Groundbreaking Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC
Henry
This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory. The
case for demolition has been proved beyond any and all
doubt.
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Site: www.STJ911.org
Email: stj...@gmail.com
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and
researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of
World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust
itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction.
Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray
energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study
authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be
an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."
The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth
by critics of the official reports.
At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand
the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a
demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an
enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.
Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings'
destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of
these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary
compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings
without notice.
NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They
concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the
building failures.
Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has
refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other
accelerant or explosive.
"We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure,
to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't."
Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.
Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks
NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite --
which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered
thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this
type of application."
Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the
many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures,
such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme
pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust
particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a
"volcanic eruption".
"One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was
the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7."
NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of
the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."
Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and
known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature,
Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began
researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.
Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a
magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor
of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet.
"That was very odd to me," he said.
Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially
described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.
But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material
would take longer.
Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels
Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over
30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano
Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal
of Physical Chemistry A.
Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September
11th attack. and says has two answers.
"First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask
me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer
them, 'I was on your side'."
Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the
TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes
the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the
mainstream public and media."
And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories
manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and
was consequently fired.
"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been
shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the
dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or
something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available
to just anyone."
In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial
explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law
requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.
In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging
the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil
Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges
have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of
over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001
attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Eric Gisse
knews4...@yahoo.com
> This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
"Follow the dots," but "Don't follow the dots."
And who had security access to the buildings right up to 9-11-01?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company
providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles
International Airport and United Airlines, according to public
records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-
American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named
Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the
company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at
the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security
systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official.
Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in
the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his
arriving on the board in 1998.
McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the
Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the
nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line
with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for
contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los
Alamos laboratory before 1998.
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at
Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not
publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11,
nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done
security work for the facilities attacked.
Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-
American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the
security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling
interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails
for comment.
KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf
War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family,
Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
.........
Schiffner
ROTFLMAO
I checked the news sources...reputable ones not FOX or CNN and guess
what? Yep nobody carried it. Why becuase it's junk science, bullshit
and parnoid lies.
too bad, all those good people in another cult just like the religious
ones.
Al Smith
The trouble with the cult of 9-11 -- and I agree that it is a cult
-- is that it obscures the very real likelihood that Israel knew
about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened. That very
plausible scenario gets hidden under all the nuttiness about bombs
being planted and the US government being behind it.
-Al-
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company
> providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles
> International Airport and United Airlines, according to public
> records.
So ?
Graham
Twibil
> The trouble with the cult of 9-11 -- and I agree that it is a cult
> -- is that it obscures the very real likelihood that Israel knew
> about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened. That very
> plausible scenario gets hidden under all the nuttiness about bombs
> being planted and the US government being behind it.
Yeah! Those darned Jews should be held accountable for 9/11!
The fact that *our* intelligence community also knew that Muslim
radicals had been planning just such an attack, and that some of those
radicals were taking flying lessons in the US prior to 9/11 is
obviously of no import though... It's more fun to blame the Jews!
All you have to do is ignore reality.
Al Smith
There is enough suspicious behaviour on the part of Mossad agents in
New York that there is reason to believe that the Israeli government
knew almost to the hour when the attack would take place.
This does not mean, necessarily, that they planned the attack, or
were part of the planning for the attack -- only that they withheld
their knowledge that the attack would take place, for whatever
reason. Maybe they withheld it because they believed that the attack
would be in Israel's interests.
-Al-
Richard Tobin
Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>The trouble with the cult of 9-11 -- and I agree that it is a cult
>-- is that it obscures the very real likelihood that Israel knew
>about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened.
The trouble with the cult of 9-11 is that it allows anti-semites to
present their conspiracy theories as "plausible".
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Al Smith
> Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>
>> >The trouble with the cult of 9-11 -- and I agree that it is a cult
>> >-- is that it obscures the very real likelihood that Israel knew
>> >about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened.
>
> The trouble with the cult of 9-11 is that it allows anti-semites to
> present their conspiracy theories as "plausible".
>
> -- Richard
Two things:
Read up on the Dancing Israelis.
Stop being a moron.
-Al-
Richard Tobin
Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>Read up on the Dancing Israelis.
Riiight... and find a lot of pretendy-research which references
only other nutcases.
Vito
> This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
> rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
> of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory. The
> case for demolition has been proved beyond any and all
> doubt.
>
>
> Press Release:
>
> http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
>
Hmmm ... So a few microscopic grains of thermetic material in dust near the
WTC prove that the pictures of airliners crashing into the buildings, and of
people leaping to their deaths to escape the flames were all fake??
Bert Hyman
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:20 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>> > In article <ARUCl.21966$PH1.14507@edtnps82>,
>> > Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The trouble with the cult of 9-11 -- and I agree that it is a cult
>> >> >-- is that it obscures the very real likelihood that Israel knew
>> >> >about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened.
>>
>> > The trouble with the cult of 9-11 is that it allows anti-semites to
>> > present their conspiracy theories as "plausible".
>>
>> > -- Richard
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> Read up on the Dancing Israelis.
>>
>> Stop being a moron.
>>
>> -Al-
>
> Better yet, stop posting this stupid and annoying bullshit to
> sci.physics.
Ordinarily, I'd suggest that you just exercise the killfile or filtering
capabilities of your news client.
But since you're a googlegrouper, I guess you're just stuck.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Henry
>> Press Release:
>> http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
WTF? Apparently you're not denying that both unreacted highly
engineered nanothermite as well as its chemical signature were
present in the WTC dust.
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> Why becuase it's junk science, bullshit
> and parnoid lies.
But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
We see that sort of behavior quite often from magic fire/super
Arab cartoon conspiracy theorists. They "think" like religious
fanatics. Their beliefs are based primarily on blind faith
and ignorance.
If they were able to comprehend basic logic, science, or
physics, they'd have to dump their magic fire/Super Arab
conspiracy theory.
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> bombs being planted
Not bombs, nanothermite. That can no longer be denied
by anyone but those who either refuse to read and think,
or are incapable of it.
Henry
> Ordinarily, I'd suggest that you just exercise the killfile or filtering
> capabilities of your news client.
> But since you're a googlegrouper, I guess you're just stuck.
Say what? Google groups forces people to select and read posts
that don't interest them? That's just not right. People should
be free to choose what they read or don't read.
Since you don't use google groups and have chosen to read this
9-11 thread, let us know if you disagree with anything written
below, and if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have
caused WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>> Read up on the Dancing Israelis.
> Riiight... and find a lot of pretendy-research which references
> only other nutcases.
ABC News is a "nutcase"? You're not a paranoid conspiracy
theorist are you?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> Better yet, stop posting this stupid and annoying bullshit to
> sci.physics.
Physics proves that the towers and WTC7 were deliberately
demolished. You annoy yourself too easily and your stupid
whining is a waste of our time. If you aren't going to
help us bring the 9-11 terrorists to justice, please go
whine and cry somewhere else.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination evidence,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
BrianNZ
>
> This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
> rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
> of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory. The
> case for demolition has been proved beyond any and all
> doubt.
So this will be your last post about 9/11 then?.
Vito
> WTF? Apparently you're not denying that both unreacted highly engineered
> nanothermite as well as its chemical signature were
> present in the WTC dust.
>
stuff in a WTC basement just a few years earlier.
Vito
> But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
> you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
But Henry, you might as well be shouting at a mirror because you practice
the same thing. It's like a religion - you seek facts then spin them to
support your preconcieved beliefs instead of believing what the facts say -
exactly as you accuse others of doing..
This latest "find" is a good example. It shows that somebody set off
thermite explosions some time in the past. But we all knew that. Such
explosives are routinely used in construction. They were prolly used to
remove whatever structures preceded the WTC, in digging the WTC and other
basements, and in removing debris. Moreover, the WTC had been bombed
before. So one should be surprised if explosive residue was not present
rather than vice versa. So it offers no proof that such explosives were used
to bring down the WTC.
I dust my house often. Scientists say that much of the dust comes from
Africa, carried by the prevailing trade winds. So a microscopic evaluation
of dust from my clothes would show a true believer that I came from Africa
..... right?
Twibil
>
> I dust my house often. Scientists say that much of the dust comes from
> Africa, carried by the prevailing trade winds. So a microscopic evaluation
> of dust from my clothes would show a true believer that I came from Africa
> ..... right?
Actually, that's *true* if only you go back far enough...
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
>
> > But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
> > you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
>
> But Henry, you might as well be shouting at a mirror because you practice
> the same thing. It's like a religion - you seek facts then spin them to
> support your preconcieved beliefs instead of believing what the facts say -
> exactly as you accuse others of doing..
Very much like religion.
Somebody sees an image of the Virgin Mary in
a spot on a wall and the faithful line up to see it.
Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
of rust and guess what ? All you have to do is squint
hard enough when viewing it and it's the long sought
proof you've been looking for.
Henry
> On Apr 9, 5:36 am, "Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Henry" <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote
>>> But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
>>> you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
>> But Henry, you might as well be shouting at a mirror because
>> you practice the same thing.
Show me your research that explains how fires dropped WTC7,
and I'll easily point out what I and the experts disagree
with it and why. Problem for you magic fire/super Arab conspiracy
theorist is that you don't cite any research. You simply
rant and whine like religious fanatics.
> Very much like religion.
Exactly.
> Somebody sees an image of the Virgin Mary in
> a spot on a wall and the faithful line up to see it.
Or, the government tells them that some guy living in
cave was behind 9-11, or that ordinary office fires
caused WTC7's massive hurricane and earth quake resistant
steel frame to disintegrate in 7 seconds, and conspiracy
theorists believe it without thought or question. Science,
physics, hard evidence, expert research, and even their
own eyes take a back seat to their blind faith in the
government's propaganda. That's why they don't address
the facts or evidence. Watch, I'll prove it again. Neither
you Veto, or twitbull will be able to produce an intelligent
response to a logical, evidence and physics based letter.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://aewww.911truth.org
Henry
> "Henry" <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote
>> But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
>> you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
> It shows that somebody set off thermite explosions some
> time in the past. But we all knew that. Such
> explosives are routinely used in construction.
Can you show us a credible reference that confirms or
even suggests the use of nanothermite in NYC prior to
9-11-01, or is this just more cartoon conspiracy nonsense?
Given that nanothermite wasn't invented until the late 1990s,
you won't have to look back very far...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://aewww.911truth.org
Henry
> Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
> of rust and guess what ? All you have to do is squint
> hard enough when viewing it and it's the long sought
> proof you've been looking for.
Obviously, you didn't bother to read the research, or you
didn't understand what you read. Science is more complicated
than your simple blind faith.
It wasn't just Dr. Steven Jones - it was a team of nine
scientists. It wasn't a flake of rust, it was hundreds of
samples of highly refined unreacted nanothermite, *and*
metallic microspheres that contained the exact chemical
signature of nanothermite. You really should read and think
before you react with your simplistic faith based denials
of hard science. Ranting from a position of ignorance only
makes you and your magic fire conspiracy theory seem even
sillier and more absurd.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Al Dykes
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>Vito wrote:
>> "Henry" <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote
>
>>> But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
>>> you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
>
>> It shows that somebody set off thermite explosions some
>> time in the past. But we all knew that. Such
>> explosives are routinely used in construction.
>
> Can you show us a credible reference that confirms or
>even suggests the use of nanothermite in NYC prior to
>9-11-01, or is this just more cartoon conspiracy nonsense?
Can Prof. Jones show a graph that shows what he found is anything like
Thermite or Thermite?
He has yet to date.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Henry
> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
> tower would have been immense.
WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
under their own weight without any explosives. Make
up your "mind" Al.
Also, let us know if you disagree with anything written
below, and if so, what and why. The writer proves that
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > Very much like religion.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Somebody sees an image of the Virgin Mary in
> > a spot on a wall and the faithful line up to see it.
[restoring the part you snipped]
>> Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
>> of rust and guess what ? All you have to do is squint
>> hard enough when viewing it and it's the long sought
>> proof you've been looking for.
> Or, the government tells them that some guy living in
> cave was behind 9-11, or that ordinary office fires
> caused WTC7's massive hurricane and earth quake resistant
> steel frame to disintegrate in 7 seconds, and conspiracy
> theorists believe it without thought or question.
Wonder if this rust preventitive aluminzed paint
would work well on my motorcycle, or would the
motorcycle instantly burst into flames.
"Rust Rustler rust preventive aluminum paint for metal
protection.
"Rust Rustler has been used for 60 years in harsh
environments ....
"As the paint dries, 6 to 8 layers of aluminum flakes rise
to the surface to form a metal barrier that protects against
the elements. It also works well on metal surfaces that
have already begun to rust, and will help prevent further
corrosion."
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>>
>> This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
>> rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
>> of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory. The
>> case for demolition has been proved beyond any and all
>> doubt.
<censored links restored because we can't afford to
let conspiracy theorists hide the truth>
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
> So this will be your last post about 9/11 then?
What if magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy theorists finally
acknowledge demolition, but try to argue that the Cave Man
and his Super Arabs rigged the towers and WTC7? I wouldn't
be able to resist refuting that nonsense, either. It's my
moral and civic duty to work for 9-11 Truth and Justice.
As long as you're here and reading, I came across this
great letter written by a member of Scholars for 9-11 Truth
and Justice to a friend who can't seem to shake his blind
faith in the Bush regime's conspiracy theory.
Please let us know if you disagree with anything written
below, and if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Schiffner
BULLSHIT and LIES by CULT LEADER DELETED.
Oh and fuck everything east of the mighty mo...bunch of asshats
theives and liars.
Schiffner
> On Apr 9, 5:36 am, "Vito" <v...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Henry" <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote
>
> > > But of course, other than hysterical, irrational ranting,
> > > you're unable to tell us what you disagree with or why.
>
> > But Henry, you might as well be shouting at a mirror because you practice
> > the same thing. It's like a religion - you seek facts then spin them to
> > support your preconcieved beliefs instead of believing what the facts say -
> > exactly as you accuse others of doing..
>
> Very much like religion.
Show me ONE religion that doesn't meet the requirments to be
considered a cult...there isn't one. I find all religions to be
nothing more than cults created to control people and take away free
will or convince them that the lie they live under their religion is
free will.
> Somebody sees an image of the Virgin Mary in
> a spot on a wall and the faithful line up to see it.
Yep but hey, they make more and better guilible idiots every day.
> Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
> of rust and guess what ? All you have to do is squint
> hard enough when viewing it and it's the long sought
> proof you've been looking for.
I did look...know what I saw? A flake of rust that some flake cult
leader claims is something it isn't. Like all cult leaders he's a liar
a fakir and chalritan. Not worth even getting out of his way if you
met him on the street.
Henry
>> Or, the government tells them that some guy living in
>> cave was behind 9-11, or that ordinary office fires
>> caused WTC7's massive hurricane and earth quake resistant
>> steel frame to disintegrate in 7 seconds, and conspiracy
>> theorists believe it without thought or question.
> Wonder if this rust preventitive aluminzed paint
> would work well on my motorcycle, or would the
> motorcycle instantly burst into flames.
>
> www.rustrustler.com/
>
> "Rust Rustler rust preventive aluminum paint for metal
> protection.
Do you think that has some relevance to the presence of
unreacted nano thermite around ground zero? If so, it's
obvious that you didn't bother to read the research, or
you didn't understand what you read. You really should read and
think before you react with your simplistic faith based denials
of hard science. Ranting from a position of ignorance only
makes you and your magic fire conspiracy theory seem even
sillier and more absurd.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Henry
> Can Prof. Jones show a graph that shows what he found is anything like
> Thermite or Thermite?
Obviously, you didn't bother to read the research, or you
didn't understand what you read. You really should read and
think before you react with your simplistic faith based denials
of hard science. Ranting from a position of ignorance only
makes you and your magic fire conspiracy theory seem even
sillier and more absurd.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Schiffner
Dear cult boy.
I read it I understand it and they are full of speculative bullshit
and or out right lying so that the faithful cult members will believe
more strongly in the religion.
It's all a crock and if you can't figure it out you are an idiot or a
gulible fool. I have determined by reading your last 10 years of posts
that you are BOTH an idiot and a guilible fool.
--
Keith
Schiffner
> Al Dykes wrote:
> > The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
> > tower would have been immense.
>
> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
> up your "mind" Al.
Hey fuck nut. Let me use small words. You don't know fuck all about
explosives (you proved that long ago) your cult leaders know less that
you. Ever seen what goes into an explosive demolition? I have and let
me tell you shit for brains lying faggot....it was LOGISTICLY
IMPOSSIBLE to destroy either goddamned motherfucking building the ways
you have claimed.
Twist and turn shithead you adn your cult leaders are still liars,
cheats and charalatans. If you don't like ME telling you the truth
about YOU and YOUR CULT LEADERS then do something about it LIAR.
You cult members are all the same...stupid, lying charlatans.
Schiffner
Liar.
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 11:56 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Or, the government tells them that some guy living in
> >> cave was behind 9-11, or that ordinary office fires
> >> caused WTC7's massive hurricane and earth quake resistant
> >> steel frame to disintegrate in 7 seconds, and conspiracy
> >> theorists believe it without thought or question.
> > Wonder if this rust preventitive aluminzed paint
> > would work well on my motorcycle, or would the
> > motorcycle instantly burst into flames.
>
> >www.rustrustler.com/
>
> > "Rust Rustler rust preventive aluminum paint for metal
> > protection.
>
> Do you think that has some relevance to the presence of
> unreacted nano thermite around ground zero? If so, it's
> obvious that you didn't bother to read the research, or
> you didn't understand what you read.
So in your own words, please explain the difference to me,
Sherlock .
My question is whether a microscopic chip containing rust
mixed with aluminized paint would also constitute a "thermitic
substance". If not, why not ?
My second question is, given that he detected the presence
of iron, aluminum, silicon and calcium, how did this bozo
determine that two of the substances detected were "evidence"
and the other two were "contaminants" ?
Other than the fact that two supported his theory and two didn't,
how did he figure out which two of the four elements were the
"contaminants" ?
Given that nobody's ever been able to cite an instance of
a thermite demolition of or even an experiment suggesting
that one might be feasible, this is not a very relevant discussion
to begin with, but it's really interesting what true believers
such as you and Jones can talk themselves into if they
try hard enough.
David Johnston
>
>The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
The "Open". So not anything that has an editor to filter out the
crap, right?
Al Dykes
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> Can Prof. Jones show a graph that shows what he found is anything like
>> Thermite or Thermite?
>
>
> Obviously, you didn't bother to read the research, or you
>didn't understand what you read. You really should read and
>think before you react with your simplistic faith based denials
>of hard science. Ranting from a position of ignorance only
>makes you and your magic fire conspiracy theory seem even
>sillier and more absurd.
>
>http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
>
>
What page is the graph that compares his sample to thermate/thermite
on?
Al Dykes
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>> tower would have been immense.
>
> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>up your "mind" Al.
No man-made demolition required to explain how the WTC towers fell.
Al Dykes
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>Rkleinsc...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
>> of rust and guess what ? All you have to do is squint
>> hard enough when viewing it and it's the long sought
>> proof you've been looking for.
>
> Obviously, you didn't bother to read the research, or you
>didn't understand what you read. Science is more complicated
>than your simple blind faith.
> It wasn't just Dr. Steven Jones - it was a team of nine
>scientists. It wasn't a flake of rust, it was hundreds of
I don't care if the 12 disciples wrote it, it's pseudo-science junk
written for the rubes.
Prof. Jones says what he has is thermite but he won't show us the
graph comparing his sample to thermite that proves that claim.
Al Dykes
The only thing that is "edited" is the fact that the check clears,
apparently $800 to get this turkey published.
It's a vanity publication. They will print anything if someone pays
the bill. It's Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal and it has has,
in its brief lifespan, produced exactly two issues. With a total of 12
articles between them, so far.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
They let the author pick the "peer review" group. That's not "peer
review" to any real scholar or scholarly publication.
Henry
> Given that nobody's ever been able to cite an instance of
> a thermite demolition of or even an experiment suggesting
> that one might be feasible
You really should do some research before you post your
beliefs. As it is, your beliefs are at odds with reality.
Notice the terms "destruction" and "metallic structures"
in the quote below.
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744
"In the disposal of unserviceable explosive ordnances, incendiary
devices are often used to burn through the ordnance casing and to ignite
or otherwise destroy the ordnance payload. Thermite devices are often
used for this purpose. Thermite devices are also used for unconventional
warfare activities. Examples include the destruction of machinery or
metallic structures, or the destruction of biological agents or
precursors."
The rest of your questions are answered in the research paper
published by a team of nine scientists. Nano thermite isn't paint.
You're being silly again.
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Henry
> On Jun 11, 5:48 pm, Henry <9/11...@treason.gov> wrote:
>> Rob, a while back you said that Dr. Steven Jones had no credibility
>> because of his research on cold fusion. What were you referring to,
>> or was that just more nonsense, like your claim that, "Absolutely
>> nobody in the structural engineering community seems to find the
>> collapse difficult to believe."?
> I'm saying Dr. Jones announced a cold fusion "breakthrough"
> that nobody else was ever able to duplicate.
That, like your claim that "Absolutely nobody in the structural
engineering community seems to find the collapse difficult to
believe" is at odds with reality. Do you have any facts at all
to support your claim, or are you =simply= spewing more of
that legendary Rob K. magic fire/super Arab conspiracy theory
nonsense?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
"My next paper on muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Physical Review
Letters, was strongly challenged.4 I traveled to UC-Berkeley to defend
the collaboration?s conclusions in that paper, much as I am
doing today.1 We recorded a very small "muon-alpha sticking
coefficient," which had a consequence that a much higher fusion energy
yield was realized than had been theoretically predicted. One of the
physicists at Berkeley said "you can't possibly be right; you are
challenging J. David Jackson," which I was! Now those of you who know
Jackson know that he was one of the top theoretical physicists of
his day. Jackson had looked at this muon-alpha sticking coefficient and
predicted that it would be around 1%. Then we did the experiment for the
first time and we measured this parameter in a liquid deuterium-tritium
mixture, we found a sticking value of about 0.42%, roughly a factor of
two smaller than predicted by Jackson. We were told that it couldn't
possibly be correct, but we couldn't just back down from our
experimental measurements! (History repeats itself as I talk now about
the probable use of thermite-analogs in the WTC buildings, unwilling to
back down from carefully measured empirical findings.) We repeated and
extended the experiments and found that our measurement was correct.
But it took a subsequent independent experiment to test our results
and verify to many people that we were correct. Now our published value,
published in a peer-reviewed journal article, is accepted as correct.
And it is the theory which was refined. Again, I'm setting a background
-- that experiments determine what is true"
>
Henry
You just have to love the way magic fire/Super Arab cartoon
conspiracy kooks defend their belifes with such poise and
impeccable references.... You guys are obviously very well
read and extremely intelligent. <chuckle>
Tell us why you think Dave Frasca, Bush's key supervising
special agent in the charge of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist
Unit, protected al Qaeda operatives who were known to be training
at U.S. flight schools during the summer of 2001?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/02/43525.shtml
"Special Agent Dave Frasca occupies a very important position
mid-way between the Bush cabinet/FBI leadership and the FBI agents on
the ground in various American cities. He is in the unusual position
of taking important findings of intended radical Bin Laden-type
terrorist actions to his supervisors, especially the heads of the FBI.
Clearly, he was, along with the various world intelligence agencies,
able to forward enough information through his supervisors to raise
concerns with President Bush himself in July 2001.
FBI agent Kenneth Williams wrote the famous Phoenix memo on July 10,
2001 warning that Osama Bin Laden's foot soldiers might be training in
American flight schools. Special Agent Dave Frasca, as the Head of the
Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington D.C., received the memo.
Kenneth Williams was the most senior member of a joint terrorist task
force and according to Ronald Myers, a 31 year FBI veteran and
William's former colleague, told the Los Angeles Times "He is one of
the strongest agents I have ever met. Anyone in FBI management who
wouldn't take what Williams said seriously is a fool." Dave Frasca got
the memo but he is no "fool" as we shall see. (cnn.com, May20, 2002)
Williams specifically recommended a nation-wide survey of
Arab-American students attending flight schools. Unlike 1995, the FBI
did not descent on flight schools as recommended by Senior Agent
Kenneth Williams. Williams also recommended his memo be shared with
other local FBI agents. It never was. The official view is that,
unlike 1995, there were not enough agents available for the flight
school survey. (Remember the cutbacks and refusals by cabinet members
mentioned earlier)
Robert Mueller even refused to turn over the William's memo to Arlen
Specter, a veteran Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It
remains "classified." (cnn.com, May 20, 2002) Both Ashcroft and
Mueller claim to not know of the memo until after September 11."
Henry
> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of
>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight
>> down onto its own footprint?
> Yes.
Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing
tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they
did it?
You're starting to make Shiffner appear semi-sane. I wonder
if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are embarrassed
by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle>
Henry
>>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>>> tower would have been immense.
>> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>> up your "mind" Al.
> No man-made demolition required to explain how the WTC towers fell.
You just said, "The amount of explosives needed to bring
down a WTC tower would have been immense." Your "mind" is
in turmoil.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
Henry
>>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>>> tower would have been immense.
>> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>> up your "mind" Al.
> Hey fuck nut. Let me use small words. You don't know fuck all about
> explosives
Dykes sure does, though. He says you'd need an immense amount
of explosives to bring down a building that he claims crushed
itself into a pile of rubble with no explosives at all.
If nothing else, the idiocy and contradictions spewed by magic
fire/Super Arab cave man cartoon conspiracy kooks certainly does
amuse their many betters... <chuckle>
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
Henry
> It's called vecters.
"Vecters"? LOL! I suppose you're attempting to "think" of vectors.
Apparently, you've "studied" them in great detail, which is why you're
so familiar with the spelling. :-)
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Site: www.STJ911.org
Email: stj...@gmail.com
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>>
>> This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
>> rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
>> of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory. The
>> case for demolition has been proved beyond any and all
>> doubt.
<censored links restored because we can't afford to
let conspiracy theorists hide the truth>
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
> So this will be your last post about 9/11 then?
What if magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy theorists finally
acknowledge demolition, but try to argue that the Cave Man
and his Super Arabs rigged the towers and WTC7? I wouldn't
be able to resist refuting that nonsense, either. It's my
moral and civic duty to work for 9-11 Truth and Justice.
As long as you're here and reading, I came across this
great letter written by a member of Scholars for 9-11 Truth
and Justice to a friend who can't seem to shake his blind
faith in the Bush regime's conspiracy theory.
Please let us know if you disagree with anything written
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
> Stephen Jones sees "thermitic material" in a flake
> of rust and guess what ?
It wasn't a flake of rust, and it was a team of nine
scientists not just Dr. Steven Jones. You obviously didn't
read or understand the research paper. You're belief in
the Bush regime's 9-11 conspiracy is clearly based on emotions,
blind faith, denial, and ignorance of the facts, evidence, and
research.
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
But since the scientists don't believe the Bush regime's magic
fire Super Arab Cave Man cartoon conspiracy theory on blind
faith and ignorance alone, they're all kooks. Just like the
kooks listed below, right Rob? ;-)
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-roster.html
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation
(they were ignored).
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the
official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency
which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the
world?s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an
independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse
investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that
NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and
from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST
arrived at is questionable."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward
S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by
controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S.
Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering
at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a
mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story,
and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition
of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
Henry
> Like I said, most engineering failures are "impossible"
> right up until the first they happen. Unsinkable ships,
If the Titanic had struck an iceberg, but rather than
slowly fill with water and begin to list and sink, as
other ships had when their hulls were breeched, it stayed
perfectly level for quite a few hours until suddenly the
*entire* ship disintegrated into small pieces in just a
few seconds, *and* the pieces were retrieved and melted
down before they could be examined to see what had caused
such an unprecedented event, *and* eyewitnesses were ordered
not to talk about what they saw, *and* the people suspected of
causing the loss of the ship had stated in writing that they
could use such an event to push their agenda, *and* they were
telling endless lies *and* they resisted an investigation, *and*
they and their cronies referred to the sinking of the ship as an
"opportunity", *and* they used it to their advantage, *and* they
made huge sums of money, blaming it on the iceberg would seem at
least as strange as blaming 9-11 on a man living in a cave thousands
of mile away - with no evidence at all. Don't you agree?
The devil, as they say, is in the details...
Henry
> "Rust Rustler rust preventive aluminum paint for metal
> protection.
<irrelevant nonsense about paint snipped>
Rob, a while back you told us that "Absolutely nobody in the
structural engineering community seems to find the collapse
difficult to believe." Given that there are over 600 members
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth http://ae911truth.org
that's an incredibly bizarre comment. Do you actually believe
it? If so, why doesn't it matter to you that this belief, like
so many of your other 9-11 conspiracy beliefs, is at odds with
the facts and reality?
Do you also believe NIST's claim that nothing but ordinary
office fires dropped WTC7? If so, tell us if you disagree
with anything written below, and why. The writer proves that
fires couldn't have caused WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear,
logical combination of evidence, basic physics, and common
sense to do it. But first watch this video of a known demolition
compared to WTC7's drop, which you claim was caused by the random
and gradual heating of some of the steel columns.
Not much difference, is there? When you consider that fact that
not even a raging inferno has ever dropped a steel framed skyscraper,
your blind faith belief in the Bush regime's conspiracy theory
becomes even more bizarre and out of touch with reality.
So again, tell us if you disagree with anything written below,
and if so, why?
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > Given that nobody's ever been able to cite an instance of
> > a thermite demolition of or even an experiment suggesting
> > that one might be feasible
>
> You really should do some research before you post your
> beliefs. As it is, your beliefs are at odds with reality.
> Notice the terms "destruction" and "metallic structures"
> in the quote below.
We all know thermite is used to dispose of ordinance
and various welding tasks. Please cite an instance
of a building, bridge or other structure demolished using
thermite, giving date, location and source of information.
You apparently forgot my other questions also, so let
me remind you of them:
You asked:
> Do you think that has some relevance to the presence of
> unreacted nano thermite around ground zero? If so, it's
> obvious that you didn't bother to read the research, or
> you didn't understand what you read.
and I responded:
So in your own words, please explain the difference to me,
Sherlock .
My question is whether a microscopic chip containing rust
mixed with aluminized paint would also constitute a "thermitic
substance". If not, why not ?
My second question is, given that he detected the presence
of iron, aluminum, silicon and calcium, how did this bozo
determine that two of the substances detected were "evidence"
and the other two were "contaminants" ?
Other than the fact that two supported his theory and two didn't,
how did he figure out which two of the four elements were the
"contaminants" ?
One might almost suspect that your many words and
responses, quoting everything else except these questions
were an attempt to evade answering them.
This is no doubt just a test of your faith. I'm sure that
given this startling new evidence and the ever growing
groundswell you speak of, all those people who now
believe you are a crossposting netloon will become true
believers just like you.
How many days, weeks or months do you figure it will
take before you're vindicated ? Let's take another look
in six months to review your progress. Until then, happy
buffooning.
Henry
>> You really should do some research before you post your
>> beliefs. As it is, your beliefs are at odds with reality.
>> Notice the terms "destruction" and "metallic structures"
>> in the quote below.
> We all know thermite is used to dispose of ordinance
> and various welding tasks.
As well as the destruction of metallic structures, which you
denied. That's as silly as your claim that "Absolutely nobody
in the structural engineering community seems to find the
collapse difficult to believe."
> My question is whether a microscopic chip containing rust
> mixed with aluminized paint would also constitute a "thermitic
> substance". If not, why not ?
Of course it wouldn't. Read the paper. Nano thermite does not
share it's precise chemical properties with rusty paint chips.
> My second question is, given that he
Who is "he". Nine scientists collaborated on the research.
Which one has your panties all wadded up and why?
> detected the presence of iron, aluminum, silicon and calcium,
> how did this bozo determine that two of the substances detected
> were "evidence" and the other two were "contaminants" ?
Obviously, the bozo is in your mirror, and he hasn't determined
anything. He quite =simply= parrots what he's been told by his
ruling masters while ignoring and denying hard evidence, science,
physics, and expert research.
The nine scientists explain precisely how they analyzed the
samples in their research paper and precisely what they found.
They discovered not only unreacted nanothermite, but the metallic
microspheres that were produced when the rest of it did react.
Your hypothetical painted rust flake can't produce metallic
microspheres that display the exact chemical signature of thermite.
Please read the paper before asking any more silly questions. All
the answers are there.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Al Dykes
Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>Rkleinsc...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 4:37 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
>>> You really should do some research before you post your
>>> beliefs. As it is, your beliefs are at odds with reality.
>>> Notice the terms "destruction" and "metallic structures"
>>> in the quote below.
>
>> We all know thermite is used to dispose of ordinance
>> and various welding tasks.
>
> As well as the destruction of metallic structures,
Nope. never.
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 4:37 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> You really should do some research before you post your
> >> beliefs. As it is, your beliefs are at odds with reality.
> >> Notice the terms "destruction" and "metallic structures"
> >> in the quote below.
> > We all know thermite is used to dispose of ordinance
> > and various welding tasks.
>
> As well as the destruction of metallic structures, which you
> denied. That's as silly as your claim that "Absolutely nobody
> in the structural engineering community seems to find the
> collapse difficult to believe."
Which buildings and/or bridges have ever been demolished
using thermite ? My answer is none. What's yours ?
Please cite specifics. (My bet is that you can't).
>
> > My question is whether a microscopic chip containing rust
> > mixed with aluminized paint would also constitute a "thermitic
> > substance". If not, why not ?
>
> Of course it wouldn't. Read the paper. Nano thermite does not
> share it's precise chemical properties with rusty paint chips.
Please point out the spot in the paper where a criteria
is stated which can distinguish between an aluminum/rust
"thermitic substance" and an aluminum/rust particle
consisting of aluminized paint applied onto a rusty
surface.
> > My second question is, given that he
>
> Who is "he". Nine scientists collaborated on the research.
> Which one has your panties all wadded up and why?
>
> > detected the presence of iron, aluminum, silicon and calcium,
> > how did this bozo determine that two of the substances detected
> > were "evidence" and the other two were "contaminants" ?
>
> Obviously, the bozo is in your mirror, and he hasn't determined
> anything. He quite =simply= parrots what he's been told by his
> ruling masters while ignoring and denying hard evidence, science,
> physics, and expert research.
So you don't have an answer ? They arbitrarily determine that
two of the four elements they detect are "evidence" and two more
are "contaminants". Please point out the criteria used to make
that determination.
> The nine scientists explain precisely how they analyzed the
> samples in their research paper and precisely what they found.
> They discovered not only unreacted nanothermite, but the metallic
> microspheres that were produced when the rest of it did react.
> Your hypothetical painted rust flake can't produce metallic
> microspheres that display the exact chemical signature of thermite.
> Please read the paper before asking any more silly questions. All
> the answers are there.
The "exact chemical signature" of thermite is iron, aluminum
and oxides of the two elements, right ? What else did you
have in mind ?
As for microspheres, if you believe that there is some unique
product of a thermite reaction produced by no other process
known to man, I'd love to hear how you or Jones and company
arrived at that determination.
You really ought to stop pretending that you understand
this stuff.
BrianNZ
>
>
>> So this will be your last post about 9/11 then?
>
Thanks for the re-post, but I figured the answer was a simple 'No' first
time around.
Henry
> You really ought to stop pretending that you understand
> this stuff.
Says the guy who believes he can produce nano thermite
by painting a flake of rust. That's some heavy irony,
Rob. Please read the paper first. Maybe then you'll be
able bring up your points from a position of knowledge
and they'll make more sense.
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
--
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > You really ought to stop pretending that you understand
> > this stuff.
>
> Says the guy who believes he can produce nano thermite
> by painting a flake of rust. That's some heavy irony,
> Rob. Please read the paper first. Maybe then you'll be
> able bring up your points from a position of knowledge
> and they'll make more sense.
Yep. Says me. Please point out to me in the paper
where either of my two questions are answered:
1) How do they distinguish between "thermite"
and any other microscopic particle containing
aluminum and iron and/or oxides of the two.
(This is the conclusive "chemical signature"
that you find so persuasive.)
2) Given a particle containing four elements,
Iron, Silicon, Aluminum and calcium, how
do they determine that two of the four are
"contaminants" and the other two are
"evidence".
I believe I can safely assume that you keep referring
me back to the paper because you don't know the
answer to the above questions and haven't read or
comprehended anything past the summary. Which
paragraphs should I re-read ?
Also, as I said before, nobody has demonstrated
the feasibility of a thermite definition, nor are they
likely to, as it has some severe problems.
If you want to keep believing in thermite evidence or
images of the Virigin Mary, or Stephen Jones' evidence
of a visit by Jesus to central America, knock yourself out.
You ought to be honest enough though to label this a
religious belief. You probably shouldn't hold your breath
waiting to be taken seriously either.
Again, happy buffooning. Let's chat in another
six months and see how your groundswell's doing.
Henry
> On Apr 13, 3:22 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
>>> You really ought to stop pretending that you understand
>>> this stuff.
>> Says the guy who believes he can produce nano thermite
>> by painting a flake of rust. That's some heavy irony,
>> Rob. Please read the paper first. Maybe then you'll be
>> able bring up your points from a position of knowledge
>> and they'll make more sense.
> Yep. Says me. Please point out to me in the paper
> where either of my two questions are answered:
> 1) How do they distinguish between "thermite"
> and any other microscopic particle containing
> aluminum and iron and/or oxides of the two.
> (This is the conclusive "chemical signature"
> that you find so persuasive.)
Wow, you really are helpless. Open this link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
It begins by describing the metallic micro spheres that
were found in abundance the dust samples. The presence of
these spheres indicates that molten droplets of iron rained
down on ground zero during the tower demolitions. Your painted
rust flakes can't melt steel into droplets of molten iron.
Thermite does that.
"If finding aluminothermic residues in the form of spheroidal
micro-droplets was like finding fired bullets at a crime scene,
then the discoveries presented in Active Thermitic Material
Discovered are like finding the gun loaded with several rounds
of unspent ammunition that match the fired bullets."
Notice that the molecular structure of the unreacted nanothermite
samples were analyzed using "scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC)" This method reveals the chemical
composition of a substance down to the molecular level. If
the nanothermite was simply painted flakes of rust as you suggest,
the chemicals and elements found in paint would have been observed.
None of the nine scientists who collaborated in the analysis
discovered paint on the samples.
Also, cross sectional analysis shows that the molecular composition
of the nanothermite chips is not limited to the surface, but is
consistent all the way through. Paint is a coating. It's really
quite telling that such basic, obvious concepts need to be spelled
out for you.
Now, Scroll down to the part that reads, "Thermal Behavior of the
chips. Here is what is reads:
"Chips from each of the four samples, when subjected to thermal
analysis using the DSC, clearly show the exothermic behavior of an
energetic material." Painted rust doesn't explode.
Now read the part that reads,"Ignition Residue Analysis"
"Because DSC processing causes the chips to ignite, the investigators
studied the residues and found, not surprisingly, minute iron-rich
spheroids, as well as silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected to XEDS
analysis, the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen,
as expected in an aluminothermic residue."
> 2) Given a particle containing four elements,
> Iron, Silicon, Aluminum and calcium, how
> do they determine that two of the four are
> "contaminants" and the other two are
> "evidence".
They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
research first, then ask questions.
> I believe I can safely assume that you keep referring
> me back to the paper because you don't know the
> answer to the above questions and haven't read or
> comprehended anything past the summary.
Actually, I referred you to the paper because it was clear
from your silly questions that either you hadn't read it
or you didn't understand it.
> You ought to be honest enough though to label this a
> religious belief.
Your belief in the super powers of some guy living in cave
thousand of miles away is clearly based on nothing but blind
faith and ignorance. Even the FBI admits that it has no evidence
linking your fearsome cave man to the 9-11 attacks. You spew
a lot of nonsense, and unlike 9-11 Truth experts, you have no
research to support your nonsensical physics and reality defying
religious beliefs.
> You probably shouldn't hold your breath
> waiting to be taken seriously either.
Hard core conspiracy kooks will probably never take science,
physics, hard evidence, or expert research seriously because
those things utterly destroy their faith based fairy tales.
It's pretty much the same as trying to explain to a gullible
young child that Santa Clause can't be real. He'll try to tell
you that Santa's Reindeer are really fast, and his sled is really
big, and he really can visit all the houses of good children
in one night.
That reminds me - do you still believe that a tall building
can't be made to topple sideways even if supports on only one
side are destroyed? When I asked you that question a while back,
you spewed some irrelevant nonsense about tossing blocks and
sticks, but predictably, you failed to elaborate when pressed
for details. Remember? :-)
>> Apparently, your "expert" Thomas Eagar "thinks" that if
>> supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed,
>> the building would still drop straight down, because - get this
>> - that's the direction gravity is pulling. For your sake, I really
>> hope you don't believe that sort of complete idiocy. Do you? <g>
> Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it at
> an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or does it
> travel straight to the ground at the same angle ?
Say WTF? Dropping an object and letting it free fall has nothing
to do with the tilting of a structure that's supported by the
ground. There's no fulcrum or pivot point in your analogy. Are
you trolling, or really unable to grasp these concepts? If you
kick two legs off one side of a four legged table, do you think
the table will drop straight down with the top remaining level?
What in the hell are you talking about with these flying blocks
and sticks?
Here's a video showing 16 buildings doing precisely what you and
Eagar say is impossible. In the real world, it's far easier to
make a tall building topple sideways than it is to make fall
straight down through itself. Do you "think the video below is
faked, or were the guys who dropped the buildings simply unaware
of your amazing block and stick tossing "research"? :-)
lee
Do you know what thermite is?
Clue: Iron Oxide(aka Rust) & Aluminium
> Notice that the molecular structure of the unreacted nanothermite
> samples were analyzed using "scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
> X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
> scanning calorimetry (DSC)" This method reveals the chemical
> composition of a substance down to the molecular level. If
> the nanothermite was simply painted flakes of rust as you suggest,
> the chemicals and elements found in paint would have been observed.
> None of the nine scientists who collaborated in the analysis
> discovered paint on the samples.
Paint burns pretty effectively. It isn't reported because it
doesn't support their pet hypothesis.
> Also, cross sectional analysis shows that the molecular composition
> of the nanothermite chips is not limited to the surface, but is
> consistent all the way through. Paint is a coating. It's really
> quite telling that such basic, obvious concepts need to be spelled
> out for you.
What was the cladding of the WTC made of? What was the frame?
> Now, Scroll down to the part that reads, "Thermal Behavior of the
> chips. Here is what is reads:
>
> "Chips from each of the four samples, when subjected to thermal
> analysis using the DSC, clearly show the exothermic behavior of an
> energetic material." Painted rust doesn't explode.
If it's aluminised paint, yes it does.
>
> Now read the part that reads,"Ignition Residue Analysis"
>
> "Because DSC processing causes the chips to ignite, the investigators
> studied the residues and found, not surprisingly, minute iron-rich
> spheroids, as well as silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected to XEDS
> analysis, the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen,
> as expected in an aluminothermic residue."
>
>
>> 2) Given a particle containing four elements,
>> Iron, Silicon, Aluminum and calcium, how
>> do they determine that two of the four are
>> "contaminants" and the other two are
>> "evidence".
>
> They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
> show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
> thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
> expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
> research first, then ask questions.
if she weighs the same as a duck...
>> I believe I can safely assume that you keep referring
>> me back to the paper because you don't know the
>> answer to the above questions and haven't read or
>> comprehended anything past the summary.
>
> Actually, I referred you to the paper because it was clear
> from your silly questions that either you hadn't read it
> or you didn't understand it.
Your assertions don't hold water. You seem unable to
understand the basic scientific method.
>> You ought to be honest enough though to label this a
>> religious belief.
>
> Your belief in the super powers of some guy living in cave
> thousand of miles away is clearly based on nothing but blind
> faith and ignorance. Even the FBI admits that it has no evidence
> linking your fearsome cave man to the 9-11 attacks. You spew
> a lot of nonsense, and unlike 9-11 Truth experts, you have no
> research to support your nonsensical physics and reality defying
> religious beliefs.
oh please. Who said anything about osama? The only thing
those not in the "911 truth" movement all agree on is that
the towers came down cos some tossers crashed planes into them.
>
>> You probably shouldn't hold your breath
>> waiting to be taken seriously either.
>
> Hard core conspiracy kooks will probably never take science,
> physics, hard evidence, or expert research seriously because
> those things utterly destroy their faith based fairy tales.
> It's pretty much the same as trying to explain to a gullible
> young child that Santa Clause can't be real. He'll try to tell
> you that Santa's Reindeer are really fast, and his sled is really
> big, and he really can visit all the houses of good children
> in one night.
You again show a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Science never "Proves" *anything*, it only disproves things.
> That reminds me - do you still believe that a tall building
> can't be made to topple sideways even if supports on only one
> side are destroyed? When I asked you that question a while back,
> you spewed some irrelevant nonsense about tossing blocks and
> sticks, but predictably, you failed to elaborate when pressed
> for details. Remember? :-)
There's tall, then there's *Tall*. a *Tall* building, if a
substantial amount of its supporting structure is removed, broken,
or weakened by heat, will not topple sideways. The structure will
support very little sideways force, and certainly not that of the
entire building as it falls. Any part of the structure acting as a fulcrum
supporting any substantial sideways movement of the collapsing portion of
the building will fail completely in a Very short amount of time, and from
that point on gravity will act on all of the collapsing portion equally,
and it will collapse straight downwards. The impact of the collapsing
portion will put instentaneous forces many hundreds of times greater than
the design limits on the lower parts of the building as it impacts them,
causing their instentaneous collapse, as seen in the 'standard' 9/11 news
footage.
>
>>> Apparently, your "expert" Thomas Eagar "thinks" that if
>>> supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed,
>>> the building would still drop straight down, because - get this
>>> - that's the direction gravity is pulling. For your sake, I really
>>> hope you don't believe that sort of complete idiocy. Do you? <g>
>
>> Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it at
>> an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or does it
>> travel straight to the ground at the same angle ?
>
> Say WTF? Dropping an object and letting it free fall has nothing
> to do with the tilting of a structure that's supported by the
> ground. There's no fulcrum or pivot point in your analogy. Are
> you trolling, or really unable to grasp these concepts? If you
> kick two legs off one side of a four legged table, do you think
> the table will drop straight down with the top remaining level?
> What in the hell are you talking about with these flying blocks
> and sticks?
> Here's a video showing 16 buildings doing precisely what you and
> Eagar say is impossible. In the real world, it's far easier to
> make a tall building topple sideways than it is to make fall
> straight down through itself. Do you "think the video below is
> faked, or were the guys who dropped the buildings simply unaware
> of your amazing block and stick tossing "research"? :-)
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yuaxsp
>
>
Those are not "Tall" buildings, they seem to max out at about 20 stories
max.
They are also of considerably more substantial construction than the WTC.
They were also demolished from ground level, meaning that the support for
any fulcrum action is substantially more solid than the frame of a
building is at any level above the ground.
--
Lee
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 3:22 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> You really ought to stop pretending that you understand
> >>> this stuff.
> > 2) Given a particle containing four elements,
> > Iron, Silicon, Aluminum and calcium, how
> > do they determine that two of the four are
> > "contaminants" and the other two are
> > "evidence".
>
> They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
> show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
> thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
> expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
> research first, then ask questions.
" It is also shown that
within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich
grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles
are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."
and
" 2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent
By employing some means to separate the different"
So what's with the Al/Si particles and the carbon rich
matrix ? That doesn't sound much like thermite to me.
Note also that they dissolved the matrix in MEK, just
like you would any glob of hydrocarbons such as paint.
Aluminum and rust are pretty ubiquitous substances
in any building. To take a glob of stuff, single out the
aluminum and iron as evidence while ignoring the carbon
matrix, silicon and calcium, strikes me as wishful
thinking of the first order.
In any case though, your major problem is that nobody's
been able to demonstrate anything even vaguely resembling
the demolition scenario you propose. No past uses to cite,
no training materials, no indications that it's ever been used
in military or civilian demolition, or ever could be.
> > You probably shouldn't hold your breath
> > waiting to be taken seriously either.
>
> Hard core conspiracy kooks will probably never take science,
> physics, hard evidence, or expert research seriously because
> those things utterly destroy their faith based fairy tales.
Can we safely assume that the Cornell School of Engineering
along with every other engineering school in the country remains
in the hard core conspiracy kook camp ?
You also wrote
>This will put the super fires vs demolition debate to
> rest for all but the most die hard true believers of
> of the Bush regime's impossible conspiracy theory.
So how's that going ? Lots of success there ? Figure
you might need a few more weeks or what ? Please
check in now and again to report your progress.
Henry
>>> 1) How do they distinguish between "thermite"
>>> and any other microscopic particle containing
>>> aluminum and iron and/or oxides of the two.
>>> (This is the conclusive "chemical signature"
>>> that you find so persuasive.)
>>
>> Wow, you really are helpless. Open this link:
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>>
>> It begins by describing the metallic micro spheres that
>> were found in abundance the dust samples. The presence of
>> these spheres indicates that molten droplets of iron rained
>> down on ground zero during the tower demolitions. Your painted
>> rust flakes can't melt steel into droplets of molten iron.
>> Thermite does that.
>
> Do you know what thermite is?
> Clue: Iron Oxide(aka Rust) & Aluminium
Do you know what nanothermite is? Clue: It's not painted
rust flakes.
>> Notice that the molecular structure of the unreacted nanothermite
>> samples were analyzed using "scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
>> X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
>> scanning calorimetry (DSC)" This method reveals the chemical
>> composition of a substance down to the molecular level. If
>> the nanothermite was simply painted flakes of rust as you suggest,
>> the chemicals and elements found in paint would have been observed.
>> None of the nine scientists who collaborated in the analysis
>> discovered paint on the samples.
> Paint burns pretty effectively.
Nanothemrite burns pretty explosively - very hot too - it
melts steel. Burning paint doesn't melt or vaporize steel.
Wow....
> It isn't reported because it
> doesn't support their pet hypothesis.
Show us your evidence that any of the findings were not
reported.
>> Also, cross sectional analysis shows that the molecular composition
>> of the nanothermite chips is not limited to the surface, but is
>> consistent all the way through. Paint is a coating. It's really
>> quite telling that such basic, obvious concepts need to be spelled
>> out for you.
> What was the cladding of the WTC made of? What was the frame?
It wasn't made of nanothermtie. Wow, you conspiracy kooks
sure can be silly.
>> Now, Scroll down to the part that reads, "Thermal Behavior of the
>> chips. Here is what is reads:
>>
>> "Chips from each of the four samples, when subjected to thermal
>> analysis using the DSC, clearly show the exothermic behavior of an
>> energetic material." Painted rust doesn't explode.
> If it's aluminised paint, yes it does.
Burning paint still can't melt or vaporise steel.
>> Now read the part that reads,"Ignition Residue Analysis"
>> "Because DSC processing causes the chips to ignite, the
>> investigators studied the residues and found, not surprisingly, minute
>> iron-rich spheroids, as well as silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected
>> to XEDS analysis, the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of
>> oxygen, as expected in an aluminothermic residue."
>>
>>
>>> 2) Given a particle containing four elements,
>>> Iron, Silicon, Aluminum and calcium, how
>>> do they determine that two of the four are
>>> "contaminants" and the other two are
>>> "evidence".
>>
>> They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
>> show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
>> thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
>> expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
>> research first, then ask questions.
> if she weighs the same as a duck...
More kook drivel.
>>> I believe I can safely assume that you keep referring
>>> me back to the paper because you don't know the
>>> answer to the above questions and haven't read or
>>> comprehended anything past the summary.
>> Actually, I referred you to the paper because it was clear
>> from your silly questions that either you hadn't read it
>> or you didn't understand it.
> Your assertions don't hold water. You seem unable to
> understand the basic scientific method.
You're unable to refute a word of the research so you
babble incoherently about ducks and paint.
>>> You ought to be honest enough though to label this a
>>> religious belief.
>>
>> Your belief in the super powers of some guy living in cave
>> thousand of miles away is clearly based on nothing but blind
>> faith and ignorance. Even the FBI admits that it has no evidence
>> linking your fearsome cave man to the 9-11 attacks. You spew
>> a lot of nonsense, and unlike 9-11 Truth experts, you have no
>> research to support your nonsensical physics and reality defying
>> religious beliefs.
> oh please. Who said anything about osama?
He's the man behind your conspiracy theory, remember.
> The only thing
> those not in the "911 truth" movement all agree on is that
> the towers came down cos some tossers crashed planes into them.
What do you magic fire conspiracy theorists "think" caused
WTC7 to suddenly drop at free fall speed? The rest of us
don't believe in Osama's magic, invisible fires.
>>> You probably shouldn't hold your breath
>>> waiting to be taken seriously either.
>> Hard core conspiracy kooks will probably never take science,
>> physics, hard evidence, or expert research seriously because
>> those things utterly destroy their faith based fairy tales.
>> It's pretty much the same as trying to explain to a gullible
>> young child that Santa Clause can't be real. He'll try to tell
>> you that Santa's Reindeer are really fast, and his sled is really
>> big, and he really can visit all the houses of good children
>> in one night.
> You again show a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method.
> Science never "Proves" *anything*, it only disproves things.
Science has proved that the earth is round, not flat. Science
has proved that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other
way around. You're still spewing nonsensical kook drivel.
>> That reminds me - do you still believe that a tall building
>> can't be made to topple sideways even if supports on only one
>> side are destroyed? When I asked you that question a while back,
>> you spewed some irrelevant nonsense about tossing blocks and
>> sticks, but predictably, you failed to elaborate when pressed
>> for details. Remember? :-)
> There's tall, then there's *Tall*. a *Tall* building, if a
> substantial amount of its supporting structure is removed, broken,
> or weakened by heat, will not topple sideways.
So, the taller a structure, the more stable it is. You Bush
parroting conspiracy theorists really do live in an alternate
reality.
And of course, "everyone" "knows" that very tall, narrow
structures are far more stable and much more difficult to
topple sideways than short wide structures. Wow. Only on
usenut....
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> lee wrote:
> > Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> 1) How do they distinguish between "thermite"
> >>> and any other microscopic particle containing
> >>> aluminum and iron and/or oxides of the two.
> >>> (This is the conclusive "chemical signature"
> >>> that you find so persuasive.)
>
> >> Wow, you really are helpless. Open this link:
>
> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
> >> It begins by describing the metallic micro spheres that
> >> were found in abundance the dust samples. The presence of
> >> these spheres indicates that molten droplets of iron rained
> >> down on ground zero during the tower demolitions. Your painted
> >> rust flakes can't melt steel into droplets of molten iron.
> >> Thermite does that.
>
> > Do you know what thermite is?
> > Clue: Iron Oxide(aka Rust) & Aluminium
>
> Do you know what nanothermite is? Clue: It's not painted
> rust flakes.
Per a cite by Stephen Jones, Livermore Labs got
a grant to begin researching nanothermite in July,
2002 if I remember correctly. The grant was to
investigate possible applications and manufacturing
techniques.
Do you know of anybody working with nanothermites
in 2001 or earlier ? Do you know of anybody since
then who's demonstrated the suitability of nanothermites
for military or civilian structural demolition ?
I'm especially curious about why somebody would even
investigate the use of an iron thermite, considering
that it's way less energetic than one based on copper
or other metalic oxides
Also, given that thermite is basically a welding process,
how does thermite nodule residue compare with residue
left by oxy-acetylene welding/cutting, arc welding and
other steel construction operations ?
Henry
> Do you know of anybody working with nanothermites
> in 2001 or earlier ?
Many of the people closely associated with the Bush
regime's NIST, coincidentally enough....
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? …
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic
responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before.
But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved
in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of
nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology."
"Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite
coatings, should have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.
1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel
nanothermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).
2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee,
and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is
an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition
of porous energetic materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator
et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous
energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen
Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the
focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the
University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also
experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al
2007).
3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland
Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of
non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC
has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging
nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other
military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance
Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with
lasers (Howard et al 2005). In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was
the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that --
“After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses
produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible
(SAIC 2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop
there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism
risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late
1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration,
and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome
Hauer and Steven Hatfill. 4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert
on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by
President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary
of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science,
and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders
in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005)."
> Do you know of anybody since
> then who's demonstrated the suitability of nanothermites
> for military or civilian structural demolition ?
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744
In the disposal of unserviceable explosive ordnances, incendiary
devices are often used to burn through the ordnance casing and to ignite
or otherwise destroy the ordnance payload. Thermite devices are often
used for this purpose. Thermite devices are also used for unconventional
warfare activities. Examples include the destruction of machinery or
metallic structures, or the destruction of biological agents or precursors.
Patented thermite cutting devices designed to be attached
to heavy steel and remotely detonated existed prior to 9-11-01.
Dr. Jone's mentions them in his papers.
or:
"What has not been disclosed in the prior art, however, is use of a
thermitebased apparatus for directing or focusing a cutting flame
derived from the activation of a thermite charge for the purpose of
cutting substantially thick material such as steel plates and bars, for
example. In addition, the prior art has not provided a practical
solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material.
The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to
the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge
apparatus to create high velocity explosions to cut material. As a
result, the prior art has also not adequately considered use of a
thermite-based cutting apparatus to alleviate hazards associated with
debris, noise and pressure waves generated from using explosive charges
to cut material having a substantial thickness.
In spite of the foregoing known apparatus and methods for cutting
material, there remains a real and substantial need for an apparatus for
cutting material which employs a thermite-based charge to ensure a safe
and efficient cutting action.
"The cutting apparatus of the present invention also provides a safer
and more efficient apparatus and method for producing a cut in a portion
of a target material having substantially uniform thickness. The cutting
apparatus provides an elongated nozzle to accommodate varying
thicknesses in the cutting region of different target materials. In the
"ganged together" arrangement, the present invention offers a method for
effecting substantially longer cuts by joining together more than one
apparatus to provide a substantially sequential cutting action. The
present invention also provides a formable, and separately storable,
thermite powder charge for providing an energy source for generating a
cutting flame which produces the cutting action of the apparatus."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
"The higher the maximum temperature reached by the molten mix, the
longer it will remain molten as it flows away from the cut. But we
pay a price to increase that maximum temperature. Addition of sulfur
decreases the temperature at which the molten mix solidifies and
increases the time available for the molten mix to flow away from the
cut. Adding sulfur would decrease the required maximum temperature, and
thus, decrease the amount of thermite needed to do a particular job."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5698812.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://aewww.911truth.org
Henry
>> They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
>> show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
>> thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
>> expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
>> research first, then ask questions.
> " It is also shown that
> within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich
> grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles
> are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."
>
> and
>
> " 2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent
> By employing some means to separate the different"
> So what's with the Al/Si particles and the carbon rich
> matrix ? That doesn't sound much like thermite to me.
That's because you know next to nothing about nanothermite
and you either didn't read or don't understand the expert
research.
> Aluminum and rust are pretty ubiquitous substances
> in any building.
Painted rust isn't nanothermite. If you think you'll produce
the substance described below by painting a flake of rust, you
are almost completely ignorant with respect to nano technology
as it applies to thermite. The DOD and NIST wouldn't have hired
top scientists and spent so much time and money developing nano
thermite if all they had to do is grab a spray can of paint and
coat some rusty steel. I can't believe you dream up such nonsense
and expect anyone with a clue to take you seriously. And of course,
you've shown us zero research to support you nonsensical speculation.
"Up to this point, I have reviewed only characteristics of the chips
revealed by macro- and micro-scopic visual examination, but already the
implications are stunning: the chips are clearly a nano-engineered
material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly
consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a
durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material.
The student of energetic materials will appreciate that this description
matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant particles
are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a substrate."
> In any case though, your major problem is that nobody's
> been able to demonstrate anything even vaguely resembling
> the demolition scenario you propose.
This is why I suggested that you read the research first,
then ask your questions.
"Clapsaddle et al. further noted in their report:
“These results indicate that under ambient conditions
the hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite is
very stable to impact, is spark insensitive, and only
very slightly friction sensitive. As noted in the Experimental
section of this report, in our hands wet hybrid nanocomposites
are safe to handle and difficult to thermal [sic] ignite.
However, once dry the material burns very vigorously and
rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous
species” [24].
The organic component contributes to the rapid gas evolution
and explosive nature of these energetic superthermites
when dry [24].
“Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed
at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications
include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]."
> No past uses to cite,
> no training materials, no indications that it's ever been used
> in military or civilian demolition, or ever could be.
Again, get informed first, then post. The evidence and
research supports the use of nanothermite and proves that
fires could not have caused the "collapses", the molten
metal, or the metallic microspheres.
Your problem is that it's impossible to explain how minor
ordinary office fires could have caused WTC7's free fall drop
or most of the other evidence. And of course, there are no
examples of any steel framed skyscraper ever collapsing because
of fire, even though many have suffered fires of far greater
size, intensity and duration than those on 9-11-01.
Your magic fire theory is quite clearly and literally
impossible, while the demolition theory is merely shocking.
Read the research - it's conclusive.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
RATS
> Rkleinsc...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 5:52 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
>>> They didn't determine that. They determined that the chips
>>> show the exact physical and molecular properties of nano
>>> thermite, and when ignited, they release the energy level
>>> expected from nano thermite. This why you should read the
>>> research first, then ask questions.
<RATS opinion>
What's all this stuff about Termites Material?
Every building has termites. Some more than others.
It's depends on the age of the building and its
location, usually.
</RATS opinion>
<RATS opinion>
Acceptable research is never done in a vacuum. Where are all
the other scientists and research institutions that would either
corroborate or discredit the findings?
Until other credible institutions get involved, this "research"
is just another "theory" by someone. The key word is "credible".
It's well known that all the raw materials listed in the
article were present inside the buildings years before the 911
Attacks on the towers (by the Arab Terrorists.) These raw
materials had nothing to do with explosives, except in the
vivid imagination of someone who is bent on proving a big sick
joke.
</RATS opinion>
<RATS opinion>
Oh...
Never mind...
</RATS opinion>
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> > In any case though, your major problem is that nobody's
> > been able to demonstrate anything even vaguely resembling
> > the demolition scenario you propose.
> “Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed
> at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications
> include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]."
Note the words "triggering explosives".
Any indication they were triggering anything
other than conventional explosives ?
Schiffner
> That's because you know next to nothing about nanothermite
> and you either didn't read or don't understand the expert
> research.
>
Funny I read the reasearch, understood it and frankly your cult
leaders are full of LIES. Then again they are all insanely desiring
YOU to believe them...like every other religion and cult.
The concept will NOT work as you claim, period. Your full of it and
you know it cult boi.
Oh and have a nice day loser.
--
Keith
Smarter than ALL 911 kooks put together.
Schiffner
It's all kook dreams. Nothing to see and less to believe. They don't
even know what it takes to do what they claimed and REFUSE to show how
the logistics work out.
Just a bunch of lying cultists...they hate america because they
couldn't get laid at their senior proms.
--
Keith
john030409
leaving us with the high percentage of
microspheres in the dust.
If not thermite- what?
john
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 11:18 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>
> > > Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > In any case though, your major problem is that nobody's
> > > > been able to demonstrate anything even vaguely resembling
> > > > the demolition scenario you propose.
> > > “Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed
> > > at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications
> > > include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]."
> > Note the words "triggering explosives".
> It's all kook dreams. Nothing to see and less to believe. They don't
> even know what it takes to do what they claimed and REFUSE to show how
> the logistics work out.
Los Alamos labs has this to say:
Applications: Fireworks Theatrical Pyrogenics
Gun Primers Microthrusters
Secondary Applications Setting off airbags
Igniting rocket motors Triggering explosives
Benefits: Zero toxic lead smoke
Safer to use— resists friction, impact, static, and heat.
Thermal output can be customized Very hot reactions
Ease of manufacturing Design versatility
Low current requirements for ignition Low cost
Development Stage:
Working prototype available for demonstration purposes.
Licensing Status:
LANL is seeking partners to help commercialize this product
which is available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/tt/pdf/techs/thermite_matches.pdf
> Just a bunch of lying cultists...they hate america because they
> couldn't get laid at their senior proms.
Real interesting desire to instruct other people on subjects
they know little or nothing about.
Henry
> Any indication they were triggering anything
> other than conventional explosives ?
Rob, I've answered your questions, most of them
showing that you hadn't even bothered to read the
research. You were attempting to reject it from a
position of almost total ignorance and emotional
denial.
How about you answer a question about your conspiracy
theory for a change? So far, all the other Bush parrots
have avoided it. Be The Man, Rob. ;-)
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below,
and if so, what and why, exactly. The writer proves that
fires couldn't have caused WTC7's fall, and he uses a
clear, logical combination of evidence, basic physics,
and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
Schiffner
What a load of LIES and bullshit. Their assertations are prebiased and
just plain uninformed...not only that they sound like cult leaders
preaching to the faithful.
Or in small words YOU wont answer coward...
show the logistics, show how the cut needed were made ahead without
detection, show how the explosives were emplaced without the actions
being detected...PROVE it could be done! So far kook you haven't.
Why haven't you? I can answer that...because you know it can't be
done. ergo what we saw happened, happened and you losers are wrong and
just plain HATE america. I suggest you haters leave the country, your
killing our buzz.
--
Keith
Henry
So, you're saying that heat doesn't weaken steel, there's no
such thing as gravity, there were no fires in WTC7, and that
WTC7 never collapsed? Your "mind" comes up with some interesting
"thoughts"... <chuckle>
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Rkleinsc...@aol.com
> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
> > Any indication they were triggering anything
> > other than conventional explosives ?
>
> Rob, I've answered your questions, most of them
> showing that you hadn't even bothered to read the
> research. You were attempting to reject it from a
> position of almost total ignorance and emotional
> denial.
> How about you answer a question about your conspiracy
> theory for a change?
You really are full of shit Henry, as are your
so called truth seeking colleagues.
I think we can safely assume that the Los Alamos
electric thermite match, suitable for deploying airbags
is the closest thing anybody has found to your mythical
thermite demolition device.
When I suggested that you shouldn't pretend to
understand this stuff, it was actually offered as
helpful advice.
At this time, I sincerely apologize for comparing the
people who line up to see an image of the Virgin Mary
in a water spot on the wall to the so called 911 "truth seekers".
The Virgin Mary pilgrims embark on their pilgirimages
in a spirit of humility and sincere belief and in no
way deserve to be compared to you and your cohorts.
At this point, I expect to see yet another bunch of the
usual "do you still believe", cave man", "magic fires",
"bush parroting" crap posted.
Carry on.
Henry
> On Apr 15, 6:44 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
>> How about you answer a question about your conspiracy
>> theory for a change?
> You really are full of shit Henry, as are your
> so called truth seeking colleagues.
If what you say it true, and you're not =simply=
spewing more magic fire conspiracy kook nonsense,
you should be able to show us where the author quoted
below is in error, what it is you disagree with, and
why. He proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
C'mom, Rob. Show us that you're not just another
mindless Bush parroting conspiracy kook. Back up your
claims with some logic or evidence. You say Mr. Legge is
full if shit. Unless you can show us where he's wrong,
it's clearly you who's full of shit. Go for it Big Guy! ;-)
Henry
> When I suggested that you shouldn't pretend to
> understand this stuff, it was actually offered as
> helpful advice.
Maybe that's how you meant it, but since it came from
a guy who "thinks" he can create nanothermite by painting
a rust flake, your "advice" was much better suited for
humor. :-)
> You really are full of shit Henry, as are your
> so called truth seeking colleagues.
Everyone listed below is nuts, but Bush, Cheney,
and Rumsfeld, the guys who said they needed a "New
Pearl Harbor" and obstructed a 9-11 investigation,
told you the truth, right? Amazing thing is, you
probably do actually believe that. Wow.....
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-roster.html
To Pick the Winning Team, You Have to Know Who The Players Are
You have to know who the players are before you can pick the winning
team, right?
So take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence
professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of
Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders,
family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up
your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate:
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation
(they were ignored).
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the
official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency
which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the
world?s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an
independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse
investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that
NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and
from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST
arrived at is questionable."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward
S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by
controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S.
Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering
at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a
mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story,
and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition
of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
--
David Johnston
>>> When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
>>> motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
>>> The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
>>> right from the start,
Why would the collapse start at the roof?
RATS
> Rkleinsc...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 6:44 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>>> Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> How about you answer a question about your conspiracy
>>> theory for a change?
>
>> You really are full of shit Henry, as are your
>> so called truth seeking colleagues.
>
> If what you say it true, and you're not =simply=
> spewing more magic fire conspiracy kook nonsense,
> you should be able to show us where the author quoted
> below is in error, what it is you disagree with, and
> why. He proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
> fall,
<RATS opinion>
The author proved not such assertion. Anyone believing
this tale is misinformed at best. The author did not take
into account the special nature of the building blocks in
these particular two buildings.
Totally ignoring the fact that a major portion of the
buildings was constructed with HOLLOWED STEEL/ALUMINUM
BEAMS changes the whole equation from the perspective
of heat collection, dissipation, and of course the
collapse properties of these special beams that held
up these huge towers.
</RATS opinion>
Henry
> <RATS opinion>
> What's all this stuff about Termites Material?
> Every building has termites. Some more than others.
> It's depends on the age of the building and its
> location, usually.
> </RATS opinion>
See, there's a reason why you magic fire/Super Arab cartoon
conspiracy theorists aren't taken seriously by thinkin'
folks. :-)
> <RATS opinion>
> Acceptable research is never done in a vacuum.
Which is why both the 9-11 Commission and the NIST report
are so widely rejected as farces.
> Where are all the other scientists and research institutions
> that would either corroborate or discredit the findings?
Ask NIST. In spite of requests from hundreds of people,
they refused to test the evidence for explosive residue
of any kind, even though WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid total symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual partial localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition weren't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics. Conspiracy theorist will
try to claim that NIST did the best they could, but somehow,
like NORAD's total absence on 9-11, it's just one of those
weird things that can't be explained but somehow makes
perfect sense anyway - not at all unlike voo-doo.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
> The key word is "credible".
Which is another reason why no one who respects credible
research has accepted the findings of the Bush regime's
NIST or it's hand picked 9-11 Commission.
> It's well known that all the raw materials listed in the
> article were present inside the buildings years before the 911
> Attacks on the towers
All the raw materials to create a gourmet meal may be in
your refrigerator, but shoving your fridge out a second
story window won't create one. The ingredients won't be
in the proper form, order, or quantities. You conspiracy
kooks sure do spew a lot of silly nonsense. One conspiracy
theorist thinks you can make nanothermite by painting flakes
of rust and another one thinks it can be created by burning
a building. It's as though your "minds" just short circuit
when the topic of your 9-11 conspiracy comes up....
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Henry
> Funny I read the reasearch, understood it and frankly your cult
> leaders are full of LIES.
Here's a blatant lie from your cult:
NOVA told us that the central cores consisted of a series of
horizontal slabs. That's how they were portrayed on tens of
millions of TV's by your ruling masters as part of their brainwashing
campaign. "Pancakes" suspended in mid air, ready drop into a stack at
a moment's notice. A blatant, deliberate, and gross misrepresentation
of crucial information, but that's close enough for government
propaganda guzzling cartoon conspiracy sheep... :-)
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1_files/coll_wtcdesign.jpg
Myself and others who work to expose the truth about 9-11 portray
the massive central core structures accurately. This is what they
looked like in reality. The Bush regime's puppets also denied the
very existence of the cores. That's another gross misrepresentation
of the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
Your ruling masters resort to lies and imaginary structures
portrayed in drawings, because actual photo evidence and facts
prove their cartoon conspiracy theories to be impossible.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
Can you show us a similar gross misrepresentation of
crucial evidence by any of the 9-11 Truth experts I've
cited? No, of course you can't. No one else can, either.
But you sure can rant and spew without saying anything,
except that you're not quite in control of your "thoughts"
and emotions. You have the same mentality about your 9-11
conspiracy theory that a religious fanatic has about his
god(s).
Henry
> Do you know of anybody working with nanothermites
> in 2001 or earlier ?
Many of the people closely associated with the Bush
regime's NIST as well as those hired by the DOD and
Homeland Security to investigate the evidence, coincidentally
enough.
Does it strike you as unusual that in spite of requests from
hundreds of people, NIST refused to test the evidence for
explosive residue of any kind? WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid, total, symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual, partial, localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition wasn't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about modern
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics.
"Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland
Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of
non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC
has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging
nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other
military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007)."
Does any of this information shake your belief in the Bush regime's
conspiracy theory? Do you think it's all lies, or do you try not
to think about it at all?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST?s reports on the WTC, and its periodic
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://aewww.911truth.org
Henry
> Henry <9-...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>>> tower would have been immense.
>> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>> up your "mind" Al.
> No man-made demolition required to explain how the WTC towers fell.
If not man-made, what sort of explosives did you have in
"mind" when you wrote, "The amount of explosives needed to
bring down a WTC tower would have been immense."
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> Prof. Jones says what he has is thermite but he won't show us the
> graph comparing his sample to thermite that proves that claim.
Obviously, you need to have someone with a working mind
help you read the paper. The team of nine scientists (not
just Dr. Steven Jones alone) were very meticulous and thorough
with their research, and they documented their findings with
quite a few graphs, including precisely the graph you've
been whining about. Why do you often act like you're a helpless,
deluded imbecile? I'm glad that you do because it destroys your
credibility, but unless your goal is to support 9-11 Truth,
your behavior seems peculiar.
The graph comparing the energy release of known thermite to
the nano thermite found at the WTC is linked below. Remember,
get some help before you try to read it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/docs/chips_xerogel_exotherm_s.png
Henry
> Real interesting desire to instruct other people on subjects
> they know little or nothing about.
Perhaps they do know, but are intentionally deceptive.
Regardless, out of blind faith alone, you believe them
no mater how absurd or blatantly deceptive their claims.
Do you also think the central cores consisted of a series
of horizontal slabs suspended in space? That's how they were
portrayed on millions of TV's by your ruling masters as part
of their brainwashing campaign. "Pancakes" suspended in mid
air, ready drop into a stack at a moment's notice. A blatant,
deliberate, and gross misrepresentation of the evidence, but
that's close enough for government propaganda guzzling
cartoon conspiracy sheep... :-)
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1_files/coll_wtcdesign.jpg
Myself and others who work to expose the truth about 9-11 portray
the massive central core structures accurately. This is what they
looked like in reality. The Bush regime's puppets also denied
the very existence of the cores. That's another gross misrepresentation
of the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
Your ruling masters resort to lies and imaginary structures
portrayed in drawings, because actual photo evidence and facts
prove their cartoon kook theories to be impossible.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Stop posting this stupid conspiracy theory bullshit to sci.physics you
fucking wanker.
.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
And thank YOU for posting YOUR bullshit to :
Newsgroups:
rec.motorcycles,alt.censorship,talk.politics.mideast,sci.physics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: more idiocy from henry
Followup-To: rec.motorcycles, alt.censorship, talk.politics.mideast,
talk.politics.misc, alt.morons
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>> If what you say it true, and you're not =simply=
>> spewing more magic fire conspiracy kook nonsense,
>> you should be able to show us where the author quoted
>> below is in error, what it is you disagree with, and
>> why. He proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
>> fall,
>
> <RATS opinion>
> The author proved not such assertion.
Can you tell us where you believe the author quoted
below is in error, what it is you disagree with, and
why? So, far, all the other magic fire/Super Arab
conspiracy theorists have been able to do that.
The author proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
Henry
>>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>>> tower would have been immense.
>> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>> up your "mind" Al.
> No man-made demolition required to explain how the WTC towers fell.
If not man-made, what sort of explosives did you have in
"mind" when you wrote, "The amount of explosives needed to
bring down a WTC tower would have been immense."
--
Henry
>>> The amount of explosives needed to bring down a WTC
>>> tower would have been immense.
>> WTF? Your conspiracy theory states that the steel
>> frames of the towers crushed themselves and disintegrated
>> under their own weight without any explosives. Make
>> up your "mind" Al.
> Hey fuck nut. Let me use small words. You don't know fuck all about
> explosives
Dykes sure does, though. He says you'd need an immense amount
of explosives to bring down a building that he claims crushed
itself into a pile of rubble with nothing but the force of
gravity. If nothing else, the idiocy and contradictions spewed
by magic fire/Super Arab cave man cartoon conspiracy kooks
certainly does amuse their many betters... <chuckle>
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
RATS
Conclusion: the author totally missed the boat. The author neglected
to take into account one basic fact: the twins towers' architecture
utilized steel/aluminum hollow tube construction, to hold up the
buildings. Therefore, the author sent himself, the author's
audience, and all of us, on a wild goose chase. What a waste of time!!!
</RATS opinion>
Henry wrote:
> RATS wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>
>>> If what you say it true, and you're not =simply=
>>> spewing more magic fire conspiracy kook nonsense,
>>> you should be able to show us where the author quoted
>>> below is in error, what it is you disagree with, and
>>> why. He proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
>>> fall,
>>
>> <RATS opinion>
>> The author proved not such assertion.
>
> Can you tell us where you believe the author quoted
> below is in error.
Certainly.
> what it is you disagree with, and
> why?
<RATS opinion>
The author's "sagging steel" premise is false. The author
used paragraph 1 to buttress his "sagging steel" conclusion of
paragraph 2. That's the author's fatal flaw.
The author wrote:
"This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate
strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For
reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible
if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat."
This might have indeed been impossible (as the author states)
if the author's statements about sagging steel were correct.
But they weren't.
Unfortunately for the author, there was more happening
in the twins towers situation than explained.
Specifically, there was loss of strength due to rapidly
expanding gases INSIDE the steel/aluminum tubes. As these
gases pressed outwards on the weakened points (where the
steel and aluminum metals were reacting, under the intense
fire presented by the aircraft fuel and air mixing), the
final result was the failure of the steel/aluminum tubes
holding up the buildings.
</RATS opinion>
> The author proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
> fall,
<RATS opinion>
The author proves no such thing. The author made a colossal
error in the findings, as proven conclusively above and below.
</RATS opinion>
> and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
> basic physics, and common sense to do it.
<RATS opinion>
"Clear and logical" conclusions, based on false premises,
render the author's conclusions totally false (that's an
undeniable fact of life).
</RATS opinion>
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
>
>
> "If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
> fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
> necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
> its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
> and will start to sag
<RATS opinion>
The author always refers to "steel" beams. This logic might have
applied to normal lattice steel beam buildings but not the twin
towers. That's the author's fatal error.
Due to weight considerations, the twin towers' architects used
HOLLOW steel tubes, coated with aluminum, to hold up the buildings.
The author totally ignored that fact in his assumption that the
"steel .. will .. sag".
In a hollow steel/aluminum tube structure one can find air inside
the pipe.
While the steel and aluminum structures are being heated up
rapidly by the burning jet fuel:
1. The steel and aluminum react. The author made no mention of this
fact.
2. The hollow steel/aluminum tube is heated up in specific places (where
the fuel/air fire is most intense). In these specific places, the air
INSIDE the tube is expanding rapidly. The author makes no mention of
this fact.
3. The instantaneous pressure (of the rapidly expanding air inside
the tubes) act on the the weakened steel/aluminum points (pressure
applied from the inside towards the outside of the tubes) and
cause these pipes to burst instantaneously at a specific level
of the building (where the fire is most intense). The author makes
no reference to this fact.
</RATS opinion>
>in the region where the fire is most intense.
> At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
> the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
> gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
> feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
> upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
> looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
> point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
> force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
> thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
> proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
> so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
> per second.
<RATS opinion>
The author's "logical" account (with the "physics" above and the
"loose conclusions" below) "might" be applicable to the structure
of normal buildings, with a normal lattice, composed of normal steel
beams. In the particular case of the twin towers, with the light
and hollow steel/aluminum tubes, theses premises, use of inferences
and final conclusions are way off base.
</RATS opinion>
> When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
> motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
> The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
> right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
> at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
<RATS opinion>
The author is wrong. There was more than a hint of "slow start".
The video taped scenes (witnessed by billions of people around the
world) showed a slow start, followed by a rapid increase in velocity.
Every person that saw the videos knows this simple fact. How can
the author make such a horrible mistake? Is the author blind?
</RATS opinion>
> This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
> virtually no strength in an instant.
The steel beams, almost instantaneously, collapsed at a specific
point and NOT SAGGED, as the author erroneously explained. The
almost instantaneous pressure of the super heated air (inside the
supporting steel/aluminum tubes) bursting outwards, through
the weakened points of these beams caused the instantaneous
"knife slicing" effect that everyone saw. The author missed that
point completely.
> For reasons stated above this is
> absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
> of heat."
<RATS opinion>
Impossible?
Only impossible if the author's premises, inferences, and conclusions
were true. Unfortunately for the author, the premises were false (there
was no mention of the steel/aluminum hollow beam behavior under the
conditions of intense fuel/air mixture fire.)
</RATS opinion>
<RATS opinion>
Conclusion: the author totally missed the boat. The author neglected
to take into account one basic fact: the twins towers' architecture
utilized steel/aluminum hollow tube construction to hold up the
buildings. Therefore, the author sent himself, the author's
audience, and all of us on a wild goose chase. What a waste of time!!!
</RATS opinion>
ReporterAtTheScene
reportera...@unlimitedmail.org --
http://reportersonlocation.co.nr --
http://weareonlocation.xlphp.net/feed.rss --
Vito
>
> If not man-made, what sort of explosives did you have in
> "mind" when you wrote, "The amount of explosives needed to
> bring down a WTC tower would have been immense."
>
Schiffner
SNIP
> <RATS opinion>
> Conclusion: the author totally missed the boat. The author neglected
> to take into account one basic fact: the twins towers' architecture
> utilized steel/aluminum hollow tube construction to hold up the
> buildings. Therefore, the author sent himself, the author's
> audience, and all of us on a wild goose chase. What a waste of time!!!
> </RATS opinion>
>
Oh sure take nice long post to spell it all out for him. Make it EASY
to figure out, instead of leading with hints, suggestions and making
errors obvious without explaining WHY the conspriacy kooks are wrong.
<shakes head sadly> That's no way to teach, you don't teach when you
spoon feed them...
--
Keith
Henry
> On Apr 16, 10:53 pm, RATS <r...@worldgateway.com> wrote:
>> Conclusion: the author totally missed the boat. The author neglected
>> to take into account one basic fact: the twins towers' architecture
>> utilized steel/aluminum hollow tube construction to hold up the
>> buildings.
>> </RATS opinion>
> Oh sure take nice long post to spell it all out for him.
I wonder if "RATS" is referring to the same aluminum tubes
that Saddam used to build his fearsome stockpiles of nuclear
weapons? Those aluminum tubes sure do make the rounds among
paranoid, deluded conspiracy kooks and psychotic liars...:-)
Press Release:
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
Summary of research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and
researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of
World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust
itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction.
Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray
energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study
authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be
an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."
The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth
by critics of the official reports.
At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand
the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a
demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an
enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.
Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings'
destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of
these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary
compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings
without notice.
NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They
concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the
building failures.
Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has
refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other
accelerant or explosive.
"We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure,
to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't."
Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.
Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks
NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite --
which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered
thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this
type of application."
Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the
many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures,
such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme
pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust
particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a
"volcanic eruption".
"One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was
the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7."
NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of
the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."
Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and
known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature,
Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began
researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.
Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a
magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor
of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet.
"That was very odd to me," he said.
Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially
described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.
But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material
would take longer.
Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels
Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over
30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano
Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal
of Physical Chemistry A.
Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September
11th attack. and says has two answers.
"First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask
me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer
them, 'I was on your side'."
Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the
TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes
the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the
mainstream public and media."
And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories
manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and
was consequently fired.
"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been
shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the
dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or
something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available
to just anyone."
In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial
explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law
requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.
In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging
the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil
Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges
have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of
over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001
attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.
tj Frazir
- it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to
stage a revolution - ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM
Address:http://www.roguegovernment.com/The_Big_Takeover%3A_The_global_economic_crisis_isn%27t_about_money_-_it%27s_about_power._How_Wall_Street_insiders_are_using_the_bailout_to_stage_a_revolution/14866/0/8/8/Y/M.html
Changed:10:07 AM on Friday, April 17, 2009
Henry
Most of the Jet fuel (kerosene and 10K gallons, not
20K) burned off in a huge fireball. The bit that remained
inside the building burned off in about ten minutes.
Only a limited, oxygen starved, low temperature, office
fire remained.
And of course, we all know that even raging infernos
have never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse
at any speed, let alone explode and disintegrate at
virtual free fall.
Tell us if you believe the author quoted below is
in error, and if so, what it is you disagree with, and
why. So, far, all the other magic fire/Super Arab
conspiracy theorists have been able to do that.
The author proves that fires couldn't have caused WTC7's
fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."