspen Strategy Group whose members include Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rica, and Paul Wolfowitz. Although most people don’t know anything about Zelikow, they recognize Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz as the Neoconservatives most responsible for stampeding America into the current unfortunate conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Strategy_Group#Group_Members

    While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

    If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.

    In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining “the transformative event” three years before 9/11. Here are Zelikow’s 1998 words; Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy [nonaggression] is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great “success” or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a “before” and “after.” The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the “before” period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen “after.” Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.
    http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm
    http://rense.com/general78/rapestory.htm
    \\][//

  8. Musion Eyeliner
    There is no such thing as a “projected hologram” – that is a form of false advertising used in theme parks, concerts, and stage productions. The real effect is ‘musion eyeliner’, an updated variation of ‘Pepper’s Ghost”, which was invented more than a hundred years ago. It has to do with lighting and angle of vision. It must be viewed relatively straight on in a dark or shaded area. The effect is caused by an angles sheet of thin material on which an image is ‘reflected’ NOT projected. This effect can only be obtained in controlled environments, and certainly could not have been used in midair in broad daylight.
    Remember as I said, it is an accepted term, but in reality FALSE ADVERTISING to call this a “Hologram Effect”, but a major corporation has now trademarked the term “Musion Eyeliner”, and has successfully been able to continue the use of the term “hologram” in their advertisements.
    \\][//

    • email sent to, info@musion.com on 9/20/2015 at 9:40 AM
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      I am curious how it is you can get away with the FALSE ADVERTISING of calling your product a “hologram”?. I assume it is the power of money, plus the lack of a litigant to bring such charges. I am sure the defense would be that the term “hologram” has now become “generic” in the popular sense that most people who are ignorant of the real techniques involved simply believe the hype.

      I do however find it unfortunate, in the interest of truth, that such a major scam is allowed to be blatantly perpetrated. I would hope that in that interest of truth, your company would make a reasonably noticeable DISCLAIMER that these techniques are not actual HOLOGRAMS.

      Thank you, Willy Whitten
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      \\][//

  9. “Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 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.”~Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center,January 25, 2001

    Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
    Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
    Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:

    The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
    The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

    The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
    The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

    The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
    The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

    The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
    The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

    The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
    The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

    So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

    In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed (i.e., not at faster speeds perhaps flown by suicide pilots). With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
    = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
    = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
    = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

    From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

    So what can be said about the actual impacts?

    The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
    The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
    = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

    This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
    = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

    This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.
    When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
    Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
    “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
    In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”
    Robertson also claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis. “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance,” he stated in 2002. However, not only is this statement contradicted by Skilling, but it also lacks common sense, according to 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan. “That’s kind of crazy… I don’t know how the planes would get to the buildings without jet fuel,” Ryan explains in a video presentation titled The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception. “Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”
    http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
    \\][//

  10. “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” – Voltaire
    \\][//

  11. The PSYOP of 9/11 continues now with cognitive infiltration agents swarming the Internet with counterfeit posers pretending to be part of the ‘Truth Movement’. And they join in on 9/11 forums and write things such as, “scientists tell you that the only way to turn a building into dust is mini-nuclear explosives.Testing at the site shows Thorium, a by product of nuclear fusion, and thorium only shows up after a nuclear device detonates,” which is of course anal hurlant spawned by pseudoscience.

    Thorium is and has been used in industry for over a hundred years:
    Thorium is used as an alloying element in TIG welding electrodes. It remains popular as a material in high-end optics and scientific instrumentation; thorium and uranium are the only radioactive elements with major commercial applications that do not rely on their radioactivity. In electronic equipment, thorium coating of tungsten wire improves the electron emission of heated cathodes. Thoria is a material for heat-resistant ceramics, as used in high-temperature laboratory crucibles. When added to glass, it helps increase refractive index and decrease dispersion. Such glass finds application in high-quality lenses for cameras and scientific instruments.The radiation from these lenses can darken them and turn them yellow over a period of years and degrade film, but the health risks are minimal.Yellowed lenses may be restored to their original colorless state with lengthy exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation.
    Thoriated tungsten elements are found in the filaments of vacuum tubes, e.g.magnetron found in microwave oven. Thorium is added because it lowers the effective work function with the result that the thoriated tungsten thermocathode emits electrons at considerably lower temperatures.Thoria has been used as a catalyst in the conversion of ammonia to nitric acid, in petroleum cracking and in producing sulfuric acid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
    \\][//

  12. “Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”.”

    The Prestige – FLNWO #30
    Posted: 21 Sep 2015 07:00 AM PDT

    [audio mp3="https://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/flnwo30-lq.mp3"][/audio]

    “This month on Film, Literature and the New World Order we talk to Jay Dyer of JaysAnalysis.com about his review of the 2006 Christopher Nolan film, The Prestige. Topics discussed include twilight language and the revelation of the method, what Nikola Tesla signifies in the story, the art of misdirection, the similarities between stagecraft and statecraft, and much more.”~James Coarbett

    http://jaysanalysis.com/2014/07/10/the-prestige-2006-a-film-about-revelation-of-the-method/
    \\][//

  13. Al Qaeda a Subsidiary of Western Intelligence

    “al Qaeda” is in fact a tool of, funded by and equipped by western governments specifically the USA. ‘al Qaeda’ is essentially a subsidiary of CIA. See:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

    http://www.sott.net/article/282900-Former-Al-Qaeda-commander-ISIS-and-Al-Qaeda-are-completely-controlled-by-CIA-and-other-Western-intelligence-agencies

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/grisly-peshawar-slaughter-who-created-taliban-who-still-funds-them/5420182

    . . . . . .
    Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favoured by neighbouring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention[citation needed]. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

    . . . . . . .

    How Washington Funded the Taliban
    by Ted Galen Carpenter – CATO Institute
    United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington’s decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan’s infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

    When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that “the Taliban used a system of consensus-building” to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. “That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising,” Sheer noted, but he considered it “grotesque” for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

    Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban’s proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan’s comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul’s anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan’s estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan’s theocratic masters.

    To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

    Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing—a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

    http://www.cato.org/commentary/how-washington-funded-taliban

    \\][//

  14. It is those with the weakest of arguments that will leap on a simple typo as if the one making such an error has lost the entire debate.
    \\][//

  15. In the wake of the 9/11 attack, numerous experts asserted that fires in the Twin Towers melted their structural steel.
    http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html
    tle: Intense heat melted steel supports in Trade Center
    authors: Daniel Scarpinato
    Although the impact of the jetliners was strong, it was the heat from the explosion that most likely caused the buildings to collapse, experts say.
    Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building’s steel supports.
    site: wildcat.arizona.edu page: wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.html

    ScientificAmerican.com
    Scientific American?
    October 09, 2001
    When the Twin Towers Fell
    One month after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down
    By Steven Ashley
    BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, the twin towers of the World Trade Center seemed a permanent part of the Manhattan skyline.
    When New York City’s giant World Trade Center towers plunged to earth following successive suicide terrorist attacks on September 11th, the world was confronted with one of most shocking—and sickening—sights of modern times. The mechanisms by which these huge and seemingly solid edifices suddenly collapsed, snuffing out the lives of thousands, was the subject of a preliminary postmortem conducted last week in Cambridge, Mass. A panel of Boston area-based civil and structural engineers convened to discuss the fate of the superskyscrapers, struck by hijacked passenger planes, in front of an overflow audience on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their starkly sobering analyses highlighted the vulnerabilities of ultra-tall buildings to fire and pointed out steps that could be taken to lessen them.

    After first describing the highly redundant structural system that kept the 110-story twin towers standing for decades despite hurricane-force winds and a terrorist truck bomb, the engineers then delineated how that system was breached and finally overcome on that fateful day when America was attacked. The main culprits in bringing the famously lofty buildings down, they concluded, were the two intensely hot infernos that erupted when tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel spilled from the doomed airliners. Actually since each plane was carrying about 10,000 gallons and much, perhaps most, of that burned up in the impact fireballs, there were thousands, not tens of thousands, of gallons in the buildings, if that. And the black smoke (a sign of oxygen starvation), scarcity of flames, absence of window-breaking, and lack of any survivor reports of intense heat are hardly indications of “intensely hot infernos”. Once high temperatures weakened the towers’ supporting steel structures, it was only a matter of time until the mass of the stories above initiated a rapid-sequence “pancaking” phenomena in which floor after floor was instantly crushed and then sent into near free fall to the ground below. Significantly, the panel stated that any mitigating reinforcements and redundancies added to these buildings could have only delayed the inevitable failure, though they would have bought more time for the evacuation of the occupants. Here is one of the most common myths advanced to explain the “collapses”: that loss of strength in steel due to heating is cumulative and irreversible. No existing or foreseeable economically viable skyscraper structure, they agreed, could have withstood this kind of cruel onslaught. Clearly, prevention is the best defense against this kind of assault. This is a bit of historical revisionism, since the towers were designed to survive the impact by a 707 with a 23,000-gallon fuel capacity.

    “Though the twin towers were not much taller than their famous uptown predecessor, the Empire State Building, the World Trade Center rose during the late 1960s, a new era of construction characterized by rapidly erected, lightweight steel structures rather than heavy masonry walls,” explained Robert Fowler, senior engineer at the structural engineering firm of McNamara and Salvia. Fowler was then a junior member of the WTC’s engineering firm of record, Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, later renamed Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson. “As the Trade Center was so much lighter in comparison to earlier designs, it was a watershed building in the history of skyscrapers,” he added. Leslie E. Robertson, then the project manager, was the engineer most responsible for the superskyscraper’s design, Fowler noted. He is currently principal partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, the current structural consultants to the WTC. The late Seattle-based architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center.

    An article in Scientific American itself, in which M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel states:

    I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements–floor trusses and columns–so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html

    The article above is a critique of: title: Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives
    authors: Eugenie Samuel and Damian Carrington
    Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.
    site: NewScientist.com page: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

    \\][//

    • DeLong – Natural Materials and Systems – Spring Review 2013
      1. 1 Integrity  Service  Excellence Natural Materials and Systems Date: 7 MAR 2013 Dr. Hugh C. DeLong Division Chief AFOSR/RTD Air Force Research Laboratory Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
      2. 2 2013 AFOSR SPRING REVIEW PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW NAME: Dr. Hugh C. De Long BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PORTFOLIO: The goals of this program are to: 1) study, use, mimic, or alter how biological systems accomplish a desired (from our point of view) task, and 2) enable them to task-specifically produce natural materials and systems. Both goals are to help us in our efforts to farm biology for useful science for future USAF technologies. LIST SUB-AREAS IN PORTFOLIO: BioMimetics – Study principles, processes, designs as well as manipulate sensors/processing systems. Mimicking of sensor denial systems. BioMaterials – Mimicking of natural materials or systems. Using organisms as natural material factories for new materials. Using existing natural materials/organisms as novel materials. BioInterfacial Sciences – Biotic-biotic or the biotic-abiotic interface. Bionano and biomeso technology. Self-assembly. Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
      3. 3 Scientific Challenges • Bio-camouflage – Understanding the biochemistry of each element used in a pattern and how the animal controls those elements neurologically. – Payoff: Would make current camouflage ideas obsolete. • Peptide mediated materials synthesis – Looking at how the peptide initiates binding and what is determining the strength of that binding – Payoff: Get to a predictive state for sequence or material. • Structural Coloration – How does the animal create the hierarchical assembly; what role does each assembly play in the formation of color – Payoff: Create new paradigm for development of highly ordered biophotonic nanostructures. • Silk – Trying to understand how silks can stabilize enzymes, etc – Payoff: Enable use of more sensitive biosensors by eliminating degradation issues with storage and long term usage • Silk – Understand how the structure of the hierarchical assembly is changed by processing – Payoff: Enable the recovery of desirable properties in silk composites
      4. 4 Scientific Challenges – Continued • Chromophores – To understand the biochemistry of a newly discovered chromophore with radically different mechanism – Payoff: New materials in desired wavelength regions • Cell-Directed Assembly – Getting cell to build nanostructured architectures with engineered bio/nano interfaces w/o rejection – Payoff: Cellular factories for nano-architectures • Bionanocombinatorics – Incorporation of learning into decision making of structural elements in combinatorial arrays – Payoff: Get rational design of combinatorial arrays. • Programmable Materials – Make individual element properties independent of the designed materials bulk properties – Payoff: Creation of materials by design: both existing and new. Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
      5. 5 Transformational Opportunities • Programmable Materials – this is a new program with lots of opportunity with materials construction at nanometer scale for macro-molecular properties – will transform the way we approach materials synthesis and enable synthesis of materials that were unattainable before. • Silk – biomolecular stabilization of enzymes and other biomolecules by silk in film and fiber – leads to new method to fabricate sensors, etc

      \\][//

      • Cont. from above:
        27. Summary Energetics • Protein cages offer the ability to encapsulate and stabilize reactive components, interact with nAl, and quickly deliver components to the surface. • Ferritin used in a single or multi-layer structure leads to greater energy release and enhanced kinetics. • Reactivity can be controlled by dialing in the number of protein layers added on nAl or by changing the protein contents. • Each protein layers can be customized with inorganic materials, oxidizing agents, and/or explosive materials on demand. 1-Layer AP 1-Layer FeO(OH) Multi-layer FeO(OH) Reactivity Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
        [nAl — Molar mass of NAl is 40.98824 ± 0.00020 g/mol. N = Nitrogen, Atomic weight – 14.0067; 1 Atom: Mass percent –34.1725 %
        Al = Aluminum, Atomic weight -26.9815386; 1 Atom: Mass percent — 65.8275 %]
        \\][//

      • See also:
        At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or “frozen smoke” (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.
        These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, “In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures’ are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite’ materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods.”

        https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

        \\][//

      • Mechanism for thermite reactions of aluminum/iron-oxide nanocomposites based on residue analysis

        Yi WANG1,2, Xiao-lan SONG3, Wei JIANG1, Guo-dong DENG1, Xiao-de GUO1, Hong-ying LIU1, Feng-sheng LI1
        1. National Special Superfine Powder Engineering Research Center,
        Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China;
        2. School of Materials Science and Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China;
        3. School of Chemical Engineering and Environment, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
        Received 16 October 2012; accepted 3 December 2012
        http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf
        \\][//

      • WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT
        Niels Harrit, May 09

        file:///C:/Users/Willy–PC/Downloads/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit%20(2).pdf
        \\][//

  16. NIST’s $16 million Fraud

    NIST’s investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report’s voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses — such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity — except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.

    NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that “global collapse” was “inevitable” after the “initiation of collapse.”
    In this critique I challenge NIST’s explanation on two levels:

    Its theory about the effects of crash and fire damage is deeply flawed.
    Its presumption that “collapse initiation” will automatically lead to “global collapse” is unfounded.

    Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)
    The extent of NIST’s explanation for the totality of the collapses and their many demolition-like features is simply that the total collapse was “inevitable” once a collapse event was “initiated”. A footnote in the Executive Summary reads:

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)
    [emphasis added]
    The footnote is a re-worded version of a paragraph in the text of the Report’s Draft, which read:

    … although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)

    Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

    The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That’s consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST’s sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).

    The Report repeatedly assures us that steel heats rapidly when exposed to fire.
    “Bare structural steel components, when exposed to a large and sustained fire, can heat rapidly to the point where their ability to support their load is compromised. (p 11/61)
    Bare structural steel components can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even moderate intensity. Therefore, some sort of thermal protection, or insulation, is necessary. (p 69/119)”
    These statements are disingenuous because they ignore the effect of steel’s thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower. The Report’s implication that fire protection is essential is highly misleading, given that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fires, whether the steelwork was fire protected or not.

    Bare steel in fire places and wood stoves “can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even moderate intensity,” but we don’t often see fireplace gratings or wood stoves collapsing.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
    \\][//

  17. NIST quotes: “xxx”
    My Comments >>

    “Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)
    Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    >>Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.

    “A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)”

    >>1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves — that in a living-room-sized space!

    “The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)”

    >>Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

    The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building’s core.

    “Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)”

    >>Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
    *Had very little fuel
    *Was far from any source of fresh air
    *Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
    *Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
    Furthermore, NIST’s suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC
    \\][//

    • “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”~C. S. Fletcher (NIST),
      “Response to request for correction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008]

      The NIST mandate was to: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

      NIST did NOT determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. They only modeled their analysis to “the point of INITIATION. They did NOT determine the reason for the global collapse that would follow their so-called “initiation” – in failing to actually determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed globally, they are;
      >1. in breach of contract, and
      >2. culpable for criminal negligence for not investigating for explosives: national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921 has no exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.NIST was a fraud produced for political purposes and was not a legitimate investigation.
      \\][//

      • NIST itself wrote this footnote at page 82 of the first report in 2008: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” NIST NCSTAR 1
        \\][//

      • “[1]On September 11, 2001, two Boeing 767-200 planes were deliberately crashed by terrorist onto the World Trade Center towers. [2]The planes pierced through the exterior walls, immediately disintegrated, spilling huge quantities of jet fuel, and igniting massive fires that engulfed various floors and set the combustible office materials ablaze. These unprecedented fires, and the associated dense smoke plumes that results almost immediately after the crash, were visible many miles away from the disaster site, and are well documented in video footages. [3]The role these fires played in the quick collapse of the two Towers has been the subject of much debate and some preliminary studies”~Ahmed F. Ghoniem
        Professor of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology
        . . . . . . . . .
        Points 1 through 3 are proven false assumptions. The only thing Ghoniem gets right here is the point about smokeplumes being visible for miles.

        http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf
        \\][//

      • More Blather from MIT Civil Engineers
        “The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 at New York’s World Trade Center towers (WTC)
        was the first attack on a mega-city in the 21st century. The collapse of the towers
        revealed the vulnerability of a mega-city to terrorist attacks at multiple scales, from the level of
        structural components to the collapse of the towers…”~Franz-Josef Ulm
        . . . . . . . . .
        The false assumptions in this sentence are staggering. First of all Ulm has no proof to base his assertion that this was a “terrorist attack,” secondly he assumes that the structural components simply failed. Both assumption have proven false.

        http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
        \\][//

    • The 1975 World Trade Center Fire
      This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area.
      A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread.

      The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.

      Also, from the New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):

      Fire Commissioner John T. O’Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
      The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
      As Commissioner O’Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower’s 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.

      The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O’Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors………

      Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
      Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.

      More from the New York Times (Saturday 14th February 1975):

      “It was like fighting a blow torch” according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,……..
      Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.
      So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly “collapsed” on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

      It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

      That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

      So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire.

      Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.
      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html
      \\][//

  18. The bottom line for the debunking doofers is there are “reasonable” conspiracy theories, and there are psychotic conspiracy theories. After all the official narrative of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It just happens to be officially sanctioned: 19 fanatics led by a dying religious maniac conspired to attack the most powerful military to ever exist on the planet, and succeeded in outsmarting the largest matrix of intelligence agencies and security measure that the planet has ever known, and succeeded in this diabolical plot using only their wits and box-cutters. Sure! Sounds reasonable to me…Lol

    Seriously, this official conspiracy theory is the most ludicrous one I have ever encountered in my life, it’s got nothing on the moonwalk hoax.
    \\][//

  19. Fires of Short Duration
    NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” [4]. “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below” [4].
    [4>S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the
    collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR .
    Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    September 2005.

    NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” [25].
    [25>C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Journal
    of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online].
    Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com
    http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCIEJ/TOCIEJ-2-35.pdf
    \\][//

  20. Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

    Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths.

    INTRODUCTION
    On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m. The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed” [1]. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses [2]. NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others.

    DISCUSSION

    1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
    FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation,and analyses are needed to resolve this issue” [2]. FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA’s best firebased hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST’s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is eagerly awaited [3]. Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.

    2. Withstanding Jet Impact
    FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” [2] NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively.The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity” [4].
    Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: “The110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designedto withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?” [5]
    John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:
    “We looked at every possible thing we could think
    of that could happen to the buildings, even to the
    extent of an airplane hitting the side,” said John
    Skilling, head structural engineer….
    Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit
    the Empire State Building [which did not collapse],
    Skilling’s people did an analysis that
    showed the towers would withstand the impact of
    a Boeing 707.
    “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would
    be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)
    would dump into the building. There would be a
    horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,”
    he said. “The building structure would still be
    there.”
    Skilling – a recognized expert in tall buildings –
    doesn’t think a single 200-pound car bomb would
    topple or do major structural damage to a Trade
    Center tower. The supporting columns are closely
    spaced and even if several were disabled, the others
    would carry the load.

    http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCIEJ/TOCIEJ-2-35.pdf
    \\][//

  21. In legal terms a conspiracy is more than 1 person conspiring together to commit a crime.
    The, “somebody would’ve squealed” ploy is often use by people who do not comprehend the concept of COMPARTMENTALIZATION, & THE NEED TO KNOW, which are hard-fast rules and regulations in both military and corporate hierarchies. Most operatives or actors in any large enterprise are only aware of their immediate tasks, and are not privy to the designs of the authorities they work under.
    \\][//

      • Notice that in the crucible the molten aluminum is a hot-pink, not the yellow-orange of molten iron or steel. It turns silver as soon as it comes into contact with air.
        \\][//

    • Fireproofing Upgrades
      In 1999, the Port Authority issued guidelines to triple the thickness of the fireproofing, and by 9/11, about 30 floors in the upper areas of the two towers had been upgraded. Almost all the floors in the impact zone of the North Tower had their fireproofing upgraded, while in the South Tower just the 78th floor—the lowest in its impact zone—had been upgraded. As the New York Times states, though, “investigators took great care… to say they were nowhere close to definitively determining how and why the towers collapsed after they were struck by hijacked airliners.” [NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 5/2003, PP. 81 pdf file; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 5/7/2003; GUARDIAN, 5/8/2003; NEW YORK TIMES, 5/8/2003]
      Entity Tags: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, World Trade Center
      Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline
      Category Tags: WTC Investigation, 9/11 Investigations
      \\][//

    • December 2003-May 2004: Study Indicates Extreme Temperatures Involved in WTC CollapsesEdit event
      An optical microscopy image of a particle in the WTC dust formed by high temperature.
      An optical microscopy image of a particle in the WTC dust formed by high temperature. [Source: RJ Lee Group]
      A laboratory releases two reports focusing on the unique properties of the dust from the World Trade Center collapses, and finds evidence of extremely high temperatures involved in these collapses. The laboratory, RJ Lee Group of Pennsylvania, is the largest commercial electron microscope laboratory in the world. [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 5/2004, PP. 1 pdf file] In April 2002, it was retained on behalf of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas to investigate environmental contaminants in this company’s building at 130 Liberty Street, New York. [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 12/2003, PP. 1 pdf file] The building, located next to the World Trade Center, was heavily damaged on September 11, suffering a 24-story gash when the South Tower collapsed. [NEW YORK TIMES, 6/20/2003; REAL ESTATE WEEKLY, 9/14/2005] RJ Lee collected samples from it, which it then analyzed “using industry standard analytical laboratory methods.” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 12/2003, PP. 3-4 pdf file] In December 2003 and May 2004, it releases two reports that evaluate the features of the dust from the WTC that was deposited in 130 Liberty Street. It calls this evaluation “the most extensive microscopic investigation related to WTC dust ever performed.” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 12/2003, PP. 1-2 pdf file; RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 5/2004, PP. 4 pdf file] The reports describe phenomena that indicate extremely high temperatures were involved in the WTC collapses:
      > “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 12/2003, PP. 17 pdf file]
      > “The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.… Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC event.” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 12/2003, PP. 21 pdf file]
      > “An additional characteristic of WTC dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers.… The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 5/2004, PP. 12 pdf file]
      > “WTC dust markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone high stress and high temperature. 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).” [RJ LEEGROUP, INC., 5/2004, PP. 17-18 pdf file]
      The reports offer no explanation for the origins of the extremely high temperatures that are indicated. But physics professor Steven E. Jones (see November 8, 2005) will later claim that molten metal found in the debris of the WTC is evidence that the towers were brought down deliberately and involving the use of an incendiary substance called thermite, which can melt steel. [DESERET MORNING NEWS, 11/10/2005; DESERET MORNING NEWS, 4/10/2006]
      \\][//

  22. Bazant Errors

    A number of original design documents are provided in NCSTAR1-1 and NCSTAR1- 1A. NIST NCSTAR1-1A (p. 5)9 presents definitions from the original design as follows:
    1. “Floor inside of core”. That part of the floor bounded by the outside faces of columns 501, 508, 1001 and 1008.
    2. “Floor outside of core”. That part of the floor between the outside walls and the “Floor inside of core”.
    3. “Code live load”. The load specified in the New York Building Code for a given occupancy.
    4. “Live load for floor design”. The actual live load used for the design of the parts of the floor which load may not be less than the “Code live load”, and may be reduced for tributary areas as defined in “Live load reduction”.
    5. “Live load for column design”. The code live load, reduced as defined in “Live load reduction” for columns.
    6. “Construction dead load”. The weight of the bare structure (i.e. the slab and beam) used in design of unshored composite beams.
    7. “Construction live load”. The allowance for the weight of any equipment and/or forms which is not permanent and does not form part of the total load summation.
    8. “Superimposed dead load”. The weight of ceilings, floor finish, walls or partitions of known location, mechanical and electrical equipment and similar items not included in the “Super imposed live load” or “Construction dead load”.
    9. “Dead load”. The sum of items 6 and 8 above. 10. “Superimposed live load”. The weight of the design live load, based on occupancy, plus the weight of partitions if their location is subject to change. Essentially, the construction dead load (CDL), superimposed dead load (SDL) and superimposed live load (SLL) together comprise all mass or weight in the building. Values for CDL, SDL and SLL are also given in the design documents presented in NCSTAR1-1A for some of the different types of floors within the building, inside and outside the core. CDLs include steel used in floors such as beams, trusses, deck and concrete reinforcement.
    . . . .
    Analyses from independent researchers regarding aircraft impact damage and collapse scenarios have appeared during and after the official investigations. Earlier analyses were severely limited by a lack of information and were overly simplified. Later analyses have been more substantial, but as seen in Bazant et al. (2007)10, the mass and potential energy are probably grossly overestimated:

    “Near the top, the specific mass (mass per unit height) µ = 1.02 × 106 kg/m. In view of proportionality to the cross section area of columns, µ = 1.05 × 106 kg/m at the impact level (81st floor) of South Tower. Generally, we assume that µ(z) = k0ek2z + k1 (where k0, k1, k2 = constants), with a smooth transition at the 81st floor to a linear variation all the way down (precise data on µ(z) are unavailable). The condition that ∫0 H µ(z)dz be equal to the total mass of tower (known to be almost 500,000 tons) gives µ = 1.46 × 106 kg/m at the base.”~ Bazant et al

    Since µ(z) is unknown we can approximate the value for floors 82-110 using a linear variation from the value at floor 81 to the value at floor 110 (29 floors) and the proportion of the height for those floors. The height of WTC1 from the base to the roof is 437.69 m. The total number of floors is 116. µ(z)avg81-110 = 1.035 × 106 kg/m. µ(z)avgB6-81 = 1.2475 × 106 kg/m. Mass82-110 = µ(z)avg81-110 x (29/116) x h = 113.3 × 106 kg MassB6-81 = µ(z)avgB6-81 x (87/116) x h = 409.5 × 106 kg The total mass is then 522.8 × 106 kg or, converting to short tons, 576,000 tons.

    Bazant et al. most likely assumed metric tons for the popular 500,000 ton number but that doesn’t explain why we get 522.8 × 106 kg. The maximum error of using the linear approximation instead of the exponential equation is less than 2 × 106 kg. If Bazant et al. used the nominal height of the building (414.63 m from the concourse level to the roof) the result would be 493.9 × 106 kg which corresponds better to the statement “known to be almost 500,000 tons” assuming metric tons.

    \\][//

  23. Blender Demolition – Case Study: World Trade Center (Demo 3)on YouTube

    lackofbettername1 >> Assumptions:
    1. “At 46 seconds he refutes the pancake theory by showing some video of a possible simulation, possible animation and “immediately rejecting” it because the center columns were still standing in the video. This is not nearly enough evidence to reject a “immediately reject a theory”. Who made the animation? What software did they use to run it? What parameters did they use? Is the software accurate? Are there any sources for error in the software compared to real life physics (something that is extremely common)? All questions that I thought of that weren’t answered.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    1.>> The video you refer to was shown of NOVA. It is a CGI animation. And yes, regardless of your irrelevant questions, the simulation is reasonably rejected because it simply does not represent anything near to what is seen in the actual videos of the collapsing towers. Your questions as to where the animation came from are irrelevant precisely because the NOVA presentation clearly misrepresents the actual real life event.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    “This is another red flag that makes me immediately think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. At 1:19 he starts with the gravity driven progressive collapse theory. He states that a gravity driven collapse is only possible if the foundation is weakened. This is not true. Gravity collapses are a function of the distance between each floor vs. the resistance given by each floor. He doesn’t give us any information as to the kinetic energy built up between each floor or the resistance. He states that the bottom is “very strong” which is a very technical term that means nothing. He has the audacity to post a video of a what looks to be a concrete structure demolition that does not go as planned as evidence that gravity collapses aren’t possible unless the bottom is weakened?  A lot of these truther videos like to use buildings that are completely different structurally than the twin towers to prove their points which is something you just can’t do. There are different forces and mechanics involved and comparison between these two buildings is just silly. He then states that if a collapse like the twin towers were possible, why do we have the demolition industries? What he meant was why don’t the demolition industries just weaken the top floors and let it collapse down on its own? This is just another terrible argument. Just demolition industries destroy buildings one way does not mean it’s impossible to destroy buildings any other way. This is common sense. Demolition industries have to focus on time, knowing that a building will 100% collapse, and knowing a building will collapse into its own footprint, among other considerations. And again, there has never been a demolition of a 110 story building in the history of mankind let alone a building with the same materials and composition of the twin towers. He states “this is definitely not possible” without ANY proof that it is not possible. It just isn’t according to him. We’re only 3:20 in now and it’s onto the “crushing and crippling theory”. He take a while to make any sort of coherent argument. He states that heat doesn’t transfer instantaneously which is why the top of the building couldn’t just crash down on the floors below it. It would gradually sit down on the floors because of…. a gradual loss of mechanical properties. He states that it could also pitch out but not go straight down quickly. Wait what? This is just not true once again. This man clearly does not know much about structural engineering. Once structures are stressed beyond their strength limits they can easily suffer catastrophic failure that results in rapid progressive increases in the forces in a direction that the buildings were not equipped to handle. Simply look up “list of structural failures and collapses” on wikipedia and find videos of those collapses and tell me if every single building collapses gradually and neatly set down on the floor below it. I can promise you that there are several examples where this is just not true. It’s such a silly argument. At this point he is done with this video. He states that he’s going to calculate using “simple physics equations” (oh dear) why the world trade center couldn’t collapse. I’m sure he’s going to neglect many important points that need to be considered when calculating such a complex issue but I’ll hold off on that. Would you like to refute any of my points? I went through each of his and really can’t understand how people don’t immediately see that he is simplifying issues and making baseless assumptions with bad comparisons.
    ____________________________________
    (9/24/2015) +lackofbettername1, Reading your introduction I thought you were actually going to address the physics in the video you are discussing; but you had nothing whatsoever to offer as to his calculations. All you assert here is a bunch of specious rhetoric. A number of original design documents are provided in NCSTAR1-1 and NCSTAR1- 1A. NIST NCSTAR1-1A (p. 5)9 presents definitions from the original design as follows: 
    1. “Floor inside of core”. That part of the floor bounded by the outside faces of columns 501, 508, 1001 and 1008. 
    2. “Floor outside of core”. That part of the floor between the outside walls and the “Floor inside of core”. 
    3. “Code live load”. The load specified in the New York Building Code for a given occupancy. 
    4. “Live load for floor design”. The actual live load used for the design of the parts of the floor which load may not be less than the “Code live load”, and may be reduced for tributary areas as defined in “Live load reduction”. 
    5. “Live load for column design”. The code live load, reduced as defined in “Live load reduction” for columns. 
    6. “Construction dead load”. The weight of the bare structure (i.e. the slab and beam) used in design of unshored composite beams. 
    7. “Construction live load”. The allowance for the weight of any equipment and/or forms which is not permanent and does not form part of the total load summation. 
    8. “Superimposed dead load”. The weight of ceilings, floor finish, walls or partitions of known location, mechanical and electrical equipment and similar items not included in the “Super imposed live load” or “Construction dead load”. 
    9. “Dead load”. The sum of items 6 and 8 above.
    10. “Superimposed live load”. The weight of the design live load, based on occupancy, plus the weight of partitions if their location is subject to change. Essentially, the construction dead load (CDL), superimposed dead load (SDL) and superimposed live load (SLL) together comprise all mass or weight in the building. Values for CDL, SDL and SLL are also given in the design documents presented in NCSTAR1-1A for some of the different types of floors within the building, inside and outside the core. CDLs include steel used in floors such as beams, trusses, deck and concrete reinforcement. . . . . 
    Analyses from independent researchers regarding aircraft impact damage and collapse scenarios have appeared during and after the official investigations. Earlier analyses were severely limited by a lack of information and were overly simplified. Later analyses have been more substantial, but as seen in Bazant et al. (2007)10, the mass and potential energy are probably grossly overestimated: “Near the top, the specific mass (mass per unit height) µ = 1.02 × 106 kg/m. In view of proportionality to the cross section area of columns, µ = 1.05 × 106 kg/m at the impact level (81st floor) of South Tower. Generally, we assume that µ(z) = k0ek2z + k1 (where k0, k1, k2 = constants), with a smooth transition at the 81st floor to a linear variation all the way down (precise data on µ(z) are unavailable).

    “The condition that ∫0 H µ(z)dz be equal to the total mass of tower (known to be almost 500,000 tons) gives µ = 1.46 × 106 kg/m at the base.”~ Bazant et al

    Since µ(z) is unknown we can approximate the value for floors 82-110 using a linear variation from the value at floor 81 to the value at floor 110 (29 floors) and the proportion of the height for those floors. The height of WTC1 from the base to the roof is 437.69 m. The total number of floors is 116. µ(z)avg81-110 = 1.035 × 106 kg/m. µ(z)avgB6-81 = 1.2475 × 106 kg/m. Mass82-110 = µ(z)avg81-110 x (29/116) x h = 113.3 × 106 kg MassB6-81 = µ(z)avgB6-81 x (87/116) x h = 409.5 × 106 kg The total mass is then 522.8 × 106 kg or, converting to short tons, 576,000 tons.  Bazant et al. most likely assumed metric tons for the popular 500,000 ton number but that doesn’t explain why we get 522.8 × 106 kg. The maximum error of using the linear approximation instead of the exponential equation is less than 2 × 106 kg. If Bazant et al. used the nominal height of the building (414.63 m from the concourse level to the roof) the result would be 493.9 × 106 kg which corresponds better to the statement “known to be almost 500,000 tons” assuming metric tons.
    _______________
    +Willy Whitten No no no that’s not how discussion works Willy. I knew you’d probably post something like this. I address my complaints of a 6 minute video and you completely ignore my points label them as “specious rhetoric” without any evidence and then add new links to random blogs from across the internet. I’m not going to read any of those blogs Willy. Look how long it took to go through just 6 minutes of a video that was packed with logical flaws and ridiculous assertions. I can’t read every blog on the internet. I want you to address my complaints specifically so I can elaborate on a given topic if need be. I did address the physics of his argument by the way. Read my comment. I didn’t address his calculations because he didn’t make any in the first video. Again, I’m going through his videos one by one and I’m hitting on every point rather than cherry picking. Also, unrelated, but having a signature of presumably two W’s made to look cool after every youtube comment is considered tacky by most. Just want you to know in case no one has told you. ~lackofabettername 99/24/2015

    +lackofbettername1, Well I did set up your remarks in a word doc, and I was going to address the whole thing. I got this far: Your remark is in quotes, mine after the double arrows:
    lackofbettername1 >> Assumptions: 1. “At 46 seconds he refutes the pancake theory by showing some video of a possible simulation, possible animation and “immediately rejecting” it because the center columns were still standing in the video. This is not nearly enough evidence to reject a “immediately reject a theory”. Who made the animation? What software did they use to run it? What parameters did they use? Is the software accurate? Are there any sources for error in the software compared to real life physics (something that is extremely common)? All questions that I thought of that weren’t answered.”
    . . . . . . . . .
    1.>> The video you refer to was shown of NOVA. It is a CGI animation. And yes, regardless of your irrelevant questions, the simulation is reasonably rejected because it simply does not represent anything near to what is seen in the actual videos of the collapsing towers. Your questions as to where the animation came from are irrelevant precisely because the NOVA presentation clearly misrepresents the actual real life event.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Then I read through the remainder of your remarks. You may think you are presenting a cogent and well constructed line of thought therein, however it was a jumble of assertions based on conjecture and supposition . You begin with ” He states that a gravity driven collapse is only possible if the foundation is weakened. This is not true.” Well it is true. You say, “Gravity collapses are a function of the distance between each floor vs. the resistance given by each floor,” without explaining what the cause of the loss of the original structure having a need to resist anything. You are beginning in the middle of a “collapse” situation with the ASSUMPTION that it is indeed in progress. What is the proximate event in your scenario? We have to assume you are referring to the NIST assertion that there is a “collapse initiation” caused by the loss of structural integrity of the floors above. You do not address the validity of this loss of structural integrity, you simply assume it is correct. YOU are the one that doesn’t give us any information as to the kinetic energy built up between each floor or why there would be a need for resistance.Then you go on to fault him by showing videos of collapses that you claim are irrelevant, after saying this, ” He states that the bottom is “very strong” which is a very technical term that means nothing.” So now we expect of you the use of “technical terms. But first, let me say what he clearly means by the bottom is very strong; he is referring to the remaining intact structure below the floors that were impacted. They were INDEED very strong. They retained the original strength that they had before the jets crashed into the tower. These structures were not meant to maintain merely “static” loads as the debunking community tries to came, they had huge live load capacity built into them, over capacity as per the explanations of the architects and engineers that built these buildings.Now, I have already addressed the initial errors of Bazant’s proximate calculations that attempt to exaggerate the mass and weight of the total building, and which are further exaggerated as his argument proceeds. And you can complain that “that’s not how discussion works”. AS IF__as if you are entitled to frame the ground-rules of discussion solely at your own pleasure. I am sorry to inform you, he who lacks a better name to remain anonymous, but I will not be manipulated or intimidated in this manner. I reject the concept that citations are in some way not a proper form of discussion and argumentum. I leave the ball in your court. \\][//

    Kostack Studio 12:20 AM – 9/24/2015
    +Willy Whitten “You probably don’t even understand yourself what you’re posting here. Why should anyone bother to explain? No offense, but It’s like trying to explain a clockwork to a pig. – I appreciate that +lackofbettername1 tries to do it anyway.”

    Willy Whitten 8 minutes ago 12:30 AM – 9/24/2015
    +Kostack Studio says, “I appreciate that +lackofbettername1 tries to do it anyway.” Well I do too! And I have just explained to him that “what he is trying to do” is failing miserably.
    You say “No offense” and then follow with this offensive refrain, “but It’s like trying to explain a clockwork to a pig.” That is utterly disingenuous bullshit. Don’t tell me you meant no offence. So you obviously don’t know shit about physics or engineering and you call on your nameless buddy here to try to pull your ass out of hot water, and now you say he “”tries to do it anyway.” But you will not have the expertise to grasp why he fails at his attempt. And you can both glad-hand and congratulate yourselves on how smart you are. It is blithering ignorant arrogance on the part of both of you jokers. \\][//

    • Just like all the gormless shills on the Internet, neither one of this clowns will attempt to refute the scientific papers offered_because they know they wouldn’t understand them! They are pretenders like 99.99% of the debunker boofers on the web.
      \\][//

    • Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
      Author:
      The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in
      both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John
      Moores University, in 1984.

      Beginning with Ross’ actual analysis:
      Energy Losses:
      A simple conservation of momentum calculation, ignoring these movements, would have, 16 falling storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec before impact, changing to 17 storeys moving at (8.5 * (16/17)) = 8 m/sec after impact. This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds.
      To estimate and illustrate the further momentum changes we can assume that the storey which is 25 storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the 24 affected storeys will vary linearly from the velocity of the falling section to zero.
      Momentum before impact = 16 storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec
      Momentum after impact = 17 storeys moving at V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec
      + 1 storey moving at 22/24*V2m/sec +……+ 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storey
      moving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5) V2 = 16 * 8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8 metres per second.
      The speed of the upper section would be reduced by the collision from 8.5 m/sec to a speed of less than 4.8 m/sec rather than the 8 m/sec derived from a momentum calculation which does not include this factor. Note also that this reduction in speed would again give more time for the propagation wave to travel downwards through the tower columns and allow that more and more storeys are so affected.
      The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced.
      K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec) K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec) Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%
      This is an underestimation of the energy loss, since the deceleration would allow more time for travel of the propagation wave and so allow more floors to be affected but even this shows an energy absorption of some 66% of the total kinetic energy of the falling section.

      Energy Balance:
      Since there was only some 2.1 GJ available at the point of impact of the first collision, a loss of 66% would reduce this figure to 714 MJ.
      The kinetic energy would be augmented by potential energy released in the further downward movement of the falling mass and if we assume that this falls through the full distance of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted floor and the elastic deflection of the lower storeys, then the additional potential energy is 58*10* g * (0.111 + .056) = + 95MJ.
      The strain energy consumed by the impacted storey columns in the elastic phase and plastic shortening phase can be calculated using the failure load. The failure load used throughout this analysis is derived using the mass above the impact, 58 000 tonnes, and a safety factor of 4. Examination of the column geometry with reference to the Euler equations show that this is an underestimation both of the failure load and the distance over which it would have to act before failure, and this gives a gross assumption in favour of collapse continuation. A factor of 0.029 is included to reflect the load profile over the 3% plastic shortening phase. The load profile exhibits a linear rise from zero to failure load at 0.2% of the length, followed by a constant failure load over the next 2.8% of the length.

      Plastic strain energy:
      58*10kg*4*g*3.7m*0.029= -244MJ.

      A similar though slightly smaller figure would be required for the first impacting storey in the upper falling section. Because this storey carried a lower load, 15 storeys, than the impacted storey, 17 storeys, its designed capabilities would be proportionately smaller.
      Using this knowledge an estimation can be made that the energy consumed by this storey would be:
      (244 MJ * 15 / 17) = -215MJ .
      The elastic response of the lower storey columns within their elastic range would make further demands on the energy available by absorption of energy in the form of strain energy.
      This can be estimated, using a safety factor of 4, a mass of 58000 tonnes, a distance of 0.056metres, and a factor of 0.5 to reflect the load profile:
      58*10kg*4*g*0.056metres*0.5= -64MJ.

      The downward movement of these floors in response to the impact will release additional potential energy due to their compression and using the same deflections as above and a value for mass proportionate to the number of storeys, this will release:
      58*10kg * 24/16 * g * 0.056metres / 2 = + 24 MJ.

      Further energy losses are evident in an analysis of the compression of storeys within the upper falling section. These storeys manufactured from columns with a smaller cross section than those at the impact, would be unable to withstand the failure load present at the impact front and would suffer plastic deformation beyond their elastic limit, but for simplicity, it is assumed that they suffer only their full elastic deflection. This is another large assumption in favour of collapse continuation.
      The total deflection would be 15 storeys multiplied by the elastic deflection of 7.4mm, and strain energy consumed can be estimated as:
      15*7.4*10*4*58*10*g/2= -126MJ.

      Movement of the storeys within the upper section will release additional potential energy due to their compression and consequent movement. It is likely that this energy would manifest itself as failures within the upper section, but has nevertheless been added as an energy available for collapse continuation. The uppermost storey will move downwards by 15 times the elastic deflection whereas the lowest will remain static, both in relation to the impact point, giving additional potential energy as:
      15*0.0074*58*10*g/2= +32MJ

      A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical value.

      In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening [2].
      It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and consequent fires.
      The tower, using Dr. Greening’s figures, contained approximately 50000 tonnes of concrete, and the assumption is made that only 10% of this was pulverised to a size of 60 micrometres. One kilogram of concrete at this particle size will have a surface area of 67 m^2.
      We can now use Dr. Greening’s figure for concrete fracture energy of 100J/m^2 to show that the
      energy requirement for one floor would be 50*10^6kg / 110floors * 67m^2 * 100J/m^2 * 10% = – 304 MJ.
      It may be considered unlikely that a low velocity impact would expend large energies on pulverisation of materials, and this is more likely in later stages of the collapse. However, the large expulsions of dust were visually evident at early stages of the collapse.

      Energy Summary:
      The energy balance can be summarised as
      Energy available;
      Kinetic energy 2105MJ
      Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
      Compression of impacting section 32MJ
      Compression of impacted section 24MJ
      Total Energy available 2256MJ
      Energy required;
      Momentum losses 1389MJ
      Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
      Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
      Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
      Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
      Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
      Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
      Total Energy required 2646MJ
      Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

      Conclusion:
      The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.
      A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. [Bolding mine]

      The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths.
      Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.
      The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied.

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
      \\][//

      • Ibid:
        Assumptions and disregards:
        A buckling failure is notable because of the characteristic reduction in load required to
        continue failure after yield is reached, being distinct from a compressive failure where the
        load to continue failure after yield is substantially greater than the yield load, and will
        reach a maximum at the Ultimate Load. In the immediate time period after impact the
        force applied by the falling section will manifest as such a compressive load. Euler
        calculations show that columns of the dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to
        buckling over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a compressive failure
        mode. The load would increase to yield levels, and due to the work hardening which would
        be present here but not in a buckle failure, thereafter increase towards the Ultimate Load
        level and this would manifest as plastic compression or shortening, until such time as
        enough length of column to satisfy the minimum length requirements of buckling, had been
        exposed to the load. The tower columns when viewed individually had dimensions which
        would dictate a minimum length for buckling of three or more storey heights. When the
        bracing of the spandrel plates and corners of the perimeter columns, and the horizontal
        and diagonal bracing is taken into regard the minimum buckling length would extend over
        many storey heights. At this point the load would continue to manifest as plastic
        compression or shortening, but also as a tendency to buckle the column, rather than
        continue in compression failure. The energy profile would thereafter become that of a
        buckle failure.The analysis would be justified in using the greater energy demand
        characteristics of a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the collapse, but I
        have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode has the lowest energy demand.
        The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration
        which would be felt by the falling mass. As an example, if we asumed that the velocity was
        halved over the distance covered in this analysis the time would be extended by one third,
        giving more time for the energy to dissipate to more remote points.
        The analysis assumes a linear distribution in the elastic deflections and velocities of the
        affected floors during calculation of the momentum transfer and elastic strain energy.
        Since most of the column sections involved would have undergone almost their full elastic
        deflection, this treatment underestimates the energy demands within those calculations.
        Only a second iteration has been used to show the number of floors taking part in the
        momentum and velocity changes of the collision. A full iteration would give about 30
        storeys, and allowing that the falling mass was decelerated to half of its original velocity
        would allow time for the propagation to extend loading to more than 40 storeys below the
        impact. My assumptions have the affect of reducing the number of storeys which take part.
        This together with the assumption that only a portion of the elastic deflection will apply
        underestimates the energy requirements of this task.
        The characteristic of steel to show an increase in Young’s modulus in response to an impact
        load is acknowledged as a further energy demand but is not quantified.
        It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be
        re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby
        reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the
        state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted
        materials.
        The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section.
        There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the
        impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential
        energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass
        will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the
        tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is
        recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which
        it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As
        this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert
        back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best
        Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is
        limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not
        sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the
        rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points.
        It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those
        storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section
        in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further
        serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.
        An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability
        on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed
        by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies
        involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of
        velocity, equal to the velocity at impact,
        8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.
        This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this
        assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been
        taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the
        expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to
        cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.
        This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates
        or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing
        of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain
        energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this
        would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

        References:
        [1] Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)
        Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow
        ASCE, and Yong Zhou

  24. Conspiracy Theories
    Cass R. Sunstein*
    Adrian Vermeule**
    Abstract
    “Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful
    people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important
    practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts
    of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or
    the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,
    including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant
    challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by
    which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such
    theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable
    cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational
    influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality.
    Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories;
    they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because
    those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in
    accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in
    cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question
    whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are
    explored in this light”
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf

    “Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,
    including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant
    challenges for policy and law.”~Sunstein

    Note that Sunstein asserts this as connected to the researchers of 9/11, with no evidence whatsoever that those who seek the truth of what really happened that day have ever espoused, let alone committed violent acts. Sunstein wants to limit free speech and dissent under false pretext.
    \\][//

    • “The truth is out there”

      Conspiracy theories are all around us. In August 2004, a poll by Zogby International showed that 49 percent of New York City residents, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent, believed that officials of the U.S. government “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” In a Scripps-Howard Poll in 2006, with an error margin of 4 percent, some 36 percent of respondents assented to the claim that “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center or took no action to stop them.”
      Sixteen percent said that it was either very likely or somewhat likely that “the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.”~Cass R. Sunstein, hyperventilating over the fact that TV news is less effective in brainwashing Amerikans than it used to be.

      Well Sunstein set out to try to fix that by helping establish a corps of disinforments to recruit for duty in infiltrating the web and other public media and poisoning the well of discourse with “cognitive infiltration”.
      Although Sunstein published his book ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in 2008, he had already been lobbying behind the scenes long before then to try to stamp out dissent. Peculiar activities for a so-called constitutional legal scholar. He seems to have forgotten the 1st and 4th Amendments to the US Constitution. Not atypical of the new breed of so-called academics in the corporatist run “government”.
      \\][//

    • “What causes such theories to arise and spread? Are they important and perhaps
      even threatening, or merely trivial and even amusing? What can and should government
      do about them? We aim here to sketch some psychological and social mechanisms that
      produce, sustain, and spread these theories; to show that some of them are quite important
      and should be taken seriously; and to offer suggestions for governmental responses, both
      as a matter of policy and as a matter of law.”~Sunstein

      Notice that Sunstein doesn’t even consider that evidence plays the largest role in the spread of conspiracy theorizing. He immediately leaps to the conclusion that there must be social psychological answers to explain the spread of such theories. He even fails to note that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, one that Sunstein hypocritically upholds himself.

      Such an analysis of Sunstein reveals that he is not a serious scholar attempting to discover the truth. He is a highly paid government shill out to stomp out dissent, and freedom of speech. He is a very influential voice within mainstream academia and linked corporatist government. This makes him one of the most dangerous individuals attacking the unalienable liberties of free individuals. He is in effect a Minister of Propaganda in Amerika who promotes Orwellian Doublethink, and the application of the Memory Hole as techniques of totalitarian control.
      \\][//

    • David Smith 34 minutes ago
      +Willy Whitten Why don’t we agree to disagree. I would like to say to you that I do respect you and your right to your opinions. I may not agree with them but I respect your right to have them.

      My Reply:
      Willy Whitten 8 minutes ago
      David Smith now wants to “agree to disagree,” after beginning this conversation with this vile slur; “Typical 9/11 Twoofer fantasy.” Now he wants to speak to our rights to our own opinions. The fact of the matter this conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with opinions – it has to do with facts and data. It has to do with facts and data that Mr Smith continually hand-waves, denies, and spins using the most disingenuous rhetorical devices. The record here on this very page makes this absolutely clear.

      This appeal to suddenly “kiss and make up” is no less disingenuous as the rest of the specious verbiage put to this page by David Smith. Of course I agree that we disagree. WTF? It is as clear as an azure lake at springtime.
      Do I respect this shill for spouting all the bullshit he has spewed on this page? Absolutely not. I do not make deals with stooges.

      I would rather that Mr Smith remain silent, taking the 5th, so as not to incriminate himself any further as an accessory after the fact to the greatest single crime to take place in this nation since the extermination of the indigenous people.
      \\][//
      [YouTube forum titled:The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7]10:30PM – 9/30/2015

    • International Journal of Applied Philosophy
      Volume 24, Issue 2, Fall 2010
      Kurtis Hagen
      Pages 153-168
      DOI: 10.5840/ijap201024215
      Is Infiltration of “Extremist Groups” Justified?

      Many intellectuals scoff at what they call “conspiracy theories.” But two Harvard law professors, Cass Sunstein (now working for the Obama administration) and Adrian Vermeule, go further. They argue in the Journal of Political Philosophy that groups that espouse such theories ought to be infiltrated and undermined by government agents and allies. While some may find this proposal appalling (as indeed we all should), others may find the argument plausible, especially if they have been swayed by the notion that conspiracy theories (or a definable subset thereof), by their nature, somehow or another, do not warrant belief. I will argue that Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposal not only conflicts with the values of an open society, but is also epistemically indefensible. In making my case, I will adopt their favored example, counter-narratives about 9/11.

      “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”~Cass Sunstein
      -2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule
      http://www.pdcnet.org/ijap/content/ijap_2010_0024_0002_0153_0168
      \\][//

      • Sunstein shills are en-mass, a virus of stupidity. An ignorant pap smear of nonsense replicating itself through the blogosphere.

        I am not a “Conspiracy Theorist”, I am a Conspiracy Analyst. The conspiracy is real, it is there for analysis to reveal its ways & means of operation. Those who dismiss the conspiracy are in deep denial, and manipulated by a century or more of indoctrination by the Public Relations Regime designed by Edward Bernays, and the quacks who imported the Prussian school of compulsory warehousing of children in their Kindergarten meme; from preschool to university.
        See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
        \\][//

  25. wiseacre — noun; a person with an affectation of wisdom or knowledge, regarded with scorn or irritation by others; a know-it-all.

  26. Joshua Carr (ThePistolKing) 24 minutes ago
    “+Willy Whitten I have been instructed by my contact at the NSA to inform you that your attempts at uncovering the truth have not gone unnoticed. Your knowledge of the facts of the 9/11 cover-up are a threat to national security, and you are hereby instructed to cease and desist further dissemination of classified intelligence.”

    Carr thinks this will make it appear that he is joking. Is he? He has the perfect profile as a Sunsteinian disinfo agent. This comment is likely pure bravado. However one cannot be certain; but for the fact that if NSA had a message for me, they wouldn’t leave it to a chump like Carr to pass on.
    [Comment from YouTube video of 9/11: Decade of Deception (Full Film NEW 2015) made on 9/25/2015]
    \\][//

  27. DHMO one of the substances found in great quantities in the WTC aftermath
    Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, HydrogenHydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, HydroxicAcid, or simply Hydric acid, that is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful. It is a major component of acid rain.
    Dihydrogen monoxide kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
    Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
    as an industrial solvent and coolant. in nuclear power plants. in the production of styrofoam.
    >> as a fire retardant. in many forms of cruel animal research. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. And even after using special procedures to remove all traces of it, food is left shriveled and tough. as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products. in certain forms of torture and/or murder.

    Studies by scientists have shown that a majority of the U.S. population favors a ban on this substance.
    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DihydrogenMonoxide
    \\][//

  28. Internet TROLLS, also known as “forum posters”, “internet bloggers,” or if we call them what they really are, SHILLS, are increasingly being recruited by corporations or subcontracted agencies not only for marketing (Exposing Cyber Shills and Social Media’s Underworld) or political purposes (Definition of a sock puppet), but also, to distract from the truth to prevent public outcry about hazardous programs such as geoengineering (climate engineering & weather modification), dirty archaic energy (oil-Keystone XL pipeline, gas-fracking), the dangers of genetically modified foods (GMOs, big ag, biotech, warfare chemical companies), vaccine risks, Smart Meters, 9/11 questions, and EVERY issue where profiteers put their bottom line and lust for control, over the destruction of the planet at the expense of our health & sustainability of the planet.

    Internet trolls are often employees that answered a job ad on craigslist or some other online employment venue. The geoengineering trolls, specifically, are employed by the two main disinformation sites, metabxxx and contrailsciexxx, both ran by a gaming programmer. He and his band of internet trolls lack expertise in science, meteorology or any other field related to geoengineering, yet claim to be “experts” and fancy themselves “debunkers”. “Shillidiocy” is a term that best describes the rapidly growing industry of people ready and willing to sell out humanity for a few pennies per comment. Disinformation has been used throughout history for political manipulation and those same tactics are being utilized today by trolls hired to infiltrate social media.

    1) CHARACTER ASSASSINATION – (Psychological Warfare – discredit, distract, intimidate, frustrate, divide & conquer) – Disinformation shills (trolls) attack the character of leaders in a movement to discredit them, thus discrediting the movement. A main character assassination tactic is to highlight any negative or perceived flaw of an otherwise reputable person, whether true or false, to discredit him/her in an attempt to invalidate their viewpoint and make it appear baseless, for the sole purpose of detracting focus from the information they are sharing. Trolls often “make stuff up” if they can’t find anything real to highlight for this goal, after all, shills are paid liars. Trolls are hired to make leading or inflammatory comments for the sole purpose of baiting their targets to create a “controversial debate” where none truly exists. They often resort to the “Trojan Horse” tactic to elicit an emotional response from their targets, frustrate, and evoke hostility with the intent of twisting it around to make the person look volatile, a classic “character assassination” tactic to discredit people, making them appear weak and unstable. Trolls frequently provoke people into a heated argument, and sometimes will go so far as to “report” them as being a “threat” to get them kicked off the forum. Another trick these liars are taught to do is to use semantics to twist people’s words around and make it seem as though they’ve lied, to discredit them and works hand in hand with the Straw Man tactic. These are all character assassination attempts that you will easily recognize happening in social media forums once you become familiar with these tactics.

    https://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/dispelling-internet-disinformation-tactics-debunking-the-debunkers/
    \\][//

    • “Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity.”~Henry Louis Gates

      Gates has it totally backwards; it is Coincidence Theories are the irresistible labor-saving device in the face of complexity.
      \\][//

    • The Galileo affair (Italian: Processo a Galileo Galilei) was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610,[1] culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism.[2]

      In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo’s initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[3]

      Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him “vehemently suspect of heresy”, sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
      \\][//

    • Harrit received his Masters Degree in Chemistry from the Max-Planck Institute and his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Copenhagen, focusing on mechanistic photochemistry. He began his post-doctorate work at Columbia University in 1977, prior to embarking on his career as a professor and authoring more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in his field. Currently he is involved with x-ray time-resolved spectroscopy research on timescales of one millionth of one millionth of a second.

      And yet, his most influential peer-reviewed paper may very well be the milestone report on the WTC dust “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” which was published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009.
      http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/563-niels-harrit.html
      Also see:
      Vitae / Resume Summary:
      Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry
      Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977
      Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
      http://nielsharrit.org/
      WTC damage
      \\][//

  29. The Jones–Harrit Thermate Paper Affair

    The editor in chief of the journal where the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.

    “Guilty Knowledge” is the concept that the tendency to not look at something because you know what you will find – and it is your interest not to find or reveal what you know is there.

    Marie-Paule Pileni has firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign?
    It is not so puzzling, she most obviously read the paper, it is also obvious that she couldn’t find fault in the science, or she most certainly would have pointed such out: but in her position as a consultant for nano-energetics in European military establishment it would be a career destroying mistake to agree with the science proving military grade explosives in the dust of the WTC aftermath.
    Marie-Paule Pileni’s denial of her own area of expertise cited as an excuse for leaving is absurd and ludicrous. When staging a hissy fit it’s better to have a solid reason behind it so that the drama has congruence.
    http://911blogger.com/node/19963
    \\][//

    • Scienter
      [Latin, Knowingly.] Guilty knowledge that is sufficient to charge a person with the consequences of his or her acts.
      The term scienter refers to a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for her acts. The term often is used interchangeably with Mens Rea, which describes criminal intent, but scienter has a broader application because it also describes knowledge required to assign liability in many civil cases.
      Scienter denotes a level of intent on the part of the defendant. In Ernst and Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 96 S. Ct. 1375, 47 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court described scienter as “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” The definition in Ernst was fashioned in the context of a financial dispute, but it illustrates the sort of guilty knowledge that constitutes scienter.
      Scienter is relevant to the pleadings in a case. Plaintiffs and prosecutors alike must include in their pleadings allegations that the defendant acted with some knowledge of wrongdoing or guilt. If a legislative body passes a law that has punitive sanctions or harsh civil sanctions, it normally includes a provision stating that a person must act willfully, knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly, or it provides similar scienter requirement. Legislative bodies do not, however, always refer to scienter in statutes.
      scienter
      n. Latin for “having knowledge.” In criminal law, it refers to knowledge by a defendant that his/her acts were illegal or his/her statements were lies and thus fraudulent.
      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/scienter
      \\][//

    • The Jones–Harrit Thermate Paper Affair — The editor in chief of the journal where the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication.
      She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one:

      “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”

      The fact is the topic is exactly her field of expertise.

      However as it revealed during this tempest, Marie-Paule Pileni has firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. As such Ms. Pileni is certainly familiar with nano-explosives.

      So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign?It is not so puzzling, she most obviously read the paper, it is also obvious that she couldn’t find fault in the science, or she most certainly would have pointed such out: but in her position as a consultant for nano-energetics in European military establishment it would be a career destroying mistake to agree with the science proving military grade explosives in the dust of the WTC aftermath. She could neither dispute the paper scientifically, and to give the paper her blessings would have been professional suicide. Her only out was to quit and try to quietly disappear [a familiar tactic on this thread as well].

      Ms Pileni is now liable for Scienter, which is the charge of “guilty knowledge”. The term scienter refers to a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for her acts.
      Of course Ms Pileni has the impunity granted to all of the high level stooges working for the global military industrial complex.

      She can slip off into the shadows away from the glare of public attention.
      – – – – – – – – – –
      If the Jones-Harrit paper had scientific errors, Pileni would have been the perfect expert to point them out and reject the paper. Her pretense that she did not read the paper is belied by her cheesy excuse for quitting. She knew perfectly well what was in the paper, and she knew that rebuking it without scientific cause would mean responding with junk science herself. She was no willing to do this, she has a reputation to protect herself.
      \\][//

      • Amy says ,”The absence of rigor allows bad science to enter into public thought and be confused as being legitimate. It demonstrates the need for there to be rigor when it comes to verifiable results and accurate data. It also inadvertently shows that even the best and most reliable journals can be fooled.”

        As I pointed out Amy, Bentham let ONE paper through that passed peer review and then was revealed to be a fake paper built of computer algorithm.
        Now you site just one of hundreds of fuck-ups by leading world renowned journals, the NASA press conference you cite is not ammo for your argument here. It shows that there is more cheating the more money that is at stake, thus the virtual plague of pseudoscience in the medical and pharmaceutical journals. Bentham can’t holg a candle to how corrupt mainstream science journals are.

        And you crow about the propriety of NIST, another organization soaked in government funds. It seems to me that you would be the one to learn some lessons from what we just went through. One of them being the system you look to with such trust and faith is corrupt to the core. And if you are an academic, the sooner you realize this and bolt for the door, the better off you’ll be. Wait until you’ve got tenure, and your investment will be too steep to escape from.

        You yourself have had nothing to say about the Jones-Herrit thermate paper. Why not? Don’t you think you could understand it? I can understand it, it is written with a minimum of jargon, as it was meant for the scientist and non scientist as well. If you don’t know what it says yourself how can you fairly judge the paper?
        If you have read it and find fault in it, bring them her and show me what you think is wrong. Because in the final analysis all the rest of this about Bentham, is just so much waddle and cluck.
        . . . . . .
        From “debate” on YouTube forum: MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1
        \\][//

  30. Willy Whitten — Autodidact, Polymath & Wordsmith

    AUTODIDACT:
    Autodidacticism (also autodidactism) or self-education is the act of self-directed learning about a subject or subjects in which one has had little to no formal education. Many notable contributions have been made by autodidacts.
    Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci is one of history’s best known autodidacts.

    The term has its roots in the Ancient Greek words αὐτός (autós, or “self”) and διδακτικός (didaktikos, meaning “teaching”). The related term didacticism defines an artistic philosophy of education.

    Autodidacticism is sometimes a complement of modern education. Students should be encouraged to do more independent work. While Leonardo da Vinci was a privileged autodidact, the Industrial Revolution created a new situation; one in which the industrialist were faced with the problem of the inhuman existence in warehoused situations. They turned to the Prussian model of Kindergarten to indoctrinate children at the earliest ages possible and condition them to accept the inhuman conditions brought about by mass industrialization. See:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
    Polymath: noun, a person of wide-ranging knowledge or learning; a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.
    Definition of WORDSMITH: a person who works with words; especially: a skillful writer
    \\][//

  31. Establishing the WTC Dust Signature: Managing Post 9/11 Environmental and Damage Assessments

    The collapse of the World Trade Center Towers following the catastrophic events of 9/11 produced a dust cloud that covered much of lower Manhattan. Thousands of private and public buildings were contaminated by the dust. Building owners in the vicinity of the collapse, worried about environmental impact to their damaged buildings, retained RJ Lee Group to assess the situation. A major objective of the study was to establish a set of baseline conditions to determine which components of the WTC dust were sufficiently above typical background dust levels in New York City so a quantitative signature could be developed. This signature would then be used to differentiate the structural and environmental impact of the WTC event on these buildings and to determine the appropriate remediation method.

    http://www.rjlg.com/litigation-services/case-study/establishing-the-wtc-dust-signature-managing-post-911-environmental-and-damage-assessments/
    \\][//

  32. Morgan Reynolds 9/11 Mole & Charlatan

    mole
    Fox TV selects Bush II administration veteran Morgan Reynolds as representative of the 9/11 truth movement despite (or because of) his promotion of “no planes anywhere” nonsense.

    The media generally ignored the 9/11 “truth” movement until a few months before the 2004 election, when the movement began to get traction. Now they love to focus on the “truth” movement — as long as they can promote the “no planes” claims, stress “Fake Video” “DEW” “Nukes at WTC” and “Hologram” theories as the key to the conspiracy theories and promote the most absurd nonsense as representative of the best evidence from the skeptics. The media do not dare mention the Complete 9/11 Timeline (since it’s a compilation of over 1,000 mainstream media articles that prove that the attacks were not a surprise) or CIT”s proof that an aircraft did not strike the Pentagon, or that nanothermates in the WTC dust has been proven will be totally ignored by mainstream media.

    And Morgan Reynolds promotes everyone of the moronic theories: “No-Planes” – “Fake Video” – “DEW” – “Nukes at WTC” and “Holograms”. Reynolds is also pals with King Rat himself Jim Fetzer.
    \\][//

  33. 9/11 was a PSYOP, a psychological operation. The goal in such an operation isn’t simply to fool people, it is meant to traumatize them. A traumatic event is an experience that causes physical, or emotional psychological distress, or harm. It is an event that is perceived and experienced as a threat to one’s safety or to the stability of one’s world.

    This is the reason merely crashing planes into the WTC towers was not enough. It was not spectacular enough to create the lasting psychological distress the perpetrators wished to achieve. It is beneficial to study the the means and ways of “Operation Gladio” to get a fuller understanding of who the target of such trauma inducing events are.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-truthseekers-911-and-operation-gladio/5352551
    http://www.examiner.com/article/operation-gladio-s-pre-post-9-11-pure-hell-exposed
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
    Or:
    Full PDF book of NATO’S SECRET ARMIES by Daniel Ganser
    http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119640.pdf
    \\][//

  34. A message for the hard core shills:
    YOU DON’T LIKE IT that someone would have the personal motivation to teach themselves physics, and molecular physics, forensics, and deep history; because you are a prefab sprout who has been conditioned to believe that one must put oneself under the authority of state sanctified warehouses asserted to be places of learning. And now that you have experience such conditioning and indoctrination you cannot even conceive of being free to develop your own thinking. This state sanctified so-called educational system has been in operation for generations, the whole population has been indoctrinated into a paradigm constructed on the principles of creating a society in which an elite class is trained to lead and indoctrinate each successive generation into a class system wherein there will be mindless worker drones led by a mindless managerial class, controlled by a tiny elite class that pulls the levers that direct the society. And all of this sounds like a bizarre fantasy to you because that is how you were programmed.
    The fact that there is, has been, and will always be a certain percentage of creative thinkers, who are intuitively aware of the suppression being put upon them, will escape the vice-grip of such a system. This is why the system is designed to be ever vigilant for dissenters. And these people will experience social pressures put in place to force them to conform.
    And this is the role of a conformist that you have assumed, as it gives you the sense of being in a privileged class of controllers, even though it is a position of contrived illusion that you have accepted without conscious awareness.

    Marcello Truzzi once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
    And now is up to those who are claiming the extraordinary to prove that it CAN happen… we’re still waiting…
    And the anomalous collapse phenomena of WTC towers 1,2,&7 are just a tiny piece of the puzzle of the anomalous events occurred that day…

    If you never escape the box your mind is in, you will be buried in it.
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
    \\][//

  35. Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
    Posted on September 7, 2012 by Kevin Ryan
    What changes have been made as a result of the World Trade Center (WTC) investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)? Are tall buildings around the world safe from the risk of global collapse due to fire as described by the official explanations?

    In 2008, NIST began claiming that its investigation would help ensure the safety of future buildings. NIST said that such buildings “should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall” as a result of the WTC investigation. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, the Bush Administration cabinet member in charge of NIST at the time, said –

    “The lessons learned from the tragic events of 9/11 have yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation.” [1]

    Is this true? If so, we should be able to see improvements being made to the design and construction processes for tall buildings around the world. We should also expect that existing buildings would be evaluated for design problems and retrofitted in an urgent manner to ensure that fires do not bring buildings crashing down as they did on 9/11, killing thousands of unsuspecting victims.

    Unfortunately, there are no signs that such design evaluations and retrofit projects have occurred. This is a strong indication that the international building community has not taken the NIST WTC reports seriously.
    http://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/

    Kevin Ryan was a Hydraulic Engineer at Underwriter’s Labs, who was a whistle blower to the fact that Underwriter’s had been the entity that tested the structural steel that was used in the construction of the towers. Underwriter’s publicly denied that they had been the ones who performed the tests in their furnaces, and that the steel had maintained its full load bearing strength at higher temperatures than were ever reached in the fires in the towers. He produced a memo to that effect signed by the president of Underwriter’s at the time of the tests. this proved that Underwriters assertions that they had not done the original testing was false – a lie. Ryan was thus fired for political reasons, for proving the company was lying.

    By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

    Knoblauch’s written response contained several points. He wrote: “We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them.” He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL’s involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on,” he wrote, “and it did beautifully.”19
    By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

    Knoblauch’s written response contained several points. He wrote: “We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them.” He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL’s involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on,” he wrote, “and it did beautifully.”19

    This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL’s Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the “leader in fire research testing,” but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they “produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119.”20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying “we don’t crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car.” In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the “collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7” was an ongoing process and that “UL is right in the middle of these activities.”21
    This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL’s Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the “leader in fire research testing,” but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they “produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119.”20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying “we don’t crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car.” In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the “collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7” was an ongoing process and that “UL is right in the middle of these activities.”21
    \\][//

  36. https://archive.org/details/gov.law.astm.e119.2000
    https://archive.org/stream/gov.law.astm.e119.2000/astm.e119.2000_djvu.txt
    https://archive.org/stream/gov.law.astm1.1
    The test methods described in this fire-test-response standard are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building..
    e119.2000/astm.e119.2000_djvu.txt

    As for floor assemblies, those who have been following the NIST investigation, and various explanations, know that the current claim is that the floor assemblies used in the WTC were never tested for fire resistance. But the May 2003 NIST report says that, in 1970, UL actually tested a floor assembly that was “similar to the WTC floor system”. It is important to note that the results produced in 1970 were the same as those from the August 2004 UL floor tests – only 3 inches of sagging after 120 minutes in the furnace.

    In this 2003 progress report, NIST goes on to say that they intended to perform fire resistance tests not only on the floor models, as part of the WTC investigation, but also on “individual steel members”. The latter results were never reported, and no reason was ever given. But this progress report, like NIST‘s final report, focuses more on the floor assembly fire resistance, and conspicuously fails to mention the originally required fire resistance tests on steel assemblies or where these tests were performed.

    UL’s second claim

    Statement number two above is clearly false for several reasons. First, UL is known to be one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they “produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119.” [5]

    In fact, even today you can go to UL‘s website and order fire-resistance testing for building components such as “floors, roofs, walls, beams and columns.” [6]

    Additionally, the WTC report from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) said “the UL Fire Resistance Directory …is the major reference used by architects and engineers to select designs that meet the building code requirements for fire resistance ratings.” [7]

    Not only that, a New York Times article about the WTC reported in April 8, 2002 that “a furnace procedure called ASTM E-119” is used to “determine if building materials will survive out-of-control blazes.” The Times went on to report “The furnace tests, conducted at places like Underwriters Laboratories here, focus on the ability of separate building components — a steel column or a concrete roof support — to survive temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees.”

    This article was critical of the tests performed as they related to the WTC, but certainly didn’t deny that they were performed, and made it clear who it was that performed them by saying –“At the Underwriters Laboratory campus in this northern Chicago suburb, where workers carry out those blazing tests…”. [8]
    http://www.911truth.org/three-years-later-another-look-at-three-claims-from-ul/
    \\][//

    • One will note that several of the links provided in this article have been scrubbed from the web Down the Memory Hole. Many instances of such in the 9/11 case, especially the sites on the jet receptor bases. I recall finding these in my earliest searches, only to find them scrubbed in later searches.The New York Times article referenced above is gone now too,

  37. Many experts give sound reasons for questioning the official theory of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. Tom Sullivan, an explosives technician, offers particularly relevant experience – given the explosive nature of the Twin Towers’ destruction on 9/11.
    Sullivan worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), during the years surrounding 9/11/01 as an explosives loader. His job was to place explosives in buildings to prepare them for controlled demolition. He worked on major projects such as the Seattle Kingdome, the Three Rivers Stadium, and the Philadelphia Naval Hospital.
    He notes that demolition work is complex and precise. “When we load a building, all support columns on a given floor fail at the same time within milliseconds of one another.”

    “The key word is ‘controlled’ in a controlled demolition.”

    He adds, “Looking at the building, it wouldn’t be a problem once you gained access to the elevator shafts… a team of loading experts would have access to all the core columns and beams.”

    “The story that just a few column failures can cause a synchronized global collapse – an implosion – well, that’s just nonsense.”

    Sullivan also noted that a controlled demolition exhibits progressive waves of explosions that sound more like a roar than a single blast.

    “What I saw was a classic implosion,” he notes, “People on the ground reported exactly what I would have expected: waves of explosions going off, not one massive big boom.”

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

      • The Murrah Building Bombing is applicable to 9/11 as this event too was a false flag PSYOP

        The earliest and most compelling challenge to the lone bomb/lone bomber theory came from Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Retired), an expert with sterling credentials and a distinguished military career. On May 18, 1995, one month after the bombing, General Partin delivered a preliminary detailed analysis of the event to members of Congress. “From all the evidence I have seen in the published material,” Partin testified, ” I can say with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases.” In that report (See “OKC Bombing: Expert Analysis” in our June 26, 1995 issue), and in the detailed study which he released on July 13, 1995 (see “Explosive Evidence” in our August 7, 1995 issue), Partin eviscerated the prosecution’s lone-bomb thesis with a host of findings from the forensic evidence indicating that demolition charges were certainly used inside the Murrah Building.

        Since that time, a veritable mountain of evidence, documents, records, eyewitness testimony, and authoritative support has accumulated to fortify General Partin’s thesis, making the stubborn adherence of government officials and journalists to the lone-bomb scenario truly incredible.
        • World-renowned physicists and an assortment of scientists, engineers, and explosives experts who concur that internal charges must have been used.

        • A series of Air Force test blasts on concrete structures corroborating General Partin’s main contention that air blast from a truck bomb outside of the building could not possibly account for the pattern and magnitude of the damage to the Murrah Building’s superstructure.

        • A study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which acknowledges that a truck bomb of 4,800 pounds of ANFO (as claimed by the government) would have been insufficient to cause the destruction experienced at the Murrah Building.

        • Two eyewitnesses inside the Murrah Building who attest that they observed bomb squad personnel removing undetonated explosive devices from the building after the initial blast.

        • A rescue worker who attests that she heard an ATF agent state that he had found an undetonated explosive device inside the building.

        • Recently released government communiques and radio transmission logs indicating that undetonated devices had been found in the building during the early rescue efforts.

        • Recordings of real-time, live television news broadcasts reporting official confirmations of multiple unexploded devices inside the Murrah Building.

        • Early statements from government officials and terrorism and bombing experts — before the “official” line was laid down — that the explosives used were clearly very sophisticated, indicating it was the work of a “group” highly knowledgeable in explosive techniques.

        • Five survivors of the blast who attest that they saw three men in the parking garage of the Murrah Building with wires, tools, and what appeared to be building plans several days before the bombing.

        • Military personnel who reportedly saw McVeigh or John Doe No. 2 inside the building but were threatened with court-martial if they mentioned what they had seen.

        The Unheard Experts

        General Benton Partin’s report on the Oklahoma bombing should have hit the nation like a thunderclap. Not only was his analysis thorough and scholarly and his credentials unimpeachable, but his observations also conformed to a commonsense appraisal of evidence that was widely available and understandable to the general public. General Partin’s highly decorated, 31-year military career included command of the Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory and direct involvement in the research and development of many of our armaments and weapons systems. Among many other things, this expert’s expert pointed out that:

        • Blast through air is a terribly inefficient coupling mechanism against heavy reinforced concrete beams and columns. Blast wave energy drops dramatically when traveling through air, initially falling off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed.

        • Using the official estimate of 4,800 pounds of ANFO would yield a maximum pressure of explosion of about one-half million pounds per square inch at detonation. But by the time the blast wave traveled through the air to the nearest of the building’s columns, it would have dropped off to about 375 pounds of pressure per square inch, and by the time it reached the nearest column in the second row of columns it would have been down to 27 to 38 psi. The compressive yield strength of concrete is around 3,500 pounds per square inch, far above anything exerted by the truck bomb blast on the building’s structure

        • The asymmetrical damage to the building — i.e., the off-center “bite” — presents another insuperable problem for the official scenario, requiring that the blast wave leave standing columns that were closer to the explosion while taking out columns that were farther from the blast.

        • Inherent in the official scenario is the absurd claim that the truck blast was sufficiently strong to collapse the huge columns and beams, but not strong enough to knock down sheet rock, furring strips, and other light, fragile materials.

        • Examination of the photographic evidence shows clearly that the column failures were smooth and localized, as would be expected with cutting charges, not jagged, as would be the case if they had been shattered by the brisance of an air blast.

        The persuasive cogency of his analysis — coupled with his outstanding stature and experience in the field of military ordnance, explosives, and blast effects — should have earned General Partin’s thesis a respectable hearing. But it was dismissed out of hand or ridiculed by the same officials and media-anointed “experts” who have propagated a continuous string of absurdities to explain away the avalanche of contradictions and inconsistencies in the official scenario of the bombing.
        http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16440-proof-of-bombs-and-coverup

  38. Young’s Modulus – Tensile Modulus or Modulus of Elasticity – for some common materials like steel, glass, wood ..
    Tensile Modulus – Young’s Modulus or Modulus of Elasticity – is a measure of stiffness of an elastic material. It is used to describe the elastic properties of objects like wires, rods or columns when they are stretched or compressed.

    Tensile Modulus is defined as the “ratio of stress (force per unit area) along an axis to strain (ratio of deformation over initial length) along that axis”

    It can be used to predict the elongation or compression of an object as long as the stress is less than the yield strength of the material.

    Aluminum:
    Elasticity: (106 psi) = 10.0 – (109 N/m2, GPa) = 69
    Ultimate Tensile Strength:(106 N/m2, MPa) =110
    Yield Strength: (106 N/m2, MPa) = 95

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html
    \\][//

  39. Check this outrageous scam this guy Tony Nichols tried to run on a YT forum tonight:

    Tony Nichols 1 hour ago
    “NOw in your other posts you think the US used high energy beams to destroy the towers??? So what was it , explosive , death rays , or metal eating termites?

    Willy Whitten
    commented on a video on YouTube.
    Shared publicly – Aug 23, 2015

    The Overwhelming Plausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007:”
    Show less

    Willy Whitten 15 minutes ago
    +Tony Nichols is clearly misrepresentation of the title of the paper by Jenkins, which is: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007 The word in question in the title is “IMPLAUSIBILITY”, which means NOT plausible. As I copy that title into my mouse and paste it into articles, I certainly did not hand type that error into the title of Jenkins paper. So the question arises: Has Tony been so dishonest as to purposely change the word “implausibility” and replace it with Plausibility? As any commentary I have ever made makes clear, I find the DEW hypothesis to be utter bunk. And I think that Judy Wood is a fruitcake.
    So Tony the shill, I have made it absolutely clear that the WTC towers were destroyed by explosive demolition. As we have been back and forth on this numerous times, this little gambit of your is a transparent and dishonest ploy. Which is not a surprise knowing your MO as a stooge disseminating outrageous bullshit.
    \\][//
    Read more
    Reply ·

    Willy Whitten 1 minute ago
    The citation that Nichols is referring to is on; https://youtu.be/sEGXojifyD4 And my comment was made not on Aug 22, 2015 not the 23rd as Nichols writes. This is taken from the video page
    Willy Whitten 1 month ago
    The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
    \\][//
    Reply ·
    And I know the exact date by pulling up my Google page. So it is absolutely clear that Nichols is attempting to scam the readers here by changing “Implausibility” to Plausibility” Which is one of the more underhanded tricks I have seen attempted on a public forum/
    \\][//

    Tony Nichols 19 minutes ago
    “Really? You were a proponent of energy guns for 911…now when you realize it is “implausable” you back down..”
    Reply ·

    \\][//

  40. What I find particularly troubling is that NIST can say, “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” And yet most people assume that NIST actually provides a full explanation of the total collapse. Which may be excused as a fairly reasonable assumption for the lumpen proletariat who has never been informed of the fact that NIST admitted that they were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
    But for those stooges who have been made aware that NIST admitted that they were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse; it is obviously a disingenuous claim under the pretense of innocent ignorance, that they are unaware that NIST admitted that they were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse. Instead these disinformants disregard that NIST admitted that they were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse, and fixate on the false argument of numbers of experts in a certain field may or may not agree with the official story despite no polls having been taken of such experts – but merely asserting that those experts who have not spoken out about their doubts are certainly not doubtful; which is of course empty presumption on the part of the disingenuous shills who swarm the Internet on the auspices of the Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltration Regime.
    \\][//

  41. There are some (many) who will make fallacious arguments such as; Argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.” And the similar, Argumentum ad numerum ( “appeal to the number”). And Consensus Gentium (“agreement of the clans”) — which is the precise argument that this harassing stooge is trying to play on me in this thread.
    Consensus Gentium is the appeal that some group necessarily holds the key to special knowledge that common sense and research of facts and data cannot discover.
    These logical fallacies have been understood by critical thinkers for hundreds of years – thus the Greek nomenclature. But as I pointed out in my reference to John Taylor Gatto, such abilities of critical thought, and free inquiry have been pounded out of those indoctrinated in the public school system to “sit down, shut up, & repeat what I am telling you”. The anonymous stooge arguing at me in this thread has succumbed, and abandoned his own mind to the programming of those who manipulate his perceptions and align his thoughts and actions to their ends.
    This is what has brought about the tragic breakdown of the mental capacities of the peoples of the modern world. Not just the west, but the whole world, where tyrannical systems have learned the processes of Technocracy.
    \\][//

  42. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

    This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger” concerns the same idea.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
    \\][//

  43. 9/11 Stooges will often site the fire at the Windsor Tower as a proof against the ‘Truthers’. However, this fire that lasted ten times longer than the fires in the WCT towers, still did not cause a collapse of the steel frame structure that was still standing when the blaze finally burned itself out. Comparison of the WTC to the Madrid fire is not applicable, as the buildings were not constructed like each other in any way.

    The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid
    Overview
    Location: Madrid, Spain
    Fire Event: 12 February 2005
    Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
    Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
    Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
    Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
    Building Type: 106 m (32 storeys). Commercial.
    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
    \\][/

  44. Now, The physicist and structural engineers I have cited, have thoroughly rebuked Greening, Bazant & Zhou, plus NIST itself admitted that they could not explain the complete collapse of the Towers. I have shown how disingenuous the NIST claim is that “once the collapse initiation was reached total collapse was inevitable” while they in fact did not prove this so-called inevitability – they simply asserted it with no evidence whatsoever. But that is just the beginnings of the proofs against the official story. NIST further went on to claim that no evidence of explosives were found, but when asked if the looked for such evidence said they hadn’t, scurrilously claiming that sense there was no evidence it was a waste of time to look for it! A grand and glaring example of official circular reasoning.

    Further however is the proof that explosives were discovered in the WTC Dust. Sol-gel produced nanothermetics, that can only have been produced in military labs. So besides the empirical evidence of the explosions going off in the visual evidence of the videos of the towers, the witness testimonies of hearing and seeing explosions going off in the towers. there is the physical evidence of the nanothermites in the dust.

    AND, this is only one aspect of the entire 9/11 case; the demise of the towers. There are also the issues of the bogus official account of the Pentagon event. The utter lack of any air response by NORAD. The phony Flt 93 tale, where a site in Shanksville is claimed to be an airplane crash site despite any evidence of a plane actually crashing in that spot – but counter evidence showing debris over an eight mile area, indicating a midair explosion destroyed the aircraft.
    There is more, to do with the phony war on terror, where it is proven that al Qaeda is a subsidiary cut-out of the CIA, a “controlled enemy” … the list of issues covering 9/11 is virtually endless.

    If monkeyboy shills and stooges want to deal with the realities of 9/11, they are going to have to address ALL these issues head-on, and dispense with the carousel of arguing the same points already addressed ad infinitum. What these fucking web provocateurs are really frustrated with is their own inability to to make a convincing counter argument to the actual facts that is going to pass critique.
    [Posted on youtube ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7] @ 11:30 AM, 10/1/2015
    \\][//

  45. BAZANT’S 4 PAPERS REVIEWED

    THE WTC COLLAPSE ARGUMENTS OF ZDENEK BAZANT

    The vague nature of the NIST reports when describing the collapse progression mechanisms of the Twin Towers has led to a long series of misrepresentations of the WTC collapses in ASCE publications and elsewhere that continues to this day. An excellent example of what lies at the heart of these misrepresentations is a series of papers appearing in the Journal of engineering mechanics by Zdenek Bazant.

    Dr Bazant wrote 5 papers on the WTC collapses which appear in ASCE journals. The first paper, published in 2002, is based on a simple argument that can be stated in a single sentence. In his own words: “The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.”

    He wrote 3 more papers in succession in 2007-8 in which he develops a general one dimensional mechanical model of the motion of the progressive collapse of a building and applies the model to the Twin Towers. The model was already examined in part 2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation in step 4.

    It is quite fascinating to observe how this model, based on the mechanics of interacting blocks and gross assumptions, had gone from being a simple 1-D formulation to something that has been taken quite literally. The block mechanics first derived in these papers is now often portrayed as the most realistic description of the collapse progressions of the Twin Towers to date. This has occurred even though it is easy to show that block mechanics grossly contradicts what is observable and verifiable within the visual record of the events themselves. Block mechanics is taken to represent the history of the towers so completely that overwhelming visual evidence that the real collapse modes were quite different goes virtually unmentioned in pretty much all professional and government literature. Even stranger, many groups and individuals that argue contrary to Bazant have adopted the same block mechanics formulation to express their own understanding of the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers, as will be demonstrated in sections 3.6 and 3.7.

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=272&MMN_position=529:529

  46. “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”~Mark Twain
    \\][//

  47. Flight 93: Proof of 9/11 Lies by the US Government and Media
    strip mine aerial
    This is an aerial photo of the claimed impact site of Flt 93 taken years before: The pre-existing trench is visible in this 1994 U.S.G.S (United States Geological Survey) map of the reclaimed mine. The crater was made directly in the middle of the trench this location had been carefully chosen for the Flight 93 shoot down. Were all the passengers from the different planes of 9-11 loaded onto this doomed plane at Cleveland airport?

    This crater was made in the middle of the trench to provide a plausible diversion that looked like the scene of a plane crash albeit without any wreckage. The bomb crater was made directly in the middle of the pre-existing trench which indicates that the Shanksville shoot down had been carefully planned in advance. The public was told that the plane had crashed at the site of the crater while the real debris field was located in the woods beginning at a distance of about 100 meters in the woods, around the cottage of Barry Hoover.
    ____________
    The candid world has been asked to accept some very extreme coincidence theories pertaining to the events of 9/11, but the “crash site” at the old strip mine outside of Shanksville is utterly beyond belief. The pre-existing trench is visible in this 1994 U.S.G.S (United States Geological Survey) map of the reclaimed mine. The crater was made directly in the middle of the trench. What is represented as “the wing scars” in the official narrative, are EXACTLY the same scar as in the 1994 U.S.G.S map of the reclaimed mine.It is obvious to the lucid observer that someone created a “crater”, likely by backhoe, and then dumped a bunch of debris into it, adding a very shallow gouge to attempt to give the impression of the stablizer (tail) of an aircraft.
    Anyone who can accept this obvious fraud is delusional, and any other arguments by them must be dismissed as rantings from the cuckoo’s nest.


    http://www.whale.to/b/bollyn10feb4.html
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shootdown.html
    \\][//

  48. The Propagandist is not engaged to change the opinion of the agent, it is to reveal the techniques and methods of the propagandist to the more lucid in the readership.
    osama Brizzy
    \\][//

    • Hasbara
      Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara) (Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה hasbará, “explaining”) refers to public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions.
      \\][//

  49. Mock Aircraft 9/11
    Both the military and Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense had Boeing 757’s, 767’s, 747’s, & 737’s. Zakheim was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

    Zakheim then has, means, motive, MO, and Cui Bono, ei; he would benefit directly in the crime of conspiracy to commit mayhem, conspiracy to defraud the government , conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to wage a war of aggression.

    Only with subpoena power can this most reasonable suspicion be proved conclusively. And Zakheim has impunity because of his positions of political power and finance So no court proceedings ,nor criminal charges will be filed while the present system is manifest, and longer this system remains in power, the less likely is there a chance the system can be overthrown. A grave dilemma for the human race.
    [see: http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html%5D

    “Experts”? The two most qualified & reliable experts I know of are my own eyes.
    \\][//

    • Flight 175 would have had the newer P&W engines: 767-300ER — P&W PW4056, 4060, or 4062.
      Not a JT9D-7 series engine. Just like the aircraft mechanic said.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
      flt 175
      front view
      Boeing introduced the 767-300 in 1986 and the 767-400ER, an extended-range (ER) variant, in 2000. ….. During the same period, operators upgraded aircraft already in service.
      \\][//

  50. “But if we are actually applying true science, consensus is a diversion. Just because everyone believes something does not mean they are correct, all it means is that there will be greater pressure applied on those who don’t believe the same thing. Consensus is a argumentative tool used to pressure/humiliate anyone that refuses to believe what is offered as truth.

    Consensus is subterfuge, plain and simple. Anyone implying or stating that consensus is synonymous with science is really not interested in the truth.”~dji9424
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34868
    \\][//

  51. 9/11 Pentagon Debate: Craig Ranke (CIT) vs Anthony Summers on KPFA Pacifica

    Summers is certainly a dissembler, relying on churning rhetoric, and the interviewer has an obvious bias and is not a fair moderator in this discussion. As usual Pacifica acts as a gatekeeper with this disingenuous approach. This program was nothing but a hit piece, a set-up of Ranke, an ambush. the same despicable techniques used by the mainstream media on all 9/11 issues.
    \\][//

  52. The NIST WTC Investigation–How Real Was The Simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1
    By Eric Douglas, R.A.
    nistreview.org
    December 2006

    Abstract
    The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

    NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

    There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to

    NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
    This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
    http://www.nistreview.org/
    \\][//

  53. 4.0 Summary and Practical Applications

    The author acknowledges the scope and complexity of the task with which NIST was challenged, as well as the excellent qualifications of, and hard work performed by, those involved. However, the purpose of this paper was to be critical in nature, highlighting areas in which the author believes NIST should have been more rigorous in its procedures. We have seen several such areas.

    We have seen that NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burntests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

    We have also seen inadequacies, some minor, some significant, at every stage of NIST’s computer simulations,including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation. But, most of all, it is NIST’s repeated willingness to manipulate input data in order to support its hypotheses that casts doubt on the validity of its conclusions.

    As noted at the outset, since building codes, safety standards, and building design will be influenced by the
    conclusions and recommendations of the NIST WTC reports, it is important that these inadequacies be addressed, not dismissed. NIST should explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers. Although NIST has produced an impressive body of work in its attempt to solve a very difficult problem, they have also shown that there are problems associated with relying too heavily on computer simulation. We have learned several lessons from the NIST investigation that should be applied to future investigations of building failures.

    First, we have learned that the complexity of building behavior, especially under thermal loading, is difficult tomodel accurately and may yield surprising results, as did the restrained/unrestrained behavior of the floor truss burn test. This argues for the erection of actual, physical mockups of critical component assemblies, such as the truss seats, in order to understand the true value of their properties. Also, physical samples of strained and weathered materials from failed structures should be collected and rigorously tested instead of simply being assumed to be identical to FEA simulations of comparable materials. Where large-scale testing is viable, physical tests should come as close as possible to the actual conditions experienced by the structure. In light of these lessons, the author calls upon NIST to review its findings related to the failures of WTC 1 & 2, and to implement these suggestions in its investigation of other building failures, such as that of WTC 7.

    Computerized testing is at an exciting stage of development. Analysis programs can create excellent simulations of simple material stresses and are extraordinarily useful in modeling structural load paths. Someday soon they may be able to perform complex evaluations such as the ones attempted by NIST. Until that time, it is important for theindustry to recognize their limitations.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
    \\][//

  54. Conclusion
    The idea of 9/11 foreknowledge is also covered in a Consensus Point about World Trade Center 7, another about insider trading, a third about VP Cheney’s role regarding the Pentagon, a fourth about NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and a fifth Point about the Able Danger data-mining discoveries.

    This compelling array of evidence suggests that there was foreknowledge of the Pentagon attack by various officials. The strike on the Pentagon (whatever its nature) requires a full, impartial investigation with subpoena power.
    http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-4/
    \\][//

  55. The Dunning–Kruger effect; a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

    There are variations of the D-K effect as well; such as those who have expertise or ‘skills’ in one topic, and mistakenly think that this expertise can cross over effortlessly to other areas of knowledge. Their general intelligence is of course a factor for assessing any information. But that does not mollify the situations wherein these “experts” do not actually study the details of an area of research they are not qualified in, and merely assume from ignorance that their standing as an expert in one field only reaches validity in that specialty.
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    John Wyndham, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jon Cole,
    Ken Jenkins, David Chandler…what a team!

    I am a bit surprised to find my old nemesis Frank Legge is still active in light of his advanced age and seeming mental deterioration. Perhaps Legge is more of a mascot now for this group.

    I think this team is more concerned about Honegger because of her perceived “renown” in the movement. She impinges upon their sacred ground of hierarchical arrogance. She is competition because she is on the lecture circuit. They would like to bump her off like they have CIT from their organized promotional campaigns. As politicians these guys know that nothing sells like intrigue and contrived controversy. For them 9/11 has become a matter of realpolitik.
    \\][//

  56. The Bentham Affair
    The fallacious story that has been circulated that claims that Bentham Scientific Journal is a “vanity publication” is a myth generated by the Debunkers for one single purpose, and that is an attempt to discredit Bentham as a tactic to attempt put the Jones-Harrit paper on Thermate into question. This is essential for the Debunking community because there hasn’t been a single successful attempt to repudiate the Jones-Harrit paper on it’s scientific merits.

    Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal , The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. Which would seemingly be a valid reason for her to pack her bags and leave.

    Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief did not quit due to this affair.

    Rather she quit on provably spurious grounds over the publishing by Bentham of; “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009.
    Marie-Paule Pileni resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.”

    The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials.

    In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer. Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

    Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact has the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. This would be a massive potential source of political pressure. Certainly enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign.
    \\][//

  57. Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIP

    When Dr. Millette´s preliminary report first saw the light of day in February 2012 – about 18 months ago – the JREF crowd heralded the report as the ultimate debunking of Harrit et al.(2009) who document the discovery of active thermitic chips in the WTC dust. When Rev. Chris Mohr delivered the report to his followers at the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, he announced that, “..the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”. But the report never made it to the publishing stage, and 18 months constitute enough waiting to confirm what we have suspected all along: Dr. Millette cannot publish the report.

    One of Dr. Harrit´s co-authors pretty much predicted the inevitable failure of Dr. Millette a couple of weeks prior to Mohr´s public release of the preliminary report, calling it the “official non-response”. Chemist Kevin Ryan notes in the article that Millette had participated in the official WTC dust studies and that a whistle-blower has charged those studies with fraud. The article also doubts Millette´s intention to actually address the evidence that Harrit et al. present in the 2009 paper, since Dr. Millette had consistently ignored the abundant iron spheres in the WTC dust in his previous studies. But those spheres happen to be the signature residue of the thermitic red/gray chips, and the tell-tale sign of a thermite reaction.

    And as I and Talboo document in detail in the third chapter of our fundraising article for Mark Basile – first posted in November 2012 – the Millette report has never given the impression of having been intended for peer-reviewing and publishing due to its fundamental flaws: Although Millette´s chips do have some superficial similarities to the chips studied by Harrit et al., neither the red nor the gray layers actually match the composition and characteristics of Dr. Harrit´s chips upon close inspection. And as Mr. Ryan had predicted, Dr. Millette does not even attempt to address or refute the ignition of the Harrit et al. chips at about 430°(C) and the resulting iron spheres in the residue. Dr. Millette actually refuses to replicate the ignition tests with his chips, and we speculate in our article that this is because he knows that these tests would confirm that he has not been studying the correct chips.

    Our fundraising article goes over this whole debate in detail and although it is pending it´s second major update, I am happy to announce that the revision will include a positively identified Harrit et al. FTIR spectrum for the red layer. Rev. Mohr and his crowd have been clinging to Millette´s FTIR spectrum because it is supposed to debunk Harrit et al., so it is appropriate to use that crown-jewel of the report to render Millette´s preliminary report null and void. Ryan´s FTIR spectrum for the red material confirms the suspicions laid out in our article, as it is quite clear that it does not match Millette´s red layer FTIR, so Dr. Millette failed to study the correct red/gray chips, and Rev. Mohr has of course been notified:

    http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-materials-paper-identifies-himself-great

    http://911blogger.com/node/19963

  58. The Bentham Affair 2

    Many “debunkers” maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious “proofs” below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

    Debunker>”The scientists in the paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips.” The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1]. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can’t create such uniform highly engineered materials.

    Debunker>>”The paper is bunk because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed vanity publication.” There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal. There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal. Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. “Debunkers” of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the “debunkers” have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4]. In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny.

    Debunker>>> “The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.” The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer. Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about. Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?

    Debunker>>>>”The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.” According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive. Every “debunker” argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.

    References [1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Available from:  [2] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. Available from:  [3] The Scientist blog. Available from:  [4] Fallacy: Hasty Generalization (Nizkor Project). Available from:  [5] Bentham site [6] Levine, I. N. (1978). Physical Chemistry McGraw-Hill publishing ISBN 0-07-037418-X [7] Removed due to JREF policy [8] Removed due to JREF policy [9] NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. 
    \\][//

  59. The Open Chemical Physics Journal and 154 other Bentham journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals operated by Lund University Libraries:
    http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=findJournals&hybrid=&query=bentham

    I did a Google search for “open chemical physics journal” – the first 5 pages contain this many listings of it in scholarly databases:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+chemical+physics+journal%22&hl=en

    Georgetown University Library
    http://library.georgetown.edu/newjour/o/msg02683.html

    Intute: Science, Engineering and Technology
    http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=20080813-1

    Internetchemie
    http://www.internetchemie.info/chemistry/chemical-physics.htm

    Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne- Scientific Information and Libraries
    http://library.epfl.ch/en/periodicals/?recId=12868587

    Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN
    http://www.ifj.edu.pl/lib/dodat_info.php?lang=en

    Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche- Department of Materials and Devices
    http://www.dmd.cnr.it/english/oaj.php

    University of Saskatchewan Library
    https://library.usask.ca/ejournals/view/1000000000375713

    ABC Chemistry- Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus
    http://www.abc.chemistry.bsu.by/current/fulltexto.htm

    Portico.org – “support for Portico is provided by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Ithaka, The Library of Congress, and JSTOR.”
    http://www.portico.org/Portico/feedback/oa_title_recommendation.por

    J R D TATA MEMORIAL LIBRARY (JRDTML) – INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
    http://www.library.iisc.ernet.in/bentham/bentham-open-journals.htm

    逢甲大學圖書館 Feng Chia University Library
    http://e-resources.fcu.edu.tw:8080/1cate/?BM=az&provider=DOAJ&tableName=

    Wageningen UR Library Catalogue
    http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/catalog/lang/1902051

    Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
    http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_journals/Biochemistry_chemistry_physics.htm

    Brigham Young University- Harold B. Lee Library
    http://exlibris.lib.byu.edu/sfxlcl3?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info

    Journal Search – Sutherland Shire Libraries
    http://journalsearch.sutherlandlibrary.com/JournalDisplay.asp?JournalID=

    http://911reports.com

    \\][//

    • “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.
      Strangely, her areas of research flatly contradict that. I’ll quote you an excerpt of her resume:
      OTHER ACTIVITIES
      1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
      1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
      1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in ChemistryEDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
      2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
      Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
      2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.
      CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
      1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)

      LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
      2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
      1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)

      Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.
      http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/cv-pileni.htm
      And:
      http://www.visibility911.org/editor-in-chief-of-open-chemical-physics-journal-resigns-after-controversial-article-on-911/
      \\][//

    • Peer Review IS Not An End-All Argument

      “Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of “good science,” in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer-reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.”
      — U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/03/two-criticisms-of-harrit-et-al-paper.htm
      \\][//

  60. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” There is a distinction between “data” and “facts” – data is raw, facts are cooked data. That is facts are data put in a specific context.

  61. FLIGHT 77 — 9/11/2001
    Flight Data Recorder Analysis – Last Second of Data – 09:37:44

    We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

    We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles… to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

    This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.
    For further details, please see our Technical Paper at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77

    Press Release outlining our findings: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease

    OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA
    Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

    – The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

    CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
    The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)
    – All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

    See description above. Light pole height is ~ 80 feet above sea level for tallest pole. (USGS Ground Elevation ~ 40 + Pole Height 40, Virginia Dept of Transportation)
    – The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

    Rate of Descent is in excess of 4,600 fpm (3). Aircraft height at 09:37:44 is ~473′ above sea level. Pentagon Height is 110′ above sea level. 473 – 110 = 363. 363 fps x 60 = 21,780 fpm descent required for last second to hit top of pentagon. 21,780 fpm descent rate for one second. This represents a 24.928 degree descent angle.
    363/781 (distance based on 781 fps speed as reported by NTSB) = atan θ = .464788

    θ = 24.928

    24.928 degree descent angle is in direct conflict with the level approach as seen in the DoD “5 frames video” (4). Further, the aircraft would require a level approach considering the foundation doesn’t show any signs of damage (5).

    – The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

    Animation stops at 09:37:44. NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. Many CSV file parameters terminate at 09:37:45.
    – If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

    4,600 fpm descent = 76.7 fps. Altitude at 09:37:44 as reported and plotted by NTSB when adjusted to local pressure indicates ~473(3). Impact time as reported by NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. 473 – 76.7 = 396. Top of pentagon height is 33 (ground elevation) + 77 (height of pentagon) = 110. 396 – 110 = 286.3 feet too high above the pentagon. Margin for error given as 186.3 feet due to altitude not present at time calculated by the NTSB for impact.
    In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

    The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter.
    For more information please visit: pilotsfor911truth.org.

    Signed: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
    ________________________________________________
    \\][//

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

  62. Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
    03/03/11 – (PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to — and in many instances factually conflicting with — conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines.

    Pilots For 9/11 Truth analysis of data being provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has revealed the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, exceeds the capabilities of a standard 757/767 by a wide margin, while demonstrating control issues for an “inexperienced pilot” (See 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, and Flight Of American 77). The data itself does not support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. When contacted, the NTSB and the FBI refused to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth went on to research if there was any evidence linking the data to N644AA (the aircraft described as “Flight 77”), once again, there is no evidence to support the government version of events(1). Research was also performed to determine if there was any evidence whatsoever linking the limited number of parts found at the Pentagon, to N644AA(2). In an unprecedented turn of events, the parts were never verified by any government agency for any of the four aircraft reported to have been used on 9/11. In all instances, there hasn’t been any evidence provided by government agencies to support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Further analysis reveals evidence demonstrating the data provided was not generated by an American Airlines airplane in the case of the attack on the Pentagon.

    DATA FRAME LAYOUT

    Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been provided several files through the FOIA. One file in particular, a raw Flight Data Recorder file which is described as a direct download from the FDR, contains binary code which needs to be decoded for a proper readout in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In order to decode such data, a Data Frame Layout is required. Derived from a generic Boeing Data Frame Layout, American Airlines provided it’s own custom made Data Frame Layout which was designed for decoding data from aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, based on airline needs exclusive to American Airlines (AAL). The custom made AAL Data Frame Layout was unable to decode the data in full, and in some instances, neither the AAL Data Frame Layoyut nor the generic Boeing Data Frame Layout were able to be utilized in decoding the data(3). Why would American Airlines design their own custom Data Frame Layout if it cannot decode data from their aircraft? Or perhaps the data being provided is not from an American Airlines jet?
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

    • Lloyd England’s Impossible Story

      As Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has mentioned, Mr. England’s involvement in 9/11 may have been deliberate or he may simply have been at the wrong place at the wrong time and used as a patsy. We just don’t have enough information to figure it out yet. But we do have enough information to prove his version of events is impossible.

      Up until now, Mr. England’s story has been discredited on several levels.

      The location of his taxi and the downed light poles south of the Citgo gas station conflicts completely with the testimony of more than a dozen eye witnesses who saw Flt. 77 fly north of the Citgo gas station towards the Pentagon. A flight path north of the Citgo gas station (NOC) would have made collision with the ‘downed’ light poles impossible.

      Driving 40 m.p.h. with a 30+ foot light pole impaled through his dashboard, the heavy side outside his car, swerving for 40 feet before coming to a halt and not having as much as a scratch on the hood of his car is difficult to imagine.

      Most people, after having survived such a traumatic accident would be shell-shocked and not have the presence of mind to do anything for quite some time before calming down and realizing the gravity of the situation. Not Mr. England. Just minutes after the accident he was busy flagging down a van to get assistance in removing the light pole from his car! What was his reasoning? What was the urgency?

      “Because I wanted to drive the car home. The car is my only transportation.” Right, better to tamper with the evidence and flee the scene of an accident than wait for the police? Like the police wouldn’t have been able to help you remove the pole when they arrived?

      And the man who was gracious enough to stop and help out Lloyd just happened to be completely silent the entire time he was helping him.
      He didn’t ask Lloyd if he was injured, something that 99.99% of the public would do at the scene of an accident, and to boot, according to Lloyd he left as Lloyd was still lying on the ground struggling with the bent end of the pole lying on top of him!

      I will be focusing on three key areas of Lloyd’s story: the timing of the ‘accident’, the location of Lloyd at the moment of impact and the direction of impact.

      Timing/location:
      Flt. 77 was supposedly flying at around 530 mph when it supposedly struck the Pentagon. This translates into ~ 780 ft./sec.

      Pole 1 was approximately 990 ft. away from the Pentagon crash point.
      This means that from the time Flt. 77 would have struck Pole 1 (the pole that supposedly hit Mr. England’s taxi) until the time it would have struck the Pentagon, a little more than one second would have transpired.

      This simple timing fact is very important when considering the location of Mr. England’s taxi when it was supposedly struck.

      The window of time from when Pole 1 was supposedly struck until the time when the pole would have had to have hit the taxi was incredibly short.
      Less than 1/20 th of a second, or a blink of an eye.

      Anything longer than this time and the pole would have passed beyond harm’s way of Mr. England’s taxi.

      So Mr. England had to have been almost literally underneath the jet just as it supposedly struck Pole 1. That would have been quite a fateful coincidence……Read more at:
      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22696
      \\][//

  63. Energetic Materials as a Potential Cause of the 9/11 First Responder Illnesses
    by Kevin Ryan February 4, 2011 11

    EPA also found very high levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) that, like the aluminum, sulfur and silicon compounds, were discovered to be present in unusual spiking patterns. These spiking patterns suggest that extremely violent, explosive or incendiary events were occurring within the pile at Ground Zero over a period of months. If fires were the cause of these events, they would have had to have been fires that were driven by an agent that contained its own oxidant, as a thermite or nanothermite mixture does. This is because extensive efforts were made to put out the fires at the WTC site, including the use of millions of gallons of water and chemical fire suppressants, with little or no effect. In addition to the tons of dust from the buildings’ destruction and the rainfall events that occurred, these firefighting efforts ensured that normal fires would not have continued.

    The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

    The pattern of energetic events at Ground Zero, indicated by the spikes in emissions, was different than the expected trend of emissions from a typical structure fire. As was the case for other structure fires, particulate matter (PM) emissions at Ground Zero were high at first and then died down completely. However, VOC emissions occurred for a longer duration, and the extreme, spiking emissions of VOCs, and components typical of thermitic mixtures, continued for many months after the particulate matter had died down.

    Other unusual results from EPA monitoring included a compound called 1,3-diphenylpropane (1,3-DPP), which had never been seen before in any EPA studies yet was said to be abundant and pervasive at the WTC. Further investigation is called for due to the fact that 1,3-DPP is used to functionalize nanostructured silicas that are similar to nanothermite materials.[11]

    Related to these environmental findings is the fact that first responders have been getting cancers at elevated rates. Many types of cancers have been reported including leukemia and the rare disease called multiple myeloma. The most prominent environmental cause of leukemia is benzene, which is one of the VOCs seen prominently in energetic spikes of emissions at Ground Zero. Benzene was detected at the WTC at levels that were dramatically higher than ever seen before in structure fires; even higher than what was seen at a large fire in a plastics factory.[12]
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-04/energetic-materials-potential-cause-911-first-responder-illnesses
    \\][//

    • Note: the above article is also a powerful debunking of the “Nukes at WTC” argument claiming these illnesses are a result of the nonexistent radiation, that they cannot prove.
      It also speaks to the scoundrel Millette, who authored the reports for the EPA that hid the presence of the dangerous corrosive substances in the dust, so that EPA could issue a calming but disingenuous “All Clear” for the clean-up operation. Another reason ducked for cover before trying to continue his scurrilous attempt to “debunk” the Jones-Harrit paper on Nanothermetics.
      \\][//

      • relitigate
        English
        Etymology
        From re- +‎ litigate.

        Verb
        relitigate ‎(third-person singular simple present relitigates, present participle relitigating, simple past and past participle relitigated)

        (transitive, intransitive) To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.
        (transitive) To dispute, debate, contest again.
        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relitigate

        disputatious/
        adjective: fond of or causing heated arguments.
        “a congenial hangout for disputatious academics”
        \\][//

  64. So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking.
    \\][//

  65. hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 11:41 am
    Jens Schmidt,

    Let’s be upfront with the forum here, alright. Are you of the opinion that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles? Not that the physics may be possible, because they certainly are, but because you think an airplane was actually in the position to strike them.
    \\][//

    REPLY
    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 12:21 pm
    “*sigh*

    I replied to a discussion of he physics of a hypothetical wing-hits-pole scenario. Adam Ruff wrote:

    “So how can the car and its engine be cut in half and thrown over 100 feet while the light poles simply fell over gently and came to rest only a few feet from the base. I contend that the physics DO NOT add up to impact with the light poles and on that grounds alone we can seperately prove the poles were staged” and “One of the poles fell backward for God’s sake how in the hell could that happen after being hit by a wing at 540 mph?”

    I merely alerted you to a plausible reason WITHIN that hypothesis why the poles wouldn’t fall far from their base (and if you do the baseball-bat-hits-rod experiment a few times, you will probably find that there will be cases when the rod falls backward). You didn’t ask Adam Ruff if he actually believes that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles, did you?

    There are good arguments and there are bad arguments, and there are okay arguments with some flaws and holes in them. I prefer good arguments, and claim the right to point to flaws in not-so-good arguments.”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 12:30 pm
    Jens,

    Argumentum verbosium is for children.

    I ask you directly now: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
    \\][//

    REPLY
    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm
    “Argumentum verbosium is for children.”
    I looked up “Argumentum verbosium” on Wiki because I had not seen that phrase before. Wiki redirects to “Proof by intimidation”. Which reminds me of one of the uses of “Moving the goalposts”:
    “In workplace bullying, shifting the goalposts is a conventional tactic in the process of humiliation.”
    That’s for adults, but it ain’t nice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Use

    I protest the moving of both lightpoles and goalposts ;)”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Jens Schmidt,

    I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation. However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you by continuing to babble off in another direction.

    I will give you that question again: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
    \\][//

    REPLY
    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 1:00 pm
    “I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation.”
    How rude. And how wrong.

    “However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you”
    You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.

    “by continuing to babble off in another direction.”
    No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction.
    The direction it was going was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?”. It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there!

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm
    “You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.”~Jens Schmidt

    This is another transparent avoidance of answering a direct question put to you. Continuing to duck and dodge this question is not going to go well for you. This is the third time you have avoided the question.

    Are you going to answer this or not?
    Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
    \\][//

    REPLY
    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 1:25 pm
    “Are you going to answer this or not? Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?”

    No, obviously I am not going to answer the question as it is plainly irrelevant in context. I’ll answer it as soon as it is relevant to a topic I am debating.”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 1:31 pm
    Schmidt,

    The topic we are addressing is the Pentagon event, THAT is the context of the question being put to you. You have waffled here for the last time.
    You plainly refuse to answer a simple and direct question on the flimsiest and most disingenuous grounds.

    You are playing the role of an “Artful Dodger” and you are playing it quite badly.
    I think this much is apparent to the readers of this thread.
    You have struck out.
    \\][//
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35195

  66. This argument on T&S with Jens Schmidt has gone on to absurd proportions; now the infamous James Hufferd has butted in with his scurrilous bullshit in attempt to pull Schmidt’s ass out of the fire:

    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 3:13 pm
    “Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?” It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there. Why insist on diverting away into that, Willy? That’s what he’s asking you. Why try to get him to self-incriminate, or pull some such trap? Your hostility is baffling.”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    “Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?””~Hufferd

    Because the matter goes beyond the hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall” And falls into the context of the ACTUAL EVENT at the Pentagon.
    We are no longer confronting this scurrilous “hypothetical” — we are discussing the actual event. My question is framed as per the actual event, and Schmidt is evading that question, which still remains:

    Schmidt: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

    Until Schmidt answers this simple question he is evading and disassembling — And YOU Hufferd are have joined in on the disassembling. You are purposely provoking me and by doing so distracting from the clear and obvious fact the Schmidt is evading the question.
    \\][//
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35218

    Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.

    This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
    That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.

    Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.

    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 5:21 pm
    So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35232
    \\][//

    REPLY
    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 5:24 pm
    “Anything’s possible. Likely? No.”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 5:28 pm
    “Anything’s possible.”~Hufferd

    Not so, not in this instance. It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.

    REPLY
    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm
    “Could be. But most of us aren’t concentrated Pentagon researchers and it’s one point out of hundreds in the whole 9/11 scenario. I find other, unrelated Pentagon evidence paramount and convincing than no airliner stuck the building.”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1
    October 8, 2015 at 6:55 pm
    That is the same position that Candler and Cole hold Hufferd.

    Thank you for finally admitting it.

    There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about. So as far as I’m concerned you are firmly in the same ranks as the Chandler-Cole contingent, and you have just confirmed that in this little disingenuous spat you yourself insisted on maintaining.
    \\][//

    • Hufferd often limps into T&S on his disingenuous crutches, as I have kicked in his proverbial kneecaps on numerous occasions in arguments here. His ego demands vengeance, but his paltry vapid attempts to attain it leave him only more pathetic and wounded.
      His claims that I am “bulling” the witness is spurious twaddle. All I have done is to demand a straight answer from someone who has evaded the question time and again using rhetorical spinning bullshit.

      Jens is obviously playing a disingenuous game on T&S. Is hiding his true motivations and has attempted to corrupt two issues that are clearly resolved on the 9/11 issue; first it was his flaky attempt to assert that free-fall has not been established in the demise of WTC7. Then this second issue with the Pentagon using his preposterous argumentum verbosity to try to squirm out of answering a clear and simple question as per the downing of the light poles at the Pentagon.

      I always took Hufferd for a dissembling little prick, and he proved that today in spades on T&S:
      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35233
      \\][//

  67. “For one thing, there are too many things missing that would be present if the OCT about an airliner striking the Pentagon were true — such as no actual plane parts identifiable by serial number.” ~James Hufferd – October 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    “Personally, I don’t know of a shred of physical evidence that would indicate that a jetliner actually struck the Pentagon. No ticket, no ride — PURE speculation.”~James Hufferd – October 3, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    How does that square with this Hufferd?
    “Could be. But most of us aren’t concentrated Pentagon researchers and it’s one point out of hundreds in the whole 9/11 scenario. I find other, unrelated Pentagon evidence paramount and convincing than no airliner stuck the building.” ~James Hufferd – October 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    REPLY
    James Hufferd — October 8, 2015 at 9:28 pm
    “Some day, somebody’s going to sue you for libel, you venomous piece of carrion..”

    MY REPLY
    hybridrogue1 — October 8, 2015 at 9:32 pm
    Lol, it had best not be you Hufferd, you will be counter-charged by the court for filing a frivolous law suit!

    Your getting hysterical here isn’t going to help you any Hufferd.
    \\][//

  68. Home Home of the Shills
    Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4
    Ryan Mackey, Mark Roberts, JamesB, Mike King, Brent Blanchard, Giulio Bernacchia, James Bennett..
    http://www.jod911.com/

    Yes the debunker’s so-called experts are their own worse enemies. It is funny to read their “peer reviewed” papers: Everything the debunkers accuse the “Twoofers” of and worse. One would wonder if it is satire, but knowing what a seriously vicious prick Ryan Mackey is, it is realised these nut-balls are serious.

    “This review is not a comprehensive critique of Mackey’s article. If it were it would be a sizable book, given the article’s length, and the number of counter-arguments its many arguments — valid and fallacious — invite. Instead, I will step back to take a broader view of the question of what destroyed the Twin Towers, while focusing on some of the arguments made by Griffin and Mackey pertaining to that question. I will treat NIST’s investigation only peripherally, having addressed it in some detail in Building a Better Mirage and A Reply to the NIST’s Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.For this critique I use an organization that departs from both that of Griffin’s chapter and Mackey’s article, in order to bring the focus back to the core issue: what caused the swift and total destruction of the World Trade Center. Mackey’s long-winded article, like most reviews professing to debunk the case for controlled demolition, conceals that issue by redirecting readers into a bottomless well of exaggerated details and a variety of fallacies that depart ever further from the core evidence that speaks to the question at hand.
    […]
    To a mind not encumbered by the implications of the 9/11 being a horrific inside job, the progressive explosions of the Twin Towers are unmistakable demolitions. It’s simple intuition that, had these enormous steel structures collapsed, portions of them would have fallen down; they would not have thoroughly pulverized and shredded themselves from top-to-bottom in gigantic explosions “vaporizing” their human occupants so thoroughly that not even a trace could be found to identify more than one thousand victims.

    Because intuitions can be mistaken, the scientific method was developed to test conclusions through a verifiable and repeatable process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and analysis. That method, embodied in numerous arguments such as these overwhelmingly confirms the controlled demolition hypothesis.

    Given that the demolition of the Twin Towers is both intuitively obvious and consistently verified by the scientific method, what sustains the collapse theory? I think it is primarily three elements:

    The inoculation of the collapse myth into a deeply traumatized public starting on the day of the attack
    The dynamics of the Big Lie, wherein the reality is too painful for most people to confront
    The illusion that the official story is the consensus view of all of the people considered sufficiently expert to understand the events
    The framing of the Towers’ destruction as “collapses” was a key part of the first element. Whereas Mackey briefly addresses this by responding to The Semantics of Deception, the vast majority of Mackey’s efforts are spent servicing the third element.

    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”.”~Jim Hoffman
    splosions
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
    \\][//

    • The fact is that clinical paranoia means something very specific that distinguishes it from the common and popular misuse of the word: In clinical terms paranoia is a state in which the sufferer is deluded to the point that they think that EVERYONE is out to get them — them personally and no one else.
      It was Richard Hofstadter, the author of THE PARANOID STYLE IN POLITICS that popularized the term in a non-professional manner to dispute “conspiracy theory” in a seemingly academic sense, that was in fact simple spurious rhetorical garbage.
      \\][//

  69. For the layman it is not so much the lack of scientific knowledge that retards their grasp of many current disputes; it is more their lack of critical thinking skills in general that creates the confusion that has befuddled this society.


    \\][//

    • ULTIMATE FACT PENTAGON 9/11

      The ultimate fact has been adduced from all of the combined points of evidence in the 9/11 Pentagon case proving beyond reasonable doubt that the aircraft in question flew on a trajectory north of the Citgo station. See: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858

      This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore, based on all deductive and adductive reasoning, that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond any reasonable doubt.
      \\][//

    • There were no such thing as “SOC witness” until CIT revealed the NOC witnesses. That is when their opposition began inventing SOC witnesses. Until CIT revealed the NOC witnesses, it was simply assumed that all of the witnesses saw the plane on the official flight path. There was no distinction of a north or south flight path until CIT did their personal on site investigations in Arlington.

      Hemphill

      What CIT revealed was met with utter panic and hysteria in some circles, especially those holding tightly to the official narrative. What is most disturbing to me, and us here at T&S, is that members of the so-called Truth Community came to dispute the CIT revelations, and not at all civilly. It is a scurrilous myth that CIT started the “uncivil war” between the two sides. And if you do not know the history of the viciousness used against Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, then you are a late comer who needs to do some research on the history of this matter.
      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35473
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
      I was conversing with Frank Legge at the time he wrote his infamous screed attempting to debunk the NOC evidence. I saw first hand how he would disingenuously force testimonies to fit his agenda. Take the testimony of Hemphill as an example. Hemphill was in the Navy Annex top floor offices, his window was located just a few windows from the far northern end of the Annex.
      In his testimony Hemphill explains that he heard the rumble of an airplane directly over him and as he looked out the window he could see “over his right shoulder” a large aircraft directly above him. As he continued to watch the plane flew on towards the Pentagon passing above the Citgo station just about directly in front of him, later clarifying that the Citgo was slightly to the right of his position, and the airplane flew just to the left of the Citgo from his vantage point.

      Hemphill is clearly describing a NOC trajectory for the aircraft in this clear and rather precise testimony. But Legge insisted that Hemphill was a SOC witness because he saw the plane “over his right shoulder” claiming this meant the plane was clearly to the south of Hemphill’s position. this is clearly ‘begging the question’ on the part of Legge, as Hemphill specifically states that the plane went right over him, and his position was not mid-line Naval Annex, but on the north corner of the building. Hemphill’s further remarks as to the plane going just north of the Citgo make it obvious that he is describing the north path trajectory of the airplane.
      We had the google view maps and photos of the Naval Annex showing Hemphill’s north corner position in the building before us as we argued this out.

      I argued these points with Legge to no avail. He would not see to reason, he was convinced that he was correct despite clear evidence that he was forcing Hemphill’s testimony to fit his scurrilous agenda. This same technique was applied to every witness that Legge would address.

      Having this firsthand experience with Legge left me convinced he is a willful prevaricator and insincere in his efforts.
      \\][//

  70. Adductive Reasoning
    Deductive, inductive or adductive reasoning may be utilized in order to reach the required result (Nonaka & Konno 1998:43).
    Investigating the Appropriateness of the Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation as a Management Model for Practice-Led research/Die Gepastheid Van Die Teorie Van Organisatoriese Kennisskepping as Bestuursmodel Vir Praktykgeleide Navorsing
    By Marley, Ian R.

    ACADEMIC JOURNAL ARTICLE:
    Literator: Journal of Literary Criticism, comparative linguistics and literary studies
    https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-339116531/investigating-the-appropriateness-of-the-theory-of
    \\][//

  71. July 1, 2012
    by Kevin Ryan
    at his blog at 911blogger.com

    We have a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As before, there are over 60 peer-reviewed articles, nearly 70 letters, and a section for those just beginning to look into the unanswered question of 9/11.

    There are two new entries in the letter section.

    The first is a detailed paper by Dr. Frank Legge entitled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus @: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Legge-Letter-June.pdf
    http://www.911truth.org/new-papers-new-format-at-journal-of-911-studies/
    \\][//

  72. THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson
    Here is an article of absolute bullshit rhetorical spinjive:

    “We Tried…”
    Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) brags of their growing list of explicit eyewitnesses to a North-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path that rules out their decoy plane hitting the Pentagon or anything on the ground, no matter what any of the same witnesses themselves say to the contrary. I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow judging to their rhetoric. Corroborated 13 times! That’s fatal to the “official story”, which has the plane passing south of the Citgo station along the path of physical destruction before and into the Pentagon and ending there. CIT frequently boast how “all the witnesses” place the plane north of the Citgo, as clearly as they saw it crash into the building anyway, and NONE of them saw the plane on the south path.
    The claim was repeated, for example, in our first phone ‘debate’ in November 2007 [40:00–42:00 or so], in their new video [link above, 3:20 in] and recently at the Loose Change Forum, when Aidan Monaghan was probing CIT’s Aldo Marquis. “Are there any south-of-Citgo witnesses?” he asked. Marquis responded simply “That is a negative,” and re-posted the one-liner ten minutes later for emphasis. And it’s not that they haven’t looked; they tried hard to debunk their own findings, but as their main site explains:
    “We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn’t happening.
    […]
    We sure haven’t been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.”
    How odd. I didn’t really have to even try to find previously published south path accounts, although a startling number have been pre-dismissed by CIT as among the suspect. I will offer my services free of charge. I found 13 worth making graphics for, though I’m sure there are some others. In fact, it could be said that all witnesses who saw the plane at all, whatever they may say later, saw it on the south path.”~Adam Larson / Caustic Logic – The Frustrating Fraud first posted August 12 2008
    last update 10/11

    http://911blogger.com/node/22239
    \\][//

    • 34 alleged witnesses who described “ducking/diving/physical reaction to the blast” (from surrounding area)

      – Anlauf, Deb and Jeff (“the whole hotel shook”)

      – Battle (“everything was shaking”)

      – Bauer (blast “rocked all of our cars”)

      – Bease (“felt a large crash”)

      – Boger (“I fell to the ground and covered my head”)

      – Bouchoux (“the car moved about a foot to the right”)

      – Cohen (“we were outside in a little construction trailer…the building shook, the ceiling tiles fell out of the ceiling”)

      – Cook (“the glass rattled and a dull boom shook the room”)

      – Donley (“it (the aircraft) got so loud I ducked”)

      – Hemphill (“I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up” and “”felt the shockwave…knocking me against the desk”)

      – Hammond (“We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”)

      – Mitch Mitchell (“We felt the intense heat of the fireball and felt the car shudder as we heard the thud of the impact.”)

      – Morin (“For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly 1/2 mile in front of you.”)

      – McGraw (“There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact.”)

      – McAdams couple (second hand) (” they heard a big boom and felt the doors and windows of their three-story building shake”)

      – Munsey (“a ground shaking whomp”)

      – Owens (“I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head….Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact.”)

      – Peterson (“The car shook as the plane flew over”)

      – Probst (“I dove towards the ground”)

      – Plaisted (“Books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor”)

      – Perry (“windows shook”)

      – Renzi (Claims that the blast was so severe that “it kept all of us on the bridge down underneath our cars” (ducked))

      – Rains (“I jumped so hard I strained against the seat belt and shoulder harness and was thrown back into my seat”)

      – Sepulveda (“They (medics) said with the wallop I received, there’s no way that I wouldn’t have at least lost consciousness for a brief moment,”)

      – Scott (“felt and heard a terrible explosion”)

      – Snavel (“the truck rocked back and forth”)

      – Terronez (“- it is amazing how instinct takes over because I will never know how it is I kept my foot on the brake when I ducked at the same time.”)

      – Philip Thompson (“the blast hit us in a wave”)

      – Trapasso (“heard the loud explosion and felt the ground shaking.”)

      – Velasquez (“it was like an earthquake”)

      – Winslow (“it rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out”)

      – Alan Wallace (“dove underneath a van”)

      – Zakhem (“I fell to the ground…I was crying and scared”)
      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858
      \\][//

  73. Linguistic mastery & eloquence is the most effective form of full spectrum defiance – for dissent is more lasting than any clash of arms.
    \\][//

  74. The Skeptical Inquirer is a coven of stooges pretending at debunking the scientific valid claims of the physicists who have proven that the WTC was brought down by explosive demolition. They are still citing Bazant and Greening. who have been successfully rebuked for years.

    These so-called “skeptics” are now the remnant of what used to be the now defunct JREF forums.
    They ply bullshit as fact and lies as truth.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later

    Dave Thomas (shill)
    bogus chart

    What are the problems with this illustration? Besides the fact that they do not represent what actually occurred, the fact that the center structure would be left standing if this scenario was followed all the way down. This is a representation of the defunct “pancake theory” and has zero relevance to the actual collapse of the towers.
    The rest of this article has the same bullshit that is used as a script for the debunker shills…this seems to be the shill bible of pseudoscience babble. Over all, and on every level this article is junk.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Thomas_(skeptic)
    \\][//

  75. Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners
    Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview

    By David Ray Griffin — Global Research, January 12, 2010

    On November 27, 2009, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Fifth Estate program aired a show entitled “9/11: The Unofficial Story,”1 for which I, along with a few other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, was interviewed. In the most important part of my interview, I pointed out that, according to the FBI’s report on phone calls from the airliners provided in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial, Barbara Olson’s only call from Flight 77 was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.” Although this Fifth Estate program showed only a brief portion of my discussion of alleged phone calls from the 9/11 airliners, its website subsequently made available a 22-minute video containing this discussion.2

    Shortly thereafter, a portion of this video, under the title “David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview,” was posted on You Tube,3 after which it was posted on 911 Blogger.4 This latter posting resulted in considerable discussion, during which some claims contradicting my position were made. In this essay, I respond to the most important of these claims, namely:

    1. The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.

    2. There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.

    3. American Airlines’ Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.

    4. The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.

    The four sections of this essay will respond to these four claims in order.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924
    \\][//

    • In August 2004, shortly after the appearance of the 9/11 Commission’s report, New York Press journalist Alan Cabal, in an article entitled “Miracles and Wonders,” wrote:

      “Last week, USA Today reported a joint effort between Qualcomm and American Airlines to allow passengers to make cell phone calls from aircraft in flight. . . . [T]he satellite-based system employs a ‘Pico cell’ to act as a small cellular tower. . . . Before this new ‘Pico cell,’ it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph. Yet despite this, passengers Todd Beamer [and] Jeremy Glick . . . managed to place calls from Flight 93 on the morning of September 11. Peter Hanson . . . phoned his dad from Flight 175. Madeline Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant, made a very dramatic call from Flight 11. . . . Each call was initially reported as coming from a cell phone. Later, when skepticism reared its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that $10-a-minute Airfones were involved.”
      (http://www.nypress.com/article-9872-miracles-and-wonders.html ).
      . . . . . . . .
      So this type of language is the Kindergarten class for the budding debunkers as they grow up indoctrinated by mainstream media: “ugly head and the Grassy Knollers” – which gets dumbed down even further with slurs such as “twoofers” & “tin hat idiots”. This has been the psychological operation of the “Conspiracy Theorist” meme since the CIA memo promoting it.
      See: CIA Document 1035-960 — released in response to a 1976 FOIA.
      http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/20/cia-document-1035-960-foundation-of-a-weaponized-term/
      \\][//

  76. Dialog from YouTube forum at 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
    Emvaz22 answers JasmineLindros (online shill provocateur)

    The Harrit study definitively proves the presence of unreacted thermitic material in the WTC dust. Can you cite a refutation? Author. Title. Publication. Date. Thanks. Oh I almost forgot, you don’t have any facts, and can’t cite an actual refutation of the Harrit study. All you can manage are misrepresentations of facts and speculation. Ill give an example of why you are an idiot:

    Fig. 29 of the Harrit study plots the DSC curve of the Harrit material vs the DSC of a known superthermite formulated by the Lawrence Livermore lab [28]. Both materials ignite between 420-430C. The Harrit material releases MORE energy and releases its energy much faster. Meaning it is a more effective incendiary material that the Lawrence Livermore sol-gel. Therefore your assertion that the Harrit material “ignited at a far lower temperature than any known thermite?” shows that you either know nothing about incendiaries and are an idiot trying to argue against something you know nothing about, or are deliberately lying. Pick one.

    [28] Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non- Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345.

    That same Fig. 29 shows the combustion temperature of the Harrit material, which is the same as other form of superthermite. Having trouble with your reading comprehension again?

    Because superthermites are explosive [24], and the shockwave from the expanding gas would have blown some material outward before it had a chance to ignite? Or maybe some charges simply failed to ignite? You aren’t exactly what we would call a deep thinker.

    [24] 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.

    Which “enamel” contains elemental aluminum, ignites at 420C, releases molten iron upon ignition, exhibits a violent exothermic spike, and has a very low electrical resistance (attributed to the elemental aluminum). Show an MSDS for a, “enamel” used in the WTC that contains elemental nano-aluminum (a reactive, controlled substance), then cite a study that shows a material that exhibits all of these properties that is not an incendiary. Oh I almost forgot, you can’t, because you’ve got nothing.

    From the Harrit paper: “there is a highly ener- getic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or “super-thermite,” composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon [19-28].”

    “The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less.”

    [19] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Law- rence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000.

    20] Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48.

    [21] Gash AE, Satcher JH, Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: 55-66.

    [22] Puszynski JA. Reactivity of nanosized Aluminum with metal oxides and water vapor. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: AA6.4.1.

    [23] Puszynski JA, Swiatkiewicz JJ. Research Topic: Investigation of Ignition Characteristics of Heterogeneous Strongly Exothermic Reactions. Depart- ment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Current Projects.

    [24] 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.

    [25] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Satcher JH. Energetic nanocomposites with sol-gel chemistry: Synthesis, safety, and characterization. LLNL UCRL-JC- 146739, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 2002.

    [26] Zhao L, Clapsaddle BJ, Satcher JH, Jr, Schaefer DW, Shea KJ. Integrated chemical systems: the simultaneous formation of hybrid nanocomposites of iron oxide and organo silsesquioxanes. Chem Mater 2005; 17(6): 1358-66.

    [27] Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D, et al. Formulation and performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators prepared by sol–gel methods. LLNL UCRL-PROC–210871, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; March 2005;

    [28] Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non- Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345.

    Gee, it looks like the Harrit material meets the criteria for being a nano composite. And this fact is corroborated by 10 separate independent sources. What the hell are you even talking about? Oh thats right, you’re just making shit up again. Seems like that about sums up your argument.

    Because materials at their smallest sizes tend to form uniform crystalline structures? And this refutes the Harrit paper how exactly? Oh thats right, it doesn’t.

    There was an elevator modernization taking place months before the collapse. The elevator shafts have discreet access to the central core columns. There would be ample opportunity to remove excess debris.

    Eyewitnesses report an unusually large amount of transportation trucks coming in and going out of the WTC compound in the early morning hours months before the collapse, when most of the area was asleep.

    And that was all of your supposed refutations of the Harrit paper, which I stomped all over very easily. Do you have an actual argument, or just misrepresentations, speculations, and lies? Which expert has published a refutation of the Harrit study? Which expert has published an alternative analysis of the WTC dust? Oh thats right, you’ve still got nothing.

    Uhh, Newton’s Third Law. Building 7 total free-fall for 100 feet is impossible unless the steel support structure has been removed simultaneously be pyrotechnics. Prove otherwise. Good luck disproving Isaac Newton.

    Cite one single study that proves the official story, and explain, in your own words, how that study provides proof of the official story. Do it like this: Author. Title. Publication. Date.

    ~Emvaz22

  77. As could have been predicted before he won office Obamarama the Liar King won’t be having troops removed from Afghanistan on his watch:The US is not leaving Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has said, while asserting that such a narrative is “self-defeating”. [?] “The narrative that we’re leaving Afghanistan is self-defeating. We’re not. We can’t, and to do so would not be to take advantage of the success had to date,” Carter said at a luncheon hosted by the Association of the US Army Sustaining here yesterday. The US, he said, is in the process of formulating options for 2016 and beyond, and make adjustments to the planned American presence based on current circumstances. Because those CIA poppy fields and opium routes are not going to protect themselves: Obama Plans to Keep Nearly 10,000 U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Through 2016 | 15 Oct 2015 | President Barack Obama announced plans Thursday to keep nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through most of next year and 5,500 when he leaves office in 2017, breaking his promise to end the war on his watch and instead ensuring he hands off the conflict to a successor..
    \\][//

    DOJ Creates New Position To Target “Anti-Government Views”

    The Associated Press reports:
    The Justice Department is creating a new position to coordinate investigations into violent homegrown extremism, a department official said Wednesday.

    Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, head of the department’s national security division, said that while the international terror threat occupies the public attention, federal officials remain just as concerned about the prospect of violence from Americans motivated by anti-government views and racist ideologies.

    “We need to make sure we have the mechanisms in place so that we can continue to remain just as focused on the domestic terrorism threat while addressing the international terrorism threat,” Carlin said in a question-and-answer session after a George Washington University speech.

    The new “Domestic Terrorism Counsel” will work with US attorneys nationwide “to identify trends that can be used to help shape a national strategy.”

    The new bureaucracy, I mean Counsel, should not be confused with another new department created by Eric Holder: DOJ’s Domestic Terrorism Task Force which also focuses on “anti-government extremism.”

    At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder cited the KKK as if trying to make them relevant again, and he also pointed to “self-radicalized individuals via the Internet” and “plans by lone wolf-style actors” like the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and the Boston Marathon bombings to demonstrate the danger of homegrown extremism.

    This latest move from the fear-mongering Department of Justice essentially enshrines homegrown paranoia about imagined enemies. It also serves to justify the further expansion of the military-industrial-surveillance complex into the lives of American citizens on American soil … especially dissenting ones.

    The truth is that if the so-called Domestic Terrorism Counsel were truly interested in ending homegrown extremism, it would need to look no further than the role U.S. government agencies themselves have played in cultivating nearly every act of false flag domestic terror thus far reported.
    http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/doj-creates-new-position-to-target-anti-government-views.html
    \\][//

  78. And as if that detritus isn’t bad enough you then provide absolutely no precedent setting examples or any empirical data of any kind (defined as verifiable repeatable research carried out by you or someone else) to support anything of what you’re going on about as being even remotely possible. The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how tall a steel frame building is or how long a natural progressive structural failure of a steel frame building is allowed to continue unchecked it can never achieve a rate of downward acceleration where the structural steel beneath the descending upper part of the building will be found naturally progressively failing in a manner indistinguishable from air for any period of time’

    There is no such thing as “natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration”.
    \\][//

  79. beachcomber2008, How’s this for simple: The law of conservation of energy certainly does not assert perpetual motion. Energy is transformed into other work during the fall of each floor, the physical work of crushing material, which as I describe is equal to the material of the falling floors and the materials of the floors below as they meet. This is why the energy is eventually used up, and the collapse is arrested. That is a characterization of the gravity collapse – and that means neither tower would not have suffered anything near global collapse.

    Further; aside from this obvious physics reality, there are the proofs of explosive materials found in the dust ala Jones-Harrit. There is the video evidence of the EXPLOSIVE nature of the destruction of the towers, the beams and box sections weighing several tons and more being flung hundreds of feet laterally, the demolition wave traveling down the building, the squib ejections, the simple matter of the time of the total event of this demolition – close enough to free-fall to be characterized a “near free fall” . In summation the proposed “gravity collapse” induced by simple carbon based office fires would not have even brought about NIST’s cheesy “Collapse Initiation” in the first place.

    [YouTube forum titled; 9/11 Experiments: the Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses]
    \\][//

    • It is beachcomber2008 REPEATING HIS FALSEHOODS ; attempting here to misquote me right to my own face; “”the physical work is equal to the material” – WORK ISN’T MATERIAL.” — This is what I actually said; >Energy is transformed into other work during the fall of each floor, *the physical work of crushing material*, which as I describe is equal to the material of the falling floors and the materials of the floors below as they meet.< Then Tony Baloney goes on to argue against his own straw-man in his usual disingenuous manner.

      He lies about the findings of Jones-Harrit.

      He thinks that 50% longer than free fall is substantial when it is in fact 'Near Free-Fall' just as I described. It is like saying the long distance runner ran an extraordinary 25 second mile, compared to the 3 minutes a world class runner can run that mile. In other words it is humanly impossible to run a mile in a mere 25 seconds — just as it is impossible for a structure to collapse through itself in 15 – 30 seconds, or even hours or days… it is impossible for a structure to collapse through itself AT ALL.

      He says "The plane then exploded NINE THOUSAND GALLONS OF FUEL as a fuel/air mist, equivalent to at least 15 tons of TNT, igniting all six floors simultaneously." — the vast majority of that fuel g\blew out the other side of the towers and lasted no more than 10 seconds. Even NIST notes that the jet fuel remaining in the towers burned out within ten minutes.
      And it is NIST itself that describes the fires as meandering from place to place.
      So saying "SIX ACRES OF BURNING OFFICES." – IS hyperbole, there were only wandering fires, never reaching over 425C at any one place at any one time – and that is the ambient air temperature not the temperature of the steel structure.
      \\][//

  80. Sep 11 – Nova PBS “Why the Towers Fell”
    The second “expert” says that “as the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give and then you had the sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked one after the other”.
    OBVIOUS BULLSHIT! Jet fuel fires cannot melt steel. So these are the “experts” hired by Nova PBS, ignorant plugs of anal discharge that don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.
    And how many people saw this piece of garbage and believe it to this day? That is the power of propaganda on television.
    [..]
    NOVA misrepresents the core, which was box columns – not simple free standing columns until tied together by the floor pans.
    Also, in 1993 the bomb that was placed in the towers was built under the direction of the FBI. They were supposed to substitute a harmless substance rather than real explosives to the “informant” who had duped the other “terrorists” into building a bomb in the first place. This is all in the public record now because the informant taped the telephone conversations with his FBI handlers when he complained about the real explosives they had supplied, plus the fact that the FBI let the “terrorists” go ahead and park the van with the bomb in it inside the towers. Yes! this was written about in major national newspapers after the bombing took place. But was quickly shoved down the memory hole.
    \\][//

  81. Willy Whitten
    2:21 PM
    Randomasshole aka Paul K,

    “Explain why ultraviolet light wasn’t mentioned in the paper.” — Because it is a common knowledge of anyone who understands thermitic reactions, the Jones-Harrit paper is NOT “Thermitics 101. [and I did answer this exactly this way once before already]

    “Explain why an experimenter is not wearing his safety equipment properly when igniting the alleged thermite.” –Professor Jones IS wearing safety glasses; and igniting a tiny fragment.

    “Explain why barium nitrate wasn’t found.” — I already did, it WAS found: both Barium and Nitrates are represented in the RJ Lee graphs as constituent elements.

    “Explain why they used “ordinary paint” for a comparison sample instead of grabbing a painted steel beam and setting fire to it.” — Jones and Harrit got samples of the exact primer used on the WTC steel and describe its makeup and how it is easily distinguishable from the sol-gel material they have discovered. Those graphs are available within their paper.

    I have given you these points on at least 3 occasions now – YOU remember it, because I certainly will.
    \\][//

  82. The continued construction of “Tube Design” skyscrapers after 9/11

    In 1931, the Empire State Building in New York City rose to a height of 281m. It would remain the world’s tallest office building for 42 years.Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly Sear’s Tower) was the tallest building in the western hemisphere from 1973 to 1998. By 2000, only six other buildings in the world would surpass its height. The Willis Tower uses a tubular steel structure, a design concept invented by Fazlur Khan, a Bangladeshi-American structural engineer and architect from the world renowned architecture firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM).Tubular designs replaced conventional steel framing in most buildings rising above 40 storeys since the 1960s.

    The tubular system revolutionized tall building design by using all the exterior wall perimeter structure of a building to simulate a thin-walled tube. In addition to offeringarchitects greater creative freedom, tubular designs use less steel and provide improved resistance to lateral loads such as wind forces, seismic forces, etc.

    Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE, Middle EastRising at 829.8m over the Gulf City of Dubai, the Burj Khalifa is the tallest man-made structure in the world. Designed by Skidmore Owings and Merill (SOM), the Burj Khalifa used a bundled tube design and a composite of steel and concrete to hit its record height. The bundled tube system is a system that uses a number of interconnected tube frames. A total of 39,000 tonnes of steel rebar was needed for the construction and 15,500m2 of embossed stainless steel for cladding. Proportionally, the design uses half the amount of steel used in the construction of the Empire State Building thanks to the tubular system.

    The Burj Khalifa houses a mix of residential spaces, corporate suites, retail spaces and a Georgio Armani Hotel.Planned for 2018 and under construction in Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom Tower is the most ambitious project so far and is no doubt set to take pole position in the ranking of the tallest skyscraper in the world with a staggering height of 1 km. It will use an estimated 80,000 tonnes of steel in its structure.
    http://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/Steel-news/Ever-taller-skyscrapers-made-possible-by-steel
    \\][//

  83. “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”~C. S. Fletcher (NIST),
    “Response to request for correction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007.

    The NIST mandate was to: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

    NIST did NOT determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. They only modeled their analysis to “the point of INITIATION. They did NOT determine the reason for the global collapse that would follow their so-called “initiation” – in failing to actually determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC, NIST reneged on their contracted mandate.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/
    \\][//

  84. Sane Human, You don’t have to “find the information yourself.” That information has bee graciously handed to you in person by yours truly on so many occasions now that there is no counting the times. Your argument has been one of “Repetition-Repetition”, never acknowledging the information afforded you, nor addressing that information in any meaningful fashion. Your stance being that, if you repeat a lie enough times it will magic transform into truth, is one of the oldest propaganda tricks on the books.
    That you are a corporatist stooge is apparent enough to anyone with the almost superhuman patience to go through the countless comments you have made on this thread and others. I leave you with this charge; You are a disingenuous shill and toadyboy making apologia for a corrupt and deformed system, a system that is in fact the perpetrators of the crime of 9/11. You are thus a collaborator and accessory to the crime. You know this as well as I do as I have explained this to you as many times as I have offered the facts of the case to you.
    I will only point out that I have nothing but contempt for you and your kind and save the expletives for others to throw your way.
    \\][// — (10/22/2015 @ 11:23 in my time zone)

  85. The 9/11 Truth Movement is predicated on the proposition that forensic investigation of the events of 9/11 will reveal the truth of what actually happened that day. After 14 plus years those findings are conclusive; that the events were perpetrated as a false flag psychological operation to instill trauma into the population as a strategy of tension, and to manipulate them into a fearful mindset for the agenda of full spectrum dominance domestically and abroad.
    \\][//

  86. We have proved in every which way that explosives took down the towers. The when asked, when could they possibly have been placed with no one seeing, it is pointed out the perfect opportunities were during the elevator and fireproofing upgrades; an eminently logical proposition. But then these stooges say, how do we know that the explosives were put in during those upgrades! This is an obvious circular argument. We KNOW the explosives took down the towers, so they HAD TO HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE AT SOME POINT!!! The upgrades are the most logical conclusion as to when they were planted in the towers. This is simply a logical string of deductions.
    But “no!” The stooge wants to dismiss all the other findings and speak to each in a vacuum. That is simply subterfuge and scurrilous argumentation. And that is the carousel they take us on in these arguments. It is obvious bullshit, but they persist because that is their job as shills and stooges.
    \\][//

  87. ARGURITHM ® — ie; ‘argument algorithms’: “Software based sentence and paragraph construction by key word application and semantic structuring. Advanced personal refinement inputs available to generate a more “human” feel to dialog structures.”
    argurithminc.com
    \\][//

  88. The majority doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that the The Ruling Group Mind is a Criminal Syndicate squatting in DC. Thus they propose appealing to tyrants for redress, one of the most gullible, naive, and jejune suggestions imaginable.
    To pretend to send a delegation of hens to the Fox to plead for justice. It is laughable and childish.

    This is at the core of the state of mind the commentary from the shills and stooges on the YouTube forum. They are the product of lifelong indoctrination, not having the inner wisdom to overcome such gullibility. They now march in lockstep to the dictates of authority, and the meme of obedience to authority. This is evidence of a profoundly pathological society, based in war, rape, plunder, torture, and murder.
    These shills defend and apologize for this vile and fraudulent state. They are collaborators and guilty of complicity.
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/

    The Unalienable Right to Individual Liberty is a peremptory norm [also called jus cogens]; a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
    \\][//

      • Forum Shill gets Busted: ATS and GLP Censor to Cover his Tracks

        A Forum Shill gets busted. Something very interesting happened over at GLP March 24th at 9:28 pm. Something that did not go unnoticed by GLP posters and many others around the interwebz. On page 7 of a thread titled “Medical Type Says Sandy Hook is Total BS”, a user from “Kazakhstan” posted the following:

        Re: Medical Type Says Sandy Hook is Total Bullshit

        [0x1a970000, 0x1ab00000, 0x27570000>
        [rdpclip.exe, “iostatZd15.1”]

        you copied a large amount of data onto the clipboard …Do you want to save this data on the clipboard?

        User ID: 35850666 Korea
        User ID: 36689081 Korea
        User ID: 33951304 Kazak
        User ID: 36809983 Kazak

        N.C.S. logo.jpg

        //SECRET
        C:\SharePoint012USNCSSAD_Wrkc9inet-N-7339.tx​t
        **********************************
        REMINDERS —— NOTES
        **********************************
        Sensitivity Level

        Action Code

        Team 5.A/
        SITE
        Location of official Agency folder
        None NPRC
        Team Contact
        Sheila N******

        CHECKLIST

        Do any of the respondents display the urge to supply information that could be helpful to your mission?

        Do the respondents appear hostile to your attempts to steer the discussion?

        Have you made a personal chart taking care to note who appear to be the “leaders” versus who appear to be the “followers”?

        Have you attempted to gauge the “temperature” of the forum’s users?

        In other words, the prevailing social psychology of the forum’s members?

        Have you been more successful with one or the other XStart methods that were demonstrated in N-7015A.DOC?

        Have more technical members (Computer Programmers, Administrators, or Moderators) of the forum deduced or accused you of hiding behind a proxy?

        Would you gain more trust and/or credibility if you were to use one of the Agency’s allotted “HOME” pools? (most often needed when handling EVTS that are more sensitive to the pop. of a specific locale but also location centered web sites such as FB or Patch)

        Has your PREDEV “persona” been successful or do you gauge that the users find you to be too obtrusive? Accusations of being “ever present” are.

        Quote by member: Our “korean” friend is probably part of the Sandy Hoax team. I’m guessing he is one of the many Israeli firsters we have seen so many of in SH. But he is not really helping his employer that much. His presence and views in different topics works as a litmus test telling if the OP is on to something or not.I bet one million shekels that he wouldn’t show up in a thread about Lt Vance shapeshifting…But he’s probably a nice guy doing what he thinks is the right thing.
        shill
        Forum Shill gets Busted:ATS and GLP Censor to Cover his Tracks
        shill-busted

        Needless to say suspicions were aroused and investigations into specific terms in the text were Googled. Namely N-7015A.DOC, PREDEV persona, etc. An early search for N-7015A.DOC resulted in this entry:

        – See more at: http://www.insanemedia.net/forum-shill-gets-busted-ats-and-glp-censor-n-7015a/2924#sthash.fsvsDig2.dpuf

        http://www.insanemedia.net/forum-shill-gets-busted-ats-and-glp-censor-n-7015a/2924

      • I saw this earlier as well.. It is absolutely priceless…

        I don’t know if you ventured to the comments section on that site, but there is another example of a shill goof up in there.

        The points made in the checklist you posted make it clear what kind of a military intelligence operation these shills serve. The language of the whole thing, with all the references an all, indicates how widespread, organized and trained (but not necessarily well-trained) these people are, as well as the fact that the so-called perpetrators of these events are no “rogue elements within the military and government”, but part of a systemic and massive propaganda machine operated by a multitude of agencies of the government and military.

        Just as suspected, no? There must be thousands of them manning all the youtube channels, and all the blogs…

        I suspect a very similar setup and level of organization is also true for the army of crisis actors and all the extras walking around in these mass shootings, bombings, etc.

        These days, it certainly feels like there are now more body snatchers than there are bodies to snatch.

      • “These days, it certainly feels like there are now more body snatchers than there are bodies to snatch.”

        Yes Lilaleo, it is indeed like a “cyber zombie apocalypse” … a zone ever more drifting into twilight.
        \\][//

  89. As far as the motivation for the total destruction of the WTC; as I have explained before, it was for the ‘Spectacular’ effect of such an unprecedented event. A PSYOP is specifically meant as a traumatic event. Obviously the more spectacular, the more traumatizing the event will be. That is exactly the reason these false flag events occur, as a strategy of tension, leading to trauma. confusion, and bafflement for the specified “audience” of such events.
    The agenda is exactly what was called for in PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” Which says, “”absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor…” They were bemoaning the fact that absent some spectacular event like a “new Pearl Harbor,” there agenda for rebuilding the empire and Amerika’s part as the global constabulary, would be too slow and incomplete for their needs. After 9/11, the event was characterized by all the wagging tongues in the Public Relations Regime, as a “New Pearl Harbor”. And off to the endless and fraudulent “war on terrorism” we go.

    “The twintowers werent enough? Why also the Pentagon?”~Rob Robberson

    Cui Bono? Who benefits from these so-called attacks? The answer is plainly the military industrial complex. What was it that Rumsfeld announced the day before 9/11, that would be 9/10/01 BTW…”Oh! my gawd,” am I asking you to remember some very recent history here? Damn and fucking hell Rob, what a cruel taskmaster I am! The Navy accounting office was located in the specific spot in the Pentagon that was destroyed on 9/11. Not only were all the records and computers, spreadsheets and money thus tracked destroyed, many of the accountants who were seeing where that $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon may have gone.
    You think my ridicule is unfairly levied Mr Robberson? Do you think it is not ridiculous for you to be involved in discussions wherein you are ignorant of even the most obvious facts and data? It has been 14 fucking years Robberson!! What the fuck have you learned in that time? Why are you here diddling with our time? Why don’t you go and learn your left from your right and grow the fuck up. [YouTube forum]
    \\][//

  90. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 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.”
    Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

    Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

    One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

    There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.”
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
    \\][//

  91. The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
    Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
    By Elizabeth Woodworth

    Scientific Paper Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009

    A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.

    These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered “distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers”3 in four samples of dust collected from the area. The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)

    Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an explosive reaction.

    On the basis of these and other observations, the team concluded that “the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”4

    The article’s first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit – a University of Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry5 –explained on Danish TV2 News:

    “Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.

    “So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

    “You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”6

    What was the significance of this sophisticated material?

    Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a Military Substance

    In a German interview in May 2009, Dr. Harrit said: “There are no experts on nano-thermite without connections to the military…. This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research…It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.”7

    Chemist Kevin Ryan, another co-author, had reported in an earlier article that explosive nano-thermite, which may be painted onto surfaces, was developed by US government scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.8

    A United States Department of Defense special publication confirms that work on these “energetic materials” has long been “performed in laboratories within all military services.”9

    According to a June 2009 statement by Britain’s prestigious Institute of Nanotechnology,10 the Harrit study “provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city. [sic] This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs.”11

    It thus became known by mid-2009 that explosives of military origin, probably in the United States, had been involved in the World Trade Center collapses.

    Early Coverage of the Nano-thermite Finding in the European Mainstream Press

    Although the new scientific evidence against the official story of 9/11 was not reported in the mainstream British or North American media, it did receive attention in continental Europe.

    The day the article was published, a thorough essay in the Danish journal Videnskab (Science) examined both sides of the controversy about controlled demolition.12

    The same issue of Videnskab also carried an interview with Professor Harrit, who answered pointed questions about the peer-review history of the article, and the military nature of nano-thermite.13

    The following day, Denmark’s politiken.dk reported the scientific nano-thermite paper in an article called (in Danish) “Conspiracy theories about 9/11 get new life.”14

    Then, the day after Professor Harrit’s April 6 interview Danish TV2 News, he was featured on the popular talk show, “Good Morning Denmark”, on which he said:

    “The material we found is super hi-tech frontline military research. It’s not a mixture of random chemicals. It’s an advanced material which is difficult to get information on. But some conference papers and internal reports have been published…There has to be a normal forensic investigation of this attempt. Our research is high-level forensic work. We have provided technical evidence that can be used in the future investigation.”15

    On April 13, an online Croatian political newspaper posted the Danish TV2 video interview with Harrit along with an article titled “VIDEO: 9/11 No Longer Taboo Topic in Denmark”.16

    Russia also took notice. On July 9, Laura Emmett, the London correspondent for RT, interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit for over 10 minutes. (RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language channel sponsored by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. It reaches 1.5 million people monthly, including half a million Americans.) Stating that “the evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming”, Harrit reported that the nano-thermite reaction produced pools of molten iron beneath the rubble and inextinguishable fires that lasted for months.17

    I turn now to ways that the mainstream news coverage of the case against the official story has changed since the appearance of the nano-thermite paper.

    The Changing Mainstream Media Treatment of 9/11 Evidence from early 2009 to early 2010: 18 Case Studies: See article;
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-media-response-to-the-growing-influence-of-the-9-11-truth-movement-2/17624
    \\][//

  92. 9/11: Explosive Material in the WTC Dust
    Money was raised for Dust or Money for an Independent Study to Conclusively Confirm or Refute
    the presence of explosives in the WTC dust, similar to the study done in the 2009 Paper By Harrit et al.
    […]
    The “debunkers” also conveniently forget to mention that there was also another reviewer who remained anonymous, as noted by one of the authors, Gregg Roberts. Roberts states that the other reviewer “provided a much less rigorous review than did Griscom,” and that this referee also approved of the paper “if the review points were dealt with adequately..” Those “months of further experiments” really paid off because Griscom states that he had “absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!” This statement resulted in Joseph Nobles´s proverbial failure at manifesting a salient retort: “And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms?” The level of Nobles´s reading comprehension is embarrassing, but unfortunately it is typical for the so-called “debunking sites”, such as his ae911truth.info. What Griscom actually said is that he “found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!” You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on the review!
    The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published, without actually criticizing the content of the paper. The “debunkers” began their smear-campaign against the journal even before the paper got published, so the resignation has been seen as an opportunity to slander the journal, the paper and it´s authors. The campaign forced another editor to resign and effectively killed the journal for a whole year, but it started to recover after that. These “debunkers” have also attempted to ruin the reputation of the whole family of (over 150) Bentham Open journals because one of those journals published a hoax-paper according to them, and that is supposed to discredit by association the journal that published Harrit´s paper. But the “debunkers” only discredit themselves, because although one of those journals tried to discover the identity of the hoaxers by sending them a letter stating that it would publish the paper if they would just “fill and sign the attached fee form,” there never was any intention to publish. Some “debunkers” still spread the false rumors about these journals publishing hoax-papers and that Harrit´s paper is not reviewed. The dullest specimens also resort to vile personal attacks, as is so perfectly exemplified by Pat Curley from the site Screw Loose Change who calls Dr. Griscom a “sack of fecal matter” and a “Troofer moron.” However, as one of Harrit´s co-authors so accurately noted, all these diversionary claims and ad hominem arguments are “just a way to avoid dealing with what the paper says.” The formal peer-review by Griscom and the other referee was indeed valid and unusually tough, but it did not stop there according to Talboo:

    Jones stated in the comments that “BYU scientists did a review of the paper” that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed in comments on anther post that the paper was “peer-reviewed by the Physics dept. chair at BYU…because two of the authors are from this dept.” Elsewhere he revealed that he was told by the chairman that the paper “was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.”

    Version 1.2 By John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam
    http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
    \\][//

    • Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

      Yet four months after the article was submitted, “David Phillips” received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham’s assistant manager of publication:

      This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

      The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. *Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper*.
      [Note: Davis made no point – the paper was never reviewed and never published]

      Mahmood Alam, Bentham’s director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: “In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not.”
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/
      \\][//

  93. “Paint” Schmidt,

    Say it Schmidt, “p-r-i-m-e-r — p-a-i-n-t” — “Primer Paint” – say it aloud and see how you have to pucker your lips to pronounce it.

    Now write it out; “Primer Paint”. Your conclusion is that the red-gray chips are primer paint.

    That is your ‘CONCLUSION’.

    There is a two way street in rational argumentation. One path is the Proximate Premise. If that premise is wrong, you lay a base of sand, and any structure built on top of that base is liable to collapse at the slightest shift in the base of sand. By the same token, a Faulty Conclusion is an unbearable weight atop your erroneous construction and will crush it down to the sand of the faulty premise it is meant to support.

    This is why all of your verbosity leading up and down the lanes are faulty.
    A keen eye can discern from either a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion and determine that the structure in between is pure psychobabble.

    The philosophy of argumentum holds the key to critical thinking skills. One need not be a specialist in any science or technology to recognize a faulty argument. The key is in the argumentation.
    \\][//

    • hybridrogue1
      November 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
      “Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt

      Yes, but only indirectly.

      Would you assert that the Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, are not intimately related to their brisance?

      Now once again, you are attempting to draw me into a debate that we have already had.
      I refuse to go around and around here past this one response.

      As you have been advised, it is in your court to make a critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. If it is your opinion that I have misinterpreted their findings – again that is your opinion, regardless of your framing your opinion as an “objective fact”.

      FINI
      \\][//
      . . . . . . . . . .

      “a debate that we have already had”
      We haven’t come to the end of that debate, for which their can objectively be only one possibility: You understanding that your claim was false (nonsense) and retracting it.”~Jens Schmidt
      . . . . . . . . . . .
      Lol, So Schmidt is essentially ORDERING ME to continue arguing with his anal hurlant. And to retract my statements!
      Fuck his arrogant asshole.

      \\][//

  94. “It follows directly from the quality of their work: Doing DSC on a specimen, that contains a LOT of organic matter, under air when you are interested in an inorganic reaction among the components of the specimen, is an obviously stupid thing to do, and the way they interprete some plot features and fail to interprete others clearly show incompetence.”Jens Schmidt
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36715

    The question then arises from Schmidt’s comment: Were Jones-Harrit only interested in an inorganic reaction among the components of the specimen? Was that their goal?
    From my understanding of the sol-gel energetics, it is precisely the gas production of the organic substances in a nanothermite that creates the over-pressures that make these materials ‘explosives’ rather than ‘incendiaries’.

    “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.”~Jones-Harrit

    “Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
    1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were likely done in atmosphere.”

    [Jens Schmidt first addressed me on October 21, 2015 at 12:20 pm on the “Jenkins Misleads” T&S thread – as a personal vendetta over my remarks against his WTC7 arguments on another T&S thread. Schmidt is nothing but an arrogant prick.]

    • “An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips. Fig. (2) displays photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. Note the scale marker in each image as they were acquired at different magnifications. At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7 mg. All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. The inset image in Fig. (2d) shows the chip in cross section, which reveals the gray layer. The gray layer is also partially visible in Fig. (2b). Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.”~Jones-Harrit – pg 4
      (SI symbol: µm) or micrometer
      \\][//

  95. “In materials science, the sol-gel process is a method for producing solid materials from small molecules. The method is used for the fabrication of metal oxides, especially the oxides of silicon and titanium. The process involves conversion of monomers into a colloidal solution (sol) that acts as the precursor for an integrated network (or gel) of either discrete particles or network polymers. Typical precursors are metal alkoxides.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol-gel
    \\][//

  96. WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT
    Niels Harrit, May 09

    “It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC
    collapse could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.”

    primer_paint_Niels_Harrit%20(3).pdf

    9/11 WTC-chips are not paint and produce a thermite reaction: Dr. James Millette is wrong

    “The strongest evidence is the reactivity of the red-gray chips”~Neils Harrit
    \\][//

  97. “He presents results from an analysis of actual WTC primer, scratched off of column that is part of a monument now. The XEDS result is shown at 1:14:50 (the larger chart on the right).
    Now compare this to Fig 14, the XEDS of that banana chip before MEK soaking! Do you notice something?
    – Both are dominated by C and O (the usual hydrocarbon matrix), then Ca (erroneously labeled “C” in the Jones presentation)
    – Both are dominated by C and O (this in contrast to chips a-d, which all have same amounts)
    – Both have some sulfur
    – Both have smaller but significant amounts of Zn, Mg (not labeled in Fig. 14), Al and Cr
    That MEK-soaked chip sure looked very different from chips a-d, but surprisingly similar to WTC column paint – do you see that, HR1?”~Schmidt
    _____________________________

    No, what I see is that the chip BEFORE it was soaked in MEK, and the “actual WTC primer” are very similar. After soaking it is very different. See: Fig. 16, 17, 18, in Jones-Harrit paper,
    pg 13.
    _____________________________
    “So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?”~Schmidt

    The primer paint when dry is:

    > Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
    > Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
    > Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%

    Put that on your heat strip and cook it.

    [The other 60% of the primer paint are solvents]
    \\][//

  98. “At 41:42, the video clip of chip #13 burning begins. Remember: 99% or more of the heat released in that video MUST have come from organic combustion! Unless you want to claim that Basile’s XEDS results are wrong.”~Schmidt

    That is what makes the sol-gel explosive – the organic product that creates the gas. Thermite-Thermate are lacking in such organic material and thus cause conflagration — intense heat without the brisance of an explosive.
    Note that as Basile explains, this is a slice of just the red material, cut from a larger chip of red-gray material. So claiming that the gray material is iron or steel,and that is where the iron spheroids derive is not possible in this instant.
    __________________________________

    “Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?”
    ~Jens Schmidt

    What can I say about this fruitcake that hasn’t already been said?
    Lumping the lunatic theories of DEW & Nukes with the proven fact of nanothermate is obnoxious and spurious. Schmidt has taken to heart the old adage: “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

    \\][//

    • Show me a paint with elemental aluminum. Show me a paint with a low electrical resistivity. Show me a paint that doesn’t soften or dissolve after being soaked in paint solvent. Show me a paint that ignites at 430C, releases all of its stored energy instantly, and produces molten iron upon ignition. Cite the study that demonstrate all of this in a single paint that was used in the WTC.

      Jones-Harrit Abstract:
      “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.”
      \\][//

  99. lackofbettername13:25 PM — 11/10/2015

    +Damocles54 Well put Damocles. I don’t know why I started this argument with Willy. I think it was his smugness to start this thread that made me bite. It is apparent now that Willy is not concerned with learning and clearly has some sort of psychological disorder that makes him incapable staying on task. His wordpress website where he argues without an audience and his constant use of a signature also point to a psychological disorder. There is no way to reason with people like that, and I would not have started the argument had I known what I was getting into.
    Thread on; “Blender Demolition – Case Study: World Trade Center”
    \\][//

  100. CIA Cryptonyms

    CIA documents are peppered with “cryptonyms” – AMLASH, JMWAVE, ODENVY, PBPRIME, AMCLATTER-1, etc. In many cases, the persons, organizations, or projects to which these codenames refer is public information. In others, it can be inferred from context. This page provides a handy look-up chart for decoding crypts seen in CIA documents. Source references are provided to corroborate the provided definitions. Bookmark this page for use as you read CIA documents.
    http://maryferrell.org/pages/CIA_Cryptonyms.html
    \\][//

  101. PROPAGANDA CAN’T MELT STEEL BEAMS

    “Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussion about the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding “some of its deliberations in secret.” Although it’s not a secret that jet fuel can’t melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.

    No one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts’ new science champion, who doesn’t bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about “retarded metallurgical things.” Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.

    This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America’s ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” when they want to convey that “Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC.” The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.

    Sources like The Posts, The New York Times and some “alternative media” continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.

    As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, it’s imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top al Qaeda leader who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day”~Kevin Ryan
    http://www.blacklistednews.com/Propaganda_Can%E2%80%99t_Melt_Steel_Beams/47922/0/38/38/Y/M.html
    http://digwithin.net/
    \\][//

  102. CIA Threatens 9/11 Researchers Who Discovered “Explosive Evidence of A Coverup”

    “While producing our investigative podcast “Who Is Rich Blee?,” intended to be released on Sunday, our team managed to deduce the likely identities of two CIA employees at the heart of a notorious failure in the run up to the September 11th tragedy.” a statement reads on the producer’s website, which was offline for most of yesterday.

    “On Thursday, we submitted our script to CIA along with a request to interview the two employees,” the statement continues. “We wanted to be fair in giving them a chance to tell their sides of the story. Instead, the Agency sent us a message threatening that if we went forward with the names included in the piece that it would be a potential violation of federal criminal law.”

    Duffy and Nowosielski also interviewed former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who told them on the record that he has intelligence that three former top CIA officials — George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee — knowingly withheld key information on the alleged hijackers from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments.

    \\][//

  103. 9/11 AS FALSE FLAG: WHY INTERNATIONAL LAW MUST DARE TO CARE
    Amy Baker Benjamin
    Auckland University of Technology

    January 10, 2016

    Emory International Law Review, Forthcoming

    Abstract:
    At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified nearly fifteen years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinize the U.S. Government’s account of those attacks. Despite the impressive and serious body of literature that has emerged to suggest that 9/11 was a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have acted as if there is no controversy whatsoever. This disconnect between the growing (alternative) evidentiary record of state responsibility for the attacks and the focus of international institutions is impossible to sustain if those institutions are to maintain any semblance of viability and meaning.

    In a three-step process, this Article seeks to connect the international community to the possible reality of 9/11-as-false-flag. First, it shows that it is highly rational to question the official 9/11 account given the historical record of the first half of the twentieth century, which reveals a pattern of false flag attacks over which the international community openly fretted and tried to exercise jurisdiction. Second, it analyzes the reasons why intellectual elites and the statesmen they influence are behaving irrationally in not inquiring into the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag, deconstructing a multi-faceted motive into all its unsavory parts. Third, it argues that the means for ceasing this irrational behavior is readily available, as the United Nations need only carry out its core and incontrovertible “jury” function of determining the existence of aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.

    Number of Pages in PDF File: 39
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2713267

    file:///C:/Users/Willy–PC/Downloads/SSRN-id2713267.pdf
    \\][//

  104. 15 SAUDI ‘HIJACKERS’ WERE CIA AGENTS WORKING FOR US: SCHOLAR

    Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.

    Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday, after a number of US lawmakers called on the White House to declassify documents that shed light on Saudi Arabia’s possible complicity in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    The former congressmen say the 28-page classified document proves two Saudi nationals who were behind the 9/11 attacks received support and assistance from Riyadh while in the United States.

    “It appears that Release the 28 Pages movement has succeeded or at least it is on the brink of success. We heard on Monday from an Obama administration source that the president is planning to finish the review process, presumably meaning he would be declassifying these pages before the end of his presidency,” Dr. Barrett said.

    “And now this is Wednesday, and Nancy Pelosi has called for releasing the 28 pages. It does appear that it actually is quite likely to happen very soon. This is fascinating news. It will certainly cause more issues in the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, because it appears the 28 pages primarily focus on the support from Saudi ruling circles for some of the alleged 19 hijackers, who were in fact falsely blamed for the crimes of September 11, 2001,” he added.

    “The real issue here is whether this will end up prying open the entire case of 9/11 or whether it could become a sort of a limited hang-out. It could be simply used to channel popular anger against the government of Saudi Arabia, perhaps create a little more distance in the US-Saudi relationship, but not really change anything,” he stated.

    “And that would be a tragedy, because we need to reopen the entire 9/11 case. The actual relationship between the Saudis and 9/11 is certainly not one of having this Saudi ruling family completely controlling the 9/11 attacks and in charge of the plot; that’s ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is a US puppet state.”
    http://www.blacklistednews.com/15_Saudi_%E2%80%98hijackers%E2%80%99_were_CIA_agents_working_for_US%3A_Scholar/50515/0/38/38/Y/M.html
    \\][//

  105. UPROAR OVER THE 28 PAGES: THE SAUDI/CIA CONNECTION?

    SOURCE: WASHINGTON’S BLOG

    By Kristen Breitweiser, one of the four 9/11 widows – known as the “Jersey Girls” – instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks. Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser.

    Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote an opinion piece last week in USAToday, trying to “temper” feelings surrounding the release of the 28 pages.

    Kean and Hamilton wrote, “The 28 pages have generated a lot of public speculation over the years and have been described as a “smoking gun” implicating the Saudi government in the deadliest terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil.”

    They go on to write, “What often gets lost in those theories is that the 28 pages were based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that came to the FBI. That material was written up as possible leads for further investigation, and the 28 pages were a summary of some of those reports and leads as of the end of 2002 — all of them uninvestigated.”

    What Tom and Lee fail to acknowledge is the reason the “raw, unvetted material” was left “uninvestigated” was strictly because of the 9/11 Commission’s Staff Director, Philip Zelikow.

    Zelikow has too many conflicts of interest to list in this blog. Suffice it to say that a critical portion of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report can be seen as merely a fairy-tale rendition (or intelligence “story”) of Philip’s design. (Scroll down to the lunch break, read Zelikow’s next Staff Statement where he talks about an “intelligence story.”)

    Indeed, chapter 5, “Al Qaeda Aims at the Homeland,” and chapter 7, “The Attack Looms,” provide most of the vital pieces of information surrounding the 9/11 plot by citing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s interviews as their primary source. Why would any laudable historian (who Zelikow professes to be) base an official accounting of the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor on the bogus ramblings of a detained, tortured terrorist? That’s why anything and everything that comes out of Zelikow’s mouth should be questioned for its veracity — and motive.

    After all, if the person in charge of torturing KSM wanted to obscure the Saudi role, is it a surprise that KSM would say what his torturer wanted to hear? Moreover, is it a surprise that the person or persons in charge of KSM’s torture, who wanted to obscure the U.S. government’s awareness of the threat and indeed specific knowledge of many of the terrorist activities before the attack, would elicit a story consistent with that goal?

    Indeed, regarding the 9/11 Commission’s treatment of the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks, Zelikow’s hands are easily found. Look at three items. First, Zelikow blocked and then fired Dana Lesemann when she tried to investigate the uninvestigated leads in the 28 pages. Where were Tom and Lee when this happened? Second, it was only Zelikow and Dieter Snell who were granted access and able to question Omar Bayoumi—a man who stands at the epicenter of the Saudi nexus to the 9/11 attacks. Why were Zelikow and Snell the only ones permitted to interview such a key individual? Finally, it was Zelikow and Snell who “re-wrote” the entire Saudi section of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report — leaving out all the damning, incriminating information. Where is that missing information today? Available for public review?

    So please, when Tom and Lee say that they “found no evidence linking the Saudi’s to the 9/11 attacks,” pay careful attention to the cute use of their words, “found no evidence.” Because while concededly there may not then have been conclusive proof, there were certainly indications and evidence that required further and immediate follow-up.

    In addition, note when Tom and Lee talk about access granted to the 28 pages being given to “relevant” staff. Which staff were deemed relevant? And who decided what staffers were “relevant?” Zelikow? Everyone had clearance, so why didn’t all investigative staff have access to the 28 pages?

    Tom and Lee also proudly state that their report is unclassified and available to the public. What you need to realize is that while their final report is unclassified, the source documents for that report remain classified and hidden from the public. In short, unlike redacted reports where you can readily see what is being kept secret by the dark lines crossing out words, with the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report, we’ll never know how much other pertinent information was kept out and classified by Zelikow. And, as someone who has looked for specific documents on the National Archives website, I can state emphatically that many of the 9/11 Commission’s most vital and damning documents remain redacted, withheld, classified and/or unavailable to the public.

    Moreover, please pay attention to how Tom and Lee characterize the 9/11 Review Panel. Realize that the 9/11 Review Panel did nothing more than tie up the loose, uncomfortable (i.e. damning) ends that would inevitably be created with the release of the 28 pages. Was the Panel’s purpose to uncover the entire 9/11 story or to stop further inquiry that would eventually uncover the entire truth?

    Finally, I do agree with one section of Kean and Hamilton’s editorial, “The 9/11 attacks were the worst mass murder ever carried out in the United States. Those responsible deserve the maximum punishment possible. Therefore, accusations of complicity in that mass murder from responsible authorities are a grave matter. Such charges should be levied with care.”

    I just hope that both Kean and Hamilton mean what they say when they talk about those responsible and complicit in the 9/11 attacks “deserving the maximum punishment possible.” And I hope their definition of complicity is as broad as mine, by including actions before and after the crime and actors from inside and outside the United States.

    So for example, let’s just say that our CIA (or a rogue element of it) tried to recruit two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego who were already in contact with Saudi agents. And in carrying out that task, the CIA worked with those Saudi agents in the recruitment process. And thus, all the Saudi contacts and support for the hijackers detailed in the 28 pages (the so-called “smoking gun”) necessarily reveals the CIA/Saudi cooperation in dealing with those two 9/11 hijackers. Incidentally, this might explain why CIA Director, John Brennan, has joined the chorus in stating that all information released in the 28 pages is “uncorroborated, unvetted information.”

    Will Kean and Hamilton support holding the CIA officials accountable? Will Cofer Black and James Pavitt be held accountable? George Tenet? John McLaughlin? What about John Brennan? Or Michael Hayden? Bob Mueller? Richard Clarke? Too late for Sandy Berger(and those docs he stuffed in his socks), but what about Clinton? Bush? Cheney? Rice? And, Obama? How about Zelikow and all others who have known the truth for years and kept silent? When Kean and Hamilton say complicity is a “grave matter,” I hope they follow through on their word.

    Clearly, much will depend on how good a job was done by the 9/11 Review Panel. But, putting that aside, I certainly hope the U.S. government does not expect the 9/11 families to ignore fifteen years of their cover-up and capitalized “opportunities” in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. (Quoting Condi Rice here in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks where she said, “how can we capitalize on these opportunities” — that’s right, she called the mass murder of 3000 innocent people an “opportunity” that should be “capitalized upon”).

    Recently, we’ve seen that even though decades have passed since Dennis Hastert committed his despicable deeds, he was eventually caught and held accountable for the cover-up of those deeds. To me, this demonstrates that the truth will always emerge.

    Fifteen years after the 9/11 murders, we have uncovered a part of that truth, let us hope it does not take another fifteen years for the whole truth to emerge. Rest assured, we will never give up nor will we ever go away.

    (9/11 Widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also sign their names to this blog.)
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/56232.html
    \\][//

  106. Saudi Press Just Accused US Govt Of Blowing Up World Trade Centers As Pretext To Perpetual War

    By Jay Syrmopoulos

    “In response to the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous “enemy” in order garner public support for a global war on terror.

    The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is “built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities,” which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq.

    Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to “expose” documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as “victory by means of archive.” He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as “a bargaining chip,” but upon deciding that he was “no longer an ace up their sleeve” Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party.

    The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are now the “ace up the sleeve” of the U.S. government, according to al-Shammari.”

    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/saudi-press-just-accused-us-govt-of-blowing-up-world-trade-centers-as-pretext-to-perpetual-war.html?

  107. On YouTube video: How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (Skeptics WATCH THIS)
    Willy Whitten1 second ago 10:30 on 5/25/2016
    TyV Vulpintaur is describing a classic COMMERCIAL demolition, done by the numbers so not to effect any other buildings in the vicinity. TyV pretends that it could not be done any other way, as if that would be physically impossible rather than simply improper due to code and propriety…that is really silly.
    TyV goes on to claim, “no columns damaged, no evidence of explosives found…” which is simply untrue, residue from sol-gel explosives as well as unexploded sol-gel explosives were discovered in the WTC dust. TyV also mischaracterizes the destruction with this; “with debris falling all over the surrounding area”. No Vulpintaur, the fact is that debris was blown all over the surrounding area with great energy, steel beams and box sections weighing tens of tons were thrown as far as a hundred feet beyond the perimeter of each building – some tossed across the street and buried into the sides of buildings there.
    Any lucid observer who watches any video of the towers being destroyed can see with their own eyes that they literally erupt with volcanic force. See:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
    And:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
    Also:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
    Those who cannot see with their own eyes, but only through the eyes of AUTHORITY are doomed to a life of delusion.
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s